Posted on 06/10/2007 7:39:59 AM PDT by holymoly
Only those who have been convicted of a felony, are under indictment on felony charges, and/or have been adjudicated mentally ill, are prohibited from purchasing firearms.
(See: ATF Form 4473)
So, why will "minor infractions" even be included in the Federal database?
And what "minor infractions"? Jay walking? Traffic tickets?
I drove by a dead skunk on the road a few days ago.
That dead skunk smelled better than this NRA "compromise".
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
In Illinois Guns Save A Life, Burma Shave type signs have been posted along the roadsides but it doesn’t take long for the anti-gunners to pull them down!
http://www.gunssavelife.com/burma.htm
By the way.
I Just received from the NRA pre addressed post cards for me to send to my Illinois representatives from me.
They have to be kidding!
My representatives are:
Senator Dick (Turban) Durbin
Senator Barack (Osama) Obama
U.S Representative Bobby (former Chicago Black Panther Minister of Defense)Rush.
I live in Cook (Crook) County, Illinois enough said.
—bflr—
No need for background check. PERIOD!!!
Sorry, I still smell a rat. If someone is deemed a greater-than-average threat to public safety, based on past actions, he should be kept off the streets. Everyone else should be allowed to defend himself.
BINGO!!! I posted my last response before seeing yours - these are my thoughts exactly. Do we really need Uncle Sam poking his nose into our medical records before determining whether the 2nd Amendment applies?
No need for gun laws.
Future revisions will expand the background checks to include teacher’s recommendations, e.g., for Ritalin, etc.
There are many citizens who had been accused of spousal abuse that are prevented from buying firearms without being convicted. This is common in nasty divorces where the wife claims physical abuse, and the court includes this on the husband's record with no evidence.
There are many expunged convictions that still prevent citizens from buying firearms for their protection.
Currently, it is nearly impossible for these people to get their names cleared. The NRA made this a priority.
Minor infractions.......
Driving off a bridge leading to the death of a woman
COMMITTING PERJURY WHEN LYING ABOUT SEX IN A FEDERAL OFFICE WITH A WOMAN OTHER THAN YOUR WIFE
HAVING 90 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN MARKED BILLS IN YOUR FREEZER THAT MATCH NUMBER FOR NUMBER THE MONEY IN AN FBI STING
GIVING YOUR LOADED GUN TO AN AIDE WHO IS ARRESTED FOR ITS POSSESSION ON CAPITAL HILL
Need we go on!
Curly, Moe, and Larry.
Looks like the armpit of the country, politically speaking that is..
That headline doesn't exactly warm the cockles of my heart.
LOL
States would be paid to comply.
Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system.
The federal government would then pick up 90 percent of the cost for the states to get up to date within 180 days of the audit.
Once the attorney general determines that a state has cleared its backlog, the federal government would begin financing all the costs of keeping the system current. If a state's compliance lapses, the attorney general would be authorized to cut federal law enforcement grants, with more draconian aid cuts mandated if noncompliance stretches longer than a year.
The bill would authorize payments to the states of $250 million a year between 2008 and 2010, when the program would have to be reassessed and reauthorized by Congress.
Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system, and even with the threatened aid cuts, negotiators expressed confidence that no other state would drop out, given the funding that would be available and the stigma that would be attached to withdrawal.
"I can't imagine a scenario where a state would drop out, and say what? 'If you're adjudicated schizophrenic, you can buy your guns here'?" asked a Democratic aide involved directly in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to speak to reporters.
Can you imagine a scenario where a state would say. 'You're an adjudicated gun nut, and you can't buy your guns here.'?
Any time the words "Democrats" and "guns" appear in the same sentence, it can mean nothing good.
Yea. But I have a very vivid imagination. I can also imagine this:
(You go to a gun store to purchase a rifle, and...)
Gun Store Clerk: "According to the FBI back-ground check, you were convicted at the age of 19, of being a minor in possession of alcohol; specificially a partially-consumed six-pack of Budweiser beer. I'm sorry, but you are prohibited by Federal law from purchasing a firearm."
"You may, if you wish, 'petition' the state to have your name removed from the database. Of course, the state isn't required to approve your petition. Have a nice day."
It doesn't take a gun to kill.
If this were a serious attempt at preventing a killing spree, the focus would be on people and not guns.
If one is he!! bent on rampage, (illness or not) it certainly doesn't take a gun or guns to follow through.
Reference Oklahoma City, 911, or for all that matters, the Boston Strangler or Bundy.
Anytime the words "Democrats" and "legislation" appear in the same sentence it can't be good!
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.