My guess is they understand that very clearly.
Sorry - read that as “assault rifles”. Stupid reading comprehension skills!
I will agree completely that such a regulation will do no good whatsoever, but it it makes the gun-haters happy, maybe they’ll shut up for a while.
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same bill, but the one mentioned in post #21 said possessing the gun and the high-capacity magazine at the same time. It’s a crock 'o shit anyway.
[quote=“Daylate, post:1, topic:650605”]
. . . Give one lots of confidence in the legislative process, doesn’t it? . . . /QUOTE]
Yes, it does.
A bill was produced containing an undesirable and oppressive provision. The undesirable and oppressive nature of the provision was spotted almost immediately, and the bill was amended to remove it at an early stage in the process.
Is that not how a legislative process is supposed to work? Do you think there’s supposed to be some secret pre-legislative process under which all the necessary scrutiny takes place so that, by the time the Bill is introduced publicly, there’s actually no scrutiny required and the “legislative process” is an empty cipher of n no signficance and to which nobody will pay any attention? Is the purpose of this secret pre-process to ensure that the citizens don’t get to see the policy considerations that get nutted out when legislation is prepared?
I’m genuinely not seeing the problem here.
[QUOTE]
You misunderstand. What I was bitching about was that at least two of the sponsors couldn’t be bothered to even read the 8 page bill - and evidently only found out about what it contained when a reporter, who was originally contacted by a lawyer, not a legislator, brought it up.
Now I’ll admit that if this had been a monster budget bill of thousands of pages this would be understandable, but on a bill like this, with the potential of massive controversy and publicity surrounding it. Sorry, but I don’t think that is good procedure.
[quote=“Daylate, post:45, topic:650605”]
No, the procedure worked as it is supposed to work. It’s the particular legislators who stuffed up - but the procedure exposed the stuffup in early course, which is what you expect of it.
pkbites, there are several interesting assertions made in your post.
Do you have a cite for that bolded part? I’m curious to see some real numbers, because I’m wondering if it’s like 51% majority or if it’s overwhelming, like 80% majority. I’d also like to see the criteria for both “violent crimes” and “career criminals” to see how well my idea jibes with theirs.
Again, can you provide a cite for the bolded part?
Snowboarder Bo:
Take a look at Table 7. Looks like 76% (783,178/1,030465) of federal inmates and 60.9% (52,619/86350) of state inmates had previous convictions.
Also look at Table 8 for the sources of firearms used in crimes. Keep in mind that if a person previoulsy convicted of a felony is legally prohibited from obtaining a firearm, so in those cases “family or friend” becomes and illegal source.
Chickenlegs, that’s from 2001 so curious if it has been updated or if conditions have changed. It does show about 40% purchase from family or friends. Presumably these were at one time in the chain owned by legal gun owners, no? Would not universal registration and tracking catch these legal gun owners and hopefully prevent the sale?
This isn’t meant to be a gotcha ya. It does appear that despite all the 'but I’m a legal gun owner piousness spouted, a significant am out of firearms on the street originated from ‘responsible’ gun owning friends and family (and maybe some private sellers at gun shows). I think this is a problem.
How? Bob gives his felon brother Fred his legally purchased gun. If Fred is ever caught with it Bob just says Fred must have stolen it from my house this morning.
The end.
Good Lord, the bill didn’t say anything about searching your home, it said the sheriff MAY verify that you have a gun safe or equivalent. If your county is like mine, and so starved from tax cuts that the sheriff can’t even afford to keep convicted criminals locked up, then I very much doubt that they will have the manpower to do even that.
Unless Fred doesn’t appreciate your sending him to prison for a theft he didn’t commit.
It would be interesting to see how something else discovered in such a verification would hold up in court.
I would think someone demanding to come into your house and see inside your gun safe is a search.
Fred is already going to prison for having a gun as felons cannot own guns unless they do whole lotta lawyering to get the right back. I doubt the added extra charge of theft is going to matter.
yeah and sorry no I don’t got nothing to hide, but having a sheriff snooping around my house when I have done nothing wrong is crazy. If it is anything like last time I dealt with one they treat you like a suspect/criminal. I had called to report a theft at my business and was given the third degree and subtly accused of being an “illegal” as i would not provide my social security number to him. 
Clearly, the only ones who need to be worried are those with illegal guns.
I’ve been in law enforcement since 1982 and I would not consent to another cop searching my home, vehicle or person.
It’s this simple: It suits the government to be authoritarian. We should all value our rights as granted in our Constitution. Authorities would really like to do away with our right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Their solution to this annoying right … convince enough of us that searching our “persons, houses, papers, and effects” is reasonable.
To do this, they convince some of us that we’ll be safer if the authorities can just interrogate and search us and our property at will.
Knock it off.
Of course this effort at being outraged against the government needs the confirmation that in the current bill that language of the sheriff inspecting your security was there in the first place, and no, past bills do not apply, if anything I think that so far what I have seen here are only past efforts that **failed **because it would not be needed to be proposed again. And I was correct, The Bill from 2005 that was used to claim that the current one had that language died in committee).
So far it looks like someone in a blog got outraged and used an old bill that had language that was unacceptable, and told many that “for sure” it had to be in the bill at hand. So far it looks that that was not the case and the effort in the blogosphere was mostly to seed FUD.
IMHO many already know that things like the OP referred to will not pass nowadays, even among the ones favoring more sensible controls.
I guess your police don’t have the tendency to snoop around as much as ours do. I’d never voluntarily invite the police into my home, or willingly consent to a search.
And before long it’ll be all rifles, then all long guns, then all guns. That’s the way they operate.