Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 03:17 AM Mar 2018

The Liberal Gun Club: We support Fix NICS

https://www.theliberalgunclub.com/2018/02/28/we-support-fix-nics/


We support Fix NICS | The Liberal Gun Club
Ed Gardner

There is currently legislation being pondered in the Senate called Fix NICS.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a United States system for determining if prospective firearms or explosives buyers’ name and birth year match those of a person who is not eligible to buy. It was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993 and launched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1998.

Source: Wiki


When you buy a new firearm, the FFL runs these checks in real time with the FBI to determine if you are prohibited from buying a firearm. The FBI tells the FFL to Proceed with the sale, Deny the sale, or Defer the sale. In the case of the Defer, the FBI has 72 hours to give a definitive answer or the sale is allowed to proceed, so its critical that data be available, complete and accurate.

There have been several shooters who should have been prohibited from purchasing their weapons prior to their murders. Charlotte’s perpetrator had a drug conviction that hadn’t been reported appropriately to the FBI, so the “Defer” apparently turned into a “Proceed.” The Texas shooter had a military conviction that the sentence alone put him in a prohibited class. There are other examples, but these that come to mind immediately.

This bill seems to address one of our central positions, the completeness and accuracy of the NICS system. We know that not all relevant records make it into NICS, from states who were reluctant to submit adjudicated records, to agencies like the Department of Defense simply failing to report convictions.

This bill seems to address those issues to some extent, and as we said after Texas, its the sort of thing that might actually have an impact, eliminating the legal avenues that bad guys bent on killing have to acquire ANY firearm. The summary from GovTrack:

-Establish a new “Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative” in order to better prevent those convicted of those crimes from obtaining weapons.
-Publicly report any federal agencies that fail to upload relevant information to the system, and withhold certain pay from political appointees who neglect to upload the info.
-Establish new measures to verify the accuracy of existing records already uploaded into the system.

The full text of the bill in the Senate can be found here*, a version has passed out of committee in the House.

We support this.

So, apparently, does the NRA and the folks at Sandy Hook Promise. With support from a broad range of organizations from across the spectrum, there is no reason for this bill to be delayed. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Will Congress act? Have you called your representatives?


*https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text



213 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Liberal Gun Club: We support Fix NICS (Original Post) friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 OP
And ban assault weapons like AR15. And ban large capacity magazines. And do fun buybacks blake2012 Mar 2018 #1
Something is better than nothing, and this lays the groundwork for future efforts friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #2
The political momentum being built up on gun control cannot end with just the NICS fix blake2012 Mar 2018 #3
"... which does very little to address mounting gun violence." EX500rider Mar 2018 #37
I noticed you stopped at 2014. Homicide rate has gone up since blake2012 Mar 2018 #38
The US homicide rate and Euro rate aren't that far apart. EX500rider Mar 2018 #41
We don't have good data because NRA/GOP banned data - they're afraid of real studies sharedvalues Mar 2018 #60
Rap on your turntable, the record keeps skipping: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #72
Above I cited a well-done study that says fed funding ban is a big problem. sharedvalues Mar 2018 #75
Ask the head of Everytown For Gun Safety for the funds- he's worth $50 billion: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #131
Nah. Society funds govt research on car deaths, drug overdoses sharedvalues Mar 2018 #140
A gun control advocate that won't kick in 1% of their net worth is insincere, at best friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #153
Problem is gun-fetishists deny proof. RAND article: solid. Your attacks: ad hominem. sharedvalues Mar 2018 #168
The FBI still mantains stats for homicide/robbery etc EX500rider Mar 2018 #161
Damn right! workinclasszero Mar 2018 #162
Close the private sale/gun show loop hole. Not much of a NICS fix without that. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #4
Required background checks won't work if the checks themselves are faulty- hence Fix NICS friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #5
So you're fine with schizophrenia patients having the ability to buy guns? SunSeeker Mar 2018 #17
No, and I'll thank you to take *your* words out of *my* mouth friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #19
The concept of prior restraint relates to the 1st Am, not the 2nd Am. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #28
"I notice you refuse to answer my question about whether a schizophrenic should have a gun." I did friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #30
Ok, so given you agree schizophrenics shouldn't buy guns... SunSeeker Mar 2018 #34
"How do you propose to prevent schizophrenics from buying guns?" By court hearing friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #39
What are you talking about? Who would set this hearing? Who would be the parties? SunSeeker Mar 2018 #42
A civil order for treatment, not necessarily involuntary confinement in a mental hospital friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #45
That does NOT capture mental illness diagnoses, only involuntary treatment judicial orders. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #46
No. Moral panics are no reason to override the Constitution friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #48
So you think people with schizophrenia should be able to get a gun? SunSeeker Mar 2018 #55
Have you ceased physically abusing your significant other? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #63
So you think your ends justify any means, even if it means pissing on the Constitution? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #64
No. I am not pissing on the Constitution, I am applying it. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #85
Have you discontinued physically abusing your significant other? I can do leading questions, too... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #94
That is just silly. You obviously just want to engage in insults instead of a thoughtful discussion. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #102
Oh, please-you've been trying to pin a strawman argument on me almost since you got to this thread friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #115
You don't offer a plan to stop the dangerously mentally ill from getting guns. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #123
No constitutional right to own assault rifles. sharedvalues Mar 2018 #61
In this instance, you are correct- but you don't have the votes... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #65
Diagnosed with? Fuck no. That would be a violation of their due process. X_Digger Mar 2018 #143
Reminds you of the 'no fly/terrorist watch lists', no? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #155
Not if there is notice and opportunity for hearing before it is posted in NICS. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #157
Then it's not about the diagnosis, is it? Make up your mind, eh? X_Digger Mar 2018 #159
What specific diagnoses should be reported to the database? Mental illness on its own is too... Marengo Mar 2018 #87
I would set up a panel of medical professionals to determine that. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #88
Maybe we could apply the same standard to speech, or other things in the Constitution. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #96
Um, no one shot up a school because they were exercising the 1st, 5th or 8th Am. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #98
"the...mentally ill are the vast majority of mass shooters. You know that." No, *you claimed that... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #99
There are a LOT more authorities for that than that LATimes article. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #103
You're trying to put a lot of claims in my mouth that I have not made, and will not make friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #116
You trusted Feinstein on her 'assault weapons bans'- but not on this? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #126
I trust her, I just think this is a pittance and we should demand more. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #127
"Have fun researching me? I'm honored..." Well, knowledge *is* power... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #129
Yes, knowledge is good. Stalking, not so much. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #132
Call it 'opposition research' friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #133
Kinda pathetic to call a fellow DUer "Opposition." That's supposed to be the GOP. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #137
Are we not debating a subject, and are those not your own words? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #152
Debating does not make me "the Opposition"... unless you're not a Democrat. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #158
If you disagree with me, you're not a Democrat? How odd a stance. X_Digger Mar 2018 #169
Calling Democrats "the Opposition" is a pretty "odd stance" for a Democrat. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #170
Funny, I don't read that sentence in the exchange above. Care to point it out? X_Digger Mar 2018 #173
Discussion of gun control at DU tends to attract self-appointed "DU Political Officers"... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #175
What part of "DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND" do you not understand? SunSeeker Mar 2018 #178
What part of "You're not actually in charge of DU" do you not understand? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #188
Aww, toddle off. X_Digger Mar 2018 #196
No one called you "the opposition" -and BTW, Democrats most certainly do "opposition research"... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #179
FIx NICS would be huge IMO - would this not also increase liability for acting outside the system? hexola Mar 2018 #6
Private sales without checks would still be legal- so open NICS to private sellers... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #7
This would be the right way to do it but the gun prohibition people wont ever do t Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #8
Not criminal - but liable... hexola Mar 2018 #9
No, all the proposed UBC make it criminal to even loan a gun Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #11
Dude, no-one should be teaching gun safety. Weed Man Mar 2018 #27
"Ignorance is strength!", eh? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #32
That's already true fescuerescue Mar 2018 #16
Someone on CNN described a check system - where buyer and seller get temp permits hexola Mar 2018 #10
Just make a NICS website and app for the public Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #12
"Liberal Gun Club" is like "Progressive Pro-Lifer". nt LexVegas Mar 2018 #13
LOL SunSeeker Mar 2018 #18
This sounds like RWers trying to nullify Roe v. Wade friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #21
No, it doesn't, and no I didn't. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #29
Why would your opinion of what's offensive matter? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #33
OFFS. Read my reply. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #35
Misguided attempts to derail reform because "it isn't good enough"... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #40
The 1/6/16 HIPAA rule does not require reporting of mental illness diagnoses. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #43
IIRC, Fix NICS would encode that HIPPA ruling into law friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #44
That does nothing about getting mental illness diagnoses reported. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #47
The ACLU has gone on record strongly opposing what you propose. I concur with them: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #49
IOW: Moral panics are no reason to erode civil rights friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #50
It's not "moral panics," whatever the hell that means, it's statistics. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #56
You haven't got the votes, and would rather reject a partial fix than compromise friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #71
If we just have the votes for crumbs, then I'll take crumbs. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #80
Category error. Societal right to keep kids alive wins out over right to own lots of guns sharedvalues Mar 2018 #62
Logical fallacy. "Think of the children" is an appeal to emotion, not an argument friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #69
Category error: gun restrictions ARE constitutional. Your original pt re Const: category error. sharedvalues Mar 2018 #77
Make up your mind. Do you want mental illness diagnoses in NICS or not? SunSeeker Mar 2018 #54
No. Not without a court order. What you want is no different than the 'terrorism watch lists'... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #66
Well, that response suggests you DO want the mentally ill buying guns. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #84
Well, that response suggests you think your cause is more important than due process. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #108
Not at all, the process I suggest has been held constitutional. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #110
"(T)he process I suggest has been held constitutional." In which Federal court? Cite, please. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #113
Goldberg v. Kelly-SCOTUS held that pre-termination administrative hearings comply with due process SunSeeker Mar 2018 #120
I have no problem with that, provided a) there are no ex parte hearings, b) they are not held friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #128
Gideon is not applicable. The person is not being charged with a felony. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #135
I can see the Second Amendment Foundation jumping in on such cases friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #144
Apples to sea sponge....not in any way related. AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #138
I find it interesting ... Straw Man Mar 2018 #160
I find it interesting that some here think guns are more important than food. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #167
Nice try, but nowhere did I say or imply that. Straw Man Mar 2018 #171
Wrong, you totally misunderstood Goldberg v. Kelly. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #172
No, I didn't. Straw Man Mar 2018 #174
It is you who is siding with the state; the ruling GOP wants no gun control. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #176
Another straw man from you. Straw Man Mar 2018 #177
There are several more upthread. All that straw in one place is a fire hazard! friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #183
Kindly point out where such a sentiment was expressed. We'll wait... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #180
When you demanded more protections for denial of gun purchases than are afforded food. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #184
The bar should be higher for termination of welfare benefits. Straw Man Mar 2018 #186
Citizens should be afforded legal counsel in any legal (or quasi-legal) dealings with the state friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #189
That merely shows that welfare hearings are unfair, not that guns are more important than food friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #187
No, you were asserting the NICS administrative hearings I was suggesting were unconstitutional. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #190
You will not improve the lot of welfare recipients one iota by restricting others' rights friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #192
You presume wrongly. I am what you just called "those people." SunSeeker Mar 2018 #198
Due process is a "roadblock"? This isn't 'Authoritarian Underground', and your ...contributions... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #199
Why Senate Democrats are considering holding up a gun-control bill from one of their own sl8 Mar 2018 #14
History repeats: "Screw that 'half a loaf'! We want the whole thing, or nothing!" friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #26
This "NICS fix" is not half a loaf. It's crumbs. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #57
NICS Fix is what is possible now. Would you prefer to "take a dive" for strategic reasons... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #67
If all we have the votes for are crumbs, I'll take crumbs. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #83
Three recent mass shootings sarisataka Mar 2018 #15
As long as private sales aren't subject to background checks Crunchy Frog Mar 2018 #20
"As long as private sales aren't subject to background checks" I address this in post #7 friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #23
Sorry, private sellers need to go through FFLs who are accountable for keeping records, etc. Hoyt Mar 2018 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author Hoyt Mar 2018 #52
Not neccessary if private sellers can use the NICS, and its use is made mandatory friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #73
Need to go through FFL who can lose their business if they don't keep records. Private sellers have Hoyt Mar 2018 #81
You have no clue how a NICS checks works do you? AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #89
No, I expect people to do the checks who have their license on the line. Hoyt Mar 2018 #90
Let' run through your list....oh we don't have to because NONE were private sales. AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #91
Sure I am OldGeezer. Do you think those gunners and those who support guns are Hoyt Mar 2018 #149
And robbers and rapists will just steal a gun Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #164
That's exactly why we need to restrict new gun sales. So-called Hoyt Mar 2018 #165
"Men will walk upright now, women will smile and the children will laugh,... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #195
No doubt, gunners are afraid of, and have no regard for, society. Time that changes. Hoyt Mar 2018 #197
I repeat what I said earlier....you have no clue how NICS works. AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #200
I know damn well how gunners are. FFLs will at least do the background check correctly, not wanting Hoyt Mar 2018 #205
You don't know a "gunner" from a grass hopper. AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #206
When you were a robber, did you get guns from a dealer? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #97
Its essy enough to enforce- do a private sale without using it and go to jail Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #163
Like that stops gunners from killing and intimidating people. Hoyt Mar 2018 #166
If a NICS check were free for private sales...how is that NOT right? AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #201
Free or very reduced. Straw Man Mar 2018 #202
Very similar here....shop to shop transfer is a full charge NICS.. AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #203
Never liked old adages, but "Fox guarding the hen house," sure comes to mind. Hoyt Mar 2018 #204
FFL's do NOT do the checks they file for checks....DOJ, specificly...ATF does the checks AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #207
Exactly. Straw Man Mar 2018 #208
Checks are conducted by the state or the FBI. sl8 Mar 2018 #211
mandated in 1993??? WTF? spanone Mar 2018 #22
It *was* implemented- but only made mandatory on the Federal level for gun dealers friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #24
thanks! spanone Mar 2018 #25
Exactly. Straw Man Mar 2018 #31
Yeah the complaint it could be abused is nonsense Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #36
Is there a reason you feel it's unreasonable to let a person support their local range... moriah Mar 2018 #92
Do you want to give local ranges/dealers a monopoly on checks? They'll still be free to do them... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #93
They already have it, and again, I'm trying to throw the people against UBCs crumbs. moriah Mar 2018 #106
Require a photocopy of the buyer's ID. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #111
So-called Liberal Gun Club has only 2000 members. They lobby Democrats, pushing lax gun Hoyt Mar 2018 #53
Well, this "NICS fix" is certainly weak tea. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #58
If you can't get Fix NICS, you certainly can't get even more restrictive laws passed friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #74
This does not "fix" NICS. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #79
That's no more or less than your opinion, and you are perfectly free to express it. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #95
It is a fact. It does NOTHING to expand background checks; it does NOTHING to facilitate reporting. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #100
Tell that to Sandy Hook Promise, who support this- and Dianne Feinstein, who co-sponsored it: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #105
Well, Dems will take these crumbs when it's the only game in town. Like I said, nice try. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #107
Has it occured to you that those Dem co-sponsors might actually think it would work? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #117
Sure, it might work to do the little it offers to do. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #122
Just think them as a source of photos of white gun owners, if nothing else friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #68
Well, that's pretty much what you see in the so-call Liberal Gun Club. My guess is they are just Hoyt Mar 2018 #82
As opposed to locking doors so cops can't get in? Who profits from that? Robbers, right? AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #114
Wouldn't know. I would suggest you and your Discussionist buddies learn Hoyt Mar 2018 #145
"Trying to fool people into believing they are something different " An evidence-free claim... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #119
Few Democrats lobby legislators to promote more guns in more places. I suspect Hoyt Mar 2018 #146
"Few Democrats lobby legislators to promote more guns in more places." And does LGC do that? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #148
That's what you get when you search for gun stores or shows, gun lovers, ranges, Hoyt Mar 2018 #150
You sought those photos out, and downloaded them. Do you only download ones with white gun owners? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #151
Go ahead, search Under Liberal Gun Club and see what you get. Think I saw Dana Loesch. Hoyt Mar 2018 #191
I don't have to, since *you* made the claim- and can't back it up. As usual... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #193
Your photo choices merely demonstrate your editorial preference, no more and no less friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #181
How about universal background checks. The real stuff, not the GOP backed fake bill sharedvalues Mar 2018 #59
Hasn't got the votes. Or would you rather no progress at all? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #70
Yes my gay, now-married friend was telling me the same in 2005. sharedvalues Mar 2018 #76
Well then, get busy rounding up the votes. Meanwhile, spare us the "all or nothing" schtick friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #101
This NICS fix is pretty damn close to nothing. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #104
Tell that to Dianne Feinstein, who was one of the original co-sponsors: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #109
This is Cornyn's baby. She just signed on. Because it's the only game in town. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #112
Then support it. There aren't the votes for a AWB, and likely won't be until 2021 at the earliest. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #118
I'm not saying Dems should vote no, I'm just saying it's crumbs. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #121
You say crumbs...the alternative is nothing...starvation. AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #124
No, the "alternative" is voting yes on this pittance and demanding more. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #125
Then urge your Congresscritters to do both- that's the only way change will happen. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #130
How do we "demand" that while in the minority....? AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #134
We will not be silent. Even if you threaten to take away the crumbs. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #136
Give it a shot....we've been down this road OFTEN. AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #139
We are. And this time it appears to be working. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #141
Does "working" mean "attacking the actions of your biggest supporter in Congress... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #147
I'm not attacking Democratic supporters. nt SunSeeker Mar 2018 #156
In my case, you are. Or do you presume to vet who's a Democrat, and who isn't? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #182
I did not call you my "Opposition" or brag about doing "Opposition Research" on you. SunSeeker Mar 2018 #185
"We're all supposed to be on the same team" 'This team' has many, MANY factions... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #194
We ARE rounded up votes. You with us, or against? sharedvalues Mar 2018 #142
Then support Fix NICS, or your words are merely empty promises friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #154
I do. Do you support assault rifle bans and REAL handgun restrictions sharedvalues Mar 2018 #210
Assault rifle bans are security theater inspired by moral panics... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #212
US Olympic shooting team..supporting kids deaths? AncientGeezer Mar 2018 #209
They're using children to promote a moral panic, and we've seen the like before: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #213
It's what's sad. We can't get the votes to truly outlaw black market gun sales. moriah Mar 2018 #86
It would be a start...nt Wounded Bear Mar 2018 #78
 

