To Jim Eidel, I dont agree with your assessment that background checks don't work. And specifically that "bad guys", don't submit to firearms background checks.
In 2012, Colorado Bureau of Investigation blocked: 420 purchases for persons having an active restraining order 38 purchases for persons having a homicide record 12 purchases for persons having a kidnapping record 133 purchases for persons having a sexual assault record 618 purchases for persons having a burglary record 1380 purchases for persons having an assault record And so forth, for a total for 7,362 purchase denials.
Furthermore, 236 persons were arrested during the purchase (because of the background check) that were actual fugitives from justice.. **** In Pennsylvania, more than 1500 fugitives have been arrested when they identified themselves during a firearm background check.
Based on facts, it appears that "bad guys" do submit to background checks. **** The greatest flaw in the "never compromise the second amendment" is the "never compromise". That argument would seek to repeal the current Brady Act because it is a compromise of the Second Amendment.
Repeal the Brady Act and ANYONE (including the "bad guys" and persons not mentally stable) would have unrestricted ability to purchase.
By necessity, the "never compromise" agenda would repeal the existing firearms acts, allowing the purchase (by good and bad guys) of fully automatic firearms.
The "never compromise" position would permit the production, sale, and possession of plastic (undetectable) firearms.
I can't imagine that you really mean "never compromise", or do you?
It is well established under Ohio law that property owners can restrict who enters their property. Property owners can also be armed and they can authorize others to be armed on their property. Ohio schools can also authorize employees to be armed.
What Ohio law does allow is a property owner the privilege to post his property announcing that he does not allow just anyone to carry a gun onto his property.
You can keep repeating the myth that “there will be no opposition to their murderous rampages”, but is simply isn’t true. It still is a lie.
@hman, Regarding Newtown (post #7): If Nancy Lanza was a law abiding citizen, she should have known that purchasing a firearm for her prohibited (underage and mentally ill) son was a federal and state crime. One of the recent gun control measures increased the sentencing for that to 10 years. We will never know if that would have caused her to behave differently. Are you suggesting that the sentencing guides for straw purchase violations are OK as they are now?
I'd be interested in your source for the Napolitano statement. Regardless, I think you may be confusing enforcement with prosecution. Prosecutors have always had the prerogative to choose what charges are worthwhile pursuing. I think that you or I would be unhappy if our prosecutor spent any time trying to prove that a driver in a vehicular homicide case had been littering. The actuality is that some charges are just too petty, too time consuming, and costly to prosecute when there is a more significant crime involved.
Your last sentence that includes the phrase " stopped by intervention of righteous people either in advance...." Sounds like vigilantism, or "use of our second amendment remedies".
Couple that sentence with the previous one that equates mentally ill, political advocates, and ideologs with bad people and it sounds very close to being suggestive of the righteous should stop these people. How are you proposing that righteous people stop them? Using second amendment remedies?
Lastly, Your belief that the PROBLEM is with the "rest of us working on keeping guns out of the hands (of "bad guys"), is absurd. Your logic would suggest that "the problem" would be solved if we let the "bad guys" have guns.
91% of the Republican voted against background checks, 7% of Democrats voted against background checks.
Looks, feels, smells like a party-line vote ! (or a vote paid for by the NRA)
The votes on background checks had nothing to do with gun regulations or school safety or gun trafficking. The votes had everything to do with party and getting reelected.
What disturbs me even more than the rejection of background checks for COMMERCIAL sales, was the vote on the gun trafficking amendment. The amendment was crystal clear, it only increased the sentencing on convicted gun runners. And 93% of the republicans voted against it.
93% voted against harsher penalties for gun traffickers. These are the same Republicans that are saying that we need to get tough on gun crime!
These are the same Republicans that are so concerned about states rights that they threatened to rescind law enforcement grants to state and local governments is those governments decide to allow public access to concealed carry permits. Right, encourage enforcement of the laws by taking away grants for law enforcement.
@carney, Reid voted no to preserve the ability to reconsider, that's why he voted last. Maybe you need to brush up on procedure.
NSA phone surveillance Contract worker is source
"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President."
Snowmen claims that he had the capability to wiretap the President. Do you suppose that is an exaggeration?
June 10, 2013 at 5:57 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Beware of moles with evil intent
To Jim Eidel:
In 2102 according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (that administers the Brady Act in TN):
18,023 firearm transactions were denied for prohibitions.
9,937 transactions were appealed
4,581 transaction appeals were upheld
441 Stolen guns were identified by the background check system
469 fugitives from justice ("wanted" persons) were identified.
97% of all background checks over the entire year took less than 15 minutes.
86% of all background checks over the entire year took less than 5 minutes.
May 14, 2013 at 11:44 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Beware of moles with evil intent
To Jim Eidel,
I dont agree with your assessment that background checks don't work. And specifically that "bad guys", don't submit to firearms background checks.
