10-08-2015, 04:34 PM
Once again trying to pass meaningless, feel-good laws
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/power...gislation/
Pretty sure it is already illegal to sell firearms to anyone who is the subject of a protection order. Since that is obtained by going before a judge I have no problem with that.
I do have a problem with preventing someone from purchasing a firearm if they are just the subject of a domestic abuse report. I had one of my firefighters accused by a jealous ex-girlfriend of domestic abuse, complete with a police report. It took him just shy of three months to get his record cleared and his ex charged with filing a false report despite the fact that he was on duty working an overtime shift the night he supposedly went to her house and beat her.
In order to buy a firearm from any of the on-line gun dealers you are required to work through a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer and have a background check before the transaction can be completed, so this is a law requiring something that there is already a law on the books.
Commercial dealers at gunshows are also required to do a background check prior to any sales so this is another law that is already on the books.
I can get with sales being held until the background check is completed as long as there is accompanying legislation greatly expanding the staffing and resources doing the checks to keep it within a reasonable amount of time. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a check of information contained in a computer database should take three days, yet last year there were over two hundred thousand checks that took longer than the three day period. Citizens should not be denied their basic Constitutional right because of federal government incompetence.
But the kicker is none of these useless, feel-good measures prompted by the Oregon shooting would have prevented it or any of the previous mass shootings. And going by the study that has been linked here many, many times it wouldn't prevent the weekly blood bath in Chicago. So what exactly are these supposed laws going to accomplish other than make the people with an irrational fear of guns have a false sense of security?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/power...gislation/
Quote:Senate Democrats plan to unveil a list of gun control principles on Thursday that they plan to use as the foundation for sweeping gun control legislation.
The three-part proposal — spearheaded by Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center Chairman Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) — includes closing background check loopholes for Internet and gun show sales, expanding the background check database and cracking down on the illegal gun market, according to a letter to Senate colleagues obtained by The Washington Post.
Quote:Democrats hope to expand background checks to include domestic abuse reports and prevent any gun purchases until a full background check is completed, according to the letter. The plan would also make it illegal for someone to buy a gun on behalf of someone else who is unable to buy a firearm legally.
Pretty sure it is already illegal to sell firearms to anyone who is the subject of a protection order. Since that is obtained by going before a judge I have no problem with that.
I do have a problem with preventing someone from purchasing a firearm if they are just the subject of a domestic abuse report. I had one of my firefighters accused by a jealous ex-girlfriend of domestic abuse, complete with a police report. It took him just shy of three months to get his record cleared and his ex charged with filing a false report despite the fact that he was on duty working an overtime shift the night he supposedly went to her house and beat her.
In order to buy a firearm from any of the on-line gun dealers you are required to work through a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer and have a background check before the transaction can be completed, so this is a law requiring something that there is already a law on the books.
Commercial dealers at gunshows are also required to do a background check prior to any sales so this is another law that is already on the books.
I can get with sales being held until the background check is completed as long as there is accompanying legislation greatly expanding the staffing and resources doing the checks to keep it within a reasonable amount of time. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a check of information contained in a computer database should take three days, yet last year there were over two hundred thousand checks that took longer than the three day period. Citizens should not be denied their basic Constitutional right because of federal government incompetence.
But the kicker is none of these useless, feel-good measures prompted by the Oregon shooting would have prevented it or any of the previous mass shootings. And going by the study that has been linked here many, many times it wouldn't prevent the weekly blood bath in Chicago. So what exactly are these supposed laws going to accomplish other than make the people with an irrational fear of guns have a false sense of security?