blake2012

(1,294 posts)
1. And ban assault weapons like AR15. And ban large capacity magazines. And do fun buybacks
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 03:19 AM
Mar 2018

Fixing NIC is nice, but a very tiny tentative step which does very little to address mounting gun violence.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
2. Something is better than nothing, and this lays the groundwork for future efforts
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 03:24 AM
Mar 2018

Fix NICS is something that can be, and should be, done now

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
37. "... which does very little to address mounting gun violence."
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:44 PM
Mar 2018

Maybe you mean "mass shooting rate"...which is a tiny fraction of US homicides.

 

blake2012

(1,294 posts)
38. I noticed you stopped at 2014. Homicide rate has gone up since
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:59 PM
Mar 2018

In 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Also, the largest contributor to homicides are guns.

If you look at homicide rates in US, UK, and other countries, our vastly larger gun arsenal and homicides with guns make up that huge difference.

Our homicide rate may have hit historic lows in 2014. But they are on the rise and MUCH worse than other countries.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-34996604

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
41. The US homicide rate and Euro rate aren't that far apart.
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 08:40 PM
Mar 2018

US rate: 4.8 per 100,000
European rate: 3.0
The high countries in the world are near or over 100 per 100,000

And the Euro countries with very low rates, the US kills more with knives or hands and feet then those countries.
The American continent is a violent place with the highest avg rate per continent at 16.3, making the US rate look pretty good.
And if you blame it on poverty that doesn't explain the rates in Palestine or Indonesia at .6 and .5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

And yes you can cherry pick a few European states with low rates, but you can do that with US states also, New Hampshire is 1.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

And the US rate isn't up so much as some large cities rates:
The US murder rate was up again—and 20% of the national increase came in Chicago
https://qz.com/1086403/fbi-crime-statistics-us-murders-were-up-in-2016-and-chicago-had-a-lot-to-do-with-it/

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
72. Rap on your turntable, the record keeps skipping:
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:35 AM
Mar 2018
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172205600#post53

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172205600#post54

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172205600#post55

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[3]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1] Modern politics contains many examples of proofs by assertion. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.[4]


sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
75. Above I cited a well-done study that says fed funding ban is a big problem.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 11:02 AM
Mar 2018

I'm going to let that RAND study speak for itself. We need more research because the NRA/GOP banned fed funding.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
140. Nah. Society funds govt research on car deaths, drug overdoses
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:01 PM
Mar 2018

because they are public health concerns. Just like guns - which kill our kids.

Question: do you have a kid or grandkid in an elementary or preschool? Have they had "active shooter" drills? Have they asked you about bad men and why they have guns?




p.s. Koch and Waltons (who both fund pro-gun-violence work) have combined net worth around $250B, 500% of MB.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
153. A gun control advocate that won't kick in 1% of their net worth is insincere, at best
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:49 PM
Mar 2018

In Bloomie's case, that would be $502 million dollars.