In 2012, Colorado Bureau of Investigation blocked:
420 purchases for persons having an active restraining order
38 purchases for persons having a homicide record
12 purchases for persons having a kidnapping record
133 purchases for persons having a sexual assault record
618 purchases for persons having a burglary record
1380 purchases for persons having an assault record
And so forth, for a total for 7,362 purchase denials.
Furthermore, 236 persons were arrested during the purchase (because of the background check) that were actual fugitives from justice..
****
In Pennsylvania, more than 1500 fugitives have been arrested when they identified themselves during a firearm background check.
Based on facts, it appears that "bad guys" do submit to background checks.
****
The greatest flaw in the "never compromise the second amendment" is the "never compromise". That argument would seek to repeal the current Brady Act because it is a compromise of the Second Amendment.
Repeal the Brady Act and ANYONE (including the "bad guys" and persons not mentally stable) would have unrestricted ability to purchase.
By necessity, the "never compromise" agenda would repeal the existing firearms acts, allowing the purchase (by good and bad guys) of fully automatic firearms.
The "never compromise" position would permit the production, sale, and possession of plastic (undetectable) firearms.
I can't imagine that you really mean "never compromise", or do you?
May 13, 2013 at 11:13 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Young drivers are most at risk
Gun deaths are down significantly since 1993.
The Brady Act (background checks) was adopted in 1993.
Maybe background checks work!
May 8, 2013 at 11:38 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Reports: Gun deaths dropped steeply
Gun deaths dropped steeply since 1993.
Do you suppose that the Brady Act (background check law) that was adopted in 1993 might have anything to do with that?
May 8, 2013 at 10:16 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Charter issue like a loaded gun
Mr Johnson,
Regarding your concern about “gun free zones”.
It is well established under Ohio law that property owners can restrict who enters their property. Property owners can also be armed and they can authorize others to be armed on their property. Ohio schools can also authorize employees to be armed.
What Ohio law does allow is a property owner the privilege to post his property announcing that he does not allow just anyone to carry a gun onto his property.
You can keep repeating the myth that “there will be no opposition to their murderous rampages”, but is simply isn’t true. It still is a lie.
May 3, 2013 at 9:15 a.m. permalink suggest removal
An experiment in gun safety
@Hman,
Sorry that last part about intervention was intended to be adressed to Slicemaster.
April 26, 2013 at 11:32 a.m. permalink suggest removal
An experiment in gun safety
@hman,
Regarding Newtown (post #7):
If Nancy Lanza was a law abiding citizen, she should have known that purchasing a firearm for her prohibited (underage and mentally ill) son was a federal and state crime. One of the recent gun control measures increased the sentencing for that to 10 years. We will never know if that would have caused her to behave differently. Are you suggesting that the sentencing guides for straw purchase violations are OK as they are now?
I'd be interested in your source for the Napolitano statement. Regardless, I think you may be confusing enforcement with prosecution. Prosecutors have always had the prerogative to choose what charges are worthwhile pursuing.
I think that you or I would be unhappy if our prosecutor spent any time trying to prove that a driver in a vehicular homicide case had been littering. The actuality is that some charges are just too petty, too time consuming, and costly to prosecute when there is a more significant crime involved.
Your last sentence that includes the phrase " stopped by intervention of righteous people either in advance...."
Sounds like vigilantism, or "use of our second amendment remedies".
Couple that sentence with the previous one that equates mentally ill, political advocates, and ideologs with bad people and it sounds very close to being suggestive of the righteous should stop these people. How are you proposing that righteous people stop them? Using second amendment remedies?
Lastly,
Your belief that the PROBLEM is with the "rest of us working on keeping guns out of the hands (of "bad guys"), is absurd. Your logic would suggest that "the problem" would be solved if we let the "bad guys" have guns.
April 26, 2013 at 11:23 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Obama: Republicans decide 'it wasn't worth it' to protect America's children
Opps, Really should have said the all 80,000 didn't necessarily commit perjury, they were just initial denials.
April 19, 2013 at 3:12 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Sensible gun measure defeated by a minority in the US Senate
91% of the Republican voted against background checks,
7% of Democrats voted against background checks.
Looks, feels, smells like a party-line vote ! (or a vote paid for by the NRA)
The votes on background checks had nothing to do with gun regulations or school safety or gun trafficking. The votes had everything to do with party and getting reelected.
What disturbs me even more than the rejection of background checks for COMMERCIAL sales, was the vote on the gun trafficking amendment. The amendment was crystal clear, it only increased the sentencing on convicted gun runners. And 93% of the republicans voted against it.
93% voted against harsher penalties for gun traffickers. These are the same Republicans that are saying that we need to get tough on gun crime!
These are the same Republicans that are so concerned about states rights that they threatened to rescind law enforcement grants to state and local governments is those governments decide to allow public access to concealed carry permits.
Right, encourage enforcement of the laws by taking away grants for law enforcement.
@carney,
Reid voted no to preserve the ability to reconsider, that's why he voted last. Maybe you need to brush up on procedure.
April 19, 2013 at 3:05 p.m. permalink suggest removal