Is House GOP Leadership Attaching Obama-Style Gun Control to Nat'l Reciprocity?

[jedi]

The fbi has a list of all the felons.
what else is needed?

Gun owners
Mental people
Gun owners again
Peopke who went to doc over "vocies in my head" but deemed ok
Gun owners

Get the point.
Turn in your guns mr n mrs america

 

[jamil]

Im still not completely sold on this bill (reciprocity) in the first place.

I generally agree with states rights, but also I think incorporation is a good idea. Just philosophically speaking, America is a collection of states with something in common. I think the core values of liberty should be a minimum requirement for membership. I don't think states should be permitted to become communist. I don't think states should be permitted to become theocracies. And I'm okay with saying that states should not have the power to deprive individuals the right to defend themselves, outside of due processes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I generally agree with states rights, but also I think incorporation is a good idea. Just philosophically speaking, America is a collection of states with something in common. I think the core values of liberty should be a minimum requirement for membership. I don't think states should be permitted to become communist. I don't think states should be permitted to become theocracies. And I'm okay with saying that states should not have the power to deprive individuals the right to defend themselves, outside of due processes.

I generally believe states should have much more power and autonomy than has been usurped by the feds. I'm willing to let California and New York vote themselves into reckless endangerment if that means I can build and possess fully automatic weapons, I can decide how I'm going to grow my own crops, decide what kind of light bulbs I can buy, etc. I'd like to have the option of moving to a state where I can pursue happiness than have a one sized-fits-all solution decided and homogenized by bureaucrats, judges, and politicians I dont get a say in if they get elected into office. I really like the vision the founders had at the get-go.

 

[jamil]

I generally believe states should have much more power and autonomy than has been usurped by the feds. I'm willing to let California and New York vote themselves into reckless endangerment if that means I can build and possess fully automatic weapons, I can decide how I'm going to grow my own crops, decide what kind of light bulbs I can buy, etc. I'd like to have the option of moving to a state where I can pursue happiness than have a one sized-fits-all solution decided and homogenized by bureaucrats, judges, and politicians I dont get a say in if they get elected into office. I really like the vision the founders had at the get-go.

I like the idea of federation of power, such that most power is reserved by governments most local to individuals, but there should be limits placed on their power over individuals. I don't want a one-size-fits-all either, and I don't think that's what we get when we say that there is a maximum limit to what any government level can do.

So rights like freedom of speech, the right to own weapons to protect one's self, property rights, due process, etcetera, should not be alienable by any state.

 

[2A_Tom]

The fbi has a list of all the felons.
what else is needed?

But they don't.

 

[jamil]

If we have to have a NICS, I'd rather it be based on due process rather than throwing a blanket over classes of people we think might be more dangerous than others. I still think a court should have to order that a person can't have firearms through some proceeding where both sides can present their case. So if we have to have a background check system, put all the names of people who have court orders banning them from owning firearms on the list, then the NICS check is only to see if you're on the list. If not, you get to buy. That covers the too dangerous felons and the too dangerous nutters and the too dangerous wife/husband beaters.

 

[2A_Tom]

The bill doesn't change who can or can't possess a gun, it actually doesn't do anything. It just reiterates that everyone who is already supposed to report, needs to report.

 

[Hoosierkav]

From HR4477 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr4477/text):

"...felony conviction records and domestic violence records" Is there a difference between conviction records and records? Is a report a record?

(a) State grant program for criminal justice identification, information, and communicationSection 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (34 U.S.C. 40301) is amended—
(1)in subsection (a)(3)— (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and (B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following: (C) identification of all individuals who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year


Are all misdemeanors less than one year? (that is, is this referring to felonies?) Is this ((C) above) the same definition as found in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_20?

This bill also discusses placing the Attorney General's opinion re: bumpstocks

 

[2A_Tom]

There are some misdemeanors that have 1 year imprisonment and they do prohibit possession.

It says that the Atty Gen must stydy all crimes committed with bumpstocks.

 

[jamil]

Hmmm... I don't like the idea of a database of who "can or can't" have a firearm, but I'm not so sure that a national database of who can't have a firearm isn't a good thing. What am I missing in this thinking?