ISTM he's selling you lot the sizzle and not the steak- and you believe you're getting a fine dinner.


Question: do you have a kid or grandkid in an elementary or preschool?


https://www.google.com/search?q=lovejoying&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

These people did:

https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/about#mission

About Us

Sandy Hook Promise is a national non-profit organization founded and led by several family members whose loved ones were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.

Based in Newtown, Connecticut, our intent is to honor all victims of gun violence by turning our tragedy into a moment of transformation by providing programs and practices that protect children from gun violence.

By uniting people of all beliefs and backgrounds who value the protection of children to take meaningful actions in their homes and communities, we will prevent gun violence and stop the tragic loss of life.



https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/sandy_hook_promise_applauds_bipartisan_bgc_bill_fix_nics


Sandy Hook Promise Commends Senators on Bipartisan Background Check Legislation

Newtown, CT – November 16, 2017 – Earlier this month, as the investigation unfolded in Sutherland Springs, TX, we learned that the deadly shooting could have been averted had authorities properly reported the shooter’s violent history. However, due to this lapse in the system, we witnessed the heartbreaking and grave consequences.


In light of this incident, we praise U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX,) Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Scott (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) along with Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Dean Heller (R-NV), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) for introducing the Fix NICS (National Instant Background Check System) Act.


The legislation aims to strengthen background checks, hold agencies accountable for reporting a perpetrators violent past, as well as looks to create a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative to ensure that states have adequate resources and incentives to share all relevant information with NICS showing that a felon or domestic abuser is excluded from purchasing a firearm.

“In the past 45 days, we have witnessed two of the worst mass shootings in modern history. I applaud these Senators for taking the crucial step to introduce this commonsense legislation that will improve background checks, keep all agencies accountable, and most importantly create a safer America. We have lost too many innocent lives. The time to act is now,” said Nicole Hockley, co-founder and managing director of Sandy Hook Promise, and the mother of Dylan, who was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.


sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
168. Problem is gun-fetishists deny proof. RAND article: solid. Your attacks: ad hominem.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 12:09 PM
Mar 2018

Ad hominem: a rhetorical fallacy; last refuge of the incorrect.

i'm sorry that a nonpartisan study showed your arguments incorrect.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
162. Damn right!
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 10:01 AM
Mar 2018

Get the military weapons of mass killing off the streets of America!

I'm a liberal gun owner, fuck the terrorist org NRA!

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
4. Close the private sale/gun show loop hole. Not much of a NICS fix without that.
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:22 AM
Mar 2018

Over 30% of gun sales are by private sales.

That 72-hour time is ridiculously not enough to do a thorough background check for far flung criminal records, etc. It should be at least a couple weeks. Canada requires 28 days minimum.

And mental illness diagnoses, not just mental incapacity adjudications, need to get reported to the database.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
5. Required background checks won't work if the checks themselves are faulty- hence Fix NICS
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:35 AM
Mar 2018
That 72-hour time is ridiculously not enough to do a thorough background check for far flung criminal records, etc. It should be at least a couple weeks. Canada requires 28 days minimum.


It would be, if the checks were done properly to begin with. See the summary from GovTrack
for what would be done differently.

Or is it that a weeks-long wait isn't long enough to discourage gun sales?

And mental illness diagnoses, not just mental incapacity adjudications, need to get reported to the database.


I've heard someone express similar sentiments recently. Who was it that said that? Oh yeah, now I remember:

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.


Are there any other pesky bits of due process that you feel ought to be delayed?

Purely out of concern for public safety, of course...

Involuntarily committing those whose guns were just taken?

Kettling, arresting, and charging peaceful demonstrators en masse?

ICE rounding up people without hearings?

Police stopping and frisking random pedestrians?




SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
17. So you're fine with schizophrenia patients having the ability to buy guns?
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 01:11 PM
Mar 2018

Who said there would be no due process? The individual could be given notice that their diagnosis is about to be reported to the database, and given an opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the diagnosis before it goes to the database. Virtually every civilized country has mental illness diagnosis reporting for gun background checks, including Canada, Australia and Switzerland. And in none of those countries did that cause the list of due process abuses you suggest.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
19. No, and I'll thank you to take *your* words out of *my* mouth
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:23 PM
Mar 2018
Who said there would be no due process? The individual could be given notice that their diagnosis is about to be reported to the database, and given an opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the diagnosis before it goes to the database.


That's prior restraint of an enumerated right, one that's been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Nixon tried that tack against the Washington Post in re the Pentagon Papers.
And got slapped down, if you recall.

Virtually every civilized country has mental illness diagnosis reporting for gun background checks, including Canada, Australia and Switzerland.


None of those countries have gun ownership enumerated in their constitution. Like it or not, we do.

And in none of those countries did that cause the list of due process abuses you suggest.


That's because there is no due process for rights not explicitly encoded into law
in Canada, Australia, Switzerland.

This is starting to remind me of the way the right wing tries to erode Roe v. Wade-
by nibbling it to death.



SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
28. The concept of prior restraint relates to the 1st Am, not the 2nd Am.
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:04 PM
Mar 2018
In First Amendment law, a prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place.  There are two common forms of prior restraints. The first is a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking, and the second is a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. Both types of prior restraint are strongly disfavored, and, with some exceptions, generally unconstitutional.
 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint

If you are trying to analogize to it, you're still wrong. No one would block you from buying a gun before your hearing disputing any submission of mental illness diagnosis. There is no prior restraint. You would have full due process.

I notice you refuse to answer my question about whether a schizophrenic should have a gun.

Canada, Switzerland and Australia all have robust due process principles in their laws. Just because they do not have a Bill of Rights like we do does not mean they do not implement due process concepts. We did not invent the concept. Again, none of that list of horribles you suggest has come true in those countries despite the fact that they have had strict gun laws for decades.


The right to buy a gun is not absolute, even in our land of gun nuts. Even under the current misreading of the 2nd Amendment by the conservative SCOTUS majority, it is always weighed against other societal interests, like safety. That is not "nibbling away" at your rights, that is recognizing that other people have rights as well.

And please don't equate any right to a gun to a right to an abortion. Such an analogy is deeply offensive and will win you no converts among progressives. No one ever slaughtered a theater of people by having an abortion.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
30. "I notice you refuse to answer my question about whether a schizophrenic should have a gun." I did
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:15 PM
Mar 2018

What part of 'no' did you not understand? Here, I'll even highlight it for you:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post19

"No, and I'll thank you to take *your* words out of *my* mouth"

Are your other posts of similar intellectual honesty?

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
34. Ok, so given you agree schizophrenics shouldn't buy guns...
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:49 PM
Mar 2018

How do you propose to prevent schizophrenics from buying guns?

And sorry, I misread your no as objecting in general. No "intellectual honesty" there. Just reading your post as a whole, it seemed you were against barring the mentally ill from buying a gun because you thought it was some sort of "prior restraint."

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
42. What are you talking about? Who would set this hearing? Who would be the parties?
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 03:11 AM
Mar 2018

How would a court have jurisdiction if there is no pending lawsuit between the parties? We're talking about a schizophrenia diagnosis. Why would a court be involved?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
45. A civil order for treatment, not necessarily involuntary confinement in a mental hospital
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 05:33 PM
Mar 2018

Which was done in the case of the VT shooter- but was *not* reported to the FBI by
the Virginia courts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd-guns.html


Cho’s Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale
Michael Luo

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.

A special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun...


Virginia tightened up their reporting. Fix NICS would enact this nationwide.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
46. That does NOT capture mental illness diagnoses, only involuntary treatment judicial orders.
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 06:38 PM
Mar 2018

The vast majority of people with severe mental illness who would be dangerous with a gun are not undergoing involuntary treatment.

Do you want the database to list people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia or don't you?

People involuntarily committed or forced into treatment by court order are already required to be reported to NICS.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
48. No. Moral panics are no reason to override the Constitution
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 10:17 PM
Mar 2018

The ACLU agrees with me on this, and has expressed it far better than I could:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

Vania Leveille, Senior Legislative Counsel
& Susan Mizner, Disability Counsel, ACLU
February 20, 2017 | 10:45 AM

This month, Congress repealed a rule that would have registered thousands of Social Security recipients with mental disabilities, who have others manage their benefits, into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to prevent them from owning firearms.

The American Civil Liberties Union does not oppose gun control laws. As an organization dedicated to defending all constitutional rights, we believe the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions to promote public safety...

...The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular....

...The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.




...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
55. So you think people with schizophrenia should be able to get a gun?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 02:45 AM
Mar 2018

I just want to confirm this since you excoriated me for suggesting that earlier and now you appear to have proved me right.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
85. No. I am not pissing on the Constitution, I am applying it.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 12:31 PM
Mar 2018

Why can't you answer a simple yes or no question? Do you think schizophrenics should be able to buy a gun?

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
102. That is just silly. You obviously just want to engage in insults instead of a thoughtful discussion.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:46 PM
Mar 2018

You have offered nothing constructive.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
115. Oh, please-you've been trying to pin a strawman argument on me almost since you got to this thread
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:41 PM
Mar 2018

You're also stating that your plan is the best way to stop the dangerously mentally ill from
obtaining firearms. I disagree.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
123. You don't offer a plan to stop the dangerously mentally ill from getting guns.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:02 PM
Mar 2018

All you have suggested is some cryptic requirement for a "court order" before a mental illness diagnosis is reported to NICS. That is already essentially the case, so you are really not offering anything.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
61. No constitutional right to own assault rifles.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 03:27 AM
Mar 2018

And Scalia was bought by GOP gun-lover billionaires (died on a GOP billionaire funded shooting trip). And even his wrong Heller decision still allows for LOTS of gun regulation. So we can stop talking about the constitution now.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
143. Diagnosed with? Fuck no. That would be a violation of their due process.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:05 PM
Mar 2018

Hurr durr, who needs the 14th amendment anyway.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
155. Reminds you of the 'no fly/terrorist watch lists', no?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 09:02 PM
Mar 2018

I remember when they were doubleplusungood here- until guns were mentioned

Then they became 'reasonable' and 'common sense'...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
157. Not if there is notice and opportunity for hearing before it is posted in NICS.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 09:38 PM
Mar 2018

You're late to this party, X_Digger. I've already explained all this to the OP poster. I don't intend to repeat myself with you.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
159. Then it's not about the diagnosis, is it? Make up your mind, eh?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 11:49 PM
Mar 2018

I know, I know, you don't even consider it an actual right, therefore there's no right to be infringed.

