Anti-gun movement comes to Kentucky

[CitizenBBN]

Well, the anti-gun nut movement has finally made it to this state. today, state Representatives Mary Lou Marzian (D-34) and Jim Wayne (D-35) introduced a bill that makes Feinstein look mainstream.

-- "high capacity" magazine means anything more than SEVEN rounds. That would include almost every semi-auto. Even Feinstein is only calling for a 10 round limit.

-- "Assault weapon" means any rifle w/ detachable magazine and a pistol grip or telescoping stock, muzzle break, compensator. semiauto shotguns don't have to have detachable mags, just a folding or telescoping stock will do it. Pistols qualify if the mag is outside the grip or it weighs more than 50 ounces (to get the Tec-9s and such).

To be clear that means a standard Ruger 10/22 magazine is now a "high capacity" b/c it's 10 rounds. Put the wrong stock on it or a flash suppressor and it's an assault weapon.

-- Background check required for every transfer, a form to be kept by the dealers indefinitely and open to "inspection by any peace officer acting pursuant to his duties". Dealers can't charge more than $10 to do it, I guess to cut out the "expense" argument.

-- Licensing and registration of ALL handguns, "assault weapons" and all magazines over 7 rounds by the KSP. They can charge a fee, license is good for no more than 5 years. Class A Misdemeanor to not register them all. You have to get a license from KSP to own them, they are to decide the criteria, and if you get one you have to register everything.

-- Logging of all AMMUNITION sales and gun sales by dealers or anyone selling ammo as a business. The logs get sent to KSP as they see fit.

-- KSP may require photo ID for all ammunition purchases, to be logged by the seller, the log of course going to the KSP.

-- By 2014 the system must allow query to make sure the buyer has the license for the gun but also has a license for a gun that would use the kind of ammo being bought. So if you don't have a license for a 9mm handgun you can't buy 9mm ammo.

-- Records all open to inspection by the police as they see fit.

-- Allow all local governments to regulate firearms as they choose, no state level preemption.

-- Any stolen or lost ammo or guns must be reported within 24 hours. Report must include make, model, caliber and serial number if known. KSP gets a record of it. Failure to report is a Class A misdemeanor.

-- All firearms not "in immediate possession or control" must be locked in a storage device or with a trigger lock. Class A misdemeanor.

-- When someone dies, the estate must submit a list of every firearm in the estate and the list submitted to the KSP.

-- Makes schools "gun free zones" AGAIN. They already are under Ky law fwiw. The schools have to put up big "no guns allowed" signs. that's bound to help.

http://www.nraila.org/media/10873958/ky_omnibus_firearms_bill.pdf


Now how's that for wacked? Licensing and registration of vast numbers of guns, tracking of ammo purchases and all gun transfers all available to any level of law enforcement as they see fit. Mandatory gun storage in homes to make sure they can't be used to defend yourself.


Please, if these nuts are your reps try to vote them out of office, and if you get a minute and you live in Kentucky please tell your reps to ignore these lunatics.

[KeithKSR]

The legislature cannot legally even take that bill up this year. We are in an off year legislative session, only budgetary bills are considered in this special session and it would require a special session to act on this legislation.

The bill's sponsor are pandering to the far left, they are both likely from the Louisville area.

[CitizenBBN]

The legislature cannot legally even take that bill up this year. We are in an off year legislative session, only budgetary bills are considered in this special session and it would require a special session to act on this legislation.

The bill's sponsor are pandering to the far left, they are both likely from the Louisville area.

Yep, both from Louisville.

I know it has no chance of passing, didn't know about it being a budgetary year only, but had to post it b/c of its extreme proposals. It's pretty comical.

[dan_bgblue]

Proposed legislation in other states (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/10/democrats-across-country-proposing-gun-bills-in-knee-jerk-response-to-recent/)

[KeithKSR]

Dems are going to the extreme in hopes of getting legislation passed that some will view as less extreme.

[CitizenBBN]

Dems are going to the extreme in hopes of getting legislation passed that some will view as less extreme.

Exactly. Ask for the moon and settle for something that's "a reasonable compromise". A pitiful strategy first b/c it's so obvious and second b/c so few will see it b/c they're so gullible and non-reflective.

I've had this conversation re universal background checks. I'm not up in arms opposed to them on their own, but we all know they will do nothing to stop the next tragedy, at which point they will then want the next step b/c this one "didn't go far enough". It becomes accepted and what becomes "common sense" moves to the next hurdle to confiscation.

I'm disturbed at least a couple of reasonable people I know are not as opposed to registration as they should be. They just don't see there being any chance of the government coming for those guns or gun owners being persecuted for it. I pointed to the UK and Australia examples and she agreed with me, but the "it can't happen here" mindset is dangerous and is a problem for us in this issue.

No it can't happen here, IF we stick to the principles of the Constitution. As we chip away at it we make it very possible for it to happen here. This is a big pillar being chipped at, the final guarantor of it not happening here.

[KeithKSR]

Exactly. Ask for the moon and settle for something that's "a reasonable compromise". A pitiful strategy first b/c it's so obvious and second b/c so few will see it b/c they're so gullible and non-reflective.

I've had this conversation re universal background checks. I'm not up in arms opposed to them on their own, but we all know they will do nothing to stop the next tragedy, at which point they will then want the next step b/c this one "didn't go far enough". It becomes accepted and what becomes "common sense" moves to the next hurdle to confiscation.

I'm disturbed at least a couple of reasonable people I know are not as opposed to registration as they should be. They just don't see there being any chance of the government coming for those guns or gun owners being persecuted for it. I pointed to the UK and Australia examples and she agreed with me, but the "it can't happen here" mindset is dangerous and is a problem for us in this issue.

No it can't happen here, IF we stick to the principles of the Constitution. As we chip away at it we make it very possible for it to happen here. This is a big pillar being chipped at, the final guarantor of it not happening here.

A whole lot of people are overly trusting of our government, I'm not one of them. I don't trust our government at all, they are capable of anything.

[CitizenBBN]

A whole lot of people are overly trusting of our government, I'm not one of them. I don't trust our government at all, they are capable of anything.

Power corrupts. Our system has made it very tough for the worst to happen here b/c it diffuses power at every turn. Clearly being armed is a powerful thing, and it being diffused so it is not concentrated in the hands of the government is a powerful diffusion of power. Every structure of our system is designed to spread power and have checks and balances. This is one among many.

"It can't happen here" b/c of those checks and balances to power. Take them away one by one and you very much increase the chance of it happening here. I don't think a government action is imminent and I sure won't spend my days prepping like the TV show people, but I won't condone eliminating any check on power in this country be it the People versus the government or government versus government.

I am concerned about temporary situations like Sandy or Katrina where people will need to be able to defend themselves beyond the common daily crime. That's just good insurance like covering for your house catching fire. Very unlikely but we still pay the insurance.

I'm far more concerned that we will slowly go to confiscation, and that worries me on so many levels I don't have time to type them all. People are already calling for bans that would debilitate people's ability to defend themselves from even common daily crime much less extreme situations and totally forget about standing against tyranny.

I don't think the Founders thought governments would be imminently attacking the people either, but they knew to put in lots of insurance. That's all this is, an insurance policy for the nation like insurance for your home. You'll probably never need it, but if you do you'd better have it.

[jazyd]

The dems would like nothing better than to get rid of the constitution, it is the only thing keeping them in check as we have so many idiots who are allowed to vote.

They want the guns and every name of who owns them

[BigBlueBrock]

Dems are going to the extreme in hopes of getting legislation passed that some will view as less extreme.

That's exactly what it is. It's an ad for "$5,000 obo" when you'd settle for $3,500.

[CitizenBBN]

That's exactly what it is. It's an ad for "$5,000 obo" when you'd settle for $3,500.

See? we agree on lots of stuff. :) We also no doubt agree this isn't party specific, just the nature of negotiations. The haggle is older than government.

[BigBlueBrock]

See? we agree on lots of stuff. :) We also no doubt agree this isn't party specific, just the nature of negotiations. The haggle is older than government.

I think there are laws on the books that could be used to curb violent gun crime if, well, the NRA would just let the ATF actually enforce said laws. There's a rational debate over gun control at a table where the NRA is NOT seated. I think long rifle and shotgun sales should be relatively easy, I think handgun and assault rifle sales should be more strictly regulated via more stringent background checks, licensing, and registration.

[CitizenBBN]

I think there are laws on the books that could be used to curb violent gun crime if, well, the NRA would just let the ATF actually enforce said laws. There's a rational debate over gun control at a table where the NRA is NOT seated. I think long rifle and shotgun sales should be relatively easy, I think handgun and assault rifle sales should be more strictly regulated via more stringent background checks, licensing, and registration.

Which laws are you describing that ATF is prevented from enforcing?

Why should handguns and "assault rifle" sales be so regulated? I'm curious to hear the reasoning and justification.

[suncat05]

I think there are laws on the books that could be used to curb violent gun crime if, well, the NRA would just let the ATF actually enforce said laws. There's a rational debate over gun control at a table where the NRA is NOT seated. I think long rifle and shotgun sales should be relatively easy, I think handgun and assault rifle sales should be more strictly regulated via more stringent background checks, licensing, and registration.

