Posted on 04/20/2007 1:49:09 AM PDT by Oakleaf
-snip-
...the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system and potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill.
Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), a gun-rights Democrat who once served on the NRA's board of directors, is leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal by early next week, Democratic aides and lawmakers said.
Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases. For the first time, states would face penalties for not keeping the National Instant Criminal Background Check System current.
-snip-
The gun lobby stayed relatively neutral during past efforts to pass the measure, but this time Dingell is pushing for an endorsement, or even for the NRA to make it a "key vote" for its supporters.
McCarthy, whose husband was killed during a gunman's rampage on the Long Island Rail Road, admits her crusades for far more stringent gun control measures have made her toxic in gun circles.
So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA, said an aide participating in those talks...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has asked Dingell to broker a deal by Tuesday. But the aide said Dingell and NRA negotiators are skeptical they can reach an accord that quickly.
-snip-
But pitfalls remain. The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restrictions on gun purchases.
An NRA lobbyist said last night that the group would not comment on the effort.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You're right. It's so much better having them disarmed. How silly of me to resent the intrusions into my life when these trivial infringements have so effectively disarmed the evil in our nation.
I have a shipment going to an FFL today. After my waiting period is over in about two weeks, I will be allowed to pay fifty dollars to allow the state of Kalifornia to determine that I am not a felon or otherwise disqualified. This, despite having purchased the same clearance at the same cost six times in the last six months.
I have also had to purchase a fifty dollar device to substitute for the disallowed pistol grip on my new rifle, in order to prevent criminals who aren't allowed to have such rifles, from firing them one-handed.
Had I known how successful these laws have been, I never would have opposed them.
"You're right. It's so much better having them disarmed.
We disagree that they should be allowed to. They are a criminals engaged in criminal activities and enterprise.
"How silly of me to resent the intrusions into my life when these trivial infringements have so effectively disarmed the evil in our nation."
Pure hyperbole followed by an irrelevant story.
We also disagree on whether the law has any effect on the Crips or the Bloods. Certainly you would not be so unreasonable as to support an ineffective law. You must believe that the Crips and the Bloods are at least inconvenienced by these laws.
For my part, I know of no occasion when a member of the Crips or the Bloods failed to commit a crime because of an anti-gun law. Perhaps you can tell us of such an occasion.
The C&Bs are not and can not engage in legal firearm transactions, and they can't do business as htey see fit to. It's really that simple.
"You must believe that the Crips and the Bloods are at least inconvenienced by these laws."
No. You've also strayed far away from fed law.
'For my part, I know of no occasion when a member of the Crips or the Bloods failed to commit a crime because of an anti-gun law. Perhaps you can tell us of such an occasion."
Irrelevant. The point of fed law is to prevent sales to known criminals, enemies of the US, head cases that pose a danger to self and others, ect... The fed law has prevented many of them from walking into a store and buying firearms. In order to obtain firearms and ammo, they must commit more criminal acts, which will get them killed, or jailed.
And why is the story irrelevant? Are you able to distinguish between the "reasonableness" of Kalifornia's anti-gun laws versus that of the federal government? How did you decide?
NICS checks can take up to 72 hours, I believe. That's not an infringement, but Kalifornia's 240 hour delay IS an infringement?
Is the financial burden of $50 dollars per transaction an infringement? If the law is "reasonable", why would a charge for implementing it make it "unreasonable"?
Is a requirement that a pistol grip be removed "reasonable" or not? You have decided that what I described is irrelevant. How can it be irrelevant if it represents the "reasonable" restrictions that you support and which, by your measure, are not infringements?
Now you have answered my question.
I'm not interested in going into CA's gun law. This thread is about fed gun law and an attempt by Congress to get the NICS dbase to include all files from the States that are relevant to prevent those that are prohibited from possessing firearms under fed law from obtaining a clear BG check. If the comment doesn't regard current fed disability, it's irrelevant.
The mistaken idea is the NRA manufactures votes. They do not. The libs know the NRA isn’t really that powerful when only 5% of the gunowners are members. So yeah, when the ordinary citizens are angry over a shooting like this and start calling their legislators, you should know the NRA doesn’t stand a chance.
And those GOA state associations still don’t do anything without the help of the NRA’s state associations.
I’ll tell you what. Call the GOA and tell them this legislation should be improved. You won’t get anyone to do anything about it from the GOA.
And those GOA state associations still don’t do anything without the help of the NRA’s state associations.
Nice try.
After reading some posts on FR, maybe some Freepers are afraid of not passing a background check due to mental health issues. LOL.
And what was that wonderful piece of legislation the GOA passed on their own. I won’t hold my breath.
“I could live with a generic firearms owner card (”not a criminal”) if it meant that I could buy whatever I wanted without anyone in the government ever know what and whether I bought. Including machine guns.”
And what stops you from doing that now? The bad guys do it all the time.
That is a specious argument, and proposing any ‘permission’ be granted to exercise your rights is totally bogus.
The language is very clear.
Either you believe that you have ‘rights’, or you don’t. Compromise is not a satisfactory goal.
“I understand what you are saying, but I tend to be a strict constructionist when interpreting the Constitution. The right to free speech, for example, is absolute. If absolute free speech doesn’t work, then amend the constitution. I feel the same way about the Second Amendment...”
A light in the wilderness.
Thank you
B U M P
Uh, you are intelligent....how bout that!
“They should be telling the liberals to go pound sand.”
You tell ‘em!
“Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.”
I posted to cobra 64 the following scenario:
1) hire one senior to monitor each floor of the university.
ROTC, or Eagle Scouts...with a clearance would suffice.
2) Install CCTV with GPS monitoring.
This alone might have saved 25-30 lives.
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.