Adjudicated "mentally defective"- not a 'notice', not a hearing. Removing a right should be a rigorous process, and a diagnosis of a mental illness doesn't fucking qualify.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
87. What specific diagnoses should be reported to the database? Mental illness on its own is too...
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 01:40 PM
Mar 2018

General.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
88. I would set up a panel of medical professionals to determine that.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 01:49 PM
Mar 2018

Certain mental illnesses are mild and do not make a person a danger with a gun, such as agoraphobia, etc. But any mental illness that dangerously disassociates a person from reality, like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and clinical depression, should preclude the patient from buying a gun. The vast majority of mass shooters are mentally ill. The LA Vegas shooter's doctor thought he was bipolar. The Parkland shooter was clinically depressed, a very common illness among mass shooters.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
96. Maybe we could apply the same standard to speech, or other things in the Constitution.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:27 PM
Mar 2018

After all, if it's good for the Second Amendment- why not also apply it to the First, Fifth, or Eighth?

It could help solve a lot of crimes, reduce recidivism, and help cut down on those annoying demonstrators...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
98. Um, no one shot up a school because they were exercising the 1st, 5th or 8th Am.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:39 PM
Mar 2018

However, the dangerously mentally ill are the vast majority of mass shooters. You know that.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
99. "the...mentally ill are the vast majority of mass shooters. You know that." No, *you claimed that...
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:41 PM
Mar 2018

...based on one article in the LA Times.

Mere 'argument from authority'.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
103. There are a LOT more authorities for that than that LATimes article.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:49 PM
Mar 2018

Are you disputing that the Parkland, Aurora and Las Vegas shooters were mentally ill? Are you really claiming there are no statistics confirming that the vast majority of mass shooters are mentally ill?

I am not talking about the average shooting, I am talking about the really horrific mass shootings that have terrorized our schools, theaters and public spaces. I know the average homicide is not by a mentally ill person.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
126. You trusted Feinstein on her 'assault weapons bans'- but not on this?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:21 PM
Mar 2018

In fact, you stated that you were proud of her, did you not?

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
127. I trust her, I just think this is a pittance and we should demand more.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:24 PM
Mar 2018

And she is demanding more.

Have fun researching me? I'm honored...

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
133. Call it 'opposition research'
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:50 PM
Mar 2018

Then again, if one does not wish for ones' words to be quoted it would be
prudent not to have uttered them in the first place.

P.S.: Snaps for the "Animal House" reference...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
137. Kinda pathetic to call a fellow DUer "Opposition." That's supposed to be the GOP.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:59 PM
Mar 2018

Says a lot about you right there.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
152. Are we not debating a subject, and are those not your own words?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:44 PM
Mar 2018

I don't seem to recall any nondisclosure agreement in DUs Terms of Service.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
169. If you disagree with me, you're not a Democrat? How odd a stance.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 12:12 PM
Mar 2018

It sure makes disagreements easier, I suppose.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
170. Calling Democrats "the Opposition" is a pretty "odd stance" for a Democrat.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 12:25 PM
Mar 2018

Calling me "the Opposition" is not simply disagreeing in a debate.

I debate and disagree with fellow DUers and have for years, but no one here has ever called me "the Opposition" until now, let alone bragged about stalking me on the internet to get "Opposition Research" on me.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
173. Funny, I don't read that sentence in the exchange above. Care to point it out?
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 03:12 PM
Mar 2018

Or are you putting words in folks mouths again?

That seems to be your m.o. in this thread.

edit: "a fellow DUer "Opposition." " -- So, you've morphed from a fellow DU'er to now being all Democrats?

LOL!

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
175. Discussion of gun control at DU tends to attract self-appointed "DU Political Officers"...
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 03:53 PM
Mar 2018

...who act as if they're running the place.

I've noticed that these these types usually end up getting the keys to the street from the real
management...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
178. What part of "DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND" do you not understand?
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:09 PM
Mar 2018

You just dove into this thread to hurl insults. Maybe you don't have anything better to do with your time, but I do.

Bye.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
196. Aww, toddle off.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 06:12 PM
Mar 2018

When you clearly get caught trying to put words in others mouths, it's smart to tuck tail.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
179. No one called you "the opposition" -and BTW, Democrats most certainly do "opposition research"...
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:10 PM
Mar 2018

...against other Democrats:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-republicans-steele-dossier_us_59f0b675e4b092dad3bb0d82

Yes, Democrats Funded The Steele Dossier. The Question Is Whether They Got The Goods.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund an opposition research effort against Donald Trump that culminated in numerous damning allegations against him, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.


You also appear to have ....'missed', shall we say... several reports of Democrats doing opposition
reasearch against Democrats right here at DU:


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127107386

Democrats Have 700 Pages Of Opposition Research On Zinke, All Ready For Interior Hearings

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028568030#post5

The DCCC does do some good work. They train congressional staff, have year round opposition research, and fund ads in targeted districts


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10289369

In a rare move, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is aiming its opposition research firepower at a Democrat...

...The DCCC recently published an opposition research memo on it's website against Moser.


The contentionthat "Democrats don't do oppo research against Democrats" is, frankly, a crock of shit.
 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
6. FIx NICS would be huge IMO - would this not also increase liability for acting outside the system?
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:45 AM
Mar 2018

If you transfer a weapon outside the system - and it gets used in a crime...you got problems!

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
7. Private sales without checks would still be legal- so open NICS to private sellers...
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:56 AM
Mar 2018

...and give private sellers two incentives for using it: 1) A 'safe-harbor' provision indemnifying sellers who
use it against liability if the buyer passes the background check, and

2) No safe harbor for those who don't use it, and criminal charges for those who sell to someone who fails the checks.

IOW, a carrot and a stick- such a plan might get enough support that making background checks universal
would actually happen. We can only hope- and work like hell to make it happen.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
8. This would be the right way to do it but the gun prohibition people wont ever do t
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 07:51 AM
Mar 2018

They could have had “universal” background checks years ago if they ever put forth to do it by opening NICS.

But they don’t really want universal background checks alone. Because they know they won’t affect crime.

What they want is to make it as hard as possible to own a gun and to criminalize lots of things that nobody thinks of as criminal, like loaning a gun to someone to hunt or even handing it to them to look at as an “illegal transfer”.

That is why every so-called “universal background check” law they propose is way overboard on how it gets there and criminalizes loans between friends and makes any sales as hard as possible by requiring trips to a gun store and fees, when simply putting NICS on an app would do it.

 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
9. Not criminal - but liable...
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 08:18 AM
Mar 2018

If you hand an idiot a gun and they shoot somebody - you got problems.

If you loan a gun to someone to hunt and they shoot somebody - you got problems

The legality of the transfer seems another issue.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
11. No, all the proposed UBC make it criminal to even loan a gun
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 09:11 AM
Mar 2018

Let me give a real world example.

I teach firearms safety and other related classes to all kinds of audiences. I know a lot of other instructors that do as well.

A friend of mine who is also an instructor was asked to teach a class to security officers at a hospital specifically on how to unload and make safe a wide variety of handguns. Because while they train on one style of gun they carry that doesn’t mean they know how to operate any others, and all kinds can come into an ER.

He needed a few examples of more unusual guns he didn’t have. Specifically a couple of top break revolvers (one top latch and one side) and one that was a swing out/push eject revolver.

I had examples of all 3. 1 made in 1900 and the other two made in WWII, all 3 in calibers that are odd and can’t be bought in most gun shops. Collectors pieces all of them but still ones of a kind they guards need to know how to make safe.

We are both residents of the same state. He is also a cop and has a NC CCW so I know he isn’t a felon or prohibited person. I met with him on a Sunday and gave him the 3, he taught the class 3 times to get all the shifts, we met that Friday and he gave them back and bought me dinner as thanks.

Had Tommey-Manchin, the most well know UBC proposal passed, I would have committed 3 felonies when I gave them to him and he would have committed 3 felonies when he returned them.

If Toomey-Manchin had passed we would have isntead had to go to a gun store, have the gun store process the 3 loans just as if he was buying 3 guns from the shop and pay the shop $20-35 per gun in transfer fees, then when he returned them do it all again like I was buying them and pay $20-35 per gun in fees again.

And the thing that makes that more absurd? We both have NC CCWs, that means we don’t have to do the NICS check just show them to to dealer. So we would spend a few hours doing paperwork and pay $120-200 in fees and there wouldn’t even be a background check done since we are both exempt!

 

Weed Man

(304 posts)
27. Dude, no-one should be teaching gun safety.
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:01 PM
Mar 2018

All morons ignore it.

Instead, teach them martial arts or defense against a gun.

Good luck, Lee-Lee.

I'm just going to give you an example and leave you thinking. Columbine. Parkland. Teachers have been killed defending their students.

 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
10. Someone on CNN described a check system - where buyer and seller get temp permits
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 08:21 AM
Mar 2018

And then make the transfer, sign it, done.

Sounded like you had only a few days to complete the transaction.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
12. Just make a NICS website and app for the public
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 09:14 AM
Mar 2018

Let people who will be selling guns register as users and then they can do the checks.

It really can be that simple and there isn’t any reason for a more complicated system.

If you sell a gun without using it, then you are criminally and civilly liable for any criminal misuse by the next owner, or if the person you sold it to was a prohibited person when you did even if they don’t commit any crimes.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
21. This sounds like RWers trying to nullify Roe v. Wade
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:36 PM
Mar 2018

You two must have really hated what President Obama had to say on the matter in 2016:

http://time.com/4168056/obama-gun-control-speech-transcript/

...Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this — (applause) — I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
29. No, it doesn't, and no I didn't.
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:09 PM
Mar 2018

Like I said up the thread, it is deeply offensive of you to equate the right to a gun to the right to an abortion. No one ever slaughtered a theater of people by having an abortion.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
33. Why would your opinion of what's offensive matter?
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:35 PM
Mar 2018

Your level of intellectual honesty has been clearly demonstrated upthread
(The disinterested reader is invited to note the time stamps on the following posts)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post17

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #5)
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 12:11 PM

17. So you're fine with schizophrenia patients having the ability to buy guns?


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post19

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 03:23 PM

19. No, and I'll thank you to take *your* words out of *my* mouth


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post28

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #19)
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:04 PM

...I notice you refuse to answer my question about whether a schizophrenic should have a gun...


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post30

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #28)
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:15 PM

30. "I notice you refuse to answer my question about whether a schizophrenic should have a gun." I did

What part of 'no' did you not understand? Here, I'll even highlight it for you:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post19

"No, and I'll thank you to take *your* words out of *my* mouth"







SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
35. OFFS. Read my reply.
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:54 PM
Mar 2018

As I said up the thread, it appeared you didn't want the mentally ill barred, with all your talk of "prior restraint." https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10307119

I see you resort to hyperventilating insults and sophistry since you cannot defend your analogy that buying a gun is the same as getting an abortion.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
40. Misguided attempts to derail reform because "it isn't good enough"...
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 07:35 PM
Mar 2018

...hardly entitles objectors to the moral high ground.

