House Fires First Shot, So to Speak, on Universal Background Checks

[danez71]

Why is it that LEO's always get a pass on any of this legislation?

They do that so they get Police Unions to support it which in turn helps them sell it to the public.

Apparently, enough of the general public doesn't recognize what you wrote in the rest of your post.

 

[Old Dog]

I'll say it again for those who are too burdened to read through an entire thread, are willing, and feel that it's okay to "compromise" and concede away our rights:

Certainly, you are not following what's happened in states such as mine -- first the UBCs were foisted on us by Initiative 594, comes now I-1639, far more onerous restrictions (ALL semi-automatic rifles here are now classed as "assault weapons") which will create hundreds of felons among previously law-abiding gun-owners.

Give 'em an inch -- and the other side becomes far more brazen and emboldened, constantly reaching for more restrictions.

Oh, and for this new year: the Dem-held state legislature is already introducing legislation banning magazines holding more than ten rounds, among other things -- you guessed it -- they'll be going after ARs as well.

You think our federal Congress hasn't noticed how easily this works?

 

[Old Dog]

At least the Times article noted this:
But by narrowing the bill so dramatically, Democrats may also limit its utility. Suspects in many recent high-profile mass shootings — including those in Pittsburgh; Parkland, Fla.; Thousand Oaks, Calif.; Las Vegas; and Sutherland Springs, Tex. — had passed background checks when purchasing their weapons.

 

[Old Dog]

They do that so they get Police Unions to support it which in turn helps them sell it to the public.

Apparently, enough of the general public doesn't recognize what you wrote in the rest of your post.

This is what the article actually said:

Transfers between law enforcement officers and military personnel acting in a professional capacity would be exempt, as would “a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts and uncles and their nieces or nephews or between grandparents and their grandchildren,” according to the text of the bill.

Pretty sure that's not "giving LEOs a pass" -- acting in a professional capacity would seem to imply issuing duty weapons for job-related activities, not transferring personnel firearms off-duty between friends.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Who in their right mind believes the illegal alien who murdered Cpl Singh on December 26th would not have had his gun if this law had been in effect?

 

[danez71]

This is what the article actually said:

Transfers between law enforcement officers and military personnel acting in a professional capacity would be exempt, as would “a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts and uncles and their nieces or nephews or between grandparents and their grandchildren,” according to the text of the bill.

Pretty sure that's not "giving LEOs a pass" -- acting in a professional capacity would seem to imply issuing duty weapons for job-related activities, not transferring personnel firearms off-duty between friends.

Seems to imply?.... ohhh k.

Having personally seen that type of language used in the beginning and then changed to get support.... I'll just say let's see what it says in the end.

 

[bassjam]

Never have before, don't hold your breath.

It's hasn't happened before, but I'm not aware of an instance where we've tried true compromise on gun issues. It's always been "give, give, give" but we've never tried to take anything back.

 

[old lady new shooter]

That deity-given right talk is just nonsense. It will get you nowhere fast.

You may not like it, but it's in the Declaration of Independence. For that reason alone it should constantly be reiterated IMO.

 

[GEM]

Twp things. In Oregon way back when, there was some silly gun restriction that had no impact that allowed a compromise for the concealed carry bill there. Honestly, I can't remember what it was but it was a nothing.

Second, we are not going to discuss whether a Deity did give us the right in some action sense by a Deity. It is related to the natural rights view of things.

However, it is legit to think about whether that phrase has any rhetorical power in this debate outside of already committed gun folks. Before the Civil War, proponents of slavery invoked the Deity to 'prove' why slavery was a good thing. Deities are claimed to say all kinds of things.

 

[Jack B.]

How can any government agency know you got a gun from someone else? Not any way I know of.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

This is what the article actually said:

Transfers between law enforcement officers and military personnel acting in a professional capacity would be exempt, as would “a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts and uncles and their nieces or nephews or between grandparents and their grandchildren,” according to the text of the bill.

Pretty sure that's not "giving LEOs a pass" -- acting in a professional capacity would seem to imply issuing duty weapons for job-related activities, not transferring personnel firearms off-duty between friends.

Does issuing a duty weapon also mean transferring ownership? I assumed the weapon is still the property of the dept.

 

[rpenmanparker]

You may not like it, but it's in the Declaration of Independence. For that reason alone it should constantly be reiterated IMO.

The Declaration of Independence was written as a propaganda document. The Constitution was written as a legal document. Big difference. The Declaration of Independence has no legal function. And besides it never mentions the right to keep and bear arms as deity-given rights, only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are in the wrong country if you expect religion to play a part in the legal defense of your rights. Show me any reference whatsoever in any religion's document of belief that mentions the right to keep and bear arms given by the deity. You just made it up.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

This is what the article actually said:

Transfers between law enforcement officers and military personnel acting in a professional capacity would be exempt, as would “a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts and uncles and their nieces or nephews or between grandparents and their grandchildren,” according to the text of the bill.