And I could not disagree more. I haven't done anything wrong, committed no crimes, have no intention of doing so, and I am solidly against the idea that I or any other law-abiding citizen should have to register any firearm that we may own. Guns are not like cars. Cars & other vehicles are driven on mostly publically maintained roads, and for those roads to be maintained taxes must be levied against the users of those roads. But a gun's purpose is to protect me from people who intend to do me or my family harm. And I am guaranteed the right to own a gun for that purpose by the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. It doesn't need to be licensed or registered to sit in my safe or on my hip, and that's no matter where I bought it either. So there you have it. It's none of the government's business what kind of firearms I may own because I have a reasonable expectation to privacy due to the fact that I am not a criminal(also another right under the 4th Amendment guaranteed under our Constitution!). I am sure you do not and will not agree with me but this is what I believe.

[BigBlueBrock]

Which laws are you describing that ATF is prevented from enforcing?

Why should handguns and "assault rifle" sales be so regulated? I'm curious to hear the reasoning and justification.

See the Tiahrt Amendment, which requires the DoJ to destroy background checks that were approved within 24 hours, prevents the ATF from requiring dealer inventory checks (to, you know, check for missing guns that may have been stolen or illegally sold - guns that account for the majority of gun crime in the US), and prevents state and local authorities from using available dealer trace data to prosecute gun dealers caught breaking the law.

And handguns/assault rifles should be so heavily regulated because they are responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths in the US (handguns mostly). Unlike long rifles and shotguns, handguns/AR's serve no purpose other than to kill/maim other people. So access to those weapons should be more restricted, as a matter of course.

[CitizenBBN]

See the Tiahrt Amendment, which requires the DoJ to destroy background checks that were approved within 24 hours,

So where are the laws NRA is preventing from being enforced? The law says they can't do those things, which is a far cry from saying those things are laws being prevented from happening.

What you're really saying is you think this set of policies should be changed, laws written to do something different, and the NRA is opposed to those changes. The LAW says there is no national registry of gun transactions. NRA isn't preventing ATF from enforcing any law, they're making sure ATF adheres to the law.

So again, which laws, on the books laws duly passed by Congress, charged to ATF to enforce, is the NRA preventing enforcement?


prevents the ATF from requiring dealer inventory checks (to, you know, check for missing guns that may have been stolen or illegally sold - guns that account for the majority of gun crime in the US),


As for dealer inventory checks, what on Earth are you talking about? ATF audits thousands of dealers a year and requires strict record keeping. Usually missing more than 1-2 guns for a normal sized dealer means you lose your license forever.

NSSF has entire programs where dealers pay former ATF people just to come to help them with record keeping for audits. The NRA hasn't done anything to prevent those audits. They have called for ATF to prosecute some freakin' felons rather than have so much staff dedicated to audits, but they do 1,000s of them a year.

Your point is completely without factual basis. I don't know who sold that nonsense, but it's a lie. Period.

FWIW your assertion most of the gun crime in the US comes from guns stolen or illegally sold, that is partly correct but it is not by dealers that these things happen. In fact fewer than 8% of all guns used in crimes came from dealers in any way and the vast majority of those was by fraudulent means in which the dealer was fooled and not complicit, specifically straw purchases. I have a thread on here citing a DOJ study of felons in state and federal prisons and how guns were obtained for their crimes.

The Dealers are the most secure, most regulated, least problematic part of the industry. This idea they're running around breaking the law for a quick buck is nonsense. I'm sure there are some, but it's very few. Almost no guns that find their way into the criminal system are coming from "lost" guns in dealer inventory or guns dealers knowingly sold into that system. Those guns are stolen from private owners and friends/family.



and prevents state and local authorities from using available dealer trace data to prosecute gun dealers caught breaking the law.


Again, utter nonsense. First off, dealers breaking the law is a federal crime of the GCA, and a serious felony. You act as if b/c the city of Lexington may not prosecute a dealer they are getting off Scott free. Not hardly. Dealers are strictly monitored, audited, even covertly "tested" by ATF, and if they are guilty of something serious like knowingly providing guns to criminals they are guilty of a mountain of felonies.

Local and state law enforcement most certainly has access to trace data, it's in the GCA, and can and are most certainly prosecuted for breaking local and state laws. Again, your information is just wrong. Dealers are prosecuted for violating state and local laws.



And handguns/assault rifles should be so heavily regulated because they are responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths in the US (handguns mostly). Unlike long rifles and shotguns, handguns/AR's serve no purpose other than to kill/maim other people. So access to those weapons should be more restricted, as a matter of course.

As for "responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths", is that your basis of justification? If that's your litmus test we have to scratch "assault weapons" from your list. All long guns combined (rifles and shotguns of all types) account for less than 2% of gun related deaths. 8 times less than deaths by knives and hands.

So all long guns are fine if we measure by their contribution to real gun violence. It's tiny. Turns out criminals don't carry around $1,000 AR rifles. they're expensive and really hard to hide in your pocket. They're a miniscule part of the problem.

Now handguns is another story, but here's an interesting contradiction in your position. You agree most guns used in gun violence are stolen, yet your solution is to license and register law abiding gun owners. So you are agreeing a priori that your suggested approach will do nothing at all to lower or prevent gun crimes or gun deaths b/c we already know the law abiding owners, registered or not, aren't the ones using them in crimes. So we register them, the guns are stolen and what good does that registration do again?

so why do you want them registered if you already know it won't impact gun violence? An odd position to say the least.


As for your "no purpose", "justification" for lack of a better word (though "you have no rights unless I say so" may be a more apt description), b/c they serve "no purpose" in your view, it's fine to severely restrict them "as a matter of course". I see. So anything potentially dangerous that serves no purpose in the view of enough people we can restrict? Interesting view of liberty you have there. People who have done nothing wrong (by your own admission and all the data it's stolen guns that are the problem), who are no risk to others, can have their choices curtailed, their activities tracked by the State, simply b/c what they choose to engage in in their pursuit of liberty and happiness and property serves "no purpose" in your view?

The country was founded on the idea that what may serve no purpose in your view may in fact serve one for others, and that's their business not yours. If they are not a threat to you or society (and we've established "assault weapons" owners nor their guns are a threat of any national significance) who are you to say they have no purpose?

See I do see purpose in them. First, they're fun to shoot. You know fun? Pursuit of happiness? Second, they most certainly have defense and hunting use. AR-15s are being used for quite a bit of hunting, and are used a lot in killing vermin like coyotes. So if enough people use them for that it's OK? Where's the logic in that thinking?

Next, they are important for self defense in a SHTF situation. You don't believe in a disaster planning scenario? Fine, your business. My business is to protect me and my family and do so as I see fit, and I see fit to do it that way. Who are you to tell me how I can defend my family, or that I have to submit to regulation from the State to do so when what I'm doing comprises no risk of any significance to others?

Last, they are important to many for preventing tyranny. I know you again dismiss this, and that's fine, but those of us who don't have liberties as well, and we choose to exercise them and have no obligation to exercise them with only the approval of government, the very thing we hope to prevent becoming tyrannical.

Your justification that assault weapons are involved in gun violence in any significant way is untrue. Your argument that anything without "purpose" as you see it is OK to regulate and license and restrict flies in the face of basic American liberties. I see no position here other than one based on false facts (they are dangerous) and faulty views of liberty (only things that "have a purpose as I see" it are protected from government intrusion).

[CitizenBBN]

Forgot to mention but we also know your proposal will be ineffective in dealing with the one place where "assault weapons" are used to kill, in these lunatic attacks.

How do we know? B/c in Aurora the guy had no history that prevented him from getting said guns, and no background check proposed by anyone woudl have "caught" him, and in Newtown those guns were stolen and had been obtained in a state with even tougher licensing than the NICS and even required registration.

That bears repeating. the Newtown tragedy was carried out with guns that had been bought with a background check, the owner separately licensed by the state, and the guns registered with the state. Everything you proposed, and it meant nothing.

Why? B/c you were right in the first place: most gun crimes are from stolen guns, and licensing and registration is useless in stopping stolen guns.

[BigBlueBrock]

So where are the laws NRA is preventing from being enforced? The law says they can't do those things, which is a far cry from saying those things are laws being prevented from happening.

What you're really saying is you think this set of policies should be changed, laws written to do something different, and the NRA is opposed to those changes. The LAW says there is no national registry of gun transactions. NRA isn't preventing ATF from enforcing any law, they're making sure ATF adheres to the law.

So again, which laws, on the books laws duly passed by Congress, charged to ATF to enforce, is the NRA preventing enforcement?

I just told you. The ATF had the ability to do the things I listed until the NRA had Tiahrt insert that amendment into a bill back in 2003. I'm not explaining the same thing again.



As for dealer inventory checks, what on Earth are you talking about? ATF audits thousands of dealers a year and requires strict record keeping. Usually missing more than 1-2 guns for a normal sized dealer means you lose your license forever.

NSSF has entire programs where dealers pay former ATF people just to come to help them with record keeping for audits. The NRA hasn't done anything to prevent those audits. They have called for ATF to prosecute some freakin' felons rather than have so much staff dedicated to audits, but they do 1,000s of them a year.

Your point is completely without factual basis. I don't know who sold that nonsense, but it's a lie. Period.

FWIW your assertion most of the gun crime in the US comes from guns stolen or illegally sold, that is partly correct but it is not by dealers that these things happen. In fact fewer than 8% of all guns used in crimes came from dealers in any way and the vast majority of those was by fraudulent means in which the dealer was fooled and not complicit, specifically straw purchases. I have a thread on here citing a DOJ study of felons in state and federal prisons and how guns were obtained for their crimes.