YMMV.

For examples of what might have been prevented if the mooted reforms had been place:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html

Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson — he had cracked the child’s skull — should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd-guns.html


Cho’s Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale
Michael Luo

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.

A special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun...


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/02/gun-mentally-ill-database-nics/1805487/

Editorial: Gun control database going to waste

If a judge's order that Cho get mental health treatment had been sent to the national database used to run checks on gun buyers, he'd have been disqualified. Because of a glitch in Virginia's reporting, that didn't happen.

Virginia rushed to fix its system, and today it feeds more mental health records per capita into the database, known as NICS, than any other state. But the shock waves from the deadliest shooting in U.S. history faded away at the Virginia border.

As of October, a third of states had reported fewer than one record for every 100,000 residents to NICS. Rhode Island has failed to report any. Five states — Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, North Dakota and Pennsylvania — have each reported one.

Denying guns to people who've been judged mentally ill or committed to an institution, as federal law requires, is one of the least controversial gun controls imaginable. More than 90% of the public supports preventing people with mental health problems from owning guns.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/06/us/how-people-with-mental-illness-are-able-to-obtain-guns.html

...Their Mental Health Records Are Not Accessible

Mental health records are overwhelmingly under-reported to the federal and state databases scanned during a background check. For example, while the majority of states now have laws that require them to submit records to the F.B.I.’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, there is little enforcement, and the comprehensiveness of those records vary significantly.

Mr. Obama said Tuesday that the Social Security Administration would start to look at how to link mental health records with criminal background check data. He is also requesting $500 million from Congress to improve basic mental health care.


Also...
You seem unaware that one of your declared goals is at least partially now law:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/01/06/2015-33181/health-insurance-portability-and-accountability-act-hipaa-privacy-rule-and-the-national-instant

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

A Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 01/06/2016


https://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/hipaa-change-permits-mental-health-reporting-to-background-check-system

HIPAA Change Permits Mental Health Reporting to Background Check System


The Department of Health and Human Services has modified the HIPAA Privacy Rule to permit certain covered entities to disclose to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System the identities of individuals who are prohibited from having a firearm, for reasons related to mental health.

Under the Privacy Rule modification, certain covered entities are now permitted to disclose limited information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which reviews criminal records and other prohibiting data to determine whether federally licensed firearms dealers can legally transfer a gun to a prospective purchaser.

Office for Civil Rights Director Jocelyn Samuels made the announcement on Monday. According to Samuels, the information that can be disclosed to NICS is the minimum necessary identifying information about individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or otherwise have been determined by a lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others, or who lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs.

Although states have generally reported criminal history information to NICS, many report little information about individuals prohibited by federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.


Fix NICS attempts to make such report required, and recommends sanctions against states and entities that
don't do what's required.

I've been more than polite in regards to the "the perfect is the enemy of the good" mindset
evinced in this thread.


SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
43. The 1/6/16 HIPAA rule does not require reporting of mental illness diagnoses.
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 03:29 AM
Mar 2018

No one is trying to derail reform. On the contrary, with some wind in our back finally, we are trying to get some real background check reform instead of, to borrow your words, nibbling around the edges. What is the harm in asking for significantly expanding NICS when there is so much public support for it?

I don't see how the "NICS fix" being proposed would have prevented the Sutherland or Virginia Tech mass shootings. I'm not saying we shouldn't do the NICS fix, I just don't see how it would have prevented the Sutherland or Virginia Tech mass shootings.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
44. IIRC, Fix NICS would encode that HIPPA ruling into law
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 05:27 PM
Mar 2018

The VT shooter should have been reported to the FBI, but was not.
Virginia fixed that, as noted in the linked USA Today piece.

Failing to notify the FBI about the Sutherland Springs shooter was on the head of the Air Force,
who admitted their failing in a public statement.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
47. That does nothing about getting mental illness diagnoses reported.
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 06:54 PM
Mar 2018

We need mental illness diagnoses reported, not just involutary treatment/commitment adjudications. The Parkland and Aurora shooters had mental illness diagnoses, but no involuntary treatment adjudications.

And again, I don't see how the NICS fix would prevent the human failures that resulted in the nonreporting of mental incapacity adjudications. It does not create some sort of streamlined computer link from courts to the database, for example, or give states money to help with reporting (staff, equipment, etc.).

But most problematic, the NICS fix fails to require the reporting of mental illness diagnoses.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
49. The ACLU has gone on record strongly opposing what you propose. I concur with them:
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 10:21 PM
Mar 2018
https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

Vania Leveille, Senior Legislative Counsel
& Susan Mizner, Disability Counsel, ACLU
February 20, 2017 | 10:45 AM

This month, Congress repealed a rule that would have registered thousands of Social Security recipients with mental disabilities, who have others manage their benefits, into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to prevent them from owning firearms.

The American Civil Liberties Union does not oppose gun control laws. As an organization dedicated to defending all constitutional rights, we believe the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions to promote public safety...

...The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular....

...The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.


SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
56. It's not "moral panics," whatever the hell that means, it's statistics.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 02:50 AM
Mar 2018

If we want to avoid another Parkland or Aurora or Las Vegas, we have to get diagnoses of severe mental illness into the NICS database. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html

Looks like all that fury of yours earlier was over nothing, eh?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
71. You haven't got the votes, and would rather reject a partial fix than compromise
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:24 AM
Mar 2018

Last edited Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
62. Category error. Societal right to keep kids alive wins out over right to own lots of guns
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 03:29 AM
Mar 2018

The 17 kids in Parkland have civil rights too. Rights to not be dead, killed by guns. That rules over 'civil right' to own a gun for fun. It's not about civil rights, it's about a lot of Americans really wanting to have guns.






 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
69. Logical fallacy. "Think of the children" is an appeal to emotion, not an argument
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:16 AM
Mar 2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children#Moral_panic

Moral panic

The Journal for Cultural Research published an article in 2010 by Debra Ferreday,[28] which was republished in the 2011 book Hope and Feminist Theory.[9] According to Ferreday, media use of "Won't someone think of the children!" had become common in a climate of moral panic.[9] She suggested that the phrase was becoming so common that it could become another Godwin's law.[9]


sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
77. Category error: gun restrictions ARE constitutional. Your original pt re Const: category error.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 11:04 AM
Mar 2018



(In addition, Heller is wrong. But even if we allow it for argument, it doesn't block gun restrictions)

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
54. Make up your mind. Do you want mental illness diagnoses in NICS or not?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 02:42 AM
Mar 2018

I disagree with ACLU's stance on the Social Security mental incapacity reporting rule that Trump repealed. The ACLU is wrong about the data. We don't have a lot of data since the CDC is barred from studying the causes of gun violence, but what do know is that the vast majority of mass murderers are indeed mentally it.

According to our research, at least 59% of the 185 public mass shootings that took place in the United States from 1900 through 2017 were carried out by people who had either been diagnosed with a mental disorder or demonstrated signs of serious mental illness prior to the attack. 


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html

Sure, they tend not to have Downs Syndrome, which that ACLU quote mentions as one of the nonviolent disorders that the Social Security reporting rule would have covered. But even the ACLU doesn't try to argue that those with schizophrenia should have a gun.

Now please stop playing this gave of hide and seak.
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
66. No. Not without a court order. What you want is no different than the 'terrorism watch lists'...
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:40 AM
Mar 2018

...or Michael Bloomberg's 'stop and frisk' program.

Robert Bolt had something to say about mindsets like that:

A Man for All Seasons (1960)

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.


SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
84. Well, that response suggests you DO want the mentally ill buying guns.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 12:15 PM
Mar 2018

No, its not the same as the terrorist watch list. I said up the thread that before the diagnosis would be posted in NICS the patient would have notice and an opportunity to dispute the diagnosis. This can be done administratively, so that it does not require the person getting a lawyer and can be done quickly. Administrative appeals provide due process and are quick and much cheaper than litigation. But if the patient is not satisfied with the administrative appeal, then he or she can appeal to a local Court. This sort of process has been upheld as constitutional in many contexts and it would be in this one as well.

I have no idea what you mean by only by court order and apparently neither do you. It is now apparent you do want the mentally ill buying guns and you are just playing games with me, posting movie clips.

You won't answer my question about who the parties would be in such litigation. You do not appear to know what you were talking about. A court order can only be obtained where the court has jurisdiction and you do not say how the court would have jurisdiction in this situation. A doctor would not ever file a lawsuit to report a patient. That would just not happen because such a requirement would be an insurmountably onerous burden to reporting. Hell, we can't even get everyone to report criminal convictions and mental incapacity adjudications to NICS, which is pretty easy.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
108. Well, that response suggests you think your cause is more important than due process.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:29 PM
Mar 2018

Shades of the Patriot Act...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
110. Not at all, the process I suggest has been held constitutional.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:36 PM
Mar 2018

What is clear is the pro-gun groups think their guns are more important than people's lives.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
120. Goldberg v. Kelly-SCOTUS held that pre-termination administrative hearings comply with due process
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:57 PM
Mar 2018

This was not talking about right to buy guns, but about something a person needs even more, food to live. If a pre-termination administrative hearing hearing is sufficient for due process purposes for that, it would certainly be sufficient for the right to buy a gun.

Here are the basics of the holding:

A state that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient w/o affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination does deny the recipient procedural due process in violation of the 14th amendment?
i. The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be “condemned to suffer grievous loss,” and depends upon whether the recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the government interest in summary adjudication
ii. Consideration of what procedures due process may require under any given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action.
iii. Termination of aid while a person waits for hearing has the ability to deny an eligible recipient the aid he needs to survive. The governmental interest in conserving fiscal and administrative resources do not override the welfare needs
iv. However, we note that the pre-termination hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial
1. Pre-termination hearing only has one function: produce an initial determination of the validity of the welfare department’s grounds for discontinuance of payments in order to protect a recipient against an erroneous termination of benefits
2. Need only minimum procedural safeguards: notice setting out reasons for possible termination, oral presentation and confrontation of adverse witnesses, possibility of counsel
https://law.wustl.edu/sba/upperlevel/Administrative%20Law/Admin-Levin5-F03.pdf

Full text of case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/254/case.html
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
128. I have no problem with that, provided a) there are no ex parte hearings, b) they are not held
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:28 PM
Mar 2018

in a health care facility, and c) the subject has a right to counsel, as see Gideon v. Wainwright

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
135. Gideon is not applicable. The person is not being charged with a felony.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:56 PM
Mar 2018

As SCOTUS held in Goldberg v. Kelly:

"We do not say that counsel must be provided at the pre-termination hearing, but only that the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so desires." (Goldberg, 397 U. S. at 271.)