I wouldn't have a problem with a national database of who can't have a firearm if, to get on the list, a court has ordered it, in a setting where the person has a chance to present his case, and there is an appeals process to get off the list. Those people are the only people who should be prohibited. Defining arbitrary classes of people who can't possess firearms, as it is now, is stereotypical, discriminative, is not sufficiently selective, and does not involve due process. It should be considered unconstitutional.

 

[2A_Tom]

I wouldn't have a problem with a national database of who can't have a firearm if, to get on the list, a court has ordered it, in a setting where the person has a chance to present his case, and there is an appeals process to get off the list. Those people are the only people who should be prohibited. Defining arbitrary classes of people who can't possess firearms, as it is now, is stereotypical, discriminative, is not sufficiently selective, and does not involve due process. It should be considered unconstitutional.

This bill includes a challenge/appeals process.

Please explain what you are reffering to in the statement in red.

 

[jamil]

This bill includes a challenge/appeals process.

I wish the bill includes requiring a court to order it rather than just establishing blanket classes of people who can't possess firearms. Short of that should be unconstitutional.

 

[2A_Tom]

You posted before my edit please explain who is prohibited by this bill.

 

[jamil]

I wouldn't have a problem with a national database of who can't have a firearm if, to get on the list, a court has ordered it, in a setting where the person has a chance to present his case, and there is an appeals process to get off the list. Those people are the only people who should be prohibited. Defining arbitrary classes of people who can't possess firearms, as it is now, is stereotypical, discriminative, is not sufficiently selective, and does not involve due process. It should be considered unconstitutional.

This bill includes a challenge/appeals process.

Please explain what you are reffering to in the statement in red.

You posted before my edit please explain who is prohibited by this bill.

As it is now.

Currently, all felons, violent or not, are prohibited. All persons adjudicated as mentally ill are prohibited whether violent or not. Go down the list of questions on the 4473. Those are all classes of people. I'm not trying to imply that the new bill establishes new classes of people to be prohibited. That's all current law.

I'm saying I wish the current bill would erase all that class nonsense and that the only people prohibited from possessing firearms should be people ordered by a court not to possess them. I'd say that would be the only constitutional way to deny someone a constitutional right.

 

[Expat]

The bill doesn't change who can or can't possess a gun, it actually doesn't do anything. It just reiterates that everyone who is already supposed to report, needs to report.

I read through the actual bill rather than the press releases of gun rights organization that love to try to smear the NRA every chance they get and this is what I got out of it. But I am not a lawyer and this bill kept referring to provisions in other laws (which I took as proof it wasn't any real change there) so I could be wrong.

 

[jamil]

I read through the actual bill rather than the press releases of gun rights organization that love to try to smear the NRA every chance they get and this is what I got out of it. But I am not a lawyer and this bill kept referring to provisions in other laws (which I took as proof it wasn't any real change there) so I could be wrong.

It's a shame that we need a law to say another law must be followed.

 

[Expat]

It's a shame that we need a law to say another law must be followed.

But they are taking to opportunity to spread some money around it looked like as well. That and the "study" on bump stocks... Pols seem to like to fund studies, like here in Indiana....

 

[jamil]

The study funding. Act like you're doing something and kick the can.

 

[2A_Tom]

As it is now.

Currently, all felons, violent or not, are prohibited. All persons adjudicated as mentally ill are prohibited whether violent or not. Go down the list of questions on the 4473. Those are all classes of people. I'm not trying to imply that the new bill establishes new classes of people to be prohibited. That's all current law.

I'm saying I wish the current bill would erase all that class nonsense and that the only people prohibited from possessing firearms should be people ordered by a court not to possess them. I'd say that would be the only constitutional way to deny someone a constitutional right.

I can not disagree with any of that. I think that would be another matter though.

As I see it, the NICS fix that essentially does nothing except provide money to do nothing was added to NR in order to garner dem votes.

I think that 6 dems in the house voted for it.

 

[Leadeye]

But they are taking to opportunity to spread some money around it looked like as well. That and the "study" on bump stocks... Pols seem to like to fund studies, like here in Indiana....

Somebody's friends get paid to do the study.

Always follow the money