The idea that a person who cannot manage her own finances is competent to safely handle a firearm is a much bigger one.
Way to twist things around…but totally expected, of course. My point was that if he had tried to do more, the Republicans would have used it as a petty political weapon, tying anything he did to their Democratic opponents. As it stands(and as has already been pointed out), he has done what he could do without having to go through a Republican Gauntlet Of No. It is this balance, this area where the Republicans can neither put up roadblocks or use his words as electoral weapons that is really pissing you and your ilk off. That is what is really amusing here.
I don’t think we need a whole lot more FFLs. The only time I can’t get immediate service at my local gun shop is when people think that there is a gun ban on the way.
I think we should open up NICS to all and I believe that the people who crushed that are much more interested in banning guns than they are in “common sense reasonable gun laws” (I was honestly shocked that they would not support the bill and wondered if there was some other poison pill attached to the bill but could not find one).
And they get slapped down for pulling shit like that, don’t they?
Abuse of police power is ALWAYS a risk in any well ordered society.
I consider myself on the gun rights side of the debate (you may disagree). I don’t think guns are dangerous per se. I think people can be dangerous so I support pretty much anything that isn’t overly onerous and helps ensure that guns stay out of the hands of dangerous people.
A person over indulges and spends too much money on smokes and lottery tickets and can’t pay rent. That person shouldn’t be able to defend themselves in their own home?
Is there any evidence of misuse of firearms by people on rep payee greater than the population at large?
This is why funneling more and more through FFLS and adding more to the list of prohibited persons is opposed. The gatekeeper can always close the gate. Combine that with the effort to reduce the overall number of FFLs and the goals become questionable.
What other targeted group of people should be prohibited? It wouldn’t be a stretch to say those with moving violations, maybe bankruptcy?
Oh I’m not pissed. I’m glad he didn’t go further - less to litigate. I think Obama was and continues to be ineffectual in this area, his proclamations and tears notwithstanding.
But I didn’t twist anything around - I took your point exactly as you restated. My point is so what if it’s used as a petty political weapon. If it’s the right thing to do he should have done it no? If it saves just one life! He’ll do everything in his power!
If I recall - I think the people involved were actually promoted. My memory may be off on that one though.
On one hand you claim to wonder why he didn’t do more, then you betray yourself by saying “less to litigate”. I’m soooo sorry he didn’t give you a bigger target. :rolleyes:
Wait. You’re not talking about the cases where they run sting operations on prohibited persons (including the mentally ill) to catch people buying guns who are not supposed to try and buy guns, right?
So would you say it’s a reasonable idea but you object solely on the “give them an inch, they’ll take a mile” principle?
Well, there isn’t any other way is there? If there is going to be a prohibited list who else could determine it? Of course, I could see you not wanting anyone prohibited.
I’ve long supported the idea of offering a background check system to the public for firearm sales. In my own transactions, I will not sell to anyone who does not possess a CCW permit. If they have such a permit, I know they have passed a background check.
Great idea. Let’s make it mandatory.
Rolling eyes makes your point stronger. I suggest you keep doing it.
There is nothing to betray - I’m being as straightforward as possible. I can wonder why he didn’t do more while at the same time be glad he didn’t - there is no contradiction there. I expected him to do more with all of the hulabaloo in the lead up and his protestations that he’d do everything in his power. The Executive Actions are not consistent with that.
In case you were wondering, litigation is not the desired route for gun issues - it’s legislation. Litigation is expensive, time consuming, and risky. If I had my druthers, gun issues would be worked out in the legislature and there would be no need for litigation. Any time litigation can be avoided it’s better. But sometimes litigation is necessary.
That is the first that came to mind, so yes.
Not solely, but that is a significant part. I do this currently in CA, and buying a firearm through PPT is a hassle. Out of state purchase is basically never because FFLs charge so much for it.
And on the contrary - I think certain people should be prohibited. Our current list seems adequate - but I’d be open to additions if there was sufficient justification.
Democrats blocked this bill when it was proposed. Did you know that?
Rather than number of transactions or numbers of guns, how about distinguishing a dealer from a nondealer by considering age of inventory? If you buy a gun and sell it less than a year later, you could be considered a dealer. If the gun has been in your possession or your family’s possession for five or more years, you could be considered a private seller.
The theory being, of course, that someone who is actually making a business out of guns will be trying to turn inventory over quickly.
In the BATFE guidance, that example is specifically stated as not a dealer in the case of a person who likes to have newer model firearms and sells existing ones to fund new purchases.
It’s mandatory in Chicago and the rest of Illinois. The Firearms Owners Identification system has been in place since 1968.
Q: How’s that working for them?
A: 2986 shooting victims in Chicago 2015.
I do it for my own peace of mind. I am under no illusion that a mandated system requiring same would make a bit of difference.
Little stuff like these executive actions will have very little impact except perhaps at the margins, in my opinion. As long as there are hundreds of millions of guns in America, they will be easy to acquire, whatever the law says, and gun violence will be relatively high compared to other advanced and wealthy countries.
I don’t believe more “good guys with guns” (in the sense of random Americans who choose to be armed) would help, and would probably hurt, overall, because I don’t think many “good guys” in America have enough training and skill, if they are armed, to be a net asset in the chaos of a random/mass shooting.
The New York Times recently did a piece about how easy it was to run guns from easy-access states and cities to hard-access states and cities. It’s as if you are trying to prove that quarantines don’t work by declaring Chicago to be a quarantine area…but doing nothing to control access to and from the city.
Why not have it mandatory throughout the country?
Well, I’ve seen enough of these debates to know the standard reply to that is these types of regulation won’t work in isolation. If this standard is not enforced throughout the country, there’s always going to be an illegal pipeline from less strict States.
Here is that New York Times article that explains where the guns come from, and why this piss-ass piecemeal regulation system is a joke.
Haven’t we already talked about this time and time again? Running guns from other states is just as illegal today, as not consenting to a background check would be should it become mandatory. It is already mandatory to consent to a background check AND FFL recorded sale if you buy a gun from out of state. In Illinois, the FOID system is statewide, not just for Chicago.
If you have people who are happy to ignore the federal and state laws already in place today that call for a background check for an out of state sale, why do you think those who are currently breaking the law will stop doing so and follow a new with the same restrictions?