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
144. I can see the Second Amendment Foundation jumping in on such cases
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:06 PM
Mar 2018

The NRA gets 99% of the publicity, but the SAF is the org that wins the court cases

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
160. I find it interesting ...
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:18 AM
Mar 2018

... that the the case you cite is one that makes it easier to deny welfare benefits.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
167. I find it interesting that some here think guns are more important than food.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 11:47 AM
Mar 2018

And Straw Man, you are totally wrong about this case. It did not make it easier to take away welfare benefits. Just the opposite. The appellants were the welfare recipients, who were demanding a pre-termination hearing before their welfare benefits could be cut off. That is what the Supreme Court gave them.

The case was a victory for due process. This is a seminal due process case taught in every first year law class, as it lays out what is required in the administrative, as opposed to criminal, context. That is why I brought it up, since we are talking about administrative due process with regard to NICS posting. It is telling that the folks here claiming to be such big fans of due process did not even know about this case.

Didn't you have anything better to do late on a Saturday night than swooping in late in this thread to try to hurl a clueless insult at me?

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
171. Nice try, but nowhere did I say or imply that.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 01:47 PM
Mar 2018
I find it interesting that some here think guns are more important than food.

I may be called Straw Man, but I'm not that straw man.

The case was a victory for due process.

Mixed bag, as I read it. I quote:

(a) Such hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial, but the recipient must be provided with timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for termination and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally before the decision maker.

(b) Counsel need not be furnished at the pre-termination hearing, but the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney.

Not judicial or quasi-judicial, and therefore subject to the whims of the welfare system. Economically disadvantaged clients are "allowed to retain an attorney"? How magnanimous.

Didn't you have anything better to do late on a Saturday night than swooping in late in this thread to try to hurl a clueless insult at me?

There was no insult -- merely the observation that when it comes to matters of the individual vs. the state, you reflexively side with the state.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
172. Wrong, you totally misunderstood Goldberg v. Kelly.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 02:05 PM
Mar 2018

Establishing a right to a pre-termination hearing in the administrative context was a victory for due process. It certainly could have gone further, but it still dramatically increased the due process rights of not only of welfare recipients, but all individuals facing administrative agencies.

What you said was a stupid insult, just like your ignorant and incorrect claim that "when it comes to matters of the individual vs. the state, you reflexively side with the state." If ever looked at non-gun posts, such as abortion posts, you would realize how wrong you are.

Regardless, I am not "siding with the state" over the individual when it comes to guns. I am siding with the individuals who don't want to get shot by nuts with guns.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
174. No, I didn't.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 03:26 PM
Mar 2018
It certainly could have gone further, but it still dramatically increased the due process rights of not only of welfare recipients, but all individuals facing administrative agencies.

It could have gone much further. Do you think it is sufficient? I don't. It allows bureaucrats to dictate rights, outside of the legal system.

What you said was a stupid insult, just like your ignorant and incorrect claim that "when it comes to matters of the individual vs. the state, you reflexively side with the state." If ever looked at non-gun posts, such as abortion posts, you would realize how wrong you are.

Odd -- when others have looked at your posts elsewhere, you accuse them of stalking you. Far be it from me to indulge in such behavior. I'm judging from your reaction to this case and this case alone.

Let's see: clueless, stupid, ignorant ... Nowhere did I apply language like that to your posts. I think your insult meter only works in one direction.

Regardless, I am not "siding with the state" over the individual when it comes to guns. I am siding with the individuals who don't want to get shot by nuts with guns.

You certainly are "siding with the state." You are talking about abrogating, without judicial oversight, the rights of people who have committed no crime. And you claim that this is to be done in the name of potential victims. Crime victims have rights. What statute covers the rights of potential victims?

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
176. It is you who is siding with the state; the ruling GOP wants no gun control.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:02 PM
Mar 2018

And I AM siding with potential gun victims. Gun Control protects them.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
177. Another straw man from you.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:07 PM
Mar 2018
It is you who is siding with the state; the ruling GOP wants no gun control.

Surely you know the difference between "the state" in the abstract and the ruling party. And where did I ever say I want "no gun control"? That's a big huge straw man who is no kin to me.

And now we're down to cartoons and meaningless truisms. Yes, if there are no guns, no one can be shot. Are we no longer talking about due process and diagnoses of mental illness? I missed where that discussion ended.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
184. When you demanded more protections for denial of gun purchases than are afforded food.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:20 PM
Mar 2018

You expressed your position that for gun purchase blocking, Gideon v. Wainwright protections must apply, namely government-provided counsel, even though it is well-established that the Constitution does not require that for welfare benefit termination.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10315076

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
186. The bar should be higher for termination of welfare benefits.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:25 PM
Mar 2018

That's a progressive possession, is it not?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
189. Citizens should be afforded legal counsel in any legal (or quasi-legal) dealings with the state
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:42 PM
Mar 2018

Even non-citizens, in the case of immigrants.
Incorporate Gideon v. Wainwright into the Constitution.

That's a progressive possession, is it not?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
187. That merely shows that welfare hearings are unfair, not that guns are more important than food
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:30 PM
Mar 2018

Any inference beyond that is mere slander.

Considering the source, I do not take offense...

Do inform us about your efforts to help ensure legal assistance to welfare recipients, mmkay?

Question for you: How does one go about getting wholesale discounts when obtaining straw?

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
190. No, you were asserting the NICS administrative hearings I was suggesting were unconstitutional.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:43 PM
Mar 2018

You demanded I cite a case to support what I was saying, showing your cluelessness on the subject. When I cited you the case, with an explanation of its holding, you still didn't think it was enough, demanding Gideon v. Wainwright protections for gun purchase blocking. You did not say Goldberg v. Kelly should be overturned, rather, you demanded special protections from gun purchase blocking that are not even afforded for food, something people literally cannot live without.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
192. You will not improve the lot of welfare recipients one iota by restricting others' rights
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 05:10 PM
Mar 2018

Again, you have inferred things that were not said.

I suggested a mechanism for remedating the inequities inherent in Goldberg v. Kelly
(i.e., further extending the protections ofGideon v. Wainright)...and *still* you complain!

Presumably because you don't like "those people"...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
198. You presume wrongly. I am what you just called "those people."
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 11:45 PM
Mar 2018

I grew up on welfare. You did a shitty job of "Opposition Research" if you didn't know that. I have first hand experience that the poor suffer the most from gun violence. You did not "suggest a mechanism for remedating (sp) the inequities in Goldberg v. Kelly," you just tacked on more roadblocks to the process for keeping guns from the mentally ill, specifically, you said:

I have no problem with that, provided a) there are no ex parte hearings, b) they are not held

in a health care facility, and c) the subject has a right to counsel, as see Gideon v. Wainwright
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10315076

You offered nothing to help welfare recipients (you had "no problem with that" process), just gun buyers with mentall illness diagnoses.

Now you cynically insult me by suggesting I "don't like" welfare recipients, what you call "those people," which is both offensive and false.

This discussion has devolved into you flailing and insulting me, after showing you don't understand due process law. Given your insults and lack of knowledge, there really is no point in maintaining this conversation with you. You have wasted enough of my time.

Bye.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
199. Due process is a "roadblock"? This isn't 'Authoritarian Underground', and your ...contributions...
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 01:11 AM
Mar 2018

...to the conversation will not be missed, at least by me.

Also, I suugested that you don't like *gun owners*, not welfare recipients- and I stand by that suggestion.





sl8

(13,584 posts)
14. Why Senate Democrats are considering holding up a gun-control bill from one of their own
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 09:58 AM
Mar 2018
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.833d7cca858c

Why Senate Democrats are considering holding up a gun-control bill from one of their own

By Amber Phillips
February 28 at 9:36 AM

...

Even though one of their own is co-sponsoring the Fix NICS Act, which would punish federal agencies that don't submit criminal records to the national criminal background check system for firearms, Senate Democrats have spent their first few days back in Congress this week dissing the bill.

“What will prevent future tragedy? Comprehensive background checks will. The Fix NICS bill will not,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Let’s not set our sights too narrow or squander this moment.”

...

Murphy doesn't want his own bill brought up for a vote without a guarantee from Republicans to allow votes on other Democratic priorities, like universal background checks. “If we were only to debate the Fix NICS Act,” Murphy told reporters Tuesday, “we would be slamming the door in the face of all these kids who are demanding change.”

That's a sharp turn from what Murphy said in November, calling his bill the most important piece of bipartisan gun-control legislation since the Senate voted on (and didn't pass) a universal background check proposal after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Conn.

...



More at link.
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
26. History repeats: "Screw that 'half a loaf'! We want the whole thing, or nothing!"
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:57 PM
Mar 2018

And 'nothing' is *exactly* what they'll get with that attitude.

FFS, do they not remember the last go-around on the same damn issue in 2013?

A cynic might suggest that they feel there's more political mileage to be had by appearing
to have been stopped by the eebil NRA than by actually *gasp* negotiating the matter.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
57. This "NICS fix" is not half a loaf. It's crumbs.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 02:54 AM
Mar 2018

It does not expand what is reported to NICS, nor provide resources to improve reporting.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
67. NICS Fix is what is possible now. Would you prefer to "take a dive" for strategic reasons...
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:02 AM
Mar 2018

...in order to keep the "evil GOP/NRA keeping us from doing anything" trope going?

After all, if Fix NICS was passed and found to work it would make ginning up support for
gun bans even more difficult than it is already.

The NRA aren't the only people making bank by making their audience fearful...

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
83. If all we have the votes for are crumbs, I'll take crumbs.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 11:54 AM
Mar 2018

But I won't let the gun crowd lie to me about what a great deal I'm getting. Nor will I "take a dive" for the NRA.

You understand what "take a dive" means, right?

sarisataka

(18,209 posts)
15. Three recent mass shootings
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 10:16 AM
Mar 2018

Would have been prevented if NCIS had been updated properly.

Unfortunately such bills, of they make past Republican committees, can't just get a vote on their own. A popular gun control move just isn't enough for some and they must add more bans and restrictions that have far less support.

Isn't the mantra "if it saves one life it's worth it"? If that is true then let's get an NCIS bill up for a vote. It would have saved over 80 lives lost in church and school shootings.

Crunchy Frog

(26,548 posts)
20. As long as private sales aren't subject to background checks
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:30 PM
Mar 2018

No amount of fixing NICS will make much of a difference.

Is there any interest in closing the gun show loophole?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
23. "As long as private sales aren't subject to background checks" I address this in post #7
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:46 PM
Mar 2018

Let private sellers access the check system, and indemnify them when they use it properly.
Punish them if it is found that they have not

I would remind the disinterested reader that the number of gun owners in the US at least
equals or exceeds the number of people that voted for Clinton in 2016.

IMO, to expect them to agree to, or at least acquiecse to, criminalizing what most of them
can now do legally *without* a strong incentive is naive in the extreme.

