Lawmaker wants checks on private gun sales

[jpak]

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/politics/lawmaker-wants-checks-on-private-gun-sales

SANTA FE (KRQE) - It's time to close the loopholes that allow private gun sales without background checks, according to a legislator with a bill ready to introduce.

If successful, Rep. Miguel Garcia, D-Albuquerque, would close what gun-control advocates call the "gun show loophole."

"Our Wild West days are over," Garcia said at the capitol Friday. "Our Wild Bill Cody and Annie Oakley days are over. Our no-questions-asked days are over."

Garcia's bill calls for background checks at gun shows and on sales between private individuals.

<more>

[Glassunion]

1. Agreed.

All transfers occur at an FFL or LE office.

[Puha Ekapi]

2. I have...

...no objection to all sales being subject to a background check.

[gejohnston]

3. what Glassunion and the other guys said

Although the Tame East had its own share of toters among the upper classes.

[overthehillvet]

4. every gun buyer should be checked

We also have to figure out how to include mental health record checks too. Touchy subject but it has to be done somehow.

[gejohnston]

8. that has to do with medical privacy laws of each state

once you figure that out, how do decide "too dangerous" from no big deal.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

15. We have a way

It is by states submitting the names of people they have been alerted are dangerous.

The overwhelming majority of mentally ill people are the victims of gun violence, not the perpetrators. The paranoia about this, fueled by the NRA, is factually wrong. Criminologists have already determined that the vast majority of mass shootings are by sane but angry people, not dangerously mentally ill people.

That said, we should make it easier for those people who are dangerous to be in the system by virtue of concerns from family members, etc., subject to a review by a mental health professional if the person so identified feels it is unfair.

But more than that, we need to get rid of the NRA WRITTEN PROVISION that allows those who HAVE been determined by mental health professionals and/or the judicial system to get their gun rights back without ANY professional review whatsoever, under the lowest level judges who have no training or background in what to ask, or look for, in restoring those gun privileges.

We also need to have drug convictions last in the NICS data base for more than a year; drugs and alcohol use are far more a factor in shootings than mental illness. I'd argue that multiple DUIs should make you a prohibited person as well - because it speaks to one's self-control and judgment, and the behavior of a person who recklessly endangers others.

And while we're undoing the crap put into legislation by the NRA, let's also make it harder, not easier, for those former felons who used a gun to commit crimes, or who have a history of violence, from getting THEIR gun rights back too - because they have a bad track record of lawful gun use after they have their gun rights restored.

So far as I'm concerned, we should restore voting rights - that correlates to lower levels of repeat crime, but not gun rights, which correlate to increased levels of more violent crime.

[gejohnston]

18. what evidence is this?

And while we're undoing the crap put into legislation by the NRA, let's also make it harder, not easier, for those former felons who used a gun to commit crimes, or who have a history of violence, from getting THEIR gun rights back too - because they have a bad track record of lawful gun use after they have their gun rights restored.

any evidence the NRA is doing any such thing? Neither party will give the ATF the money to process the applications.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

36. there is an entire area of law being practiced that takes advantage of how easy it is

The NRA is behind underfunding the ATF. But this isn't going through the ATF.

Check out this article, because it lists specific examples, including where people get gun rights not only after more than one felony, but where there is known mental illness. This is NRA WRITTEN as well as sponsored legislation. And as we know from ALEC, the NRA uses their illegal lobbying arm to direct exclusively conservative legislators to pass this kind of legislation. So I don't think we can point the finger bi-partisanly on this.

And it is even worse - in the sense of being easier, without any effective review - for the dangerously mentally ill to get their gun rights back while still being mentally ill. Again, courtesy of the NRA drafted legislation inserted by legislators who receive a ton of money from them through legal and not so legal corruption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights

Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found.

While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.

This gradual pulling back of what many Americans have unquestioningly assumed was a blanket prohibition has drawn relatively little public notice. Indeed, state law enforcement agencies have scant information, if any, on which felons are getting their gun rights back, let alone how many have gone on to commit new crimes.

