Obama wants gun control talks to resume.

[hogdogs]

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...gun-violence/1

In this article, he states that he does favor new legislation of some sort but doesn't get into detail.

If this is already being discussed, I apologize but didn't see it in a quick scan of the front page here.

I sure hope the pro gun side of the coin is ready to handle this and nip it in the bud!

Brent

[BGutzman]

Only goes to show how out of touch he is with the general sentiment of most states. I could be wrong but I dont see this going anywhere, theres bigger fish to fry so to speak.

[jimpeel]

Still one more effort to bring an ever increasing number of people into the system. How would one think that an overarching pseudo dictator would do that? You simply hold everything they have ever done, and everything they will ever do, against them and use that as a disqualifier.

Just how deep that will go is up to those who (will) make the rules. It is not outside of reality to believe that those who wish to change the status of those they wish to control is without measure. If they had their way, anyone who has ever had an unpaid parking ticket -- or who has ever been issued one -- would be denied the right to firearms.

They tell us that this is for our own good, the good of society, and to quell firearms violence. However, those who hold absolute control over firearms will also hold absolute control over firearms violence. The haves over the have-nots as it were.

Ayn Rand was not far off when she wrote:

"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

IE: Put everyone in the system as having done something wrong and you can exclude everyone from any function you desire. It's a simple equation.

[jmortimer]

Nothing will make it out of the House but the POTUS loves to regulate what he dislikes out of existance.

[kozak6]

Here is a better link:
http://azstarnet.com/article_011e711...fbc9dc89d.html

It's the entirety of what he said.


This seems rather strange. Until right now, Obama has been suspiciously quiet about 2nd Amendment matters, almost like he's gone out of his way to keep his mouth shut. The other part is that it seems like he waited until too long after the Tuscon shooting to say something about it.

Here's my favorite part:

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.

I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

I guess he knows us pretty well .

[Kreyzhorse]

I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

He got that right, however, the pro-gun side isn't the only one scream about wild eyed schemes. Any attempt to regulate firearms is too much from the pro-gun side and not enough from the Brady side.

[thallub]

Its about gun control by increments.

If you allow the antis to pass their "common sense" gun control legislation that "will not effect your Second Amendment rights": Next year they will pass another "common sense" gun control scheme that "will not effect your Second Amendment rights". Pretty soon your Second Amendment rights will all be gone.

Does anyone remember Chuckie Schumer gloating after the AWB was passed: "Just wait until you see the rest of the camel."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns.

Becuase nobody wants to take away your guns, right? 1994 wasn't that long ago... "If I could get 51 votes in the Senate, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” - Sen. Diane Feinstein. I wonder if he has considered that the reason people have that fear is because of the many well-documented attempts to do just that via incremental legislation?

This seems rather strange. Until right now, Obama has been suspiciously quiet about 2nd Amendment matters, almost like he's gone out of his way to keep his mouth shut.

Just good old fashioned politics... when he actually had the power to pass such legislation, he kept his mouth shut and said nothing. Now that he knows such legislation will never pass the House, he can do the old song and dance and collect money from his base while at the same time testing what kind of "gun control" (if any) sells to the public at large.

I think it is still questionable as a strategy though - for most people, gun control isn't even on the priority list. Those people will be annoyed you are off chasing non-issues while major issues are ignored. The number of people who will be excited about it are too small to swing even the local dogcatcher election and at the same time, it will drag you down with many voters who do like guns. That's just my take on it though.

[Musketeer]

It's a political move to reassure the far left he is one of them. They are pretty unhappy with him recently and he needs to be wary of a challenger, damaging primary and/or people not turning up at the polls. The "change" thing doesn't work any more and the resumption of military tribunals at Guantanamo has the far left frothing. Without the big promises being kept he needs to keep his core motivated and spewing anti-gun stuff does that while using "reasonable" terms keeps him palatable to the Fudds who are supposedly pro 2A but are actually one of our biggest weaknesses due to the aid and support they give the enemy.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just a warning folks - go off into general politics, rants, etc. and you will be gone with no appeal.

