1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Let's discuss the REALITY of where we are at on the 2A and Gun Control

Discussion in 'Legal' started by leadcounsel, Dec 23, 2012.

  1. goon

    goon Well-Known Member

    I agree that the NRA is going to have to back a plan that does more than just stick armed guards in schools. Although I support the idea of an armed person, or several, being available to slow down or halt an attacker, I think the cost alone of such a plan will likely be prohibitive. I'd rather see reservists or National Guardsmen be able to fulfil some of their required yearly service guarding schools, allow teachers to carry concealed, allow volunteers in the community to undergo training and provide additional security, or all three.

    But they do have a point with their pledge of assisting schools in beefing up security. Most schools are such soft targets that anyone with a big rock could gain unauthorized access. Someone needs to get real and make it plain that a huge glass door is not secure no matter how you lock it, and that a receptionist with a clipboard or an unarmed security guard isn't going to accomplish anything other than being the first victim.

    While it's true that criminals commit crimes without guns and that people with mental issues can still harm themselves or others without guns, the fact is that people are also getting harmed with guns. No gun starts out for the illegal market in this country, but they make their way there somehow. I'm sure theft puts some of them there, but some get there through "bad" private transfers too. As a gun owner, I feel a responsibility to society to help prevent that from happening. It may not have made a difference with the latest shooting or with many others, but it's something we can do address, even if private immediate family transfers are left alone. I'm for making the background check necessary on all private transfers (or at least most). At the worst, didn't Heller allow DC's licensing requirement? So if it's a matter of supporting the idea of NICS on every transfer or being bullheaded and getting stuck with all-out licensing, which would you prefer?

    For mental health, Hacker15E is right. It's important to not make those who end up in the system, vets or not, feel like they'll have to lose their rights to get treatment. I understand why a vet wouldn't seek out help for a mental issue for fear of losing his or her guns - making them feel that way doesn't help anyone. I could also see if that were the case with a family member with a mental illness in the same household. I agree on defining which mental health issues make one truly dangerous and which ones don't. And I agree that there has to be a clear way to get off any list once someone is on it so that those who seek help and are effectively treated have their rights restored when they are no longer a danger.
  2. bigfatdave

    bigfatdave Well-Known Member

    Still vulnerable to input from malicious "mental health professionals"
    The entire concept of NICS is flawed. If someone can't be trusted with a new gun from a dealer, they can't be trusted with a vehicle, power tools, black powder, high places, access to freeways, or any of the other things that go with freedom.

    We let these people pilot 2500-pound motorized battering rams in public, why is hassling them about a boomstick an issue?
  3. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Background checks on ALL transfers are problematic.

    1) Added cost and inconvenience.
    2) Lists
    3) Do YOU want to give your home address, DL, CPL, etc. to a stranger just to buy a handgun? Not me. Talk about serious Operational Security issues and Identity Theft problems. Now you've just given your home address to a stranger who knows you have guns.
  4. cbpagent72

    cbpagent72 Well-Known Member

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2
  5. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Well-Known Member

    It doesn't really matter if you think the concept is flawed or wrong -- it is the law, and there is no chance in the near term that it is going away.

    My proposal was, since we have to live with it, it is better to spend time and money and effort trying to make it as efficient and effective as possible.
  6. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Well-Known Member

    The powers-that-be don't want to make the NICS system available to private sellers, but rather to force these sales to be processed through an FFL. In the United States most firearms are not registered, and this is particularily true of those made before 1968. Gun control advocates know that to work, future control measures must get these firearms listed into a database.

    I am at a loss to understand why some folks on our side want to help them.
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2012
  7. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

  8. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Well-Known Member

    The really important reality to remember is in the Supreme Court's Heller decision the "right to keep and bear arms" was established as a civil right, equal to all of the others listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    In the McDonald decision this was incorporated, and thereafter applied to the states as well.

    It is improbable that a ban that clearly violated these decisions would stand up in court. In the past they could because previous court decisions usually took the position that the purpose of the 2nd, Amendment was to allow states to have militias. Heller and McDonald ended this interpretation.

    The current extent of gun, magazine and ammunition sales - and the numbers they represent, clearly show that our community is large enough to deal with many legislators who will in less then 2 years be up for reelection.

    The president may issue Executive Orders, (that will quickly be challenged) and the Congress may (or may not pass laws) that will also be quickly challenged in the light of Heller and McDonald as well as a number of other recent lower court decisions.