The Dealers are the most secure, most regulated, least problematic part of the industry. This idea they're running around breaking the law for a quick buck is nonsense. I'm sure there are some, but it's very few. Almost no guns that find their way into the criminal system are coming from "lost" guns in dealer inventory or guns dealers knowingly sold into that system. Those guns are stolen from private owners and friends/family.

Again, utter nonsense. First off, dealers breaking the law is a federal crime of the GCA, and a serious felony. You act as if b/c the city of Lexington may not prosecute a dealer they are getting off Scott free. Not hardly. Dealers are strictly monitored, audited, even covertly "tested" by ATF, and if they are guilty of something serious like knowingly providing guns to criminals they are guilty of a mountain of felonies.

Local and state law enforcement most certainly has access to trace data, it's in the GCA, and can and are most certainly prosecuted for breaking local and state laws. Again, your information is just wrong. Dealers are prosecuted for violating state and local laws.


It isn't a lie, it's a fact stated by the ATF. They can only legally inspect dealer inventories once a year and in reality, because of manpower issues, only rarely get around to doing so (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22496289/atf-gun-dealers-investigations). They mostly rely on dealers self-reporting inventory issues, which most don't do because the ATF isn't allowed to require self-reporting (i.e., failing to self-report isn't a legally actionable offense).

Not enough dealers are strictly monitored or audited or covertly tested. Only a fraction of 'bad' dealers are ever caught and punished. State and local authorities can prosecute dealers, but they can't use trace data to do so, so prosecuting them for breaking the law is extremely difficult. It's a fact that the NRA intentionally makes it that way.



As for "responsible for the vast majority of gun-related deaths", is that your basis of justification? If that's your litmus test we have to scratch "assault weapons" from your list. All long guns combined (rifles and shotguns of all types) account for less than 2% of gun related deaths. 8 times less than deaths by knives and hands.

So all long guns are fine if we measure by their contribution to real gun violence. It's tiny. Turns out criminals don't carry around $1,000 AR rifles. they're expensive and really hard to hide in your pocket. They're a miniscule part of the problem.

Now handguns is another story, but here's an interesting contradiction in your position. You agree most guns used in gun violence are stolen, yet your solution is to license and register law abiding gun owners. So you are agreeing a priori that your suggested approach will do nothing at all to lower or prevent gun crimes or gun deaths b/c we already know the law abiding owners, registered or not, aren't the ones using them in crimes. So we register them, the guns are stolen and what good does that registration do again?

so why do you want them registered if you already know it won't impact gun violence? An odd position to say the least.


Most guns, not all, are gotten illegally from dealers (either stolen or improperly sold). So it's a two-pronged attempt to curb gun violence. You prevent them from being acquired illegally and you make it harder to purchase legally.


As for your "no purpose", "justification" for lack of a better word (though "you have no rights unless I say so" may be a more apt description), b/c they serve "no purpose" in your view, it's fine to severely restrict them "as a matter of course". I see. So anything potentially dangerous that serves no purpose in the view of enough people we can restrict? Interesting view of liberty you have there. People who have done nothing wrong (by your own admission and all the data it's stolen guns that are the problem), who are no risk to others, can have their choices curtailed, their activities tracked by the State, simply b/c what they choose to engage in in their pursuit of liberty and happiness and property serves "no purpose" in your view?


Spare me "pursuit of liberty and happiness." Owning a handgun has nothing to do with the pursuit of anything other than violence and mayhem. The second amendment can be upheld AND we can regulate the proliferation of weapons whose purpose is solely to kill other human beings - not for food or sport, but killing another person. The second amendment isn't a carte blanche to own any and all kinds of destructive weaponry. It says "well-regulated militia" for a reason.

[CitizenBBN]

I'd be grateful if you'd just explain it once. So you're saying the Tiahrt Amendment, a LAW, is in fact the NRA preventing enforcement of laws.

let's look at Tiahrt. First, for those unfamiliar who may be reading, the Tiahrt Amendment was introduced in 2003 but by 2007 was made a permanent part of the DOJ budget bill. What it does is simple: restrict release of ATF trace data on guns. ATF compiles data as it does gun traces, and anti-gun groups and others wanted access to it.

It actually started with the last push against guns when they were suing the manufacturers. They also wanted to cite the data as statistics on gun violence. The problem is that ATF traces a lot of guns that weren't involved in crimes, so the data is misleading.

What it does is prevent PUBLIC use of that information. Just like the release of registrations by that newspaper, the information is considered confidential.

Now here are the things you leave out and/or misrepresent about it:

-- Tiahrt explicitly allows use of the data by federal, state and local law enforcement ""in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" or for use in administrative actions by BATFE. The GCA makes it quite clear this information was for law enforcement use, and this is consistent with that mandate. There is no restriction against its use by law enforcement investigating a dealer per se. It would have to be a bone fide investigation and like any other obtaining of evidence follow proper procedure, but Tiahrt doesn't exclude it at all. It can be used in investigations, just not accessed on fishing expeditions or to compile bogus statistics.

-- BATFE has fought for years to keep trace data confidential, and supports Tiahrt. Tough to be restricting their ability to "enforce the laws" when they support the law isn't it? Even the Fraternal Order of Police have lobbied to keep it confidential. Its release can compromise investigations and endanger investigators and those cooperating with them.

Tough for a law to tie an agency's hands when the agency has defended the law as necessary to doing its job in federal courts. Tough too for it to be tying the hands of local law enforcement when that law enforcement also supports Tiahrt.

[BigBlueBrock]

What's a "bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution"? What if you need the trace data to CHARGE a dealer with illegally selling guns or improperly keeping inventory? You can't get it. That's the rub. Local law enforcement or a prosecutor are prevented from acquiring the data unless its for a criminal investigation, but they can't start a criminal investigation without the data. Understand?

Tiahrt also prevents the ATF from legally requiring dealers to self-report inventory. (see above link)

Tiahrt requires certain NICS background checks be destroyed after 24 hours. The Virginia Tech shooter? Even if the FBI had been tipped off to suspicious activity, they wouldn't have been able to prove he'd purchased weapons because the background checks were gone.

By the way, the controversial "Operation Fast and Furious" fiasco, which I know has been a popular topic of discussion here? The Tiahrt amendment prevents the ATF from releasing trace data to the Congressional oversight committee.

[CitizenBBN]

What's a "bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution"? What if you need the trace data to CHARGE a dealer with illegally selling guns or improperly keeping inventory? You can't get it. That's the rub. Local law enforcement or a prosecutor are prevented from acquiring the data unless its for a criminal investigation, but they can't start a criminal investigation without the data. Understand?


Yes, you need a search warrant to search the home, but you can't get the evidence to get the warrant unless you search the home first. Yep, annoying those laws about privacy and probable cause. How is this different from every other burden of cause in any other investigation?

I'll tell you what, you let me lift the protections against searching a known drug dealer's home for drugs without having enough evidence to get a warrant and I'll let you fish for dealers gone bad without one. Of course we have to through a lot of basic liberties out the window.




Tiahrt also prevents the ATF from legally requiring dealers to self-report inventory. (see above link)



Yes, it and other laws prevent ATF from building any kind of database of gun ownership, even by the dealers. It is to prevent a national gun registry. You're right, many of us don't want the government to know where the guns are going, as long as they are going there legally. The background checks are being done, and despite your untrue claim most of these illegal guns come from dealers the truth is they don't. I have the studies to back it up.

Regardless, that is a law, not the prevention of enforcement of a law as you claimed.



Tiahrt requires certain NICS background checks be destroyed after 24 hours. The Virginia Tech shooter? Even if the FBI had been tipped off to suspicious activity, they wouldn't have been able to prove he'd purchased weapons because the background checks were gone.

By the way, the controversial "Operation Fast and Furious" fiasco, which I know has been a popular topic of discussion here? The Tiahrt amendment prevents the ATF from releasing trace data to the Congressional oversight committee.

Yes it prevents NICS data from being kept, though that predates Tiahrht. It's to prevent a national gun registry and most definitely was supported by the NRA and others. that's the law. You want to say it's preventing enforcement of laws, in this case a law to maintain a registry that doesn't exist, has never existed, and you only wish would exist. that's not preventing enforcement of laws as you claimed initially. That's preventing agencies from doing things you want done which are illegal and have been illegal since NICS' inception.

Re the Virginia shooter, I'm not 100% clear on your point b/c it seems to have nothing to do with having prevented the shooting itself, but you could most certainly prove he bought the guns. All dealers are required to keep all 4473 documents in perpetuity. That's how traces work. No there isn't a central database where you can see what a person bought going back 10 years. That' exactly the point, and it's a great law. You can however trace the weapons or in course of a criminal investigation have a dealer report any information required.

Again, no our system doesn't allow you to easily keep tabs on people who have to that point committed no crime. That's not just guns, it's everything. It's called privacy, and yes there is a standard of justification to be met before it is breeched, and yes that even applies to nasty gun dealers and gun buyers.

We don't track the activities of our citizens because there is a small chance one in 100,000s of citizens may commit a crime. Given your agreement that the vast majority of crimes come from stolen guns, we most certainly don't track the activities of our law abiding citizens b/c people that won't ever get tracked commit a crime. We're to sacrifice privacy, the 2nd Amendment, grant federal authorities broad discretion in recording our activities when we know it will do nothing to improve public safety? Huh?

So in conclusion the NRA isn't preventing ANY laws from being enforced. It's lobbying to have laws you don't like that you perceive as limiting enforcement of laws that don't exist, in some cases laws supported by the agency you claim is being prevented from action.

