Like any new laws are going to get passed anyway. The political climate is a joke at this point.
You needn’t worry-I’m pretty sure those that say “enforce existing laws” while either passively or aggressively stopping their being properly funded believe the same thing.
No, I’ll grant you those both occur. What I don’t get though is why the law gets passed at all (if that is going to be the case). If it has enough votes to pass, why does it also not have the votes to be funded.
Obamacare got passed but somehow we are now hearing about how underfunded the implementation is. Why is that? I assume in the case of Obamacare that the CBO were given the numbers based upon what the proponents wanted them to use. Why did they not give them enough?
A recent Volokh article about enforcing existing laws, specifically those that deal with the lack of prosecution of those that fail background checks:
I concur, with the caveat that I have a low opinion of the BATFE so I’m not sure the efficacy of a new director would have. They should have a director though, those shenanigans are stupid.
This makes sense but why would they pass laws they know won’t get implemented properly? If the feds pass laws they also need to make sure they get funded. No?
I don’t know why you continue to pretend that laws aren’t a matter of compromise between those that propose and those that oppose-nobody here is dumb enough to buy your line of “reasoning”, so I wish you would give it a rest.
Wait, I thought the idea behind NICS was simply to deny someone the purchase of a firearm if they fail the NICS background check when they attempt to buy a gun, not prosecute them if they fail the test.
Also, my link upthread has me a little puzzled. It says that Congress approves the funding for NICS. There was even an amendment to the bill that was signed by Bush that was supposed to ensure that the system got the funding it needed. In light of all of that, how come it didn’t get the funds it needed? Where did they go?
I don’t know that one can sign a bill that truly guarantees funding. If one Congress approves a bill and the Prez signs it, another Congress and Prez can change the bill from soup to nuts from extending the reach to defunding or eliminating it entirely. I am amazed that something as simple as putting appropriate data into NICS becomes a political issue. No, not amazed, there’s another word for it… disgusted.
Straw purchases are a problem, is our current set of laws sufficient to really root them out? You’re never* going to catch the one off straw purchaser, unless you get into the habit of following people around after they buy a gun. If someone straw purchases regularly, you need to track their purchasing habits, and identify people who buy lots of guns for extra scrutiny. Do our laws allow for this type of investigation to be routine?
*Not true for small values of never. If we registered guns like we do cars, and prosecuted people who’s guns wind up in the hands of criminals, then you may cut back on the one-offs, but I think we need more laws to make that happen, and national registration of firearms is pretty much a non-starter.
Of course there is compromise but if the compromise is enough to make the initial law unworthy of being passed, why is it even considered?
That isn’t “reason” that is common sense.
That is Congressional Obstructionism. Fuck with it until it can’t work, push it through, then blame the proponents of the original proposal when it doesn’t work while at the same time claiming that “We cooperated with the passage of this bill and it didn’t work, so why should we cooperate with our opponents any longer?”
Then take it off the table because it isn’t bipartisan enough. Work within the bounds you are given. Do you offer up projects at work under those same constraints if you are working in a team scenario?
Of course you don’t. I’ll ask it again, if the bill that is going through is destined for failure, why push it through at all?
You mean like the 37th revocation of Obamacare? Good pick.
Because if the bill the jackasses fucked with is withdrawn, the claim will be made that their opponents whine a lot but don’t do anything. At least if the damaged bill passes there may be a chance to find proper funding for it later.
This is why I don’t like defending the NRA. The fact that you guys can’t beat them despite all this speaks volumes about your competency. Most NRA members I know disagree with the NRA at least a little bit but they are the only safe harbor when some idiots start pushing an AWB.
So 3 laws to enforce / track / better fund:
-
California recently allocated additional funding to go door-to-door to all people with registered firearms who are no longer legally allowed to possess. Fantastic idea, I fully support it, they should have been doing it more before. The NRA DID oppose this, officially because of the tax on (guns or ammo - not sure which) used to fund it. However - I am a gun guy who supports this law.