While many states continue to make it very difficult for felons to get their gun rights back — and federal felons are out of luck without a presidential pardon — many other jurisdictions are far more lenient, The Times found. In some, restoration is automatic for nonviolent felons as soon as they complete their sentences. In others, the decision is left up to judges, but the standards are generally vague, the process often perfunctory. In some states, even violent felons face a relatively low bar, with no waiting period before they can apply.

[gejohnston]

40. some countries, non violent felons don't lose them at all

Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:13 AM - Edit history (2)

like Canada for example.
Crimes including first degree murder? Isn't that usually life without parole or death? I have a hard time believing it.
The article isn't that well written and I would have to see more details. It kind of looks like VPC's list of "CCW killers" that includes many with no evidence of having a CCW and more that only harmed themselves. Their list even includes possible self defense cases that was still under investigation.

BTW, I don't think any of the state examples have anything to do with the federal prohibition, so I'm guessing they would still be in the NICS "don't sell to list"

[overthehillvet]

19. Great ideas

I am a gun owner and I strongly agree with every word of this post.
We need progress in this that makes since, not more partisan BS (left or right), posturing, and arguing. Keeping ourselves and our schools safe should not be a political side taking event.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Source?

"Criminologists have already determined that the vast majority of mass shootings are by sane but angry people, not dangerously mentally ill people."

This is the meme I often hear, like the kids at Columbine being 'bullied' and outcasts, which turned out to be not true, and both of them had mental health issues.

I agree with you that most people with various mental illnesses are not violent. No disagreement there at all. Totally enthusiastically agree.

But the subsequent claim you made doesn't appear to be accurate based on any source I have reviewed, and I would like to know the source. Or at most, precisely what you define as 'mass shooting'.

If you're including things like the Tyler Tx. courthouse shooting, I can see where you'd claim that. (2 dead, one injured)

When you say 'mass shooting', that typically conjures up something like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Trolley Square, Aurora, or Arizona, type shootings. If you meant broader multi-victim shootings, then no worries, I understand.

[Duckhunter935]

5. no problem with this

[sarisataka]

6. Good n/t

[Kaleva]

7. Rec'd

[ileus]

9. Not a bad idea I suppose.

[sylvi]

11. You can have that one

It's one of the very few "common sense gun laws" I see being floated out there.

I'm sure this will be confusing to the overheated grab nuts out there who insist that 2A supporters are "against any reasonable restrictions on guns".

[backwoodsbob]

12. as long as the records are kept confidential

I don't see a problem with this.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. what is confidential in the age of the internet? anonymus has proved this to be false, haven't they?

[aikoaiko]

13. Open NICS to private sellers and require the check.

It will work.

[overthehillvet]

21. I favor the Ca system for checking private sales.

They all have to go through a FFL dealer who is required to do the same checks with the same paperwork and accountability as a new sale out of their case.

But more of the mental health issues have to be brought into the process. In posts above there are some great ideas on that issue.

We can change this so it makes since and works as it should and that is keeping people from buying guns who have already been identified as not being able to buy or possess a firearm.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Agreed, as long as there is a safe-harbor provision for sellers.

To wit:

Do the check as required by law- you are immune from civil and criminal prosecution
(all else being equal, of course)

Skip the check- No such immunity, and you get charged as 'accessory before the fact'
in regard to any crimes committed with the firearm you illegally sold


IOW, carrot and stick.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

14. Good. I hope he gets plenty of support.

This is a start to keep guns in the hands of lawful owners, and out of the hands of unlawful ones.

Lawful owners have nothing to fear; it is no different than if they were buying from an FFL. Now lets make it mandatory that all the names that should be in the NICS data base ARE in the NCIS data base, or that alternately, if there is a better check available at the state level, that kind of check is done.

[Eleanors38]

16. Agree. Been advocated in the Gungeon for years. nt

[Eleanors38]

17. What's he got against Annie Oakley?

[holdencaufield]

22. Obviously a misogynist

He likes his women, tame, docile and un-armed.

