It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
Like all laws, it's only going to be as good as the enforcement. Who is going to pay for it? Schools can barely afford textbooks these days, much less trained, armed guards with machine guns in turrets in every schoolyard.
Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited from Receiving
A delay response from the NICS Section indicates the subject of the background check has been matched with either a state or federal potentially prohibiting record containing a similar name and/or similar descriptive features (name, sex, race, date of birth, state of residence, social security number, height, weight, or place of birth). The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:
◾A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
◾Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
◾An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
◾A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
◾A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
◾A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
◾A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
◾A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
◾The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
◾A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
◾A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I don't disagree with the bill in theory, I believe guns are great for self defense and defending others, but what happens when these guns are then used for even more shootings? If there is an uptick in school shootings will anyone agree that it was a bad idea? It just seems like it's going to give these psychos even easier access to their weapons of choice. Not saying that's true, just a thought I'm having.
Like I said, the bill sounds good on paper but there's always downsides to almost everything.
I could be wrong, but i do not think there has ever been a shooting where the shooter was licensed to carry their firearm.
When I got my license, i was told by the local sheriff that presenting my license when detained essentially flags me as one of "the good guys" to the cops, because the background check I had to go through to get it to begin with.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Were you shooting for some sorta record as far as employing the most fallacious arguments in a single comment or something?
originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Except it is illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase a handgun or have one transferred to them. Any other irresponsible and criminal activity you would like to suggest for children?
warfare caliber munitions
Yet, it seems to me that almost ANY suggestions or legislation that arise are immediately trounced by the rigorous gun crowd as unworkable.
extent they are so that any yahoo can get one if desired