Pretty sure that's not "giving LEOs a pass" -- acting in a professional capacity would seem to imply issuing duty weapons for job-related activities, not transferring personnel firearms off-duty between friends.

The wording about "loan" is troubling. If you are hunting or at a shooting range and let someone else use your firearm is that a "loan"? Would you be in violation then?

 

[old lady new shooter]

The Declaration of Independence was written as a propaganda document. The Constitution was written as a legal document. Big difference. The Declaration of Independence has no legal function. And besides it never mentions the right to keep and bear arms as deity-given rights, only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are in the wrong country if you expect religion to play a part in the legal defense of your rights. Show me any reference whatsoever in any religion's document of belief that mentions the right to keep and bear arms given by the deity. You just made it up.

It has no legal function, but it certainly shows the mindset of the Founders. Which is relevant to the discussion. And the right to keep and bear arms certainly falls under "liberty".

 

[rpenmanparker]

It has no legal function, but it certainly shows the mindset of the Founders. Which is relevant to the discussion. And the right to keep and bear arms certainly falls under "liberty".

You're stretching. I assume you are an "originalist". As an originalist how would you react if a liberal jurist ruled against RKBA because of an interpretation of a document that showed a negative mindset of the founders? Holy slippery slope, Batman! I surely wouldn't mention mindset in this kind of discussion if I fully shared your views.

 

[Casefull]

What was it Jefferson said about watering the tree of liberty? There is only one thing that's going to stop this encroachment and I cannot talk about it on this forum. We are now experiencing what it's like to be a minority in our own country. We have lost the cultural war and the traditional liberties we have enjoyed are disappearing. It makes me want to puke. I'm not throwing in the towel but I'm not gonna BS myself either. Vote against the monsters.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Most of the people behind this bill are lawyers. They're familiar with the Constitution and when they tell you the second amendment is about preserving your right to own a duck gun they're lying and they know it.

How many times do they have to tell you they want to disarm you before you believe them?

 

[HOWARD J]

I wonder what is in the fine print--you know--the one you have to pass to find out?

 

[Deanimator]

But when you don't bargain, you still have your 2nd Amendment rights slowly taken away so we might as well do some horse trading while it happens.

Neville Chamberlain did some mighty fine "horse trading".

Man, I'm sure glad we got "peace in our time"...

Why "trade horses" when the other side has only plague infected rats to offer?

 

[Deanimator]

The choice is not to stonewall (that's not going to work any more), but to try to mitigate the damage. We need to have our own counterproposals ready.

"So, Herr Kammler, we propose that we be shot in these woods rather than the woods you propose, and that handguns be used rather than MG42s."

Your entire argument is premised on the other side NOT being pathologically lying authoritarians.

At no time in my life have I ever said to myself, "Hey, he means to harm me, so why not make it easier for HIM and just go along with it?"

 

[Kevin5098]

That deity-given right talk is just nonsense. It will get you nowhere fast.

I'm sorry if you don't believe in the concept of "God given" or natural rights. I'm guessing you hold that our rights are granted to us by the government. If that is true, you must be OK with the government revoking those rights whenever they wish to. If the founders followed this line of thinking we would be singing God Save The Queen before sporting events in the colonies today.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I'm sorry if you don't believe in the concept of "God given" or natural rights. I'm guessing you hold that our rights are granted to us by the government. If that is true, you must be OK with the government revoking those rights whenever they wish to. If the founders followed this line of thinking we would be singing God Save The Queen before sporting events in the colonies today.

It doesn’t matter what I like. The more powerful will prevail. Telling you how it is has nothing to do with me liking it or not. Your deity will not save you from losing this argument. Only being more powerful will. If the RKBA were a deity provided right, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[Deanimator]

I agree with @AlexanderA , I think UBC's are coming. I also feel like, though a burden, are not a ban on ownership on those who should have them. The same can not be said of the other "steps" the anti's are pushing for. So, if we are going to be stuck with them anyways, shouldn't we be pushing for our own interests, instead of just screaming "NO!", to something that is going to happen regardless? Then, we can't be told we are being unreasonable, we are trying for give and take. As said above, show the undecided how unreasonable the anti's really are.

1. Those who prepare for defeat usually achieve it.
2. We proved how "reasonable" we were three "compromises" ago. Tell me in what way the NFA34, GCA68 and the Brady Bill stopped sociopaths from saying we're "unreasonable"?

You don't "bargain" with somebody bent inexorably on your destruction. To them your failure to meekly get in the boxcar is "unreasonable".

 

[Deanimator]

Surprise, if you posted on any gun social media, they know who have the guns. Push the HPA and national reciprocity as amendments.

And while we're at it, push for free 40mm Bofors guns for everybody.

Why not? There's no LESS chance of THAT happening too.

 

[Walkalong]

It's hasn't happened before, but I'm not aware of an instance where we've tried true compromise on gun issues. It's always been "give, give, give" but we've never tried to take anything back.

You cannot reason with anti gunners, they have never offered anything for something, and never will. The moment you start thinking you can bargain with them you have lost.