If you read the piece and react to the specifics with logic and rationality, you can play.

If you decide to play, there are legitimate L and CR issues.

1. It is pretty clear that at VT, the state system failed in identifying Cho and having him in the NICS system. Lochner was similarly troublesome. His school acted against him quite appropriately.

So what is the line for a NICS report?

Will such reports blocking FFLs sales deter the deranged? We don't really know as it is a negative. One can get around NICS with strawman sales. One could institute NICS tables at gun shows for private sales.

2. If we have tougher reporting, what is the level of false positives that we will accept - with appropriate appeal mechanisms?

3. Is a tougher systems really a slippery slope so that the camel can slide into the tent? Certainly, gun rights are on the ascension.

Etc.

So keep it rational and on the issues. Or else. I see some political references above - let's tone it down now.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

1. It is pretty clear that at VT, the state system failed in identifying Cho and having him in the NICS system. Lochner was similarly troublesome. His school acted against him quite appropriately.

So what is the line for a NICS report?

I think one important issue raised by Virginia Tech shooting addresses the current split in law among the circuit courts. As it stands now, the 5th and 8th Circuit take the view that unless the state involuntarily committed you to a mental hospital under a hearing with due process you do not lose your 2nd Amendment rights.

The First Circuit takes the view that "adjudicated mentally ill" indicates Congress intended to cover a broader range of people than just those involuntarily committed and even a temporary detention for observation (similar to Florida's Baker Act) can permanently deprive you of your Second Amendment rights, even if the state law you were detained under specifically does not intend to remove your firearms rights.

The Cho case falls right into that gap. Cho did have an adversarial hearing where he was found to be a danger to himself or others. He was temporarily detained and then ordered into outpatient treatment. Under Virginia law, Cho would not have lost his firearms rights. Under federal law, he might have, depending on what circuit court heard the case.

I think the case shows a real problem - in that I don't really have a problem with people with a long history of mental illness who are found to be a danger to themselves or others in an adversarial court hearing being denied the right to bear arms. However, I do have a real problem with non-judicial, non-adversarial hearings resulting in only temporary detentions being used to have the same effect.

2. If we have tougher reporting, what is the level of false positives that we will accept - with appropriate appeal mechanisms?

A big issue now is that there is no appeal from being a prohibited person. Once you are on that list, you are there practically forever as Congress has not chosen to fund the appeals process.

The NICS Improvement Act created an appeals process for mental illness prohibitions that would be administered by the states; but so far the states have declined to set up that process. Since they also don't get any additional federal funds to improve their NICS records if they don't do this, it is pretty much the same situation that existed before the Act.

3. Is a tougher systems really a slippery slope so that the camel can slide into the tent? Certainly, gun rights are on the ascension.

It hasn't been that long ago that was not the case though. One of the great things about TFL is you can read some of the debates from the Columbine-era where it looked like we were going to get yet another piece of bad legislation on top of the Brady Act, Lautenberg Amendment and AWB. I'm a lot more politically savvy than I was then; but I think the concern over slippery slopes is a very realistic one - especially given some of the past statements by people on the other side of this debate.

[USAFNoDak]

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

I'm not sure if it's most gun control advocates who believe that. I would guess that some do. However, some that do are likely also not to care that we gun owners are responsible citizens. What they don't like is the access to guns by so many, period. That is why they always compare the US to other "gun restricted" or so-called "gun free" nations. It matters not to them that most gun owners are responsible. In their minds, the presence of guns means the availability of guns for criminals and the deranged. Only severe restriction of guns will have any positive effect, in their opinion. That is precisely the path the British went down. Guns are only allowed at govt. approved gun/shooting clubs.

It is my opinion that many of the gun control advocates believe that the USSC erred in their findings on whether the 2nd A. indeed protects an individual right. Obama says he believes the 2A does protect an individual right. However, I believe he's on record favoring and voting for bans of certain types of firearms when he was a state senator in Illinois. I'm guessing he favors a renewed assault weapons ban, but understands that isn't possible at this moment in time.

Gun show promoters may be forced to have their licensed sellers run background checks for the unlicensed sellers if they are going to continue to allow unlicensed sellers to sell firearms at their shows. I can see that one coming at some point in time as part of "closing the gun show loophole". Most people don't understand that term and believe that any criminal can go to a gun show and buy any gun he wants because there is a lack of background checks. We know that isn't true. However, people who want to "close the gun show loophole" will always be able to say that guns CAN be sold at a gun show without a background check. That isn't untrue, even if it's not telling the whole story.

[powerstrk]

You may want to read the artical I found on The Daily Beast about thoughts about the gun debates in Washington right now.

http://http://www.thedailybeast.com/...=hp:mainpromo6

If the link does not work go to The Dailybeast.com Title: 2045 shot dead since tucson

[NJgunowner]

I'm of two minds about the whole gun show thing. Unfortunately it will always attract negative press by the anti gun crowd. It is very easy for ANYONE to walk into a gun show, and as long you aren't a raving loon buy from an unlicensed seller. You will also always have sellers who only care about getting the cash and very little else. It may only be a small minority, but it exists.

I really don't have a problem with requiring background checks in accordance to state law for ALL sellers at a gun show and require the organizers to provide NICS checks (for a fee) as a service to sellers.

Then again I live in NJ so it would be nice to even HAVE a gun show, but might as well wish for it to rain rum

[hogdogs]

The whole problem with requiring "private sellers" to do a back ground check at a gun show is that the wording will likely make ALL private sales require this.

I feel for those in places that already have this legislation.

Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That would be a reasonable prediction of an expansion for all private transfers by antigunners. They almost were joyful that Loughner gave them the chance to pontificate again.

The dividing line would be if shows are a specific concentrated venue that eases sales to bad guys that are economically motivated or gang related vs. the disturbed like Cho or Loughner.

Then can anti-Cho/Loughner measures be used for general gun control purposes? The Obama op-ed is oriented towards those but the anti-gun forces would try for the broader applications.

[NJgunowner]

I believe most gun owners would support REAL common sense approaches to keeping guns away from criminals or the mentally ill, but the anti gun crowd would never let it stand at that. They just can't help themselves. Since we can't trust them to do it right, we can't let them do it at all.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A reasonable alternative is to allow campus and work carry. Unfortunately, antigunners oppose as do business interests (who buy out 'conservative' politicians or use the private property arugment in a totally hypocritical and disengenous manner).

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

A reasonable alternative is to allow campus and work carry.

Depends whether your focus is on stopping crimes in progress -- which would be a good in itself -- or on preventing them. I'm aware of the argument that campus/work carry would be a deterrent, but I don't find it convincing, given that a number of rampage shootings do occur in places where carry is permitted; the Tucson shootings are a case in point.

The three concrete proposals made by the President are actually quite modest, and have to do entirely with enforcing existing laws, making the current system more effective by improving state/federal communication, and making it easier for sellers to carry out background checks if they want to "do the right thing." If you read attentively, he's being very careful not to propose making background checks mandatory for private sales.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

I think the case shows a real problem - in that I don't really have a problem with people with a long history of mental illness who are found to be a danger to themselves or others in an adversarial court hearing being denied the right to bear arms. However, I do have a real problem with non-judicial, non-adversarial hearings resulting in only temporary detentions being used to have the same effect.

This is exactly right. Depriving someone of rights as a result of a judicial hearing -- some form of due process -- is one thing, but doing so on any other basis, such as medical records alone, should be out of the question.

[pgdion]

I don't see where he can afford the time or the approval points to take on such a battle. Seems he has so many bigger things to worry about and his ratings aren't all that strong. Unless he really wants to divert some attention from his other actions/results???

"In this article, he states that he does favor new legislation of some sort but doesn't get into detail."

Is kind of becoming his defacto ...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't think that carry is deterrent in nature for the Cho's or Loughner's. Given their suicidial ideation, death is part of the package for rampage shooters, in general.

However, I want to have the ability to mitigate the incident if I can (not as a commando charging). We have some incidents where it has worked well. The Denver Church and Pearl, Mississippi.

Everything is a filter to prevent casualities. Better mental health reporting and carry are solutions.

[Tom Servo]

The three concrete proposals made by the President are actually quite modest, and have to do entirely with enforcing existing laws (...) If you read attentively, he's being very careful not to propose making background checks mandatory for private sales.

I noticed that as well. As someone else mentioned, he's playing to the crowd that elected him, while trying his best not to alienate the center. Hence his veiled claim that national park carry was something he supported, rather than something he was forced to swallow.

I just don't see the current administration getting gun control passed in the current situation.

It would take nothing short of a miracle (or a crisis he can handle) to get the current President elected for a second term. He's deep in lame duck territory at the moment, which leaves him as more of a functionary than a leader. In this position, he can conceivably push some of his pet causes under the logic that he's got nothing to lose.

We can compare him (loosely) with LBJ in 1968. The big difference is that there was widespread support for gun control then, while there is very little now. Dianne Feinstein made a call for stricter controls immediately following the Tuscon shooting, and the Speaker of the House shut that idea down almost instantly.

So, let the guy write his op-eds. I'm keeping my eyes peeled, but I don't see any reason to worry right now.

[markj]

All responsible gun owners need to write their state law makers and let them know how they feel on this subject.

I read an article yesturday written by a VT survivor, even after he was shot 4 times, he still belives we need less guns and is for laws to take guns away as if the less than law abiding will turn theirs in.

These folks live in a dream world where they IMAGINE everyone lives in harmony and peace. HA, as if that will ever happen. So since them folks have had the ears of congress for so many years, we all need to step up and let them know we will vote em out if they enact laws that may harm our freedom and safety.

Speak up to the right people.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There seems to be two responses to rampages. In TX, after Luby's in Kileen - Dr. Gratia-Hupp felt a reasonable measure was concealed carry.

After the LIRR shooting and Harvey Milk, Rep. McCarthy and Feinstein respectively, thought that bans would prevent massacres.

Interesting to know what channels folks to each solution (without surface psychobabble). Obvious to me that I want the option not to be a simple target.

But not to some, they think it can be prevented. The issue is whether tightening of mental health regs and reports for some who seem obvious - like Cho and Loughner - would be helpful and practical.

Those who think total bans and confiscation would work don't know the evidence. Most predictors of violence are unsuccessful or prone to false positives at an unacceptable level. Cho and Loughner probably should have reached the current limits for report but the systems failed.

[PawPaw]

Loughner lied on his 4473. He was a well known user of marijuana and he lied when he checked block 11e. If he would have told the truth, the sale would have been immediately stopped.

SO, the question becomes: Has the DOJ initiated prosecution for Loughner lying on the 4473? Crickets, people. It ain't happening.

This isn't about licensed dealers and the NICS. That part is a smoke-screen. If you read some left-leaning media, you start to see the whole picture. From the Huffington Post:

The principal debate, then, will likely center around the application of background-check standards to private dealers.

Private dealer? Who are they? They're you and I, guys. Our President wants all transfers to go through the NICS. Close the gun show loophole. If you want to give a gun to your son, go through NICS. If you want to will a gun to your grandson, go through NICS.

That's what it's about guys. Another layer of government intrusion.

For myself, I'll be writing letters to my Congress-critters immediately. No more compromise. When they prosecute the GunWalker agents, I'll start believing that they want to do the right thing. Until then, it's all smoke and mirrors.