[LP2K12]

20. Agreed.

It's amazing how common sense just makes sense...

[overthehillvet]

23. just gotta add this

We can not push real common since enforcement of the laws by believing that every Republican out there agrees with the far right nutjobs. I have had this discussion many times with Repub gun owners and the vast majority of them have agreed with each and every point we have made on this post.

If we can agree on these points and move forward together on just these points we can do this very soon.

Other issues will come up but we should not pollute this issue with other issues right or left. We can decide those too but if we toss every argument about gun control into a big salad of ideas, nothing will get done.

[Bay Boy]

24. Just curious how it would work...

... done at at gun store or police station? What kind of charges may be charged?
And how will people beat the system? I can see a friend selling to a friend without any fear
of being caught, as long as the first purchaser didn't buy the gun at the retail level.

[Straw Man]

25. Done at the gun store ...

... FFL licensee's place of business, whatever it may be: pawnshop, gunsmith's shop, etc. Police don't do NICS checks: not their job. In my experience, FFLs charge anywhere from $20 to $35, but I've heard of much higher charges. There is no mandated fee schedule for this -- it's whatever the FFL feels like charging.

Friend selling to friend would, of course, be very hard to detect, but then any illegal sale -- whether guns, drugs, or whatever -- is hard to detect without undercover operations.

I'm in favor of this. In the interest of compromise, may we then have 50-state concealed-carry reciprocity?

[overthehillvet]

27. I can go for that

This system of every sale being checked is in place in Ca. Do people not obey this law? Yes but if they get caught their gun rights will prob be gone. It works better than any other system I know of.

I do support a 50 state law on CCW permits. I have one from Ca and one from Florida which makes me legal in 39 or 40 states but there are still a few I have to figure out. By figure out I mean how can I transport my firearm through that state legally. Some states make it almost impossible to even transport a handgun legally in their state. This is just stupid but it is true.

[jimmy the one]

28. States historical concealed carry prohibitions

overthehill vet: I do support a 50 state law on CCW permits {national ccw law}... Some states make it almost impossible to even transport a handgun legally in their state. This is just stupid but it is true.

I think you speak a faulty premise, you can legally carry unloeaded handguns in cartrunks across state lines.
I think you mean concealed carry, that it's 'just stupid' for states to ban carrying concealed firearms by out of staters in their state? wha-happen to states rights? wha-happen to states constitutions?:
.. you better sit down, vet, look at the history of carrying concealed, and how states handled it in the past; you would usurp the power of states legislatures just so a few can carry their sacred gun in their pocket across a state line?:

1 -- Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. (enacted 1974).

2 -- Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home.. shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. enacted 1876.

3 Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (enacted 1891).
1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to .. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed."

4 --Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and .. but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890.

5 -- Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property... but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. 1945.
1875: "That the right of ... but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons."

6-- Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1889).

7 -- New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen ... but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1971, added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."

8 -- North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary .. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.1971).
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

9 -- Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep .. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.1907).
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

'Just Stupid', is your approach, vet.

[overthehillvet]

30. nope

There are cases going on right now in New York and Chicago where the handguns were locked in a case unloaded. Just possessing them is considered a crime by local LEO's in some areas.

[jimmy the one]

31. picayune

othvet: There are cases going on right now in New York and Chicago where the handguns were locked in a case unloaded. Just possessing them is considered a crime by local LEO's in some areas.

OK, excepting where there were handgun bans like in nyc or chicago, which there aren't handgun bans anymore, excepting those type places, you can generally carry guns & handguns across state lines in your car trunk, unloaded.

Still disproves what you were saying, in 99.5% of the times.
Are you from picayune louisiana by chance?

[cmclane28]

33. They should be protected by the firearm owners protection act of 1986 if simply passing through.

If these people were just passing through, it is supposed to be illegal to prosecute them per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. As long as it is locked in your trunk or whatever, and not loaded, and you are just passing through, you are supposed to be protected. Guess not in all cases huh?