Further, what you want for law enforcement is to have a lower burden of proof to investigate gun dealers (and I'd imagine gun owners) than for normal criminal investigations. Interesting that people proven again and again to be among the most law abiding, and federally regulated, in any industry are so deserving of this extra punishment.

[CitizenBBN]

Spare me "pursuit of liberty and happiness." Owning a handgun has nothing to do with the pursuit of anything other than violence and mayhem. The second amendment can be upheld AND we can regulate the proliferation of weapons whose purpose is solely to kill other human beings - not for food or sport, but killing another person. The second amendment isn't a carte blanche to own any and all kinds of destructive weaponry. It says "well-regulated militia" for a reason.

And you're the one calling anyone who doesn't agree with you unreasonable? You dismiss out of hand every reason someone might feel differently than you about owning a gun and you're the reasonable one at the table? Oh please.

I won't "spare you" the basic tenets of the nation's existence. Sorry. I own guns, including handguns, and have never used them in pursuit of violence or mayhem. With 300 million guns in the US it's clear less than 1% are used in pursuit of such things.

You don't enjoy the shooting sports (which includes handguns and modern sporting rifles) so by Gawd that's not a reason for others to have guns. You see handguns as spreading violence and not preventing violence through self defense, so by Gawd everyone else who uses them for self defense must be wrong.

You dismiss the pursuit of happiness of others b/c you don't believe their motives and cannot share their beliefs, dismiss their choices in how to defend themselves or their families or what constitutes proper "use" of a rifle (ARs like I said are used quite a bit for hunting and farm work), and then claim you're the reasonable open minded person in the discussion?

No, it's gun owners like myself who are at the reasonable table. I don't know where your views are sitting. I respect those who disagree with gun ownership. i don't require them to own a gun or be around guns. I support making sure those who buy guns and carry guns for self defense are responsible citizens. I support restrictions that are supported by the evidence to balance individual liberty with public safety.

You want to restrict guns that the evidence shows are not a threat to public safety. You want to regulate law abiding citizens when the evidence shows they are not a threat and deserve no less a right to privacy than anyone else and you know in advance will do nothing to improve public safety. You dismiss any reasons for owning guns with which you don't personally agree and use that dismissal to justify any action you see fit.

I'll deal with the rest of your post later, but I do have to ask this question:

Why are the shooting sports (hunting) protected in your mind? Let's face it, no one really needs to hunt much to feed themselves in the modern era. It's for entertainment, enjoyment. Why do you think that's a justification for them to keep those weapons, or is it just that you dont' see them as being dangerous enough to regulate?

[BigBlueBrock]

Yes, you need a search warrant to search the home, but you can't get the evidence to get the warrant unless you search the home first. Yep, annoying those laws about privacy and probable cause. How is this different from every other burden of cause in any other investigation?

I'll tell you what, you let me lift the protections against searching a known drug dealer's home for drugs without having enough evidence to get a warrant and I'll let you fish for dealers gone bad without one. Of course we have to through a lot of basic liberties out the window.

The ATF can initiate an in-person inspection of inventory, and that's OK, but self-reporting inventory is a violation of a right to privacy? Disregarding the fact that businesses aren't people. People have liberties and freedoms, businesses do not. A gun dealer is licensed by the government to sell weapons, they should be required to provide thorough inventory records.


Yes, it and other laws prevent ATF from building any kind of database of gun ownership, even by the dealers. It is to prevent a national gun registry. You're right, many of us don't want the government to know where the guns are going, as long as they are going there legally. The background checks are being done, and despite your untrue claim most of these illegal guns come from dealers the truth is they don't. I have the studies to back it up.

Regardless, that is a law, not the prevention of enforcement of a law as you claimed.

BS on "prevention of a national gun registry." Even if it isn't publicly available, trace data IS a national registry for gun ownership - by dealers and to whom they initially sold the weapons. Red herring.

It's semantics. The ATF is supposed to have the ability to police gun dealers. They are LAW enforcement for guns dealers (as well as tobacco and alcohol sales). They are hindered, by the Tiahrt amendment, from doing that job. They only have the manpower to physically inspect a small fraction of the dealers every year (probably because their funding for that is squelched by Congress), they can't legally require inventory self-reporting, and they can't release trace data to prosecutors.



Re the Virginia shooter, I'm not 100% clear on your point b/c it seems to have nothing to do with having prevented the shooting itself, but you could most certainly prove he bought the guns. All dealers are required to keep all 4473 documents in perpetuity. That's how traces work. No there isn't a central database where you can see what a person bought going back 10 years. That' exactly the point, and it's a great law. You can however trace the weapons or in course of a criminal investigation have a dealer report any information required.


I'm not saying that records of background checks should be kept perpetually, but they should be kept for more than 24 hours. I think that's reasonable.




Further, what you want for law enforcement is to have a lower burden of proof than for normal criminal investigations. Juvenile criminal records are sealed from investigators without showing enough cause before a judge, i.e. evidence gathered through other means, but criminals who happened to be 17 deserve more protections than gun dealers in your view.

Individuals deserve more protections than businesses, yes.

[CitizenBBN]

Most guns, not all, are gotten illegally from dealers (either stolen or improperly sold).

Please support this supposition. I know it to be false, through both DOJ and FBI records, but I'm curious what study if any you are citing for this conclusion.

Few guns are stolen from dealers compared to private theft. not in the same galaxy in numbers. So that's a non starter. I'll pull my links on that later tonight.

Your second point is a fascinating contradiction: We know most guns come illegally from dealers, but we don't know their inventories or where the guns go b/c we don't have adequate reporting. Do you see the flaw in that position?

In fact the DOJ study I'll find shows only 8% of guns used in gun related crimes of all kinds came from dealers, and most of those come from straw purchases which are tough for dealers to prevent. Like a girlfriend going in to buy a gun for the boyfriend who can't qualify. You try to spot such things, but she has no record, she passed the NICS check and if she's not obvious about what she's doing the dealer won't know. Even that loophole was only 8% of the guns used in crimes.

Again, this statement is just wrong. I invite you to prove otherwise.

[BigBlueBrock]

And you're the one calling anyone who doesn't agree with you unreasonable? You dismiss out of hand every reason someone might feel differently than you about owning a gun and you're the reasonable one at the table? Oh please.

I won't "spare you" the basic tenets of the nation's existence. Sorry. I own guns, including handguns, and have never used them in pursuit of violence or mayhem. With 300 million guns in the US it's clear less than 1% are used in pursuit of such things.

You don't enjoy the shooting sports (which includes handguns and modern sporting rifles) so by Gawd that's not a reason for others to have guns. You see handguns as spreading violence and not preventing violence through self defense, so by Gawd everyone else who uses them for self defense must be wrong.

You dismiss the pursuit of happiness of others b/c you don't believe their motives and cannot share their beliefs, dismiss their choices in how to defend themselves or their families or what constitutes proper "use" of a rifle (ARs like I said are used quite a bit for hunting and farm work), and then claim you're the reasonable open minded person in the discussion?

No, it's gun owners like myself who are at the reasonable table. I don't know where your views are sitting. I respect those who disagree with gun ownership. i don't require them to own a gun or be around guns. I support making sure those who buy guns and carry guns for self defense are responsible citizens. I support restrictions that are supported by the evidence to balance individual liberty with public safety.

You want to restrict guns that the evidence shows are not a threat to public safety. You want to regulate law abiding citizens when the evidence shows they are not a threat and deserve no less a right to privacy than anyone else and you know in advance will do nothing to improve public safety. You dismiss any reasons for owning guns with which you don't personally agree and use that dismissal to justify any action you see fit.

I'll deal with the rest of your post later, but I do have to ask this question:

Why are the shooting sports (hunting) protected in your mind? Let's face it, no one really needs to hunt much to feed themselves in the modern era. It's for entertainment, enjoyment. Why do you think that's a justification for them to keep those weapons, or is it just that you dont' see them as being dangerous enough to regulate?

I dismiss the 'pursuit of happiness' because 1) It isn't a law unto itself and 2) It has nothing to do with the discussion about handguns or AR's. They serve NO PURPOSE outside of killing another person, which flies in the face of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So they should be more regulated - both at the point of sale and in ownership. I argue that the second amendment doesn't grant carte blanche ownership of any and all violent weaponry. I argue that the statement "well-regulated militia" grants the government the ability to REGULATE firearm ownership. Not to prevent it, but to REGULATE it. It's an amazing thing where I read it one way and you read it another. I also dismiss it because half of every post you make is a diatribe about found principles that I don't feel like reading for the umpteenth time.

Long rifles and shotguns get more leeway because it can be shown that they serve a purpose OTHER than killing another person. People hunt with them and use them in sporting events. I want to mention that at no point have I advocated an across the board ban on handguns or assault rifles - I just think the sale and ownership of those weapons should be more regulated.

[BigBlueBrock]

Please support this supposition. I know it to be false, through both DOJ and FBI records, but I'm curious what study if any you are citing for this conclusion.

Few guns are stolen from dealers compared to private theft. not in the same galaxy in numbers. So that's a non starter. I'll pull my links on that later tonight.

Your second point is a fascinating contradiction: We know most guns come illegally from dealers, but we don't know their inventories or where the guns go b/c we don't have adequate reporting. Do you see the flaw in that position?

In fact the DOJ study I'll find shows only 8% of guns used in gun related crimes of all kinds came from dealers, and most of those come from straw purchases which are tough for dealers to prevent. Like a girlfriend going in to buy a gun for the boyfriend who can't qualify. You try to spot such things, but she has no record, she passed the NICS check and if she's not obvious about what she's doing the dealer won't know. Even that loophole was only 8% of the guns used in crimes.

