Gun background check bill in danger of stalling in Congress

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Messing with the Second ammendment is generally political suicide. Any Congress person that votes to water it down will likely be seeing their last term. Unless of course the plan is that there will be no more elections. Most likely the Democrats voting for such action are receiving promises of campaign money,endoresements and media protection.




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by buni11687
 


GOOD!!!!! Let it die a slow death.


Hear here!
This bill and any other bill, we already have enough laws on the books.
Maybe we could just use the old ones.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
You're seriously objecting to a bill would make it harder for the mentally ill and criminals to obtain guns?

Wow. How many Newtown's and aurora's will it take for you to look past your precious hunks of metal. You're embarrassments.


You again?? Isn't there a rock that is missing you?


The bill would do no such thing.

Laws have yet to guarantee anything.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Beware this may just be a ploy to divert peoples attention and then when they're occupied elsewhere they will ram it through.



edit on 1-3-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
How would they fund the enforcement? Congress can't even be proactive enough to keep the government open in general, much less with new laws.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
so long as Trusts are legal, background checks are totally useless for anything but a 'registry' and 'revenue' source.

in/with a Trust, there is no ID, no 'check', no address, no individual's details as the Trust owns the weapon.
here, our local Sheriff refuses to sign the BATF4 forms for class III weapons so ppl who want them just have a Trust established and go from there.

with Trusts, even the Sheriff doesn't know who, when or where fully-automatic weapons reside
... i still can't understand why sooo many ppl support 'background checks' that have proven useless.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
You're seriously objecting to a bill would make it harder for the mentally ill and criminals to obtain guns?

Wow. How many Newtown's and aurora's will it take for you to look past your precious hunks of metal. You're embarrassments.


You again?? Isn't there a rock that is missing you?


The bill would do no such thing.

Laws have yet to guarantee anything.



I agree, we have about 1000 gun laws already....why more? It's all just a political agenda and has little to do with protecting anyone. It's like immigration, if we just enforce the laws we already have then much would fix the problems we have.

Once again....laws would not have stopped anyone of these mass killings. At what point do we say, hey that guy in the future will kill a lot of people. When we are talking about over 300 million people there is going to be crazy people about, no matter what. The smartest thing would be to do away with all gun free zones since, once again , only the sane law abiding citizen follows them.

There is honest to god proof of this when we look at the cities with the harshest gun laws are also the ones with the most gun murders. How can anyone, for OR against guns, refute those statistics?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
so long as Trusts are legal, background checks are totally useless for anything but a 'registry' and 'revenue' source.

in/with a Trust, there is no ID, no 'check', no address, no individual's details as the Trust owns the weapon.
here, our local Sheriff refuses to sign the BATF4 forms for class III weapons so ppl who want them just have a Trust established and go from there.

with Trusts, even the Sheriff doesn't know who, when or where fully-automatic weapons reside
... i still can't understand why sooo many ppl support 'background checks' that have proven useless.


No bad Idea but the trustee still has to sign the form so that is the link to who has control of the weapon unless you make another trust the trustee or am I missing something?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

yes, you're missing a couple particulars but rather give details here, you might want to review this or any of the articles on his blog

edit to add -- this is the lawyer that "has been asked by the ABA to present a CLE which will be available for lawyers and non-lawyers on the use of Gun Trusts to protect firearms from changes in future legislation."
edit on 1-3-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 
Yes let it be so , just like this one www.govtrack.us... Wonder if Di will be in office next election did she not promise that this would be law, yes there is a gun grab plan under way, but they can plan all they want , for it will never be. for you that do not know this is the... well here, Sponsor:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] bill to ban AR's and 150 likes there of



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by macman
 
Yes let it be so , just like this one www.govtrack.us... Wonder if Di will be in office next election did she not promise that this would be law, yes there is a gun grab plan under way, but they can plan all they want , for it will never be. for you that do not know this is the... well here, Sponsor:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] bill to ban AR's and 150 likes there of



Thanks alot for that link. I especially love this part.


Prognosis



10% chance of getting past committee



1% chance of being enacted.


That is a pretty good number, although it would be better if each were 0%. (I do think there's a good chance this will pass committee, but not pass the House or Senate)

I would like to look up the prognosis of this background check stuff.....but it hasnt even made it to become a bill yet......and hope it stays that way.
edit on 1-3-2013 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-3-2013 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


I also used that same link and found this.

www.govtrack.us...

Rand Paul introduced this bill and it has gone further through than Feinsteins AWB


A bill to provide that any executive action infringing on the Second Amendment has no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes.


Yes, it has a better chance of passing than the AWB


Prognosis



14% chance of being enacted.


ETA - Full name of the bill. "S. 82: Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013"
edit on 1-3-2013 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 




You're seriously objecting to a bill would make it harder for the mentally ill and criminals to obtain guns?

Is it legal to sell firearms to the mentally ill or criminals now?

Ooooooh, let's pass a law that makes it MORE ILLEGAL!

They have already tried that with drugs. Question: Is it hard to obtain illegal drugs where you live?
Is there a waiting period to buy heroin?
Do you have to provide proof of age to buy meth?
Do they do a background check to see if you have been deemed mentally ill?

and the best one.....

When a person buys illegal drugs in your area, do they have to pass a background check to prove that they are not a criminal?

Do you see how silly the laws are now?





top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join