[cmclane28]

34. Absolutely correct that each state can set their own concealed laws

Something to keep in mind however, is that even though the states mentioned above do specifically call out "Concealed weapons", don't assume that means people can't carry weapons outside the home. Many of these states allow citizens to carry as long as they carry them OPENLY.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. All of those states are now shall-issue states. N/T

[Jenoch]

26. Does anyone know what

Wild Bill Cody and Annie Oakley have to do with anything? When was the last travelling gun show still touring the U.S.?

[Eleanors38]

29. About 20 years before Louis Armstrong lit up a fatty at the Apollo.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Which of the last 2 years of mass shootings would this have prevented?

Just curious.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

37. Jared Loughner

was known to be mentally ill. That would seem evident by the fact that two armed police officers delivered the letter from the college requiring he get a mental health check to his parents in person.

That was not the normal delivery procedure for letters from his community college to parents and/or students.

He had previous drug arrests as well, and was known to law enforcement as a person who was a problem. Clearly, his school should have done more to alert that he was dangerously nuts. He would also have appeared on the NICS data base for his military application that was rejected for drug use.

But at the time that Loughner shot Gabby Giffords, Arizona had only submitted 400 - 800 names of those who were prohibited people had been submitted by Arizona. Some 30 states had submitted few if any names.

Not that it really matters when the data base drops drug user names after 1 year - another change made by the NRA through conservative legislators.

Screw that, lets make the NICS data base permanent for drug users with multiple arrests. Given the problems with alcohol relating to bad gun use, I think we should also expand that area of prohibited people to include arrests relating to alcohol, like multiple DUIs. If someone is showing a pattern of alcohol abuse I don't think they are good candidates for guns.

We have laws; but what we know is that the states with stricter laws have fewer gun deaths and injuries. So what we really need is a national set of laws, so that gun rights are the same from state to state. That means restrictive carry permitting processes, and getting rid of the NRA sponsored laws that make it easy to get back guns for felons and the dangerously crazy.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Loughner didn't buy his guns at a gun show.

He bought them at an FFL, called Sportsmans Warehouse, in Tuscon AZ.


The NICS reporting issue is an entirely different problem. Currently, states reporting mental health records is more or less voluntary, and if the states comply, they get access to a pool of federal money to buy various things that help with law enforcement. There is no penalty for failure to comply, aside from losing access to that money.

The reporting process must become compulsory, and failure to report needs to carry tangible sanctions. Like loss of federal highway dollars or something like that.

Entirely different issue. The Gun Show Loophole, however you define it, had no impact on Loughner's rampage. He passed a NICS check, because the state of AZ didn't report anything on to the federal database, even after he was thrown out of college for dangerous/threatening outbursts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Also, he was never formally adjudged incompetent.

[cmclane28]

35. Gun owner not opposed

I am a gun owner, an NRA member, and a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, however I would not at all be opposed to this. I also have several family members and friends of mine who are also gun owners and who also agree. There does have to be some common sense legislation put in place to try and help. I must say overall that I am encouraged to see that we do agree on some basic things, regardless of political affiliation.

Unfortunately, I just don't think it would do a heck of a lot to stop gun violence as a whole though. We have many gun laws already on the books that still don't stop bad people from getting them. As long as we have criminals, and have sick individuals in this world, some of which nobody would ever suspect as being sick, these tragedies will never cease.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

38. Are you aware of what the NRA has done?

The NRA has made it incredibly easy for convicted felons to get back their gun rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

and the NRA has made it incredibly easy for those who we know to be dangerously mentally ill to get their gun rights back as well, without any kind of psychiatric review

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03guns.html?pagewanted=all
Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: July 2, 2011 410 Comments

PULASKI, Va. — In May 2009, Sam French hit bottom, once again. A relative found him face down in his carport “talking gibberish,” according to court records. He later told medical personnel that he had been conversing with a bear in his backyard and hearing voices. His family figured he had gone off his medication for bipolar disorder, and a judge ordered him involuntarily committed — the fourth time in five years he had been hospitalized by court order.