    Never before has our position been this strong, contrary to what the leftist mainstream media is putting out.
  9. Beau Bo

    Beau Bo Member

    I was under the impression that the weapons I purchased through a FFL and for which I submitted info for a background check were already in a "database". My understanding is that once the background check was approved the weapon/serial no. info was added to the form - isn't this a type of "registration"?...
  10. nazshooter

    nazshooter Well-Known Member

    Beau Bo: The background check and the 4473 form are two separate things. The background check data is supposed to be destroyed once it has served it's purpose and the 4473 stays with your FFL. This makes it possible for the police to trace a gun found at a crime scene by first going to the manufacturer, then to the wholesaler, then the gun shop and finally to your front door. What they cannot do with this system is to get an answer to the question of "what guns does Beau Bo own?" Your state may keep additional records and some people may rightly suspect that the background check data isn't really being destroyed but this is how it's supposed to work at the Federal level.
  11. gym

    gym member

    If they go too far, it will be overturned on appeal. It's really that simple.The rights have already been established from former decisions.
  12. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Challenges take years and lots of money in courts. The damage could be done, even if reversed 5 years later. And the final pieces of the puzzle come into play when the SCOTUS is stacked by Obama. He may ultimately put 3-5 new Justices in his 8 years. OMG the thought makes me sick.
  13. readyeddy

    readyeddy Well-Known Member

    The Democrats will probably find a way to avoid passing anti gun laws on the national level. The election of 1994 is still fresh in the minds of many and no elected official wants to commit political suicide. That's why the NRA is offering no compromises. They've seen it all many times before.

    Of course we are also doomed to repeat history at some point in time. People will always forget eventually, and that's why we have repeating patterns like economic bubbles and busts.

    But for now, 1994 is not that long ago and the major players today were around when Clinton was in office. Look for the real push for anti gun laws in five or ten years from now when Clinton's generation pass into their 70's and beyond.
  14. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    People keep repeating this but I see it differently and disagree. Folks like Biden, Boxer, Finestien, and others are still in power. They have been rewarded by their anti-gun positions. The Dems see that the nation has an appetite for gun control. Heck the President said he wanted to ban guns in October and he got elected for petes sake! They feel they have impunity. WE are going to see a firestorm of anti-gun proposals.
  15. Old Dog

    Old Dog Well-Known Member

    I pretty much concur with you here. I'll be mightily (and most pleasantly, of course) surprised if private transfers don't go away. The "gun show" loophole as well. (Although WAC in our state permits sales only to/from members, who all undergo background checks.)

    As for a reincarnation of the old AWB -- the banning of mere features such as bayonet lugs and flashhiders -- we SHOULD be able to fight that nonsense. Magazine capacity caps -- we SHOULD be able to fight this concept, but I suspect we may be betrayed by those within our ranks and capacity limits come in as a compromise.

    All of you who didn't believe we'd ever be back at this point -- you know who you are -- stating for the record that the Dems in Congress wouldn't risk further gun-control efforts, do you feel silly now?

    No conspiracy theory here, but it sure does look like a few groups had a plan in place for when a certain type of tragic event transpired ... And we were all caught unprepared.
  16. readyeddy

    readyeddy Well-Known Member

    Absolutely, it could be now and that's why we need to be ready to support gun rights. But if they want to go down this road, then there will be a backlash of some kind.

    Just remember that what they say is not necessarily what they do.

    Look at the fiscal cliff. To me it's clear that both sides want to go over the cliff. Going over the cliff is the only way achieve necessary tax increases and spending cuts, and it gives them cover to blame the other side so they can keep their jobs.

    It's a complex process. I don't believe the NRA will ever propose laws to make video games illegal. But they can certainly say that the video games are contributing to desensitizing our young.

    Keep the faith and stay calm. Things will eventually work out so long as we show up for the polls and let our voices be heard. But for now, we can enjoy our Christmas holiday. May all my gun supporting brothers and sisters have a merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
  17. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    Boxer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, and McCarthy are all getting old. They know this is probably their last shot. Doesn't mean they are in an ideal position to take it.
  18. robhof

    robhof Well-Known Member


    The anti's always talk compromise, but they want total gun bans as a cure for all gun crime. and how's that working for the drug war for the past 50 years?????:what::what::neener:
  19. blaisenguns

    blaisenguns Well-Known Member

    Hopefully the Reps will filibuster any legislation about "gun control", as they have been doing in most cases for the last four years. Now I was thinking, I have a .50 beowulf which uses standard 30rd Ar mags (with the feed lips bent), since thes are advertised as 10 rd mags, couldnt we skirt the law that way?

    GWARGHOUL Well-Known Member

    Dude, thats supposed to be a secret for now.

Share This Page