Again, this statement is just wrong. I invite you to prove otherwise.

That's poor wording on my part, and I apologize for the confusion as its caused a tangent. 57% of guns used in crime come from 1% of dealers - this was in the 2002 ATF aggregate report on trace data, the last of such reports as the Tiahrt amendment prevented the ATF from releasing those reports after 2003.

[CitizenBBN]

The ATF can initiate an in-person inspection of inventory, and that's OK, but self-reporting inventory is a violation of a right to privacy? Disregarding the fact that businesses aren't people. People have liberties and freedoms, businesses do not. A gun dealer is licensed by the government to sell weapons, they should be required to provide thorough inventory records.




-- SCOTUS will disagree with you that businesses (corporations) don't have rights. They are for many purposes legal people.

-- Most dealers aren't businesses, they're licensed private individuals. it is a trade or business, but they are still individuals. Local law enforcement would be investigating them for a crime, and that means the same protections as any individual. In fact in criminal investigations of businesses you have to obtain warrants. You can't just confiscate all business email without cause or justification. You certainly cannot confiscate a person's private emails to prosecute him criminally without proper warrants.




BS on "prevention of a national gun registry." Even if it isn't publicly available, trace data IS a national registry for gun ownership - by dealers and to whom they initially sold the weapons. Red herring.



Even NRA, which fears a registry more than anyone, doesn't see it as a registry. Trace data is a tiny percentage of gun transactions, and are for law enforcement purposes only and thus have a causitive reason to have been performed. It is not a priori keeping tabs on law abiding citizens, the definition of a registry. It is post facto investigation, as is all law enforcement, as it should be in a nation where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and given broad rights to privacy. Call BS if you want, but post facto investigation is not the same as a watch list on citizens who have done nothing wrong.




It's semantics. The ATF is supposed to have the ability to police gun dealers. They are LAW enforcement for guns dealers (as well as tobacco and alcohol sales). They are hindered, by the Tiahrt amendment, from doing that job.


their "job" is to follow the law, and that is the law and they follow it. Again, you said they were being prevented from enforcing "the law". They are not. They are being prevented from enforcing laws you wish existed using methods you wish were legal. Huge difference, not semantics. We can debate if it's a good law, but let's not pretend the NRA is obstructing justice. They're shaping law, not obstructing it.




They only have the manpower to physically inspect a small fraction of the dealers every year (probably because their funding for that is squelched by Congress), they can't legally require inventory self-reporting, and they can't release trace data to prosecutors.


Of their manpower, the vast majority is tasked with dealer oversight. Almost none to prosecuting the thousands of felons who try to buy guns illegally through dealers and are caught by the NICS system.

Again, they CAN release trace data to prosecutors. Your statement is a complete falsehood. They cannot do it without there being a proper legal investigation, which is the same standard afforded most any such information held by any federal agency.

As to self-reporting, you've got this very mixed up. True dealers aren't required to report their boundbook data (to whom guns were bought and sold). Again this goes to the registry. The system was set up to be positive only. The ATF gets a gun at a crime scene, they can do the trace through the dealer data, or if they have cause to investigate a specific person they can get that data. What they don't have is a giant database of every gun transaction that records vast numbers of Americans who are law abiding citizens.

So yes it prevents that reporting of the bound book data. It must be kept by dealers, and turned over to ATF if they close their operations, but yes it was designed as a check on the system.

Again, not a prevention of enforcing a law, but a law on the books to govern what is to be enforced. Specifically the data is to be used to prosecute people post facto as with any criminal investigation, not used proactively to track people who have done no wrong.




I'm not saying that records of background checks should be kept perpetually, but they should be kept for more than 24 hours. I think that's reasonable.


Pick a number. 3 days? a month? What would we do with that data? How would it have prevented the VaTech shooting? We know most crimes are done with guns that never go through NICS b/c they are stolen, and these lunatics pass with flying colors b/c they dont' have criminal records, so what is the point of this expansion? How does it improve public safety?



Individuals deserve more protections than businesses, yes.

I agree. You know who these laws protect? The individuals who buy and own guns.

[CitizenBBN]

That's poor wording on my part, and I apologize for the confusion as its caused a tangent. 57% of guns used in crime come from 1% of dealers - this was in the 2002 ATF aggregate report on trace data, the last of such reports as the Tiahrt amendment prevented the ATF from releasing those reports after 2003.

Because that data is very faulty. Even the Congressional Research Service said it was unreliable and supported having it made unavaialble b/c it was misleading. The CRS is non-partisan. They have said: "firearm trace data may be biased" and "cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public." These limitations exist because the "tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."

it's faulty b/c of the sampling. For example, Chicago has lots of gun crimes. those guns are mostly stolen. they were stolen from law abiding people in a given geography for the most part, who bought them at stores in that same geography. So those traces show most of those crime guns came from those dealers, implying they were doing something wrong as opposed to the guy in some small town. It's very misleading on many levels.

Yes part of Tiahrt was to prevent it from being used in that way, and rightfully so b/c it was being misused.

Far better data is from the DOJ and FBI statistics, done to gather this kind of data explicitly, and they show these guns are stolen from private owners, primarily obtained from friends and family of those who used them in the crime. I'll find the cite later, it's on the other laptop.

[BigBlueBrock]

-- SCOTUS will disagree with you that businesses (corporations) don't have rights. They are for many purposes legal people.

-- Most dealers aren't businesses, they're licensed private individuals. it is a trade or business, but they are still individuals. Local law enforcement would be investigating them for a crime, and that means the same protections as any individual. In fact in criminal investigations of businesses you have to obtain warrants. You can't just confiscate all business email without cause or justification. You certainly cannot confiscate a person's private emails to prosecute him criminally without proper warrants.

Yeah, I'm aware that the SCOTUS determined that corporations are people - I vehemently disagree with that opinion. The 18th-century didn't have corporations as they exist today. Up until the early 20th century, corporations were temporary charters of the federal government, not permanent entities. I don't think the Framers would have intended the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations as many do today. But that's just me.

Like I said, the ATF can legally inspect dealer inventories and records on a whim, so why can't they legally require self-reporting? Seems like an odd distinguishment.


their "job" is to follow the law, and that is the law and they follow it. Again, you said they were being prevented from enforcing "the law". They are not. They are being prevented from enforcing laws you wish existed using methods you wish were legal. Huge difference, not semantics. We can debate if it's a good law, but let's not pretend the NRA is obstructing justice. They're shaping law, not obstructing it.


Well, it's a **** law.

I think our argument about the ATF boils down to that statement for me.


Pick a number. 3 days? a month? What would we do with that data? How would it have prevented the VaTech shooting? We know most crimes are done with guns that never go through NICS b/c they are stolen, and these lunatics pass with flying colors b/c they dont' have criminal records, so what is the point of this expansion? How does it improve public safety?


I think the statistic is that many gun crimes are committed within a few days of purchasing a firearm. I think 90 days is a reasonable standard. The point isn't that we could have prevented the VT shooting, but that we could have looked at the background check to see if maybe something was missed. Maybe there was some kind of tell that wasn't picked up by the process? I'm going to admit that I'm not entirely sure what goes into a background check - I've never purchased a gun, so I don't know how it works. But being able to go back and look at what information a perpetrator gave on a legally-passed background check might allow for changes to the process that can more easily prevent such things in the future.


I agree. You know who these laws protect? The individuals who buy and own guns.

I actually disagree with that. I think NRA lobbyists bill these laws as a protection of individuals, but they're really a protection of gun manufacturers. That's just my opinion, however. I think the great fear over a national registry is incredibly overblown and it's used as a bludgeon against any and all gun control legislation, even if it's reasonable.

[KeithKSR]

I think there are laws on the books that could be used to curb violent gun crime if, well, the NRA would just let the ATF actually enforce said laws. There's a rational debate over gun control at a table where the NRA is NOT seated. I think long rifle and shotgun sales should be relatively easy, I think handgun and assault rifle sales should be more strictly regulated via more stringent background checks, licensing, and registration.

Are we also going to regulate hammers and baseball bats? More people are killed by being bludgeoned with hammers, bats, etc each year than are killed using a rifle of any kind, including the assault rifle, which is a misnomer as actual assault rifles are not legal to possess without a tax stamp and a whole lot of paperwork. Why license and register handguns? The criminals aren't going to register them, criminals by their very nature do not worry about obeying laws they dislike.

[BigBlueBrock]

Are we also going to regulate hammers and baseball bats?

Strawman. Not worth addressing.

[KeithKSR]

I just told you. The ATF had the ability to do the things I listed until the NRA had Tiahrt insert that amendment into a bill back in 2003. I'm not explaining the same thing again.

Do you know the purpose of the Tiahrt amendment? Your post indicates you do not have any kind of grasp on what the Tiahrt amendment says, nor its purpose.

[KeithKSR]

That's poor wording on my part, and I apologize for the confusion as its caused a tangent. 57% of guns used in crime come from 1% of dealers - this was in the 2002 ATF aggregate report on trace data, the last of such reports as the Tiahrt amendment prevented the ATF from releasing those reports after 2003.

A huge percentage of guns used in crimes are not traced, so there is no trace data. Trace data only comes into play when a gun is traced, which generally occurs when a gun is recovered and the individual committing the crime is not.

In addition, the use of 1% of dealers is going to be incorrect due to there being a huge number of FFL holders who are collectors and not dealers.