-
Though discussed above, anyone who tries to purchase a firearm and hits the NICS wall due to eligibility - should at least be visited by the police. I have trouble seeing how few arrests are made against the tens of thousands of people who have broken the law by trying to obtain a firearm.
-
The NRA and the Brady team supported Project Exile - application of Federal laws on people with illegal guns: Project Exile - Wikipedia
The article highlighted 3 items:
I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA, but how do these things weaken the enforcement of existing gun laws? Specifically? I would characterize weakening enforcement of existing laws akin to things like reducing sentences of gun related crimes, de-funding enforcement agencies, etc. The above list seems more like, modifying rules and regulations. Semantic I suppose but it seems like the NRA is engaging in incrementalism too.
Man, honestly, scout’s honor, what is this thing you got about the AWB? Its like the Unholy Gruel to you, anybody who is remotely tainted by its dark aura turns into a fanged, gun-grabbing Orc.
As to the competence of “us”, whomsoever we may be…so fucking what. If we’re right, we’re right, judge by that. Ever joined a social or political movement that went against money and power? That its so difficult to dislodge power, that’s due to the incompetence of the relatively powerless? Huh?
If the libertarians were just little smarter, they would take over the world, maybe?
The “thing” about the AWB that people like Damuri and to a lesser extent, the rest of us gun owners worry over is that it is so ill-defined. It’s a ban on things by people that don’t understand how to even properly define what an assault weapon even is, let alone know a damn thing about them.
It seriously encroaches into that “if it looks military, then ban it. Why would you even want or need it?” territory.
When an audit of 20% of gun dealers turns up tens of thousands of missing guns and you oppose looking at the other 80% then you are undermining the effort to keep guns out of criminal hands. It doesn’t take a LOT of gun dealers to arm the entire criminal population of a large city.
I am opposed to any ban but pushing for an AWB shows me that you are more interested in banning guns than solving the problem. Especially if you are the Democratic party’s expert on guns in the senate. I think that the idiots who pushed the AWB ruined the chance to get an LBJ style L&R bill passed.
I don’t think you’re right. Too much of your side’s motivation comes from an irrational fear of guns and a selective reading of the studies and statistics in the light most consistent with your side’s irrational fear of guns.
Yeah I supported Obama in the primaries. Here in Northern Virginia, the Democratic party during the primaries seemed like the Hillary campaign headquarters until the Iowa primary. One of my best friends was among the first elected Democratic party politicians in NYC to endorse Obama. There was a lot of money up against him.
Your side is not powerless. You had the President of the United States fresh off of a convincing electoral victory on your side. You had the momentum of public opinion on your side. You had plenty of money on your side after the slaughter of 24 little children. What you didn’t have was good sense. I can’t prove what would have happened, but it seems clear to me that you could have gotten at least the shitty semi-universal background check in the Manchin Toomey bill during the lame duck session or early January.
Maybe, but then they wouldn’t be Libertarians.
I feel like the best people to come up with good gun control that would work are the people who want it the least. I bet the other crusty gun nuts on this board could come up with infinitely more intelligent methods of controlling gun violence (without resorting to standard NRA talking points) in a weekend over a case of scotch than Feinstein could come up with in her lifetime. Primarily because I don’t think Feinstein really wants to reduce gun violence, she wants to get rid of guns. And when she proposes things like an AWB and the POTUS supports her push for an AWB, it starts to look like an attack on gun owners and the second amendment rather than an effort to fix a problem.
Yeah, irrational. Fearing devices carefully constructed and smartly engineered to punch holes in people. Totally nuts, whatever were we thinking?
And the AWB is the eleventh horn of the Beast. The other ten are the Eurozone or maybe a couple of merged boy bands, hardly matters by comparison. And this AWB impinges itself onto the nervous system, rendering the victim incapable of making his own oatmeal or grasping the crystalline clarity of your arguments.
Yes, its all clear now.