Obama May Change His Mind On Assault Weapons Ban

[RPB]

President Obama May Change His Mind On Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.yourblackworld.net/2013/01/b ... t-weapons/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The news will be disappointing to those who believed President Obama would possibly use Executive Orders as well as Legislative Orders ...

more at link above

[mojo84]

Sounds like a head fake to me.

[K.Mooneyham]

This would go right along with what I was saying in my earlier forum "incarnation"...they push for the most outrageous thing to set the bar very high...then back down to what they REALLY want so that it seems "reasonable" in comparison. No matter what, we are still not going to be happy with it...the only question is how unhappy we will be. Their standard methodology is incrementalism.

[Stripes Dude]

Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here), or requiring more restrictions relating to mental health. I may go as far as to suggest that anyone who has firearms, and lives with or provides access to their home people with certain mental health issues, would have greater restrictions on how their guns are stored and who can access them. How this would be enforced is the issue.

If I can sign an affidavit to let DPS check my medical history for red flags when applying for a CHL, why can't this system be beefed up, on a national level? What's stopping a mental health check from working? I'm sure I have oversimplified it, and nailing down which mental health issues are red flags wouldn't be easy.

Sometimes the privacy laws restricting access to our medical history may restrict the liberties of other citizens. Like my 1st grade teacher who punished the whole class because no one would turn in the kid who stole the cookie - unless we create a system to identify who shouldn't have access to guns based on their mental state, we all may suffer.

If giving up some ground in the negotiation with Obama means tougher background checks and restrictions on who has access to firearms, means we can keep modern sporting rifles and magazines with >10 rounds, then this seems like a compromise that is reasonable.

[tallmike]

Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here), or requiring more restrictions relating to mental health. I may go as far as to suggest that anyone who has firearms, and lives with or provides access to their home people with certain mental health issues, would have greater restrictions on how their guns are stored and who can access them. How this would be enforced is the issue.

If I can sign an affidavit to let DPS check my medical history for red flags when applying for a CHL, why can't this system be beefed up, on a national level? What's stopping a mental health check from working? I'm sure I have oversimplified it, and nailing down which mental health issues are red flags wouldn't be easy.

Sometimes the privacy laws restricting access to our medical history may restrict the liberties of other citizens. Like my 1st grade teacher who punished the whole class because no one would turn in the kid who stole the cookie - unless we create a system to identify who shouldn't have access to guns based on their mental state, we all may suffer.

If giving up some ground in the negotiation with Obama means tougher background checks and restrictions on who has access to firearms, means we can keep modern sporting rifles and magazines with >10 rounds, then this seems like a compromise that is reasonable.

This is the reason we are going to lose this fight. I believe very strongly in compromise, but certain things that "sound reasonable" are not.

We could start a federal system to gain government approval for church sermons, newspaper columns, and blogs too. We might also want to find a government functionary who can decide which applications of the 5th amendment are reasonable and which are simply guilty folks hiding something. 4 amendment protections are pretty broad too, there should be an agency full of political appointees to decide where those rights start and stop.

[RottenApple]

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks

How, exactly? The current background check (at least for TxCHL) is quite thorough.

eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here)

Right. Because criminals are going to care that they can't sell a gun without a background check. Please. Once again this only impacts the law-abiding and does nothing to address the criminal element.

requiring more restrictions relating to mental health.

I have a huge issue with someone's rights being taken away without due process. It is not, or shouldn't be, up to a doctor, or the BATFE, to remove a person's 2nd Amendment rights. It should be required that the government prove that the person is too dangerous and/or mentally unstable to retain those rights in a court of law.

If giving up some ground in the negotiation with Obama means tougher background checks and restrictions on who has access to firearms, means we can keep modern sporting rifles and magazines with >10 rounds, then this seems like a compromise that is reasonable.

I disagree. Gun owners have been compromising for decades. It's time to stop giving away our rights one tiny step at a time.

[SRH78]

The problem with giving a little at a time is that eventually, you still end up with nothing.

One side giving ground each time isn't compromise.

[anygunanywhere]

The problem with giving a little at a time is that eventually, you still end up with nothing.

One side giving ground each time isn't compromise.

Thank you. Succint and to the point.

Anygunanywhere

[DEB]

Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here), or requiring more restrictions relating to mental health. I may go as far as to suggest that anyone who has firearms, and lives with or provides access to their home people with certain mental health issues, would have greater restrictions on how their guns are stored and who can access them. How this would be enforced is the issue.

If I can sign an affidavit to let DPS check my medical history for red flags when applying for a CHL, why can't this system be beefed up, on a national level? What's stopping a mental health check from working? I'm sure I have oversimplified it, and nailing down which mental health issues are red flags wouldn't be easy.

