Posted on 02/19/2018 7:00:18 AM PST by Simon Green
The White House signaled that President Trump would be open to bolstering gun background checks in the wake of a mass shooting at a Florida high school last week that rekindled the national debate about gun control.
The president spoke on Friday to Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn about a bill the Texas Republican introduced with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) that would improve federal compliance with criminal background check legislation, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement on Monday.
While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system, she said.
Cornyn and Murphy were among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who supported the background check bill introduced in November after a church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that left 26 people dead.
Its the first indication that Trump would back a measure to bolster background checks.
In the days after 17 people were gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Fla., last Wednesday, Trump blamed mental illness and called on neighbors and classmates to report erratic behavior.
The White House also said Trump will host a listening session this Wednesday with high school students and teachers, but didnt confirm that Parkland teens will be part of the discussion.
A group of students who survived the rampage also announced that they will hold a March for Our Lives rally in Washington, D.C., on March 24 to highlight the need for gun control.
Trump spent the three-day Presidents Day weekend at his resort in Mar-a-Lago, which is about 40 miles north of the school shooting site, and surveyed members about gun control laws, The Washington Post reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
If you take prescription drugs behavioral issues or for depression then you should not be able to purchase firearm. Also, hold drug companies accountable.
That is case in IL...and likely elsewhere...No FOID card if diagnosed depression.
Really? So you want to Hold drug companies accountable for shooting???
Are you going to hold Truck companies accountable for terrorist attacks using trucks? How about Pressure Cooker companies for Boston attack?
I read that he was in a treatment facility for a period of time...
FBI was notified he was planning an attack.
Stick to equal law enforcement for ALL Mr. President.
Young, old, infirm, ELECTED OFFICIALS, ALL.
Stop trying to run the country by polls!!
Don’t get “do something” disease.
More laws don’t do anything at all.
What do video games have to do with anything? What mass shooter has said XYZ game inspired him to go out and kill people? It neither plants the seed, nor encourages it to grow. That murderous seed is already there, and video games have nothing to do with it.
I was responding to YOUR proposed age restrictions, and saying that they were infringements that we were not going to accept.
I operate on both emotion and reason. If you think you don't, you're lying to yourself.
Same here, lets wait and see. But if Trump and the GOPE go wobbly to the left on gun control, its a deal breaker for me. Nothing they can say or do will get me to vote for them again if they put a blade in my back on this issue.
By the way, I not only own AR-15's, I BUILT my own, so I'm calibrated to this debate.
I’m all for the 2nd amendment, with very few restrictions; I was just observing your scattered thought process of going from the “phobe” thing, then to God, and trying to throw the whole thing back on me.
Let’s just stop here, ‘cause I’m done with you.
“If you take prescription drugs behavioral issues or for depression then you should not be able to purchase firearm.”
And, in 2021... Posting to a conservative forum becomes a “behavioral issue” and you lose your firearms.
Just a trial balloon. He will say this and then modify and narrow what he is willing to accept. For example he could endorse “closing the Internet sales loophole”, which we know doesn’t exist. Or endorse the “gunshow loophole” that we know also doesn’t exist. If he did that, Rats would either have to accept it or admit they’ve been lying about those two “loopholes” all along. They aren’t going to do that.
Like offering to close the non-existant Internet sales loophole?
If an ex-con cannot be trusted with a firearm, they shouldn’t be released from prison.
Exactly my point. Why should the rest of us give up Constitutional rights in order to make liberals feel safe from nutcases? Moreover, folks who are not safe to trust with legal guns could then simply acquire them illegally. Same with everything else.
“We need to ban the sales of assault weapons because they are too dangerous to have around but we aren’t confiscating guns”
“But thousands of assault weapons have already been sold. Aren’t they too dangerous to have around? What should we do?”
.......
And I’m done with you. I will not abide any more restrictions, including the age restrictions YOU proposed.
People are reacting to the dim media blitz to blame all of this on guns.
People who do mass shootings are either evil people with no soul or conscience or are extremely mentally ill. Not the sort of people to obey regulations, laws. The thing is there are already laws against going to a school or anywhere else and randomly shooting people. Why would people think for a minute new laws would make any difference?
Passing new firearm regulations/laws will do nothing to stop mass shootings. The only result will be to punish law abiding people and to take us closer to the point where people will not be allowed to own firearms.
We need to immediately protect schools; some schools in Oklahoma and Texas have allowed teachers and other personnel to be armed. Schools not willing to do this need to hire armed security.
We need to address the laws and funding concerning mental health treatment. It is nearly impossible to get mental health help in this country. We also need to be able to lock up people that are a danger even against their will, for longer than 72 hours. That is a joke, 72 hours is not long enough for a thorough evaluation and I personally know of a person that was released without one because the 72 hour hold timed out- it was a long weekend. There are many studies saying mass shooters are not mentally ill- but I would bet they are and just were not diagnosed because they were not in treatment.
No knives out here, just a reasoned response. Any new demand would be touted as "a good first step", with the undeclared last step being confiscation.
As outlined by others, the system works IF the authorities keep the proscribed list up to date, which they didn't do in this and other cases.
Please review the gun buying application we here in the States have to fill out when buying from a licensed dealer and tell us what changes you would make to it to preclude further tragedies like this. (Note that this is an obsolete form (2005) and a change regarding race has been made. Also note that a photo ID must be submitted to the dealer.):
and
Note Section D in the second form. This is why "Universal Background Check" (mandatory for all private, non-FFL sales) is pushed by the liberals. With that info they would know who has what and where they are - must needs for Universal Confiscation.
If they have not been adjudicated mentally ill, then who will determine who is mentally ill? As far as that goes very few mentally ill people are dangerous so why should those that are not a danger lose their right to bear arms?
Restrictions like this are just a clear path to confiscation. If one group loses their rights, it will soon be another until no average citizen will be allowed to own a firearm. Only “special people” will be able to legally own firearms- who decides who is special enough?
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.