Posted on 10/05/2014 7:15:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
My letter to the editor in todays reno gazette urinal:
So now we have a conundrum when it comes to the matter of the universal background check initiative that is being pushed by out-of-state interests on to the citizens of Nevada.
Mark Robison, the Fact Checker for the RGJ and not one I would consider a conservative, apparently upset Professor Phillip Cook when quoting some of Professor Cook’s research. I was actually quite shocked at Mr. Robison’s fact check being more accurate than I would have expected. Professor Cook’s response is full of vagaries and “feelings” about the subject. Professor Cook’s response looks more like it was taken from the “Gun Violence Messaging guide.”
As far as I know, if one is selling a firearm, there is nothing to prevent them from going to an FFL and having a check run on the perspective buyer. So to Professor Cook and Mike Bloomberg, Mares (sic) Against Guns, Moms Demand Action, Mark and Gabby Giffords, Sarah Brady and their ilk, keep your money and your desires to further infringe on our rights in Nevada out of our state and we’ll stay out of your states and out of your rights.
XXXX
Reno
I wrote this in response to a letter from prof cook being upset about the fact checker not buying what he was selling. Which I was shocked at myself.
So are there any penalties imposed on the “crazy aunt” accuser if the court finds the defendant sane? Or can the aunt just keep accusing every single relative she doesn’t like of being a nut (with no proof what-so-ever)?
There's your answer.
It’s not so much the aunt (except in this case) but the ex-wife. You’ll see. Every man seeking a divorce or child visitation will get an accusation and his guns confiscated. I can see this already, and I’m a woman!
Oh. Wait.
Another California example of similar laws that Hitler passed so that not a single day could pass without a citizen breaking some law or another.
When the shooting war starts, these same Liberal ‘helpers’ will be clamoring to be taken in with safe harbor by those who have guns & supplies.
My answer? Not only no-—but Hell NO!!! They have shown themselves to be enemies of freedom. I won’t harbor my enemies.
That you are!
};^P>
How about the other way around? The wife-—who never wanted guns in the house, etc, etc, etc, now has one because she is terrified of the separated/divorced boyfriend/husband and he has made plenty of threats.
HE can turn HER in, and now, she is completely disarmed, and he can attack here-—possible not for the first time!!
This law will have terrible consequences. Jerry Brown is nuts.
What is the process for getting the guns back after the 21 day hold? How will the courts deal with vindictive relatives with frivolous claims? Loss of guns thru restraining orders is already nearly standard practice in divorce cases.
We don’t let our crazy relatives know we are armed.
If you’re not so lucky, you could casually mention that anyone who maliciously reports a relative should be strangled.
The process for getting guns back will be slow,intrusive, and expensive to discourage the gun owners.
I think there is at least one family member in every family who is not happy that other family members own guns;this will be a way to totally disarm America beginning with California.
THe statists HATE personal responsibility and independence.
LOL! Probably have to have one of those intergalactic background checks done on the person whose guns were confiscated. And as an added feature, the “confiscatee” gets to pay for the checks. Win/win. For somebody.
What this appears to be is a reaction to the fact that for a number of gun massacres, the killer took guns from the home, often from a relative, to go and kill a group of people in public, such as in a school or mall, and then commit suicide. The problem is that this policy is foolish to assume that the only ideal case is what I just mentioned, how about a bitter ex-spouse, or how about a case where someone doesn’t listen because the accused is a special protected class? Or how about the fact that someone wants this restraint undone because they have gone years without ever hurting anyone? This law has more holes than a sponge.
Doubt it, these libs are in the company of armed security. They wouldn’t see a need for any gun owners.
No question in my mind that there are some people
who should not have access to guns. I don’t know how
to accomplish that but you sure as hell can’t justify
taking people’s stuff on a whim.
“but you sure as hell can’t justify
taking people’s stuff on a whim.”
You and I can’t but liberals, progressives, fascist, bureaucrats and politicians can.
That will happen too, but not as often as the vengeful ex wife looking to hurt her (soon to be?) ex husband. I betcha.
Youuuuuu!!!!! :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.