Soooo…lobbyists would determine who would be on the list?
Well, I suppose but he did have the House and Senate for two years. Plus, he could have redirected Holder to ramp up gun prosecutions at any time but chose to take different initiatives.
How utterly trite. Tell me, does Congress = lobbyists only for things you disagree with? Do the fact that lobbyists are involved turn a good idea into a bad one?
Congress = lobbyists for things that I both agree and disagree with. However, things I disagree with tend to be the things that lobbyists purchase Congressmen for considerably more often than things that I agree with.
When was it ever a good idea in the first place? We’ve all seen what Congresscritters are willing to say and do to get votes, and they aren’t accountable to anything but money and the day’s poll numbers. Besides, it wouldn’t be the whole of Congress making the decisions. It would be a Congressional Committee, and those are very rarely staffed by anyone who has any expertise in the topic the Committee is supposed to be about.
Because of all the objections that exist with licensing and registration. The biggest challenge seems to be convincing the gun rights folks that they can trust the gun control folks not to keep pushing for more (up to and including a total gun ban).
Mostly because anything Obama does must be criticized during a Republican primary. Anything short of overt racism against Obama can only help you in a Republican primary.
Oh right. When you agree with it, it’s less likely to be because lobbyists have purchased congressmen. That makes total sense.
So instead of Congress… you suggest executive fiat?
This gets better and better. Looking at the application to become an FFL (pdf), you get to question 18 and 18a which read:
If you answer no to the first question the form instructs you NOT to submit an application.
If you answer yes to the second question the form instructs you NOT to submit an application.
We’re going to prosecute you if you are not an FFL - but we wont let you become an FFL!
A complete reversal from the Clinton era purging of FFLs.
I care about environmental issues, but the Sierra Club doesn’t have quite the same lobbying capacity as the oil companies.
Does it make sense now?
As a supporter of universal gun registration and licensing, I would be happy to stop at a handgun registry and never bring up registration of long guns again in my life.
AFAICT this is mostly the result of the Obama administration’s reaction to Fast & Furious. They seem to dogpile and shit on whoever the Republicans shit on.
Bureaucrats would determine who is on the list if, for example, people on the no fly list were prohibited persons. Right now, almost everyone on the prohibited person list has had their day in court.
Not only is it no barrier, but it actually makes it easier for people to purchase machineguns as individuals. In many counties where the CLEO would refuse to sign the Form 4, it was necessary for people to purchase NFA items through a trust. It was never an issue of trying to avoid the CLEO signature process, it was due to the fact that so many CLEOs would not sign at all. There are many other benefits of establishing a trust as well. But for an individual who only wants to buy one specific item no longer has to go through the trouble or expense of setting up a trust. #2 has removed the requirement for CLEO signature requirement for individual transfers. So that individual can now purchase a machinegun in that county without using a trust or corporation at all. Hillsborough County, Florida is one such place. That Sheriff has continued the policy started by his predecessor of never signing a Form 4 for anyone. So anyone wanting to purchase a machinegun, had to establish a Trust and purchase it that way. Trusts were never used as a way for a felon or other illegal person to buy the thing.
So #2 makes it slightly more inconvenient to make purchases through the trust, as every principle named on the trust must submit photos and fingerprint cards for every purchase. Not really a big deal. But it is a huge win for gun owners, as it allows thousands of people who want to buy something like a silencer, but didn’t want or know how to go through the trust or incorporation process. If no local laws restrict the purchase or possession of machineguns, the Sheriff will no longer be able to establish his own restrictions through simple policy.
Because most states don’t want an IL-style FOID system.
That is a huge challenge. Seriously. Most folks that want more controls don’ want a total gun ban. Most folks that want more controls would want to make a first step, see how it works and course correct as needed. IMHO I call that a rational approach, and those that feel really strongly about the 2nd will call it a slippery slope and no way no how can take even a baby step on that slippery slope. It’s a contradiction
Exactly. We are forced to fight every measure because to do otherwise would give the other side traction towards eventual bans. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that most firearm deaths are caused by handguns and not assault weapons or any other rifles. That being said, there are few calls to ban handguns, yet. AWs on the other hand are the first thing that the anti gun crowd wants to ban. Not because of their significant use in crimes, not because they are immensely more powerful than other guns, but because they seem to be the low hanging fruit and look scary, and folks think they are machine guns. “Who NEEDS a military style rifle to hunt deer anyway” is the common cry.
My first reaction when I hear the cry to ban AWs is to realize that the speaker is a fucking moron, scared of rifles that they don’t understand, or a calculated gun grabber trying to make an easy mark, in their eyes.
Agreed. My first reaction to an AWS ban is that it’s really a 5th element from the NRA that’s pushing this. I could be wrong but the moron level of AWS bans boggles the mind. Just look at the numbers that I’m too lazy to search on, but its handguns that cause by far the majority of deaths.
That said, IMHO it’s a rationale approach to try x, and if x isn’t effective enough try y. No need to go from the current situation to a 100% ban on firearms. Christ, I don’t want a 100% ban on firearms and want to reserve my right to buy one day if I so choose. I’d wager that the vast majority of so called of those that want more control on firearms than exists now, don’t want a 100% ban either but that’s IMHO.
Do the designs change that frequently, i.e. in less than a year (or even two or three years), a gun is considered “obsolete” and there are suckers, err… people who will trade up?
If so, that’s even worse than the planned obsolescence that automakers get accused of.
The paranoia of the gun rights folks is not entirely unfounded.
The attitude too fre
The paranoia of the gun rights folks is not entirely unfounded.
There is no end point for what gun control folks want to try. The people leading the charge are very much in favor of a NEAR total ban on guns and are willing to mislead their less informed brethren into supporting things that seem designed to push us closer and closer to gun bans.
The attitude too frequently is “HEY!!! We have a problem and I think gun s are the problem. I don’t really understand the issues surrounding guns but lets just keep trying shit until something works.”