Executive Order background checks

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it would start by removing barriers to mental health reporting. The proposed HR 4269 would provide the law to require grandfathered but newly restricted weapons to be locked up.

I thought HR 4269 prohibits the sale of certain weapons.

And whoopie.....a law that requires them to be locked.....but she trusts her kid and still doesn't lock them up.....no effect on crisis at all....but everybody sure feels better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

Do we know that they weren't locked up and maybe he surprised her when she unlocked the safe or whatever.
A person would only have to let their guard down once at the wrong time and access to a gun can be had.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

Problem is that if they do choose to confiscate guns like Australia did they destroy them so family heirlooms and collectoins are gone forever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

From Wikipedia:

"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.


One version was passed by the Congress.[24][25][26][27][28]

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:[29]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Playing devil's advocate here - my question is: Where does it say you can sell arms (ie guns)?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Playing devil's advocate here - my question is: Where does it say you can sell arms (ie guns)?

why would it?...read the entire Bill Of Rights...it is a list of restrictions on government and guarantees and protections of individual liberty....

[PaulS]

I was hoping for a more spirited debate than that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

"Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition"

Agreed. Those guns in circulation will be there for 100 years. Obama's regs will have no real effectr.

Spence, if someone with a bad background decides they want to kill someone, do you really believe these regs will stop him? There are all kinds of ways for people who would fail background checks, to get guns.

"The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid "

Agreed on that.

This is such a small thing, in terms of making us safer. The effect on crime rates will barely be a rounding error.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

.....and this executive order fixes that how???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It does absolutely NOTHING that would have changed what happened in Newtown. Zip.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I was hoping for a more spirited debate than that.

it was silly question...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

[ThrowingTimber]

What is NICS and how does it work?

"Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. "

Congrats. Hussein obama has given you something thats been in place for quite a bit.

Stay the course maybe he'll give you a pizza party or maybe even taco tuesday 😱


Posted from my

iPhone/Mobile device

[Rockport24]

Originally Posted by spence

She likely wouldn't be had she ensured her son didn't have access to her weapons.

Check this out...

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shoot...gclsrc%3Daw.ds

Totally agree with you Spence! (wow!)
I think the negligence of the mother had a lot to do with this tragedy. I don't agree that more laws would have prevented it. A better mental health system that picked up on this kid and a more involved parent that could have picked up on it? Absolutely. It seems like you are implying that if the government knew that the son had a mental illness then they should have not allowed the mother to purchase guns, which seems like a stretch.

Still the fact remains Obama is doing nothing that could have prevented it.

[Rockport24]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the number of guns already in the system most of these actions are a longer-term value proposition. If someone from Chicago can drive to a gun show in Texas and load up on handguns without a background check the local laws are never going be effective aside from perhaps increased penalties.

Yes, gang violence is a big issue but the easy availability of illegal guns is a major contributor to that violence. I read the ATF believes a majority of them come from only 8% of dealers but without good data and tracking they're hamstrung to clamp down.

It seems like a solid majority want universal background checks...even NRA membership. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I had to get fingerprinted for my TSAPreCheck, I believe you have to get fingerprinted for a CCW, I've never owned a car that the Government wasn't aware of the VIN number.

The idea that creating a Federal database is going to make it easier for the Government to confiscate your weapons is just paranoid fearmongering to keep the NRA executives in power.

Why not hire a few hundred more ATF agents and dedicate them to stopping the gun flow into Chicago? Even if they are purchased legally in texas, they are not be transferred legally in Chicago! Why hasn't Obama done this via executive order, which is fully his right to do? No, instead we are going to hire more people to do background checks, the majority of which will be of law-abiding citizens. Why don't we have law enforcement actually go after the known criminal activity?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Why not hire a few hundred more ATF agents and dedicate them to stopping the gun flow into Chicago? Even if they are purchased legally in texas, they are not be transferred legally in Chicago! Why hasn't Obama done this via executive order, which is fully his right to do? No, instead we are going to hire more people to do background checks, the majority of which will be of law-abiding citizens. Why don't we have law enforcement actually go after the known criminal activity?

Because he doesn't want to put in jail his constituency
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rockport24]

LOL! true! and I don't think he has ever fake cried about all these kids killed in chicago either

[PaulS]

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

I have to assume anyone that takes the life of an innocent person has a screw loose somewhere
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rockport24]

Yes he was - so the question is how do we prevent someone like that from getting a gun? Do doctors have to become government informants now?

[Nebe]

Um. I would think that anyone who shoots anyone not in self defense is considered mentally ill. Or have we all been conditioned into thinking that it's normal human behavior to bust a cap in a few asses ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Yes he was - so the question is how do we prevent someone like that from getting a gun? Do doctors have to become government informants now?

