White House Plans to Release New Gun Safety Measures ‘in the Near Future’

[Defender]

And, what if the same old girl jumps into a car? There are only so many laws you can write before you have the mess we're living in today.

She WAS driving, lol, every day, i swear it, and was a pretty safe driver, at least accident free. Don't get me wrong though, Id lean towards less laws not more.

[RobertNashville]

Just a few weeks ago, there was a long thread on the forum regarding "background checks"; whether they do any good (i.d, do they keep guns out of the hands of criminals/those who would misuse them) and whether they are even constitutional; etc. As I recall, there was lot's of heated debate with about a 55/45 split between those who think background checks are nothing more than a government feel-good/revenue producing worthless exercise and those who was in favor of them.

The problem is Laughner...the problem is not the gun and not that he wasn't on some list and not some lazy sheriff that didn't do his job (if that is actually the case). There is no law...no list...no background check...no "high capacity magazine ban" that will stop the Laughners of the world from obtaining a weapon or using something as a weapon to do what they intend to do.

[Worriedman]

The problem is Laughner...the problem is not the gun and not that he wasn't on some list and not some lazy sheriff that didn't do his job (if that is actually the case). There is no law...no list...no background check...no "high capacity magazine ban" that will stop the Laughners of the world from obtaining a weapon or using something as a weapon to do what they intend to do.

To that I agree a certain extent. But, if one of my grandbabies had been shot by that dirt bag, after the amount of info collected by Dupnik's department, I would want my pound of flesh. He was not some robber out to score for some drugs, he was certifiable nuts, and was known to the the authorities as such.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Worriedman

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The problem is Laughner...the problem is not the gun and not that he wasn't on some list and not some lazy sheriff that didn't do his job (if that is actually the case). There is no law...no list...no background check...no "high capacity magazine ban" that will stop the Laughners of the world from obtaining a weapon or using something as a weapon to do what they intend to do.

Yes there is no way to prevent all unfortunate events.

However it is already against the law for people judged mentally defective to buy firearms. Are we talking repealing current law or avoiding more law? The hazard of rewriting current law is that they rarely re-open a can of worms and make it any better. It would just end up a rearranged can of worms.

In practice you have to be pretty crazy or very mentally slow to be judged mentally defective. If they were gonna refine the law then make it more specific, with a limited (short) list of relevant diagnoses. Schizophrenia should be on the list IMO. There are many seriously eccentric or neurotic folk who are a good gamble to have firearms, but schizophrenics are just not good candidates.

In order to safely own firearms, a person should at minimum have a clear sensorium so that they only see and hear things which actually exist in the real world. And at minimum a person should have reasonably functional reasoning. In order to be diagnosed schizophrenic you have to fail both tests. In fact you have to fail both tests rather spectacularly.

I'm not saying they are bad people or naturally violent people. Just sayin I wouldn't welcome a schizophrenic the next lane over at the shooting range. I would pack up and head out right away if I saw obvious schizophrenic symptoms in some guy at the range. I think you would too, even if you don't know all the signs to look for. You would figure it out quick enough that you don't want to be around such an armed person.

Similarly I wouldn't welcome a severely mentally retarded fellow shooting at the range. Got nothin against em. Just don't wanna get accidentally shot.

Basic rules of firearms safety-- Be sure of the target. If you are subject to hallucinations that is kinda tough to do! Even if you correctly identify a target that exists in the real world, then you need good enough judgement to decide whether or not it needs shooting.

After schizophrenics have had the condition for a few years they often are not much a hazard because they can't get it together good enough to organize mahem, or even to go out and buy a firearm at a store or otherwise acquire one on the street. But in the early stages they can function better and would pose a more realistic risk.

Ain't sayin schizophrenics should be disarmed because they are all wild-eyed violent killers. That is exceedingly rare. They should be disarmed because you can't reasonably expect safe firearms handling from folks in that condition.

It seems a pretty reasonable idea that drunks should not handle loaded firearms. If a guy stays drunk all the time then he ought not handle firearms any time. Regardless of how mellow a drunk he might be. Many schizophrenics are vastly more incapacitated than drunks, and it is a 24/7 condition.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Worriedman]

Yes there is no way to prevent all unfortunate events.