When Mr. French’s daughter discovered that her father’s commitment meant it was illegal for him to have firearms, she and her husband removed his cache of 15 long guns and three handguns, and kept them after Mr. French was released in January 2010 on a new regime of mood-stabilizing drugs.

Ten months later, he appeared in General District Court — the body that handles small claims and traffic infractions — to ask a judge to restore his gun rights. After a brief hearing, in which Mr. French’s lengthy history of relapses never came up, he walked out with an order reinstating his right to possess firearms.

The next day, Mr. French retrieved his guns. “The judge didn’t ask me a whole lot,” said Mr. French, now 62. “He just said: ‘How was I doing? Was I taking my medicine like I was supposed to?’ I said, ‘Yes, sir.’ ”

The article then goes on to describe how in order for the law that was passed in 2008 after the Virginia Tech shooting, a law intended to make it harder for the mentally ill to get guns, the NRA demanded a clause be inserted to make it possible for the dangerously mentally ill to get their guns back. That was followed by 20 states passing laws so that people like Mr. French could get their gun rights back.

Want to know how that works? The NRA writes the 'model legislation' through ALEC, much of it like the shoot first laws, drafted by NRA board member Joe Olsen, a Minnesota law professor. Then the NRA through their membership in ALEC gets that legislation passed through the actions of conservative state legislators they pay to do so.

So I have to ask you why you support the NRA which is involved with corrupting the legislative process, as well as an organization that has actively made it easier for felons as well as the dangerously mentally ill to get guns. They have also been behind the legislation that made it easy for drug users to get guns, by removing the names of drug users from the NICS data base after one year, even if that pertains to a person engaged in multiple acts of drug trafficking and violent gun use.

The NRA has a lot of blood on their hands. Why do you support it? Do you not know about their actual legislative activity?

[jimmy the one]

39. murder rates by states

dog gone: We have laws; but what we know is that the states with stricter laws have fewer gun deaths and injuries. So what we really need is a national set of laws, so that gun rights are the same from state to state. That means restrictive carry permitting processes, and getting rid of the NRA sponsored laws that make it easy to get back guns for felons and the dangerously crazy.

Good post, dog gone it! To back you up, here's 2008 murder rates per state, those states above the national average. (gun control states emboldened, delaware & ncarolina & michigan somewhat neutralish)

5.4 United States = national avg of murder at 5.4/100k
5.4 Michigan ... 5.6 Pennsylvania
5.6 Texas ... 5.7 Arkansas
5.8 California ... 5.8 Oklahoma
6.1 Illinois ... 6.3 Arizona
6.3 Nevada ... 6.4 Florida
6.5 Delaware .... 6.5 North Carolina
6.6 Georgia ... 6.6 Tennessee
6.8 South Carolina .... 7.2 New Mexico
7.6 Alabama .... 7.7 Missouri
8.1 Mississippi .... 8.8 Maryland
11.9 Louisiana

31.4 District of Columbia - comparatively to states, DC is a city, and comparatively little meaningful can be gained by contrasting DC murder rates to states murder rates. DC is included since without it, the US total would be incomplete.
BTW, pro gun richmond Virginia, 100 miles south of DC with similar demographics & often called DCs sister city, had a murder rate of about 43 in a recent year, higher than DCs.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/1009539-what-murder-rates-per-states-crime.html#ixzz2HO3sJCG1

Pro gun states also make up 7 of the 10 safest states re murder, but these are small populated states with a combined population of about 7 million, offset perhaps by pro gun missouri alone in the 'most dangerous'. NY city has as many people as all those 7 states.
0.5 North Dakota 1.0 New Hampshire 1.4 Utah 1.5 Idaho 1.9 Hawaii
1.9 Wyoming 2.1 Minnesota 2.2 Oregon 2.4 Maine 2.4 Montana

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/1009539-what-murder-rates-per-states-crime.html#ixzz2HO59UFS8

[AtheistCrusader]

44. I think what the NRA got instituted there is bad

but it's a natural reaction to some things I have seen right here on DU. In the wake of Sandy Hook Elementary, I saw multiple posts, not from low post count trolls, but long standing members, insisting that people who had been adjudicated mentally deficient/involuntarily committed for mental health, should have their ability to petition the courts to have their firearms re-instated, should be permanently revoked.