Response to Hoyt (Reply #51)

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
81. Need to go through FFL who can lose their business if they don't keep records. Private sellers have
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 11:51 AM
Mar 2018

not proven reliable in past, most willing to sell to anyone with a fistful of cash.

An FFL will also properly check IDs, etc. Most private sellers -- assuming they even go through the process -- will just want a link or piece of papers saying they did the minimum required.

If one is not willing to pay the $35 or so to an FFL to insure some degree of accountability, maybe they just shouldn't be selling guns. That's the problem with way too many gunners, they aren't nearly as responsible as they want us to believe.

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
89. You have no clue how a NICS checks works do you?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 03:37 PM
Mar 2018

You certainly do know how to spark a black market of sales though. Make it cost prohibitive for a private seller to do a background check on a potential buyer.

"If one is not willing to pay the $35 or so to an FFL to insure some degree of accountability,..."... you seem to think that if an FFL dealer sells to someone who passes a NICS check...and then pulls a Parkland shit show... they are somehow legally responsible for the illegal actions of the freak that killed a bunch of our school kids.
It doesn't work that way. It's not like a bar/gin joint that allows a drunk a'hole to pile into a vehicle and kill a Ford Explorer full of kids.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
90. No, I expect people to do the checks who have their license on the line.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 03:43 PM
Mar 2018

Not George zimmerman, randy weaver, Timmy mcveigh, David Koresch, Darren Wilson, and a host of others gunners like.

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
91. Let' run through your list....oh we don't have to because NONE were private sales.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 04:14 PM
Mar 2018

Zidiot...FFL, Weaver got in trouble for sawed offs, McVeigh a truck bomb, Koresch had illegally altered firearms, Wilson was a cop....
You are NOT making your point to make it costly to do NICS checks on private sales....but you know that.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
149. Sure I am OldGeezer. Do you think those gunners and those who support guns are
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:13 PM
Mar 2018

actually going to deny a sale if it comes back negative or the system is down. A licensed dealer is the only secure way to go, because Joe Gunner isn't going to care because he never has before.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
164. And robbers and rapists will just steal a gun
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 10:15 AM
Mar 2018

Because the kind of people who are already running about victimizing society as criminals because they have no care but for what they want and are willing to harm everyone else to get it don’t care about whatever law you pass.

It’s not the gun owners who society needs to worry about. It is the people like that who have already proven they don’t care about societies rules or who they harm. They will just steal anything that they want anyway.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
165. That's exactly why we need to restrict new gun sales. So-called
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 11:04 AM
Mar 2018

responsible gun owners make it easy for criminals to get guns. Fewer guns, less criminals with them. Stop now, and we'll be better off even it it takes decades for full effect.

No, society needs to worry about white wing gun fanatics and their right wing agenda and hatred.

Time gunners do something for society.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
195. "Men will walk upright now, women will smile and the children will laugh,...
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 05:31 PM
Mar 2018

...Hell will be forever for rent.”

Same as it ever was...

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
200. I repeat what I said earlier....you have no clue how NICS works.
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 01:37 PM
Mar 2018

Going through an FFL will never make the FFL dealer liable for actions of a rampage freak after a PASSED NICS check. That's NOT how it works...and you SHOULD know that.

Was the dealer that Lanza's mother purchased her firearm held responsible for what her f'kwaddle kid pulled?
Was an FFL dealer charged in connection to McVeigh renting a truck and buying fertilizer?
Do we have to go through..AGAIN.. your other examples? NONE of which is an FFL issue let alone a NICS issue
You aren't good at this....you are arguing AGAINST yourself, not me.

I'm Ancient..not old...

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
205. I know damn well how gunners are. FFLs will at least do the background check correctly, not wanting
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 02:54 PM
Mar 2018

to lose their business by saying, "Oh you didn't pass, but I'll sell it to you anyway, who is going to know," like a gunner is apt to do. Plus, FFLs won't get away with not keeping the proper records.

Pay the $35, it's good for society. That's the problem with gunners, always wanting what works for them, even if it is a detriment to society.

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
206. You don't know a "gunner" from a grass hopper.
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 03:50 PM
Mar 2018

Last edited Mon Mar 5, 2018, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

But you have stated you know what robbers do. Slam the door. hell lock it on law enforcement....hmmmm? You said it's what you have done.

You certainly show you don't know how NICS chks are done or the info included.
It's an easy process....look at a 4473 form....seller and buyer names are on it.

If as you claim.. that a failed NICS chk would be ignored and the sale/transfer occur...there is IN FACT a record should that happen.
The buyer and the "transforee" have done a NICS chk that went through a DOJ process.

If a free NICS can be done in a private sale, have the private seller keep a copy of it until it may be sold again....unlike your claim though...if a passed NICS chk happens the "dealer" isn't responsible for the illegal actions of the buyer.

U-Haul wasn't responsible for what McVeigh did with their truck in Ok.City were they?
United or American wasn't responsible for what a pack of freaks did to the WTC were they?

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
163. Its essy enough to enforce- do a private sale without using it and go to jail
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 10:12 AM
Mar 2018

It’s not that hard.

There is no legitimate reason to mandate use of an FFL to to the exact same checks that we can let anyone do if we just allow access to the system.

The arguement that is has to go to an FFL because a tiny portion of people wouldn’t do the checks is an idiotic arguement. So you think if the law says they can do a check themselves they will ignore the law and possible punishment, but if the law says they must go to an FFL they will suddenly follow it? No, of course they won’t. The same person who wasn’t willing to do the easier route of a check themselves isn't going to suddenly fall in line and become law abiding and comply with an even more burdensome law. They will just break the law still. In fact the harder and more burdensome you make it to follow the law the more people will fail to follow it.

But a lot of rapid anti-gun types don’t want that because their goal really isn’t to get background checks done- especially robbers and such who already know that criminals are scumbags who will just steal guns anyway- but they really just want to put as much hassle and bureaucracy in front of people who are perfectly law abiding in order not to actually stop criminals from getting guns but to make it as hard as possible for anyone to get guns.

Making it hard for the law abiding to be armed is a wet dream of many anti-gun types. As well as many criminals who want to be able to be safer when committing their robberies and rapes.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
166. Like that stops gunners from killing and intimidating people.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 11:07 AM
Mar 2018

If you want to unload a gun, pay the $35 and do it right.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
202. Free or very reduced.
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 02:18 PM
Mar 2018

I know an FFL who charges $35 for NICS on a purchase from another retailer, shipped to him for the transfer. He only charges $10 for walk-in private transactions. He figures that they aren't his competition, whereas other retailers are. That's a step in the right direction, IMO.

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
203. Very similar here....shop to shop transfer is a full charge NICS..
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 02:48 PM
Mar 2018

My buddy Hoyt isn't interested in actual NICS checks though...he thinks a $35 charge will stem private sales and suddenly make the FFL dealer legally "at risk" or "accountable" but it doesn't work that way....when in fact what he will do is CONTINUE private sales with NO chks.
He's the guy that admits he locks doors of others peoples homes so cops can't get in.... https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
204. Never liked old adages, but "Fox guarding the hen house," sure comes to mind.
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 02:51 PM
Mar 2018

FFLs should do background checks, not some gunner hoping to unload one of his lethal weapons for a fistful of cash.

Pay the $35 and do it right.

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
207. FFL's do NOT do the checks they file for checks....DOJ, specificly...ATF does the checks
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 03:57 PM
Mar 2018

As I said you don't know how NICS checks are done.
Here's a hint...NICS...National Instant Criminal Background Check System NOT my local Sports Shop check system....be it a Gun shop in Albany or my neighbor down the road it would go through DOJ-ATF.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
208. Exactly.
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 04:39 PM
Mar 2018

ATF gives "proceed" or "deny." A "proceed" gets in transaction #, which goes on the paperwork. Seller keeps the paperwork to prove compliance and avoid liability. Probably a good idea to give a copy to buyer as well.

spanone

(135,632 posts)
22. mandated in 1993??? WTF?
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:38 PM
Mar 2018

so this law was mandated 25 fucking years ago and NEVER implemented....

what utter bullshit.

support it? fuck that, just implement it.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
24. It *was* implemented- but only made mandatory on the Federal level for gun dealers
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:49 PM
Mar 2018

In fact, non-dealers are prohibited from using it.

That last bit needs to change, imo.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
31. Exactly.
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:15 PM
Mar 2018
It *was* implemented- but only made mandatory on the Federal level for gun dealers

In fact, non-dealers are prohibited from using it.

The only argument I've heard against allowing private sellers to go through NICS is that the data might be used maliciously, such as to slander a potential buyer, etc. I find that to be an unfounded fear, since the system as currently configured only delivers a "proceed," "delay," or "deny."
 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
36. Yeah the complaint it could be abused is nonsense
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:26 PM
Mar 2018

But it’s the only excuse the people who don’t want that solution have because they don’t want to admit the real reason they oppose it as a solution.

The truth is if I have all the info needed for a NICS check for $15 I can have way, way, way more info on you than any NICS response would give me.

moriah

(8,311 posts)
92. Is there a reason you feel it's unreasonable to let a person support their local range...
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 04:51 PM
Mar 2018

... who likely holds an FFL, by having them run the check?

1) While my state has a very open records policy -- you can search yourself and find TROs no longer active and dismissed, attempted proceedings in mental health court even if the person agrees to a voluntary admission or a hearing finds they don't need treatment enough to do an involuntary, etc, things NCIS doesn't flag -- not every state does. Some feel our records are *too* open. Other states don't publish the uncoroborrated allegations in a temporary restraining order that isn't converted, because of due process and privacy considerations.

2) Individuals may not be aware of recordkeeping requirements, and having an FFL holder complete those for a reasonable fee is a safeguard for the individual, like a lawyer. No, it's not saying the FFL or the private party should be responsible if the check system fails, but it is allowing the FFL holder to do something that they're far more familiar with than the average citizen when it comes to recordkeeping. Yeah, they do have incentive to do their jobs under the law because losing their license would hurt, but their job isn't mind-reading.

3) There would likely still be a data charge if NCIS were made public and you had to register an account to run a firearms check (to prevent it being used nefariously and to give proof a check was done if we wanted to make that count ss recordkeeping.) Access to PACER is a certain amount per page, and there'd be startup costs for designing the interface for individuals that might make checks more expensive than paying an FFL to do it.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
93. Do you want to give local ranges/dealers a monopoly on checks? They'll still be free to do them...
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:18 PM
Mar 2018

...for those that don't want to do it themselves.

Yeah, they do have incentive to do their jobs under the law because losing their license would hurt, but their job isn't mind-reading


Making it a criminal offense for sellers *not* to do a NICS (or, like now, go to a FFL) would be an
incentive.

moriah

(8,311 posts)
106. They already have it, and again, I'm trying to throw the people against UBCs crumbs.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:20 PM
Mar 2018

They'd certainly object more if they were forced to pay "the government" to have the checks run.