However it is already against the law for people judged mentally defective to buy firearms. Are we talking repealing current law or avoiding more law? The hazard of rewriting current law is that they rarely re-open a can of worms and make it any better. It would just end up a rearranged can of worms.

Spot on.

The point should be, there are laws already on the books, and had they been adhered to, then Loughner should not have been running around shooting up the place.

Writing more laws will not stop the next crazy person from doing the same thing, if the ones we have now are not going to be enforced, these new laws will only limit liberty for the people who intend to obey them.

Existing laws are too often unenforced, case in point, the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and the Mary Winkler situation. She shot her husband, was convicted of a felony in so doing, but was not brought up on the additional weapons charge.

If one seeks to make a pubic statement that MIGHT affect the next occurrence, plaster the prosecution of the DA's and Sheriffs who do not follow the law as written across the media. We do not need new laws, we need new people to enforce the ones we have.

Just look at what the State of TN Congress (and Governor) did to the 1st Amendment this session, and I do not think they set out to stomp on our Rights with the Internet Posting Bill and the Bumper Sticker Bill, but what are the results? Their actions were taken to make themselves look good in the eyes of certain voters. Two full houses of Legislators collectively still managed to institute unconstitutional edicts that limit freedom.

The topic of the thread is additional laws being created by executive fiat to make another politician look good to a certain group of voters, our ability to keep and bear arms the ante for the gamble. What can be accomplished by a single dedicated anti-gun President with no oversight by Congress with an election coming up?

[G27]

To that I agree a certain extent. But, if one of my grandbabies had been shot by that dirt bag, after the amount of info collected by Dupnik's department, I would want my pound of flesh. He was not some robber out to score for some drugs, he was certifiable nuts, and was known to the the authorities as such.

And you think some laws or a more through background check would have stopped him?

[Worriedman]

I truly don’t think Obama cares about any issue other than getting elected again so he can have four years of doing what he likes without his decisions having consequences.

He can make a lot of noise about background checks without getting either side upset. I don’t look for him to do anything until after the election.

I just hope he doesn’t get reelected so we don’t have to go through another jump in gun/ammo prices because of overreaction by gun owners.

He has to be laughing at the fact that he created turmoil in the gun community and cost gun owners millions of dollars just by being elected; and then did nothing.

Have we forgotten this attempt to illegally limit Rights by this same Administration?

» Obama Administration Shuts Down Oldest Gun Show in Central Texas Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[RobertNashville]

Yes there is no way to prevent all unfortunate events.

However it is already against the law for people judged mentally defective to buy firearms. Are we talking repealing current law or avoiding more law? The hazard of rewriting current law is that they rarely re-open a can of worms and make it any better. It would just end up a rearranged can of worms.

In practice you have to be pretty crazy or very mentally slow to be judged mentally defective. If they were gonna refine the law then make it more specific, with a limited (short) list of relevant diagnoses. Schizophrenia should be on the list IMO. There are many seriously eccentric or neurotic folk who are a good gamble to have firearms, but schizophrenics are just not good candidates.

In order to safely own firearms, a person should at minimum have a clear sensorium so that they only see and hear things which actually exist in the real world. And at minimum a person should have reasonably functional reasoning. In order to be diagnosed schizophrenic you have to fail both tests. In fact you have to fail both tests rather spectacularly.

I'm not saying they are bad people or naturally violent people. Just sayin I wouldn't welcome a schizophrenic the next lane over at the shooting range. I would pack up and head out right away if I saw obvious schizophrenic symptoms in some guy at the range. I think you would too, even if you don't know all the signs to look for. You would figure it out quick enough that you don't want to be around such an armed person.

Similarly I wouldn't welcome a severely mentally retarded fellow shooting at the range. Got nothin against em. Just don't wanna get accidentally shot.

Basic rules of firearms safety-- Be sure of the target. If you are subject to hallucinations that is kinda tough to do! Even if you correctly identify a target that exists in the real world, then you need good enough judgement to decide whether or not it needs shooting.