There are way too many variables not taken into consideration by someone way too willing to take statistics designed to mislead at face value.

[KeithKSR]

I'm going to admit that I'm not entirely sure what goes into a background check - I've never purchased a gun, so I don't know how it works. But being able to go back and look at what information a perpetrator gave on a legally-passed background check might allow for changes to the process that can more easily prevent such things in the future.

I actually disagree with that. I think NRA lobbyists bill these laws as a protection of individuals, but they're really a protection of gun manufacturers. That's just my opinion, however. I think the great fear over a national registry is incredibly overblown and it's used as a bludgeon against any and all gun control legislation, even if it's reasonable.

There are way too many red herrings in your arguments, too many outright untruths and misconceptions.

Never purchased a firearm? You did not have to admit to never having gone through the process, that was pretty obvious to all that had gone through the process. Your stance of not seeing need for certain firearms speaks of ignorance and misunderstanding; which is expected when what you know comes via Hollywood and the media. We are all ignorant and misunderstanding of things which we are not familiar and on gun control issues those citizens who endorse strict gun control are all too often manipulated by the media in order to further their own agendas.

There is nothing on a 4473 that would be of any benefit to any LEA or prosecutors of a crime other than laws pertaining to filling out the 4473. If you had filled one out you would know this. Other than the standard name and SS# stuff the rest of the form is primarily composed of yes-no check boxes.

Who is the NRA? The NRA represents its membership, which is comprised of Americans of all walks of life. The NRA is not a manufacturers organization, it is more of a grassroots organization supported by its members. The NRA solicits donations from its membership multiple times annually in order to battle for its membership. This is not what I have been told, but what I know as an NRA member. I have been solicited for donations twice since mid-December, if the NRA's ILA was funded by manufacturers to the extent that is claimed by the gun control crowd there would be no need to solicit membership heavily.

[BigBlueBrock]

There are way too many red herrings in your arguments, too many outright untruths and misconceptions.

Never purchased a firearm? You did not have to admit to never having gone through the process, that was pretty obvious to all that had gone through the process. Your stance of not seeing need for certain firearms speaks of ignorance and misunderstanding; which is expected when what you know comes via Hollywood and the media.


You assume too much. I don't own a gun, but my dad owns several and owned a great many when I was a kid. I've been exposed to all manner of firearms, from .22 pistols to semi-automatic 12-gauge shotguns to AR-10 rifles to .45's and 9mm's. I was given a .22 rifle for Christmas when I was 12 that I wasn't allowed to fire until I had memorized a gun owner's safety manual. I used to shoot targets with my dad as a teenager, but that was the last time I ever fired a gun. I don't own one now because it's unnecessary, I live in a safe area in a city with a low rate of violent crime overall.

That said, I disagree with your assertion that the NRA is "more of a grassroots organization." Too much money. Soliciting money isn't a sign that there is no manufacturer backing. Corporations line the pockets of politicians - but Romney and Obama still ask for personal donations when they run for office. But all that is beside the point.

[BigBlueBrock]

Do you know the purpose of the Tiahrt amendment? Your post indicates you do not have any kind of grasp on what the Tiahrt amendment says, nor its purpose.

As I've learned about it over the past couple weeks, I've come to the conclusion that its purpose is to handcuff the ATF in an effort to protect gun manufacturers from prosecution under the guise of defending against gun advocate boogiemen like a national gun registry and government confiscation of all firearms.

[KeithKSR]

I argue that the second amendment doesn't grant carte blanche ownership of any and all violent weaponry. I argue that the statement "well-regulated militia" grants the government the ability to REGULATE firearm ownership. Not to prevent it, but to REGULATE it. It's an amazing thing where I read it one way and you read it another. I also dismiss it because half of every post you make is a diatribe about found principles that I don't feel like reading for the umpteenth time.

Long rifles and shotguns get more leeway because it can be shown that they serve a purpose OTHER than killing another person. People hunt with them and use them in sporting events. I want to mention that at no point have I advocated an across the board ban on handguns or assault rifles - I just think the sale and ownership of those weapons should be more regulated.

You obviously do not know what "regulated" in the Second Amendment means. It doesn't mean controlled by the government as you suggest. Regulated is often an adjective used to modify nouns, and its meaning changes a bit dependent upon the noun. The most apt definition in Colonial times was "to put in good order." Alexander Hamilton suggested this included being well armed.

I suggest you read http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm to learn more about the Second Amendment.

What you refer to as an assault rifle is in the long rifle category of arms.

[KeithKSR]

As I've learned about it over the past couple weeks, I've come to the conclusion that its purpose is to handcuff the ATF in an effort to protect gun manufacturers from prosecution under the guise of defending against gun advocate boogiemen like a national gun registry and government confiscation of all firearms.

You've got a lot to learn. The Tiahrt Amendment prevents the Bloomberg movement to use civil lawsuits as a way to drive gun manufacturers out of business through the use of nuisance lawsuits. As it states in the Tiahrt Amendment this does not exclude gun manufacturers from legitimate suits filed for a defective product. The amendment prevents people from access to trace data, which came about due to some people's misuse of trace data to produce inaccurate statistical data. Law enforcement and prosecutors have no limits using trace data in connection to a criminal case.

The Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police. Why? Because it keeps officers safe by keeping gun trace data secret. This letter in support of the amendment explains why:


Letter to Appropriations Subcommittee in support of Tiahrt Amendment 04/19/2007

The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan and Rodney Frelinghuysen
Chairman and Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative Frelinghuysen,

I am writing on behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to express our strong support for the inclusion of language in the FY 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill to prohibit disclosure of firearms trace data by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) firearms to non-law enforcement entities.

The FOP has supported this language since the original version was first enacted several years ago because of our concern for the safety of law enforcement officers and the integrity of law enforcement investigations. For example, the disclosure of trace requests can inadvertently reveal the names of undercover officers or informants, endangering their safety. It may also tip off the target of an investigation, as appears to be the case in New York City. According to media reports last year, law enforcement sources cited that as many as "four cases were compromised and an additional 14 were put at risk" by private investigators employed by the city who acted on the basis of trace data. In this case, the investigators conducted "sting" operations for the city's civil suit against several gun stores that had been identified through firearms trace data. As a result, several gun trafficking suspects under investigation by law enforcement changed their behavior to avoid scrutiny. This is exactly the type of interference that caused the FOP to originally support language restricting the use of the data to law enforcement....emphasis added

While we recognize that court decisions have reduced the effectiveness of this provision by allowing disclosure of trace data in civil suits, we continue to believe that its inclusion is extremely important and, on behalf of our more than 325,000 members, we urge that it be included in the bill when it is introduced. Thank you in advance for considering our view on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury
National President

[KeithKSR]

You assume too much. I don't own a gun, but my dad owns several and owned a great many when I was a kid. I've been exposed to all manner of firearms, from .22 pistols to semi-automatic 12-gauge shotguns to AR-10 rifles to .45's and 9mm's. I was given a .22 rifle for Christmas when I was 12 that I wasn't allowed to fire until I had memorized a gun owner's safety manual. I used to shoot targets with my dad as a teenager, but that was the last time I ever fired a gun. I don't own one now because it's unnecessary, I live in a safe area in a city with a low rate of violent crime overall.

That said, I disagree with your assertion that the NRA is "more of a grassroots organization." Too much money. Soliciting money isn't a sign that there is no manufacturer backing. Corporations line the pockets of politicians - but Romney and Obama still ask for personal donations when they run for office. But all that is beside the point.

I did not say you hadn't used one, I said it was painfully obvious you have never filled out a 4473 to purchase a firearm. If you have filled one of those out then you would have known that there is no useful information from the background check itself. Do you know that the 4473 is maintained by the dealer as part of the dealer's permanent records? The actual 4473 is not destroyed. You can see one at the ATF website http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Some of the things you think should be illegal are illegal. Straw purchases are 100% illegal. It is a felony punishment is up to 10 years and a $250K fine. Dealers can lose an FFL by knowing making a sale to a straw purchaser, not to mention it also being a felony to knowingly allow a straw purchase. It is the ATF's job to investigate straw purchases and provide evidence for the prosecution of these felons, but they rarely do this; and that is the problem.

The laws are in place to prosecute gun runners. The laws are in place for felons to be prosecuted for attempting to purchase a weapon, not that is "attempting to purchase" and not just purchasing. It is the ATF's job to pursue these felons, but they don't.

If a felon tries to purchase a gun from CBBN and is lying on a 4473 the NICS will tell him the buyer is not eligible to make the purchase, this would be recorded on the NICS, which the dealer then keeps. The ATF is then charged with investigating and collecting evidence to prosecute.

Does the ATF do its job? Nope.

On to dealer audits. Why is there a limit on dealer audits? This is because the ATF would use audits to harass dealers and perform them way too frequently just to be a PITA. ATF auditors can enter any dealer's place of business and perform an audit of the records, and the records of sales have to match the firearms they bought to sell. The ATF can audit every sale the dealer has ever had, therefore there is no reason for frequent audits.

If one reads the amendment and then looks at what the ATF can legally do there is nothing there that can be construed to even remotely think that the Tiahrt Amendment prevents the ATF from doing its job. If the ATF in the process of an investigation needs to trace a firearm then they have no constraints in doing so. There is nothing in the Tiahrt Amendment to prevent this from taking place.

Keep in mind that the ATF is part of the Justice Department, which means it takes its marching orders from whatever administration is in charge. At the current time Eric Holder is in charge, the guy who brought us the "Fast and Furious" gun walking scheme.

