|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 27, 2013, 01:19 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Sen. Graham VS Police chief
I just came across this video of an exchange between Senator Lindsey Graham and a police chief about the background checks conducted on gun buyers.
I hope this does not come across as a drive by. Senator Graham asks the good chief how many background checks lead to a refusal of sale. The chief responds that he is trying to keep illegal guns off the street and he does not have the time or resources to conduct background checks. HELLO! Something is majorly wrong with the attitude of the chief. Notice Senator Feinstein attempts to rescue the chief. Disappointing, but expected response, from the chief. http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/50973555#50973555
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
February 27, 2013, 01:29 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I think this clears the "drive-by hurdle."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 27, 2013, 01:30 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Thank you. What is your read on this exchange?
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
February 27, 2013, 01:34 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
My read? Police Chief doesn't want to answer the question. He's sticking to his guns that prosecuting people for trying to buy when they fail a background check is a "paperwork prosecution."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 27, 2013, 02:02 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
From his point of view, he doesn't have to do anything to make the background checks happen. All the work and overhead is carried by the purchaser, the FFL dealer, and the Feds with NCIS. It doesn't cost him anything to keep them going and it costs him nothing to enforce them cause they "Don't chase after paper violations".
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|
February 27, 2013, 02:18 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
I have to say, I think BAAAADDD things are coming. I just really do not see anything other than a real conflict brewing. What is unknown at this point is the "Concord Bridge."
I just read of a mayor, in Florida I believe, who wants to be able to confiscate firearms during a time of civil unrest. . .which is one of the PRIMARY reasons of keeping a firearm. One wonders if she ever heard what went on in New Orleans after Katrina when law abiding citizens were forcibly dis-armed.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
February 27, 2013, 02:20 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
One wonders if she is familiar with Florida's state preemption, and if she realizes she could get her city sued and fined...
|
February 27, 2013, 02:24 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
|
|
February 27, 2013, 02:29 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
I may have mis-spoke about the location. I think you are correct.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
February 27, 2013, 02:49 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
The discussion of whether or not to prosecute over they lying on the 4473 is directly tied to the effectiveness of increasing the background checks. The refusal to prosecute on that based on manpower issues, or whether is a local/fed charge needs to be worked out, or else any increase will continue in "passing the buck" on in to the future. In the end you have a snowball effect of "ineffective laws" not because they are actually "ineffective" but because they are just not enforced in a level, standard practice in the various jurisdictions to make them actually effective.
Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; February 27, 2013 at 02:55 PM. |
February 27, 2013, 05:54 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
what the police chief is saying is that the background checks don't matter. He considers it just "paper".
Graham like the rest of us are being bamboozled,. The entire hearing had virtually nothing about the supposed priority and compromise on background check loopholes being closed. The only thing being accomplished at these hearings by the "post constitutionalists" is their intended strategy: keep the focus off of felons and on legal gun owners as the problem. |
February 27, 2013, 06:17 PM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Lawyers, guns & $$$...
The politics, egos & hysteria is really starting to bug me.
In a recent legal incident in my metro area, the local state's atty office prosecutors decided to DROP gun & 10/20/life laws(designed to improve "gun safety" ) against a career criminal/convicted felon who shot a AK-47 at cops! This isn't made up or exaggerated either. PM me & I can fill any TFL members in. I'm considering contacting the main NRA-ILA office in NOVA so they can make this a national media story. It's another sad example of how the anti-gun & slanted politicos burn the citizens they claim to protect. Clyde |
February 27, 2013, 08:14 PM | #13 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: US
Posts: 7
|
I joined this forum specifically to address comments made in this thread.
It is clear that there are people here who do not understand the manpower problems faced by law enforcement agencies in this country. Coupled with rapidly shrinking budgets and downsizing of personnel, agencies are forced to further prioritize assignments. Agencies barely have the time and resources to meet current needs (calls, investigations resulting from same, training, etc.). While they continue to provide service to their communities to the best of their ability, they are not supermen, although it appears they are expected to be. While it would be ideal if crime could be stopped at the gun counter the reality is that the system in place is inadequate to the task. True background checks would require an enormous increase in manpower and probably the establishment of a new federal (sub)agency. Senator Graham's suggestion that law enforcement prosecute people for attempting to buy a firearm and subsequently failing the background check evinces a fundamental brand of ignorance regarding police operations in the United States and a clear dismissal of Second Amendment rights. Chief Flynn did not avoid the question. He was continually interrupted while trying to explain the realities of policing in a bad economy and, consequently, why the senator's expectation was unrealistic. Proactive firearms management (buybacks, background checks) by the government is unrealistic in the United States because of the Second Amendment. There are too many firearms possessed legally and illegally to establish such a program and to enforce its dictates. Therefore, the major focus must be on firearms that are already on the streets illegally. The Owl |
February 27, 2013, 09:01 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
I wish someone could have explained to that grieving father that the term "assault weapon" is a misnomer. He said these weapons have been used in various American military conflicts, such as Vietnam, the Gulf War, etc...yes, and hand guns, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles are used by the military too. He said these weapons can really "lay down a lot of lead," when they fire no faster than an ordinary handgun.
