Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Grassley Gun Bill Priorities Emerge
American Spectator ^ | 4.8.13 | LUCA GATTONI-CELLI

Posted on 04/08/2013 5:59:39 PM PDT by neverdem

The details of a gun control bill being written by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are now coming to light. As first reported by Politico, Grassley is crafting a Republican alternative to Democrats’ proposals, which are centered on expanding background checks, including information-sharing and record-keeping. In a follow-up piece this morning, Politico suggests that Grassley’s effort could draw moderates of both parties away from the Democrats’ main proposal.

Previously Grassley’s office has declined to comment on the bill being authored, but in an interview today Press Secretary Beth Levine laid out the Iowa Republican’s legislative priorities. She said Grassley is considering five main points: addressing mental health challenges; reining in gun trafficking; preventing school violence and ensuring student safety; protecting veterans from false mental health accusations (e.g. of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder); and improving enforcement of existing laws regarding state information-sharing for the background check database. (On the latter point Levine added that only “13 states do it.”)...

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; grassley; guncontrol; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: Boston2Atlanta
It seems odd that asking someone to show an ID to vote even if and ID can be provided freely is an infringement of voting rights but requiring a firearm owner to register pay CCW fees and limit magazine capacity isn’t.

Ronnie Reagan flashback: "There you go again..."

You pose an excellent question but asking for a semblance of logic to be applied in the political realm seems like you're trying to rewrite Einstein's excellent definition of insanity.

21 posted on 04/08/2013 8:13:52 PM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Personally, I think the joke is the idea of a "moderate" plan to limit my most important God-given rights.

"Grassley is considering five main points: addressing mental health challenges; reining in gun trafficking; preventing school violence and ensuring student safety; protecting veterans from false mental health accusations (e.g. of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder); and improving enforcement of existing laws regarding state information-sharing for the background check database."

I fail to see how any of those things limit anyone's God-given rights.

22 posted on 04/08/2013 9:10:03 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Your statement has no relation to the post that you replied to.

Got a mirror?

23 posted on 04/08/2013 9:14:39 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

No, the only suitable alternative is a national Constitutional Carry law, like Vermont, Alaska and Arizona currently have.

We don’t need more laws; we need more good guys with guns!


24 posted on 04/08/2013 9:25:34 PM PDT by Taxman (So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
I fail to see how any of those things limit anyone's God-given rights.

Ponder the true meaning of the words "background check database." And "addressing mental health challenges." And "reining in gun trafficking." And "preventing school violence and ensuring student safety." And "protecting veterans." And "improving enforcement."

If you don't smell further incursions on our right to keep and bear arms in those words, I think you need to get your nose checked.

25 posted on 04/09/2013 6:30:35 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Real republicans, yes. RINOs, no, under no circumstances.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

record keeping?

this is just code for mandatory INVOLUNTARY registration.

only slaves pay taxes.
slaves do not need civil rights
the second amendment is a civil right
judges fear civil rights
politicians fear civil rights.


26 posted on 04/09/2013 7:37:05 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

this is why obama is taking the sandy hook coffin podiums to each senator’s office.

Where is the NRA with hundreds of people who have SAVED lives going senator to senator to country this PR stunt?

why do we have to suffer the fools of the MSM?


27 posted on 04/09/2013 7:40:53 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

I have another alternative. Just enforce the gun laws we already have.


28 posted on 04/09/2013 8:46:42 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

That’s just brilliant! You ought to run for president. /s


29 posted on 04/09/2013 11:17:23 AM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
The initial background check (NICS system) is forbidden by law from retaining records of background checks past 24 hours after the purchase is okayed.

"Keeping records" of background checks would eventually provide a database of every person who has purchased a firearm since the law passed.

This is a de facto registry of firearm owners, only excluding those who bought no new firearms.

In the event that someone gets a bill (or amendment to another bill) through requiring private sales to go through a dealer and be subject to NICS clearance, within a generation, virtually every legally transferred (owned) firearm would be in the registry, and a very high fraction of legal firearm owners.

The enemies of this Republic have been patient when impatience would not work, and this would lay all the necessary groundwork for seizure of firearms in the future, much as registration under the Weimar Republic laid the groundwork for the seizure of firearms by the Nazis--the records survived to be used against firearm owners.

With other developments in this administration, I would never trust the Government with such a database, not now, nor in the future. Not ever.

We have seen how well-intentioned programs have been sold to the American People under one guise or another, and then used to harm our Country, our culture, and our society.

Judge this not by the good it might do in the right hands, but the harm it will do in the wrong ones.

30 posted on 04/09/2013 1:29:14 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Judge this not by the good it might do in the right hands, but the harm it will do in the wrong ones.

I'm not. I believe in 'trust but verify' though not 'knee jerk before researching.'

"...and improving enforcement of existing laws regarding state information-sharing for the background check database..."

One of the problems everyone has acknowledged is that states have not been turning info on convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent over to the Feds to be put into the NICS database. Another is that some states (CO for instance) do their own background check with their own database thus missing info from the rest of the nation and wasting money in the duplicate effort. I see nothing in the statement above about Grassley's bill to indicate anything other than solving those problems. The words "enforcing existing laws" are at least some indication that the bill is not intended to expand the parameters of 'background checks.'

Beyond that everyone seems to be missing the political meaning of introducing a competing bill. It's a common method used to kill the first bill with no intention of passing the latter one. Something that's beyond the thinking of the would-be president.

31 posted on 04/09/2013 1:46:21 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Beyond that everyone seems to be missing the political meaning of introducing a competing bill.

No, I haven't missed that, but IMHO, any bill in the hopper is a loose cannon on deck.

32 posted on 04/09/2013 1:53:10 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I hope you don’t, if you don’t understand that “moderate” incursions on our right to keep and bear arms are dangerous in the same way that radical incursions are.


33 posted on 04/09/2013 2:07:57 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Real republicans, yes. RINOs, no, under no circumstances.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Not if it’s full of neutral or positive changes to the law.


34 posted on 04/09/2013 2:07:59 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You haven't shown that Grassley's bill has any incursions in it. But you haven't even bothered to read the article yet so how could you?
35 posted on 04/09/2013 2:09:15 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

You’ve said that several times, but it’s simply not true.


36 posted on 04/09/2013 2:19:17 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Real republicans, yes. RINOs, no, under no circumstances.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
If it isn't repealing the GCA of '68, the NFA of '34, the ban of '86, It better be removing infringements, not emplacing new ones.

No one's Rights are safe while the Congress is in session.

37 posted on 04/09/2013 3:22:19 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Show me some infringements. Straw man arguments don’t impress me.


38 posted on 04/09/2013 3:27:58 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

What straw man argument?


39 posted on 04/09/2013 3:39:54 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Bringing up things that aren't ...

Nevermind. It's complicated. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

40 posted on 04/09/2013 3:51:04 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson