Here he goes.....

[BarryLee]

A lot of people want to demonize Trump as a right-wing nut, but like a lot of Americans he is really a moderate. Also, like a lot of Americans Trump is not a gun guy. Like them he supports the Second Amendment, but also supports gun control. Sadly, he is also like many Americans in that they just don't understand guns, how criminals obtain guns and the fact that most of these proposals will only hurt law abiding citizens and not criminals.

[thallub]

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second." - Trump

If some threatens deadly harm his guns should be confiscated ASAP. That is the Indiana law and i don't have a problem with that.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ork/355132002/

[4V50 Gary]

Hip shooting and the Senate said nyet.

[shootbrownelk]

I think Trump will let the likes of Finestein, Schumer & Pelosi and the other Democrat grabbers to load up a bill with any stuff on their wish list so it has absolutely no chance of passing. Then he can say...well, I tried.

[Lohman446]

I made that point in another thread. Very easy for lawmakers to score points with their bases by drawing up legislation and taking tough "no compromise" positions when discussing legislation that will never be passed.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Thallub

If some threatens deadly harm his guns should be confiscated ASAP. That is the Indiana law and i don't have a problem with that.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ork/355132002/

Threatening deadly harm while not engaged in legitimate defense of self or others is a crime. It is not a departure from due process for the police to take control of a defendant's property involved in a crime subsequent to arrest.

DJT's words suggest something different to many of us. It suggests that police take action for which they would ordinarily require a warrant, but disregard that requirement and get the warrant after they act.

[Evan Thomas]

I've merged two threads -- we don't need more than one on a given topic.

[turkeestalker]

This guy had the news media and virtually everyone in this country steppin and fetching throughout the primary and ever since.
It was a deliberate action that proved very effective.
Relax folks, not everything is what it is assumed to be.
I accept that I’m in the minority with my opinion but the POTUS is not the threat to be worrying about regardless of what it sounds like.

[RC20]

I think something that has to be understood, though it does spill over into the other areas this is not supposed to be about.

I watched the grand meeting on immigration that was a mirror of the meeting on the gun issues. I read the exerts of that one.

Its clear that he does not have a grasp of issues like the gun issue. Its not solely guns, but in this case the reflection is on guns. He thinks he is being a wheeler dealer with anything on the table by agreeing to the last thing mentioned even if it contradict the item before it.

Crib notes for the Parkland meeting bear into it, this also reflects on what he is.

I have yet to see him actually have a grasp on any issue including this one.

Talking about taking someone's gun illegally so cavalierly is more reflective of Duardo in the Philippines (and killing drug dealers). Clearly that is not toing to happen here.

In short he will throw gun owners under the bus if it gets him some kind of glory (at leas tin his mind). Democrats may be the boogey person) they at least believe in the rule of law and the process even if you disagree on the law in questions.

Like a majority of gun owners, I would like a discussion and looking into various aspects of some restraint on guns that does not take them away.

If that is a licensing process, non high capacity magazines, gun sales restricted until 21, a community background check.

Any law can be sun settled in 5 to 10 years.

I know one guy is a serious gun owner that thinks ARs should have a 2k tax on them.

In the end, this country gets handed off to a new generation, its going to be something other than white majority and its going to go where they take it not us.

We are seeing a shift in access to the public. The NRA model is no longer the only one in town, NRA does not control social media and they are not remotely good at it.

The Parkland kids got ahead on the issue and they have maintained it. That's the new generation. They are vastly more media savy that I was in high school and they have the tools to get that message out and across.

[zukiphile]

Apologies if you've answered this elsewhere.

What is

Originally Posted by RC20

...a community background check.

[5whiskey]

What is

I suspect it is something to the effect of this, the OP description in the "NOT gun control" thread...

Onward Allusion:
- Instituting a background check that actually performs more than a lookup against a DB? How hard is it to look up social media, medical records (insurance companies do it all the time), restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, lawsuits, or arrest records, to name a few. Purchase pay a $20 fee for each transaction that funds the background check and mental programs. Too poor? Ok, show your SNAP card or Medicaid card. Perfect solution? Er, hell no. A Start? Maybe.

Which is not a background check at all. This is a background investigation.

[Lohman446]

How hard is it to look up medical records? Because of HIPAA laws it is EXTREMELY difficult. Doctor / patient confidentiality clauses make it a bigger issues then just the laws in place as well.

It goes further: How many of you would not go see a psychologist or therapist for issues if you knew it MIGHT impact your ability to own a firearm?

[5whiskey]

^^^I'm not advocating for any of that. You should not have to endure an investigation to enjoy a constitutional right. That was the proposal in another thread. The NICS system should be fixed so that all Federal, State, and Local governments report to it; and there is severe consequences for failing to report. That's the extent of my agreement in updating the background check system.

[RC20]

Apologies if you've answered this elsewhere.

What is

Very fair question and I do not have a solid answer.

I work with and on machinery that can kill people (think boilers and the explosive power of water when heated and suddenly release)

We build in layers of safety.

What I am seeing in Sandy Hook and Parkland is local knowledge of a persons mental status vs being in a national data base.

I think that is another layer, I don't have firm views on how to structure it and how to legalize it.

My boilers have 4 safeties on them. Each one allows for a failure of the other safeties to keep it from blowing up (a 50 gallon water heater blew out a full sized classroom adjacent in Oklahoma when the safety was replaced and the probe cut to make it fit)

Mechanism are also needed to restore the guns and legal ones not just a grab to take away.

Can you do a FISA thing and do an emergency order and then follow up with a review process? I don't know but just taking and how to go about that is not the full answer.

We see where all police have to do is classify someone as a drug dealer and they can seize property without any recourse and that truly is unconstitutional.

[RC20]

How hard is it to look up medical records? Because of HIPAA laws it is EXTREMELY difficult. Doctor / patient confidentiality clauses make it a bigger issues then just the laws in place as well.

It goes further: How many of you would not go see a psychologist or therapist for issues if you knew it MIGHT impact your ability to own a firearm?

My take on HIPPA is the only one that can't see my records are myself. Everything else seems to have been hacked and open to anyone in the world.

Second part is the reason that a restoral process should be in place. What do you put into a law that allows gun removal as a reason that is not arbitrary and what do you allow as restoral.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Lohman

It goes further: How many of you would not go see a psychologist or therapist for issues if you knew it MIGHT impact your ability to own a firearm?

Someone would have to be nuts to see a psychologist.

Originally Posted by RC20

We see where all police have to do is classify someone as a drug dealer and they can seize property without any recourse and that truly is unconstitutional.

That points to the danger: if you ask someone in government for a reason to violate one's rights, he is likely to offer one.

[RC20]

Threatening deadly harm while not engaged in legitimate defense of self or others is a crime. It is not a departure from due process for the police to take control of a defendant's property involved in a crime subsequent to arrest.

Fully agreed

[RC20]

Someone would have to be nuts to see a psychologist.

I think that gets off track, a great many people who are as sane as people can be with stuff that has tweaked them go to counseling.

The pilot of flew an Airbus A320 into the mountains in (Spain or France) was under some kind of care.

[RC20]

That points to the danger: if you ask someone in government for a reason to violate rights one's rights, he is likely to offer one.

There is always a danger. One recourse is to ensure its done right. Another is not to have a right wing bent and demonizing of an issue (guns or drugs) that then in turn winds up being allowed by the courts.

Frankly that is what Fascist regimes specialized in. That's why I detest the loose talk from Trump, it gets into those areas.

I want well thought out and considered actions, not knee jerk. Those actions should have started a long time ago in my opinion.

[Lohman446]

Yes the NCIS should be fixed and should actually constitute a record search. I should be able to find out of someone has been adjudicated with mental concerns that prevent him or her from owning a firearm - please note though this is sharing of the legal process not the medical one. There is a major difference between the legal process and actual mental healthcare.