The Tiahrt Amendment is law. The Second Amendment is law. The NFA is law. There are no laws that are prevented from being enforced through Tiahrt, and I challenge you to cite the law and its proper U.S. Code or other identification.

Sounds like you are unaware that the NRA and the NRA-ILA are two different entities. You need to do some actual research on the two. The NRA-ILA is the politically active branch and its primary source of funding is donations from NRA member, not manufacturers. That does not mean that the owners of manufacturers are not contributors, as most people that own American based gun manufacturing facilities are members.

[CitizenBBN]

I think the great fear over a national registry is incredibly overblown and it's used as a bludgeon against any and all gun control legislation, even if it's reasonable.

I'll get back to the rest later, but how is concern about a national gun registry overstated when you were calling for one on the previous page for everyone who owns a handgun as if it were no big deal at all? I'd say you prove their concerns very valid.

As for the rest, Keith has done a great job addressing the background check process and how the idea of "missing" something on a 4473 or a check database isn't really how things work. The NICS database is a compilation of state and federal crimes. Those are the disqualifiers for owning a gun. the VaTech shooter hadn't committed any crimes, and I doubt was going to answer a new 4473 question like "do you plan on freaking out an killing a bunch of people" honestly. There was nothing to find b/c sadly these lunatics do not have much of a record.

The only one they may have is state or local level mental committments, which is a failure in the database and NICS system and one everyone has supported fixing. You don't need to hold the data longer to do that, and holding faulty data longer does no good.

You seem to just hope that with more records, more rules, more regulations somehow something will happen to make things better without having any specific idea of how that will happen. Maybe if we keep info longer, or register people you already admit won't actually commit the crimes, this will get better.

Pretty low bar for building federal databases of law abiding citizens.

[BigBlueBrock]

You seem to just hope that with more records, more rules, more regulations somehow something will happen to make things better without having any specific idea of how that will happen. Maybe if we keep info longer, or register people you already admit won't actually commit the crimes, this will get better.

Pretty low bar for building federal databases of law abiding citizens.

Because the status quo isn't working. It's not good enough. I'm tired of reading about another shooting. You say the Founder's intended for us to be able to own any and all manner of firearms because they wanted the people to defend against a tyrannical state? I say that if they could have fathomed the likes of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Columbine, they'd understand the need for more drastic measures. You say the "rare" mass shootings aren't enough to justify extremely harsh standards for ownership of handguns and assault rifles? I say one shooting is enough.

A few years ago, I was all gung-ho about the Second Amendment. It was completely open-ended and any move to impede ownership (even if it didn't bar ownership completely) was too much. But that's changed thanks to what has become an all-too-commonality of some psycho murdering people who had no inkling of doing something other than going to school or to a movie. It's too easy for psycho's and criminals to get guns. There's not enough accountability in the system and it needs to change.

[KeithKSR]

Because the status quo isn't working. It's not good enough. I'm tired of reading about another shooting. You say the Founder's intended for us to be able to own any and all manner of firearms because they wanted the people to defend against a tyrannical state? I say that if they could have fathomed the likes of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Columbine, they'd understand the need for more drastic measures. You say the "rare" mass shootings aren't enough to justify extremely harsh standards for ownership of handguns and assault rifles? I say one shooting is enough.

A few years ago, I was all gung-ho about the Second Amendment. It was completely open-ended and any move to impede ownership (even if it didn't bar ownership completely) was too much. But that's changed thanks to what has become an all-too-commonality of some psycho murdering people who had no inkling of doing something other than going to school or to a movie. It's too easy for psycho's and criminals to get guns. There's not enough accountability in the system and it needs to change.

The reality is the Founding Fathers did think that it was possible for tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora to occur. Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You are espousing what Franklin spoke against, as you are willing to trade liberty for safety that may or may not come with more laws.

The laws serve only to facilitate murders. Violent crime rates are highest where there are more infringements on the liberty bestowed on us by the Second Amendment. The Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine type disasters occur in "gun fee zones" that criminals refuse to recognize. These incidents may not have been completely preventable, but the tragedies could have been lessened had their been an armed presence.

Ten years ago last month there was an armed student intent on harming students and teachers in our school. The School Resource Officer (SRO) intervened very early and as a result no shots were fired.

It is easy to see a solid correlation between gun free zones and these attacks by people that are apparently mentally unstable.

Your assertions that the Tiahrt Amendment was preventing searches by the ATF, those are talking points straight from anti-gun groups that wanted to gut the Tiahrt Amendment. The assertions were proven to be false.

[BigBlueBrock]

The laws serve only to facilitate murders. Violent crime rates are highest where there are more infringements on the liberty bestowed on us by the Second Amendment. The Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine type disasters occur in "gun fee zones" that criminals refuse to recognize. These incidents may not have been completely preventable, but the tragedies could have been lessened had their been an armed presence.


"Don't take my guns, just put an armed guard in every hallway of every building."

And I'm the one trading liberty for safety? Please.

[KeithKSR]

"Don't take my guns, just put an armed guard in every hallway of every building."

And I'm the one trading liberty for safety? Please.

Yes, you are the one trading liberty for safety. Placing SRO's in the schools is a huge deterrent, schools that have them have never had a mass school shooting incident. SRO's don't take away anyone's liberty other than someone who is breaking the law, in that case they have forfeited their liberties.

Liberties are freedoms, SRO's don't take anyone's freedoms away.

[BigBlueBrock]

Yes, you are the one trading liberty for safety. Placing SRO's in the schools is a huge deterrent, schools that have them have never had a mass school shooting incident. SRO's don't take away anyone's liberty other than someone who is breaking the law, in that case they have forfeited their liberties.

Liberties are freedoms, SRO's don't take anyone's freedoms away.

Because police state > stricter gun control. Apparently.

[dethbylt]

I dismiss the 'pursuit of happiness' because 1) It isn't a law unto itself and 2) It has nothing to do with the discussion about handguns or AR's. They serve NO PURPOSE outside of killing another person, which flies in the face of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So they should be more regulated - both at the point of sale and in ownership. I argue that the second amendment doesn't grant carte blanche ownership of any and all violent weaponry. I argue that the statement "well-regulated militia" grants the government the ability to REGULATE firearm ownership. Not to prevent it, but to REGULATE it. It's an amazing thing where I read it one way and you read it another. I also dismiss it because half of every post you make is a diatribe about found principles that I don't feel like reading for the umpteenth time.

Long rifles and shotguns get more leeway because it can be shown that they serve a purpose OTHER than killing another person. People hunt with them and use them in sporting events. I want to mention that at no point have I advocated an across the board ban on handguns or assault rifles - I just think the sale and ownership of those weapons should be more regulated.

They serve NO PURPOSE outside of killing another person - True, partially. The weapon I carry at my side is designed to kill if ever needed in a self defense situation. I never, NEVER want to use it for that purpose. As proof, I have carried a sidearm for a decade now and it has not been out of it's holster except to clean and take target practice. How do you justify tighter control over me carrying that weapon? The second purpose is for my personal enjoyment of target practice.

"well-regulated militia" refers to only the first half of the 2nd ammendment. You are ignoring the actual well regulated militia in existence today (the National Guard), and the fact that the ammendment has two parts, which are related but not the same items.

[BigBlueBrock]

How do you justify tighter control over me carrying that weapon?

http://humboldtdems.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gun-deaths.png

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

[jazyd]

The argument against less bullets in a clip is disproved by one instance a year ago in my area. We had a police officer killed and 2 wounded last year in a gunfight inside an apt, some of you may remember me bringing it here, before they finally killed the guy. He was so high on drugs they hit him over 20 times before a bullet between the eyes put him down. With 20 wounds he was still shooting. A drug head comes in my house I don't want to be limited in how many times I can shoot.

We have a current administration that wants more laws they will not enforce, all to make themselves look better for their uninformed base. Chicago has tough laws, Conn has tough laws, Cal has tough laws, didnt help because the shooters in mass killings were mentally ill. More laws will not sto criminals, might increase the number of breaking to steal more guns to be sold on the streets.

Just more laws, more freedoms taken away because it doesn't affect them, but never do they ever press for current laws to be enforced nor do they ever scream for this administration to be put on trial for doing so many of the ver things they are proposing or have already broken laws on the books with their fast and furious program

[dethbylt]

http://humboldtdems.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gun-deaths.png

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

Now show another collumn where no crime or illegal activity (stolen guns, theft, home invasion, etc...) was involved (which would be where I would be categorized by comparison). Cite a Government source like the CIA World Fact Book or FBI crime statistics too, to remove bias by politically motivated individuals. I want to know how much of a threat to your idealic society I am just by owning a weapon and using it legally.

[BigBlueBrock]

Now show another collumn where no crime or illegal activity (stolen guns, theft, home invasion, etc...) was involved (which would be where I would be categorized by comparison). Cite a Government source like the CIA World Fact Book or FBI crime statistics too, to remove bias by politically motivated individuals. I want to know how much of a threat to your idealic society I am just by owning a weapon and using it legally.

You're not a threat, at least not to me, and I have no problem with you owning a gun.

[dethbylt]

My point being, of course: How will taking a gun out of a law abiding citizen's hands do anything to stop criminals from breaking the laws they didn't follow to begin with?

[BigBlueBrock]

My point being, of course: How will taking a gun out of a law abiding citizen's hands do anything to stop criminals from breaking the laws they didn't follow to begin with?