I know I am preaching to the choir here, but just saying what I wish someone would explain to the parents of the victims shot. |
February 27, 2013, 09:01 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Senator Graham and Chief Flynn agree on one thing: law enforcement can't track down folks who are breaking existing firearms laws. Therefore, how will passing more laws make their job easier? Graham was trying to make a point, and if he had been willing to have a two-way conversation, he may have found Flynn agreeing with him. Instead, it turned into an argument, which is unfortunate.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 27, 2013, 09:09 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Welcome to The Firing Line, The Owl!
You do have a good point about budgets and resources: Quote:
I have to disagree on the issue of whether Flynn avoided the question. Yes, he was interrupted, but he was making no effort to answer the question. He was working hard at repeating his mantra: "paperwork prosecution." When asked "how many?," there was no "approximately," or even "I don't have those figures." He launched straight into "we don't chase paperwork prosecutions."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; February 27, 2013 at 09:18 PM. |
|
February 27, 2013, 09:17 PM | #17 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: US
Posts: 7
|
I agree that a figure or two probably would have satisfied the senator. The fact is though that I respect Flynn more for having stood his ground.
I don't want a man in uniform who withers when being questioned by a politician. |
February 27, 2013, 09:19 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Quote:
It really makes little difference if existing laws and regulations are not enforced because of budget/manpower constraints. The end result is the same. . .non compliance. Adding new regulations on top of the ones in place will not have the desired effect of increasing compliance or identifying those who should not be in possession of firearms.
__________________
Geetarman Carpe Cerveza |
|
February 27, 2013, 09:20 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 710
|
Unfortunately we can't seem to have an actual conversation in this country where people actually take the time to drill down into the details. I don't see any problems being solved or rational answers being discovered when limited to 10 minutes of dialog.
I wonder if it ever occurred to the antis that 2A supporters might be able to provide answers on how to reduce gun crime...and truthfully, I don't think they are interested in that as much as getting rid of that amendment as soon as possible. |
February 27, 2013, 09:23 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
February 27, 2013, 09:25 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
Whenever I hear the cry of poverty concerning enforcement, I all ways remember the same argument against a former Mayor of NYC who ordered his department to prosecute petty crimes.
Despite the resistance of the Police and Prosecutors he persevered and NYC is a safer place. Prosecution of certain crimes are not glamorous. They do not generate headlines. They do not support the careers of ambitious cops prosecutors and politicians. What they do is cut crime at the base level by intervening with the entry level criminal and possibly break the cycle. Money and time is available for the things managers want. |
February 27, 2013, 09:33 PM | #22 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: US
Posts: 7
|
Quote:
It is the equivalent of prosecuting someone for asking a question. That is what the current background check basically is. It is permission to purchase a firearm based on a number of established criteria. May I purchase a firearm? Maybe. Answer these questions first. May I purchase a firearm? Based on your answers, yes/no. It's a simple program - if/then. Pardon my computerspeak. No one should be punished for asking a question. [EDIT] I should add an example. Would you prosecute someone who is mentally ill for attempting to purchase? Is it a crime to be mentally ill? No, it's not. Last edited by The Owl; February 27, 2013 at 09:48 PM. |
|
February 27, 2013, 09:45 PM | #23 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
The fact that he gave none of these, but simply repeated "paperwork prosecutions" leads me to believe that he was simply there to provide a useful soundbite (soundbyte?). Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
February 27, 2013, 09:52 PM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
February 27, 2013, 09:56 PM | #25 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: US
Posts: 7
|
Flynn is the chief of the Milwaukee PD.
My citation in Italics was a simplistic representation of the process, perhaps too simplistic. In my opinion, the penalty for false answers should be a permanent record of the attempt to purchase and the nature of the lie(s). |
|
|