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.
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!
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.'?
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.
Requiring clean mental health in order to obtain a weapon appears to address the problem, but doesn't. Just another bandaid. The only way these rare incidents can be prevented (or minimalized) is to allow citizens to be able to respond immediately with force, wherever necessary.
The chicken-s**ts who plan these things would think differently- were citizens armed and capable of ending such attacks instantly.
Sell-outs all; its a far cry from when C. Heston ran the organization “when the pry it from my cold-dead body!”.
I’d recommend the GOA instead (I’ve heard they’re much better; and don’t really “compromise”).
If Chris Cox actually asserted that, he should be removed from his position at the NRA.
It's patently ridiculous. Of course the Democrat leadership will paste all kinds of gun control nonsense in the bill --- has he forgotten the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" that also became a machine gun ban?
The NRA should not be giving the Democrats any chance to pass gun control legislation. Withdrawing assent if something goes wrong is akin to closing the barn door after the horse runs away.
The definition of bi-partisan is the the ‘Rats get what they want. They also renege on all deals. Principles matter. The NRA has gone RINO.
Since then I have purchased all my firearms from individuals - cash only. As far as the federal government knows I don't even own a gun and that's the way I intend to keep it.
As far as I know I'm not in any of the banned databases and don't see any reason why I would ever be. But I would rather not take the chance that some low level government functionary might mistakenly add my name to a list.
The DA wanted to charge him with unlawful imprisonment, (a felony), and he plead it down to a misdemeanor charge punished by home monitoring and probation. Had it been me, I would have fought it out in court, but he was in the middle of a divorce and wanted to be able to still see his son. Unfortunately for him, he'll probably never be able to own a gun again.
So these are the kinds of minor infractions that are already included in the federal database. If this new legislation allows people like my friend to get their rights back and keeps a few documented psychos, like Seung Hui Cho, from buying guns, then I'm for it.
It's going to happen, guaranteed. You can't make a binding deal with a liar and you never want to make a deal with the devil. Democrats are both.......