I wouldn't object if the county sheriff's office could also run the check and document it for a small fee. But part of the check process is a theoretically objective or legally obligated person verify the buyer's identity in person. I'd rather have someone used to looking at IDs and judging if they were faked, such as a person who regularly does the checks already or a police officer, be physically verifying the person is who they say they are, rather than a person just going on a website.

Still, using existing FFL holders as the intermediaries would reduce need for new infrastructure expenses to start the project.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
74. If you can't get Fix NICS, you certainly can't get even more restrictive laws passed
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:44 AM
Mar 2018

Or at least not until January 2019 at the very earliest

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
100. It is a fact. It does NOTHING to expand background checks; it does NOTHING to facilitate reporting.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:44 PM
Mar 2018

All it does is offer to publish a list of federal agencies who fail to report someone they should have. Like anyone reads that. It's a cynical attempt at public shaming of the rights favorite nonexistent boogeyman, the federal Deep State, and not much more. The vast majority of agencies who report to NICS are state agencies/courts, yet the feds. And even if they were included, how does putting them on some federal list facilitate reporting?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
105. Tell that to Sandy Hook Promise, who support this- and Dianne Feinstein, who co-sponsored it:
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:17 PM
Mar 2018

Educate them about their false consciousness, and how they're being used in a "cynical attempt at public shaming"

https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/about#mission

About Us

Sandy Hook Promise is a national non-profit organization founded and led by several family members whose loved ones were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.

Based in Newtown, Connecticut, our intent is to honor all victims of gun violence by turning our tragedy into a moment of transformation by providing programs and practices that protect children from gun violence.

By uniting people of all beliefs and backgrounds who value the protection of children to take meaningful actions in their homes and communities, we will prevent gun violence and stop the tragic loss of life.



https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/sandy_hook_promise_applauds_bipartisan_bgc_bill_fix_nics


Sandy Hook Promise Commends Senators on Bipartisan Background Check Legislation

Newtown, CT – November 16, 2017 – Earlier this month, as the investigation unfolded in Sutherland Springs, TX, we learned that the deadly shooting could have been averted had authorities properly reported the shooter’s violent history. However, due to this lapse in the system, we witnessed the heartbreaking and grave consequences.


In light of this incident, we praise U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX,) Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Scott (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) along with Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Dean Heller (R-NV), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) for introducing the Fix NICS (National Instant Background Check System) Act.


The legislation aims to strengthen background checks, hold agencies accountable for reporting a perpetrators violent past, as well as looks to create a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative to ensure that states have adequate resources and incentives to share all relevant information with NICS showing that a felon or domestic abuser is excluded from purchasing a firearm.


“In the past 45 days, we have witnessed two of the worst mass shootings in modern history. I applaud these Senators for taking the crucial step to introduce this commonsense legislation that will improve background checks, keep all agencies accountable, and most importantly create a safer America. We have lost too many innocent lives. The time to act is now,” said Nicole Hockley, co-founder and managing director of Sandy Hook Promise, and the mother of Dylan, who was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.


https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8B934829-8152-4ED9-82BD-F219EEE4F335

Senators Introduce Fix NICS Act to Enhance Compliance, Ensure Accuracy of Existing Background Check System for Firearms Purchases

Nov 16 2017

Washington - Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined an effort led by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to introduce the Fix NICS Act to ensure federal and state authorities comply with existing law and accurately report relevant criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill penalizes federal agencies who fail to properly report relevant records and incentivizes states to improve their overall reporting. The bill also directs more federal funding to the accurate reporting of domestic violence records.



 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
82. Well, that's pretty much what you see in the so-call Liberal Gun Club. My guess is they are just
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 11:54 AM
Mar 2018

typical gun owners trying to fool people into believing they are something different in an attempt to keep the guns flowing to gun addicts and profiteers.

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
114. As opposed to locking doors so cops can't get in? Who profits from that? Robbers, right?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:39 PM
Mar 2018

Wouldn't stealing other peoples stuff be an addiction or profitable?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
119. "Trying to fool people into believing they are something different " An evidence-free claim...
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:56 PM
Mar 2018

...and as dismissable as a Trump tweet.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
146. Few Democrats lobby legislators to promote more guns in more places. I suspect
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:09 PM
Mar 2018

this small so-called Liberal Gun Club is a bit more conservative than the name implies. They certainly display the diversity one expects at a conservative rally.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
148. "Few Democrats lobby legislators to promote more guns in more places." And does LGC do that?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:12 PM
Mar 2018

Examples, please...

They certainly display the diversity one expects at a conservative rally.


The same could easily be said about your photo collection.
Do you go to a lot of conservative rallies to take your photos?
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
150. That's what you get when you search for gun stores or shows, gun lovers, ranges,
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:16 PM
Mar 2018

NRA, etc., and even the so-called Liberal Gun Club.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
151. You sought those photos out, and downloaded them. Do you only download ones with white gun owners?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:30 PM
Mar 2018

If so, you have a collection of 'white gun owner porn'

Also, you didn't answer the question asked. Here, let me refresh your memory:

"Few Democrats lobby legislators to promote more guns in more places." And does LGC do that?

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
59. How about universal background checks. The real stuff, not the GOP backed fake bill
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 03:24 AM
Mar 2018

The Cornyn-sponsored bill doesn't do universal background checks.

Pass this bill, but don't think it will move the needle much. It's basically the GOP and NRA trying to do the minimum.

Instead advocate for UNIVERSAL background checks.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
101. Well then, get busy rounding up the votes. Meanwhile, spare us the "all or nothing" schtick
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 05:46 PM
Mar 2018

It failed in 2013, and unless the Dems get veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress
in November it will fail again until 2021 at the earliest.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
104. This NICS fix is pretty damn close to nothing.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:04 PM
Mar 2018

It does nothing to expand background checks or facilitate reporting. It appears to be just window dressing to make it look like a pro-gun group is for gun control, when that is a lie. Nice try.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
109. Tell that to Dianne Feinstein, who was one of the original co-sponsors:
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:35 PM
Mar 2018
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8B934829-8152-4ED9-82BD-F219EEE4F335


Senators Introduce Fix NICS Act to Enhance Compliance, Ensure Accuracy of Existing Background Check System for Firearms Purchases

Nov 16 2017

Washington - Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined an effort led by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to introduce the Fix NICS Act to ensure federal and state authorities comply with existing law and accurately report relevant criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill penalizes federal agencies who fail to properly report relevant records and incentivizes states to improve their overall reporting. The bill also directs more federal funding to the accurate reporting of domestic violence records.


Still proud to have her as your senator? Or do you feel she's now "trembl(ing) at the feet of the NRA."?

https://www.democraticunderground.org/1251294903#post3

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 09:39 PM

Star Member SunSeeker (27,832 posts)
3. I am proud to have Dianne Feinstein as my senator.

The 1994 AWB made a difference. This one would have too. It is a shame our representatives still tremble at the feet of the NRA.


 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
118. Then support it. There aren't the votes for a AWB, and likely won't be until 2021 at the earliest.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:52 PM
Mar 2018

Would you rather a) hold out for reasons of doctrinal purity, or b) actually do something that might save lives?

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
134. How do we "demand" that while in the minority....?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:56 PM
Mar 2018

You want to energize the gun peeps...make that "demand"...you won't get the crumbs.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
147. Does "working" mean "attacking the actions of your biggest supporter in Congress...
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:10 PM
Mar 2018

...beacuse 'they don't go far enough'" ?

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
185. I did not call you my "Opposition" or brag about doing "Opposition Research" on you.
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 04:25 PM
Mar 2018

Those were YOUR posts to me.

I am not your political opponent in a race for office. This is a discussion board for Democrats. We're all supposed to be on the same team. It is very odd for you to use that language. Like I said, it is the first time someone has said that to me in all my years on DU.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
194. "We're all supposed to be on the same team" 'This team' has many, MANY factions...
Sun Mar 4, 2018, 05:25 PM
Mar 2018

...and many faction fights, and always has.

As Will Rogers put in the 1930s:

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
142. We ARE rounded up votes. You with us, or against?
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:03 PM
Mar 2018

Remember if you buy guns or ammo your money contributes to NRA funds that promote kids' deaths.


Are you with us, or against us?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
154. Then support Fix NICS, or your words are merely empty promises
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:53 PM
Mar 2018
Remember if you buy guns or ammo your money contributes to NRA funds that promote kids' deaths.


My conscience is clear on that count, I haven't owned a gun or bought ammo in over 35 years

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
210. I do. Do you support assault rifle bans and REAL handgun restrictions
Tue Mar 6, 2018, 09:10 AM
Mar 2018

If we both support all these things, we good.


And good on the gun purchases. Good for you. Even if you had given money to gun companies, it’s a relatively small offense relative to the blood gun CEOs have on their hands. As Canada does, I do support people who like guns being able to fire them at ranges.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
212. Assault rifle bans are security theater inspired by moral panics...
Tue Mar 6, 2018, 02:37 PM
Mar 2018

...and action on handguns awaits the overturning of Heller v. DC

 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
209. US Olympic shooting team..supporting kids deaths?
Mon Mar 5, 2018, 07:36 PM
Mar 2018

Boy Scouts Summer Camp ranges...supporting kids deaths?
A Christian kids summer camp not far from me..Deerfoot Lodge shooting range...supporting kids deaths?
EVERY PD in the Nation shooting range...supporting kids deaths?

You didn't think this out did you?

moriah

(8,311 posts)
86. It's what's sad. We can't get the votes to truly outlaw black market gun sales.
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 01:10 PM
Mar 2018

While outlawing drugs doesn't make their distribution cease, it does drive up pricing.

If it's universally illegal to transfer a firearm without going through a local FFL (whether you have to get a license yourself or not), we can start actually putting pressure on those selling to anybody on Gunslist. It will drive uo the price of black market firearms while adding such a small burden (it's $35 at the local pawn shop for them to receive a gun by mail and run the check) to legal private party transfers, and giving gun owners the opportunity to give business to their favorite range, that being against such a law is insanity.

I also would like a National Victim Notification Registry, where people who have had restraining orders, even temporary ones, against individuals can be notified that the person they took steps to get an order against has purchased, and free background checks offered to people alerted by the registry if they feel in danger because of it. No location information about the purchaser to the person notified, just that a firearm purchase was made and the date. Similarly, I think any action in a mental health court, completed or not, should result in a "defer and notify treating physician of purchase". A TRO, like a mere petition for evaluation for involuntary commitment, is public record but not enough to cause an outright denial because the defendant/respondent hasn't yet had the opportunity to respond with a lawyer. However, a lot of times that's as far as DV or mental health proceedings go -- if the person subject to a 72-hour hold simply agrees to treatment, they don't lose rights.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Liberal Gun Club: We ...