Sometimes the privacy laws restricting access to our medical history may restrict the liberties of other citizens. Like my 1st grade teacher who punished the whole class because no one would turn in the kid who stole the cookie - unless we create a system to identify who shouldn't have access to guns based on their mental state, we all may suffer.

If giving up some ground in the negotiation with Obama means tougher background checks and restrictions on who has access to firearms, means we can keep modern sporting rifles and magazines with >10 rounds, then this seems like a compromise that is reasonable.

Everything has costs associated with it. How much did it cost for your CHL and only the state costs, not the training? Would you like to give your children a firearm? So, $145 for the state and $25 for the FFL, just to give your kid a gun even if you passed on? This is at current prices. Right now, how long does it take DPS to complete the checks for your CHL? Now we increase the amount of people seeking background checks? What mental health issues are your referring to? I believe the Psychological types are looking to put any gun owner as having social issues. Military who have been in combat are even now being looked at with some suspicion. Just a rewrite of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is on its 4th edition and 5th revision since 1952, could add or remove any stated disorder as they wish, and often due only to politics. This to me is akin to using the no fly list to prevent someone from purchasing a firearm. Once a Law is approved that states that something must be stored/maintained in a certain way, it needs to be enforced. Look at England, one must store an approved firearm within a safe and L.E. has the right to enter at any time to ensure compliance. Now certain drugs, tobacco and alcohol are heavily restricted, what has changed for those wishing to imbibe? Nothing is free, especially freedom. Abuses will always occur, one cannot legislate and enforce perfect behavior even with very harsh penalties. North Korea is a prime example and even they have issues in enforcement. IMO no more compromise, as with those who are anti-gun it is not a true compromise it is only surrender, although currently only incrementally which is like dying of the thousand cuts.

[WildBill]

If I can sign an affidavit to let DPS check my medical history for red flags when applying for a CHL, why can't this system be beefed up, on a national level? What's stopping a mental health check from working? I'm sure I have oversimplified it, and nailing down which mental health issues are red flags wouldn't be easy.

I am sure that most would agree that a person diagnosed with schizophrenria or bi-polar disorder should be on the list. So let's make up this list. People who have been prescribed lithium or thorazine would probably be schizophrenic or bi-polar so let's get a list from the pharamcy of every patient who prescribed these drugs.

What about people who are depressed, they could shoot themselves or, even worse, children. Let's get a list of all of those people who have taken Prozac, etc.

What about people who don't agree with the policies of the government? A person must be crazy to diagree with the president and all of his terrific ideas. I am sure where you can see I am going with this argument. It is sometimes called the slipperly slope. Where does it end?

[JALLEN]

A young man stole one of my pistols while working on a remodel at the house then sold it to a gang banger for cash, no background check, no credit check, no ten day waiting period, no DOJ clearance, and most grievously for this cash strapped state, no sales tax, as we law-abiding folk have to endure in California. The gang banger who was caught with it, loaded, under the seat of his car at 3 AM in a high school parking lot, claimed he "bought it from some dude for $200."

The people you don't want to have guns don't give a flip about the laws, what the Legislature thinks or does, and if he happens to get caught, he is awarded an all expense scholarship to "graduate school." That he is banned thereafter for life from owning or possessing a weapon bothers him not in the least.

Whether it is handguns, so-called assault rifles, Class III's or whatever, all the laws have done is prevent, or discourage we law abiding citizens from owning and possessing any kind of weapons at all, by increasing the cost, hassle, inconvenience and risks.

It is comforting to imagine a state of affairs whether the mentally challenged, personality disorders, criminally inclined etc. aren't able to walk in and buy guns, but I've yet to hear a proposal that assured that without also assuring abuse. I've gotten e-mails warning me about admitting to VA medical staff that I own weapons. I never go to the VA anyway, but that there are warnings and possibilities of abuse freezes me out.

[C-dub]

That sure is rough, Andy, but there are going to be vets that truly are mentally incompetent as a result of their PTSD and should not have or be around firearms. I don't know what can be done to separate the two different types of people.

[RottenApple]

That sure is rough, Andy, but there are going to be vets that truly are mentally incompetent as a result of their PTSD and should not have or be around firearms. I don't know what can be done to separate the two different types of people.

We already have a process for preventing mentally unstable people from gaining legal access to firearms. It's called the 5th Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I have a HUGE problem with the VA, a doctor, or a federal agency (BATFE, for example) just arbitrarily deciding that someone should lose their rights. This is something that MUST be adjudicated in a court of law.

[WildBill]

Here's an actual case:

The specific benefit is called the “Aid and Assistance/Housebound” and is meant for veterans so disabled that they cannot take care of themselves at all. It allows a small stipend to help a designated caretaker provide for the severely-disabled vet. Sgt. Wayne Irelan of Arkansas, wounded in combat in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart, made the mistake of signing up for this benefit ...

Leave it to AndyC to post something real and that I wouldn't even have the imagination to make up.