You mentioned newtown a few times and have said this wouldn't have done anything to prevent it from happening. Maybe it would have prevented VT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I thought HR 4269 prohibits the sale of certain weapons.

And whoopie.....a law that requires them to be locked.....but she trusts her kid and still doesn't lock them up.....no effect on crisis at all....but everybody sure feels better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The sale...I don't think it takes anything away.

As for the rest, this is the boring drum you keep beating. It's like if rules aren't perfect they're worthless. Tell that to the auto regulators.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Do doctors have to become government informants now?

Many states already have statutes to protect health workers from prosecution if they disclose private information when there's a threat against a 3rd party.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

Totally agree with you Spence! (wow!)
I think the negligence of the mother had a lot to do with this tragedy. I don't agree that more laws would have prevented it. A better mental health system that picked up on this kid and a more involved parent that could have picked up on it? Absolutely. It seems like you are implying that if the government knew that the son had a mental illness then they should have not allowed the mother to purchase guns, which seems like a stretch.

Still the fact remains Obama is doing nothing that could have prevented it.

If you made the law stronger around liability it would absolutely make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands. The executive action wouldn't fix this but it does start to remedy mental health issues.

[TheSpecialist]

[TheSpecialist]

http://danaloeschradio.com/judge-app...r-in-cops-murd

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

The sale...I don't think it takes anything away.

Well didn't you just say it requires people to lock them up???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

Originally Posted by spence

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

Executive orders or actions are constitutional if they fall within the purview of the Presidents enumerated powers. If they don't,
congressional inaction does not constitutionally give the executive the power to act in the place of Congress. If that were allowed, there would be no need for Congress. If that were the case, the Framers could have eliminated Article One of the Constitution which describes the powers and duties of Congress, and incorporated all of that Article's enumerated powers into Article Two which is the Executives list of duties and powers. There is no magic constitutional "context" in which the executive can simply say "if the Congress won't do it, I will." It is Congress's prerogative to act or not act on something regardless of what the President wants.

I'm pretty sure Obama would be screaming foul play if the Congress went about doing the executive's job when he wouldn't. Yet, there are many instances during Obama's tenure where he didn't, as required, enforce Congressional legislation. So would those instances have given Congress the power to say "if the President won't do it we will?" No. And Obama's administration were all up in a hissy fit when Congress wrote a letter to the Iranian government regarding the negotiations it was making with Obama's surrogates saying that Congress was unconstitutionally overreaching their power with incursion into Executive power. Even though the Congress actually did have a right to do so as they had every right to inform the Iranians what it would do if the deal was struck. Just as the President has a right to say he will veto a bill if it is passed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The context for this isn't Executive overreach, it's Congressional inaction.

this is idiotic......


we've "progressed" to a point where a significant number of Americans have, either through ignorance, arrogance or obstinance... no regard for Constitutionally enumerated individual rights....Constitutionally designated and limited government powers and separations and often varying interpretations regarding accountability depending on who is in power and which pet issue is at stake....tell me exactly how we reach compromise again?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill.

I don't recall much about that?

But this kid in Newtown, and absolutely the Jared Loughner kid in Arizona, these were kids that were terribly broken, in desperate need of help, there were plenty of warning signs.

There are 2 things we can do. we can continue to let the mentally ill roam free, until after they hurt someone. If this is what we decide to do, we can't be shocked when they occasionally snap.

Or we can make it easier to commit the mentally ill. If we do that, we will be locking up a lot of people that probably wouldn't ever hurt anyone, but if we stop a very small number from going on killing sprees, maybe it's worth it. Maybe not. That'sthe conversation we need to have, at lesat regarding large-scale shootings by the mentally ill.

Th egarden variety urban violence, which accounts for the vast majority of gun violense, is a completely different issue, requiring a completely different solution.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is idiotic......


we've "progressed" to a point where a significant number of Americans have, either through ignorance, arrogance or obstinance... no regard for Constitutionally enumerated individual rights....Constitutionally designated and limited government powers and separations and often varying interpretations regarding accountability depending on who is in power and which pet issue is at stake....tell me exactly how we reach compromise again?

yes it is Idiotic the Gun guys have be saying their coming to take our gun's they have been saying this for years and it hasn't happen and it will never happen . but they keep talking about it. 2a Constitutionally enumerated individual rights to bare arms shall no be infringed its a broken record and Americans are becoming tone deaf to the topic.

its just like abortion only the Base's care and climate change 1 side thinks there an issue and the other side says there isn't ...

Just beacuse both parties feel if the R or D are for it we will be against it.. reguardless of Facts or logic or historical examples

And Those who dont own gun do we not have inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Via United States Declaration of Independence not be shot by 2a guys stolen guns .. every ones a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime and are Convicted