Psychologists and other healthcare providers are going to be slow to diagnose certain conditions if it results in a loss of rights for their patients. Perhaps some are going to be too quick because they don't believe that right should exist. Regardless there is going to be a concern. if I have to be "declared" to be "not incompetent" by a healthcare professional then offices will spring up in hotel rooms to do just that the same as they have with medical marijuana cards. Large retailers might even keep a licensed professional on staff. People who should have mental healthcare and could lead perfectly normal lives with minimal treatment may decide not to seek any treatment at all to protect their rights creating the exact situation we are hoping to avoid.

You also have a consideration of the slippery slope. Do we want to start curtailing rights based on health status outside of the legal system?

[zukiphile]

Someone would have to be nuts to see a psychologist.

That's a joke.

Originally Posted by RC20

There is always a danger. One recourse is to ensure its done right. Another is not to have a right wing bent and demonizing of an issue (guns or drugs) that then in turn winds up being allowed by the courts.

Frankly that is what Fascist regimes specialized in. That's why I detest the loose talk from Trump, it gets into those areas.

I want well thought out and considered actions, not knee jerk. Those actions should have started a long time ago in my opinion.

It isn't really well thought out to look for a violation of rights "done right". The greater foresight would be found in not violating peoples' rights in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lohman

You also have a consideration of the slippery slope. Do we want to start curtailing rights based on health status outside of the legal system?

Like not letting people vote if they have a co-dependent relationship with government?

[Don P]

I'll play how about a separate data base only linked to NICS with mental health folks. NICS runs the check and if the name is on the medical data matches you get red flagged and denied.

[Lohman446]

medical data matches you get red flagged and denied.

What particular medical reasons may I be denied a right for absent court procedures? What if I have had an appointment with a doctor who primarily treats schizophrenia? Is that enough cause? What about one that treats depression? How about any therapist? What if my medical doctor, unqualified to give a mental health evaluation, suggests it? That enough?

Can I be denied a firearm because I was recently fired from a job and that may impact my mental health? What if I was fired and have an appointment with a therapist? What if a college teacher noticed something "off?" Who can put things in this file? Is it like the no fly list where no one has to tell me why I am on it or how to challenge it? What if I run for public office and some "qualified" individual ignores the Goldwater rule and says something on public television? Good enough to deny the right?

How long can my property be seized before I am given due process? A day, a week, a month, a decade?

[K_Mac]

In short he will throw gun owners under the bus if it gets him some kind of glory (at leas tin his mind). Democrats may be the boogey person) they at least believe in the rule of law and the process even if you disagree on the law in questions.

You are consistent, if nothing else. You want "well thought out and considered action, not knee jerk" and then make a knee jerk statement like the above. I am weary hearing about liberal politicians who are advocating the gutting of the second amendment who "believe in the rule of law" or their love of "the process."

[In The Ten Ring]

The "no fly list" is the most serious threat to civil liberty we have seen since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

The very thought that a person can be put on a list they are not allowed to see or challenge, nor have any notice of being on the list is exactly what the Nuremburg Laws did. I have, since 2006, feared the Patriot Act would be used to target political enemies and eventually, to bar gun ownership and freedom.

There have been cases of people put onto the list because the govt. employee entered the wrong name, misspelled a name, or for outright punishment for a public statement. A high profile reporter was added to the list in what seems to have been punishment for asking embarrassing questions.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/0...-fly-list.html

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/09/2...ror-watch-list

I would say that anyone that has ever seen a psychologist, social worker, or taken any medications whatsoever for depression, no matter how long ago or how trifling, needs to be worried and it won't be easy to find out why your gun purchase was denied. A victim would see a lot of run-around and it would take years and lots of legal fees to even find out one has been put on the list, not to mention more money and time to find out why.

The one bright light at the end of this long, dark tunnel is that one has a right to own firearms, one doesn't have a right to ride on planes (although I would dispute that). So if "no fly, no buy" becomes federal law, there will be court challenges that might have an effect.