After schizophrenics have had the condition for a few years they often are not much a hazard because they can't get it together good enough to organize mahem, or even to go out and buy a firearm at a store or otherwise acquire one on the street. But in the early stages they can function better and would pose a more realistic risk.

Ain't sayin schizophrenics should be disarmed because they are all wild-eyed violent killers. That is exceedingly rare. They should be disarmed because you can't reasonably expect safe firearms handling from folks in that condition.

It seems a pretty reasonable idea that drunks should not handle loaded firearms. If a guy stays drunk all the time then he ought not handle firearms any time. Regardless of how mellow a drunk he might be. Many schizophrenics are vastly more incapacitated than drunks, and it is a 24/7 condition.

None of the tests or conditions or background checks or any of the other "common sense gun control measures" are in the U.S. Constitution; since they aren't, I tend toward the side of what the Constitution has to say about such things.

People who are truly incapable of handling a firearm safely because of their mental condition need to be inside a completely controlled environment (we used to do that)...those who have ever committed a violent felony ought to be in a prison for a long enough time that by the time they are released they are too old to be a danger to anyone, with or without a firearm. If we simply did those two things, we could live under an unfettered view of the 2nd Amendment.

[RobertNashville]

To that I agree a certain extent. But, if one of my grandbabies had been shot by that dirt bag, after the amount of info collected by Dupnik's department, I would want my pound of flesh. He was not some robber out to score for some drugs, he was certifiable nuts, and was known to the the authorities as such.

And if this sheriff (or anyone else in a position of power to act and didn't act) really did ignore their responsibilities then I hope those with standing to sue do so.

[Worriedman]

And you think some laws or a more through background check would have stopped him?

No I do not, my point all along is that regardless of what laws are in place, if the enforcers do not abide by whatever the criteria is, nothing is accomplished. Plenty of laws already there, but, if the Sheriff's Dept. got calls about him making death threats, they should have acted in some other capacity than to tell his intended victims that it was all cool.

I am against the Federal Gov. being involved at all, I think it should be a State making those decisions.

[Worriedman]

One opinion as to what may be coming in the next few days.

Obama’s Gun Control Program Revealed | The Truth About Guns

[Oh Shoot]

One opinion as to what may be coming in the next few days.

Obama’s Gun Control Program Revealed | The Truth About Guns

"A national electronic system designed to make background checks for handgun buyers simpler and faster, leaving an electronic paper trail .."

De facto national gun registration?

- OS

[Worriedman]

A little old, but a look into the intent of the man.

Urban Policy | Change.gov

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

[Worriedman]

Barack Obama on Gun Control

A view of the current President's actions in his tenure as an Illinois Senator. Does not seem that he was any more inclined to support Natural rights to self protection back then, as he is now.

Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.241-242 Aug 1, 2008:

Opposed Bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions.

Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

[Guest thorn]

"A national electronic system designed to make background checks for handgun buyers simpler and faster, leaving an electronic paper trail .."

De facto national gun registration?

- OS

No nothing to worry about here. This is just to "streamline" things to help small business.

Executive Order--Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies | The White House

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review - Executive Order | The White House

Edited July 12, 2011 by thorn

[G27]

As long as person-person sales are still legal, there is no gun registration. IIRC, the ATF already keeps tabs on sales, despite the law which forbids them to do.

[Worriedman]

The sale of guns from person to person without passing through a FFL is one of the things they are most adamant about getting set up.

[G27]

The sale of guns from person to person without passing through a FFL is one of the things they are most adamant about getting set up.

Yah, honestly, that would be the beginning of the end, imo. If they can get that passed, registration is essentially in effect.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Heil Obama!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

Heil Obama!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's not a Nazi. He's a tree hugging, gun hating commie. Not that I think we should replace him with a homophobic religious zealot, though. I'm hoping something a little more normal comes along, like Basil.

[G27]

I'm hoping something a little more normal comes along, like Basil.

Nicely done, sir.

[ProjectDexter]

I'm gonna keep writing in Ron Paul and hope I get lucky