When you have people pushing for shit like that, the NRA is going to push back the other way, and they are of course going to push it to some unreasonable extreme.


Now, I'm not saying you supported that permaban bill for mental health issues, (in fact, it was submitted by a republican) but some here did, and we need to craft much more intelligent legislation than that.

Reinstatement should look something like this:

1. Waiting period. (year?)
2. Evaluation period. (6mo/year, licensed psychologist? Maybe a panel of them?)
3. Review of the results of the evaluation period by a circuit court level judge.
4. Remand the petitioner to another evaluation period, or re-instate the rights (all of them, not just firearms, but conservatorship, voting, anything that was adjudicated away initially) fully.

That would be a more intelligent process. OF COURSE the NRA backed bill sucked. We can take that power away from them. Just craft legislation that is approachable, and any reasonable person would support, if you showed it to them without identifying the political affiliation of the author.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

46. Baloney

The NRA has been a corrupt and extremist group since 1978 in Cincinnati.

They weren't trying to be more reasonable when they pushed the bad part of the legislation in 2007/8. There was nothing unreasonable about it that needed counterbalancing.

The people who have their gun rights removed because they are dangerously mentally ill do so for causes that are not the kind of problem you get over like the flu. People who are for example schizophrenic can control their problems - sometimes - with medication. That is the kind of mental illness that Jared Loughner was diagnosed with; the case I cited, bi-polar difficulties, one suffers with for life. The problems with people either having medication need to be changed and adjusted, or discontinuing taking it, or being unable to obtain it because they lose their jobs and/or insurance funding are significant for this group of people. People don't have their Alzheimer's or other dementia 'go away'; most of these illnesses only get worse.

While there are techniques for management of the illness, there are problems with the reliability of those management measures.

The cases where people SHOULD get their rights back for this group of people are rare, and there was more than adequate measures in place at the state level for that to take place, without the NRA putting in this provision in the federal legislation. Further, the really really really BAD legislation at the state level that made this too easy was largely drafted by the NRA.

There is no excuse for that, there is no excuse for it either in the case of felons. Both groups had reasonable, proven successful laws in place before the change by the NRA.

The NRA has a LONG history of doing shit like this, and of corrupting legislators on the right, and only to a very limited degree on the left.

There is NO excuse for the removal of people with drug convictions from the NICS data base. Further the NRA was the group that pushed for the NICS data base to be voluntary, and then at the state level pushed those same conservative legislators to block funding and not authorize submission of the names to the NICS data base - in other words, they deliberately gutted it of most of its efficiency and usefulness.

Why? To sell more guns.

If you look at every single thing they have done legislatively, it is to sell more guns to crazy people, sell more guns to felons, sell more guns to drug users, help put more assault-style guns into violent video games as a marketing ploy to sell more guns, and to glorify gun violence in movies and television - as in their 'guns used in movies' museum.

There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER by the NRA that they have done that is reasonable, or would make sense to a reasonable person. NOTHING. The NRA has done everything they could to create the problems, and then used those same problems to sell more guns.

There is nothing worthwhile that they offer that is not better offered by other organizations.

So NO, if you back the NRA, you are backing corruption and you are giving them the support to do things they should not do.

If you want consideration of reasonable gun laws, quit the NRA. They are a problem, a part of THE gun problem, and not in any way shape or form part of the solution.

If you want to make bans on people who have been committed for dangerous mental illness not permanent, I think you need to take a good long look at the kind of mental illness that people suffer from in that category. Lifetime bans on guns is a good idea, with very minimal exceptions. This would not be true of all mental illness, but it is overwhelmingly true of people with these kinds of violent mental illness.

So, NO, the NRA was not acting reasonably, and YES because of the nature of these specific kinds of mental illness, a permanent ban on their gun ownership with minor exceptions IS desirable. I would compare this to the ban on many people from driving who suffer from epilepsy or other seizure disorders.

[gejohnston]

47. fascinating

There is NO excuse for the removal of people with drug convictions from the NICS data base.

so someone who got busted for pot possession 30 years ago should go to federal prison when he inherits Grandma's skeet gun? That sounds like ummmmmmmm less than liberal.

Further the NRA was the group that pushed for the NICS data base to be voluntary, and then at the state level pushed those same conservative legislators to block funding and not authorize submission of the names to the NICS data base - in other words, they deliberately gutted it of most of its efficiency and usefulness.

can you provide evidence of this? You do know how our federal system works right? So the NRA pushed for medical privacy laws?

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I didn't say the NRA position was reasonable or more reasonable. I said it was the opposite.

Unreasonable is an antonym of reasonable.

"The people who have their gun rights removed because they are dangerously mentally ill do so for causes that are not the kind of problem you get over like the flu. People who are for example schizophrenic can control their problems - sometimes - with medication. That is the kind of mental illness that Jared Loughner was diagnosed with; the case I cited, bi-polar difficulties, one suffers with for life. The problems with people either having medication need to be changed and adjusted, or discontinuing taking it, or being unable to obtain it because they lose their jobs and/or insurance funding are significant for this group of people. People don't have their Alzheimer's or other dementia 'go away'; most of these illnesses only get worse."

Bi-polar symptoms can go away or be managed away in some cases. Most have to medicate for extended periods, possibly for life, but in some cases, for long periods of time they can have zero symptoms. There's no known cure, and it may never be 'gone', but symptoms can and do fade for some people. With medication, and sometimes just with lifestyle changes. Also, in many cases, after years of treatment, they will discover the person was misdiagnosed, and they don't have bi-polar issues at all.

I think it's critical that they always have a path, the opportunity, to achieve some degree of normalcy. That includes rights restoration after they were removed via due process. If they don't at least have the possibility, to what end do they struggle?

[jimmy the one]

41. accomplice to 1st deg murder, not the shooter

dog gone's link: ..late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws {FOPA1986} orchestrated by {NRA}.. gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that {2ndA} protects an individual’s right to bear arms.

Sure, gun manufacturers are losing sales if felons are prevented from buying, sheesh, felons are a significant market for gun makers. NRA Gun Makers!

As well, NRA is foremost to bash the govt or judges if a felon becomes recidivistic & commits a subsequent guncrime, never to mention if the felon had his gunrights restored because of their own restoration policy. Never NRAs fault, always the govts fault somehow.

johnston: Crimes including first degree murder? Isn't that usually life without parole or death? I have a hard time believing it.

believe it, tho infrequent; the case cited was a guy who was 17 when he & a couple others robbed some guy & the guy was shot, ostensibly by one of the others, so the 17 got a first degree murder conviction (as accomplice I suspect) but was later paroled, & evidently got his 'gun rights' restored, a new pal of nra.

.. accd'g to nra, for gun rights to be rescinded, the defendant must actually be convicted of the violent crime. A plea bargain to a lesser offense would not necessarily mean 'no more gun rights for you'.
A dismissal due lack of evidence, even tho guy was guilty, could not be used to take his guns away, eh, hard to argue against this tho. So many loopholes, but that's the nra in it's nutshell.

[gejohnston]

42. don't care for due process much?

A dismissal due lack of evidence, even tho guy was guilty, could not be used to take his guns away, eh, hard to argue against this tho. So many loopholes, but that's the nra in it's nutshell.

due process for some but not all? Without evidence or due process, how do you know the person was guilty?

believe it, tho infrequent; the case cited was a guy who was 17 when he & a couple others robbed some guy & the guy was shot, ostensibly by one of the others, so the 17 got a first degree murder conviction (as accomplice I suspect) but was later paroled, & evidently got his 'gun rights' restored, a new pal of nra.

He would have in many countries. He certainly would in Canada. In Canada, unless a prohibition order is part of the sentence, you can legally own a gun after you serve your time.