I have never, not once in this thread, advocated taking guns that have been legally purchased by law-abiding citizens. I have only advocated doing something to prevent "bad" people from obtaining weapons as easily as they currently do. Maybe that means that "good" people have to jump through some more hoops, but if I my irritation at the process is worth keeping guns out of the hands of three or four other people that shouldn't have them, then I think that's a worthy price.

The problem with the system is that the mentally unstable and criminals can get guns too easily. Whether they're stolen from people like you, stolen from gun dealers, obtained through straw purchases, or allowed to be purchased legally because the system doesn't screen properly. Too many people can purchase guns that have no idea how to use them, and they end up hurting or killing themselves or family members, or through negligence they allow a family member to get one and hurt or kill people (Sandy Hook, for instance).

The system needs to screen better for mental illness. First time purchasers of guns need gun owner's safety training and thorough background checks that include mental health screenings of themselves AND immediate family members. My dad is a diagnosed manic depressive with bi-polar disorder - and he owned a veritable arsenal and never hunted - that shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I don't know what can be done to better prevent straw purchases, but possibly holding gun dealers more accountable is one solution. According to the gun owner in this story: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/allegheny/Pittsburgh-area-authorities-target-illegal-gun-straw-purchases/-/10927008/18470478/-/gpgtsg/-/index.html, it's usually pretty easy to spot an attempt at straw purchasing.

There are three issues as I see it. 1) Criminals can too easily obtain guns via theft or straw purchases. 2) The mentally unstable can too easily acquire guns through legal purchase because of a poor screening process and because family members have them too easily accessible. 3) People who are ignorant as to what constitutes gun safety either hurt/kill themselves/others.

[BigBlueBrock]

Yes, you are the one trading liberty for safety. Placing SRO's in the schools is a huge deterrent, schools that have them have never had a mass school shooting incident. SRO's don't take away anyone's liberty other than someone who is breaking the law, in that case they have forfeited their liberties.

Liberties are freedoms, SRO's don't take anyone's freedoms away.

By the way, I wanted to point out that Ron Paul, one of the most strict Constitutionalists in the country, thinks armed guards in schools is a terrible idea. I'll link to Fox News, since that seems to be this board's favorite "news" source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/ron-paul-rips-nra-plan-for-officers-in-every-school/


"School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America," Paul said in a written statement.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/ron-paul-rips-nra-plan-for-officers-in-every-school/#ixzz2KngboCDk

[badrose]

I think Ron Paul's vision of having armed guards at schools is a lot more elaborate than what I, personally, have envisioned.

[dethbylt]

I have never, not once in this thread, advocated taking guns that have been legally purchased by law-abiding citizens. I have only advocated doing something to prevent "bad" people from obtaining weapons as easily as they currently do. Maybe that means that "good" people have to jump through some more hoops, but if I my irritation at the process is worth keeping guns out of the hands of three or four other people that shouldn't have them, then I think that's a worthy price.

The problem with the system is that the mentally unstable and criminals can get guns too easily. Whether they're stolen from people like you, stolen from gun dealers, obtained through straw purchases, or allowed to be purchased legally because the system doesn't screen properly. Too many people can purchase guns that have no idea how to use them, and they end up hurting or killing themselves or family members, or through negligence they allow a family member to get one and hurt or kill people (Sandy Hook, for instance).

The system needs to screen better for mental illness. First time purchasers of guns need gun owner's safety training and thorough background checks that include mental health screenings of themselves AND immediate family members. My dad is a diagnosed manic depressive with bi-polar disorder - and he owned a veritable arsenal and never hunted - that shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I don't know what can be done to better prevent straw purchases, but possibly holding gun dealers more accountable is one solution. According to the gun owner in this story: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/allegheny/Pittsburgh-area-authorities-target-illegal-gun-straw-purchases/-/10927008/18470478/-/gpgtsg/-/index.html, it's usually pretty easy to spot an attempt at straw purchasing.

There are three issues as I see it. 1) Criminals can too easily obtain guns via theft or straw purchases. 2) The mentally unstable can too easily acquire guns through legal purchase because of a poor screening process and because family members have them too easily accessible. 3) People who are ignorant as to what constitutes gun safety either hurt/kill themselves/others.

Holding legal gun owners responsible, more responsible, is a great idea. Any proposed legislation that prevents said owners from possessing a weapon in a legal manner is a bad idea.

[BigBlueBrock]

I think Ron Paul's vision of having armed guards at schools is a lot more elaborate than what I, personally, have envisioned.

The rub is that what would be good enough? One or two guards in a large building like a school isn't enough. How many do you place in there? Six? 12? 20? Are they patrolling all the halls and common areas? Stationed in or outside the classrooms? Are they questioning every visitor and random students or teachers/administrators?

[badrose]

The rub is that what would be good enough? One or two guards in a large building like a school isn't enough. How many do you place in there? Six? 12? 20? Are they patrolling all the halls and common areas? Stationed in or outside the classrooms? Are they questioning every visitor and random students or teachers/administrators?

One entrance with one guard in or out of the building clearly armed. Surveillance cameras. Possibly another roaming guard inside.

[BigBlueBrock]

One entrance with one guard in or out of the building clearly armed. Surveillance cameras. Possibly another roaming guard inside.

If someone really wants to get into a school and shoot a bunch of people, one guard isn't enough and security cameras are irrelevant to preventing a shooting. I just disagree that the solution to this problem is veritably locking down schools. Just like the answer to terrorists on planes isn't the TSA doing full body scans and pat downs of old ladies or children, the answer to school shootings isn't turning them into a fortress. It can't be. Because as un-American as it would be to take people's guns, every step we take toward a police state is just as bad.

[badrose]

If someone really wants to get into a school and shoot a bunch of people, one guard isn't enough and security cameras are irrelevant to preventing a shooting. I just disagree that the solution to this problem is veritably locking down schools. Just like the answer to terrorists on planes isn't the TSA doing full body scans and pat downs of old ladies or children, the answer to school shootings isn't turning them into a fortress. It can't be. Because as un-American as it would be to take people's guns, every step we take toward a police state is just as bad.

It seems these shooters pick places where there is no resistance at all. Every secondary school I ever attended had only one way IN. Exits were everywhere. And I never mentioned pat downs or full body scans. Nothing I envision comes close to being like a fortress.

[jazyd]

You keep the doors where you cannot come in but can go out, otherwise only way in is thru the front door. Every school I visit it that way and many of our schools in Miss now have a police officer assigned to them after the Pearl shooting. First thing you notice when you drive up, police car out front.


It seems these shooters pick places where there is no resistance at all. Every secondary school I ever attended had only one way IN. Exits were everywhere. And I never mentioned pat downs or full body scans. Nothing I envision comes close to being like a fortress.

[KeithKSR]

The rub is that what would be good enough? One or two guards in a large building like a school isn't enough. How many do you place in there? Six? 12? 20? Are they patrolling all the halls and common areas? Stationed in or outside the classrooms? Are they questioning every visitor and random students or teachers/administrators?

One is sufficient to deter shooters. You will not find evidence of a mass murder in a school with an SRO. If you bothered to actual look you would find a lot of instances where SROs prevented the escalation of an event into a mass shooting.

You may think you know what works, I know what works. I know what works because we were in a position where people would have died, but the efforts of an SRO and deterrence that came from the SRO being armed resulted in an altered course. If not for the SRO I might not be alive today. The armed student walked within feet of where I stood watching from the unlocked cafeteria doors at our school. Behind me were 150 scared students in lockdown position but not safe because we could not lock the doors. The other two teachers in the cafeteria stood by two other doors.

Had Sandy Hook implemented some of the safety procedures we did after that day lives would have been saved. We changed the locksets on every door, which enable the doors to be locked from the inside of rooms.

Most people don't have a clue as to schools in the US today. We already have video surveillance in all common areas of the school, most schools have surveillance. Our entire student body goes through a metal detector. Items like purses, bulky notebooks, etc are searched every single day as students enter the building. People coming in from the outside have one way in. After Sandy Hook our office security was increased, learning by Sandy Hook mistakes.

[CitizenBBN]

Because the status quo isn't working. It's not good enough. I'm tired of reading about another shooting. You say the Founder's intended for us to be able to own any and all manner of firearms because they wanted the people to defend against a tyrannical state? I say that if they could have fathomed the likes of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Columbine, they'd understand the need for more drastic measures. You say the "rare" mass shootings aren't enough to justify extremely harsh standards for ownership of handguns and assault rifles? I say one shooting is enough.


If you are so concerned, and I don't doubt it and share your frustration, why wouldn't you be extremely focused on the effectiveness of the response and not just having some kind of response?

You are tired of them, I'm tired of them. In part they keep happening b/c every time one happens we go off on some political tangent and pin a "solution" to it that has absolutely no chance of helping much less preventing these events.

To solve any problem you have to look for things that actually address and solve it. Licensing and tracking the people least likely to commit a gun crime doesn't work. Complete bans in cities doesn't work. Why do we keep trying to go down the same road that has shown failure after failure and refuse to look at any other approach? Why do we let politicians off the hook like that, allowing them to pitch their ideologies on either side rather than proposing solutions?

Every shooting in modern times that's killed 3 or more people except ONE has been in a legally declared "gun free zone". So what's one proposal in many of these laws? Bigger signs to show it's a gun free zone.

Give the NRA some credit. Yes they are fighting all the gun law proposals, and I by no means agree with all of their positions, but at least they did suggest SOMETHING that had something to do with the problem that had a chance of helping without punishing 300 million innocent people.

As for "one is enough", I don't know if there's a more dangerous viewpoint to individual liberty or to public safety.

It's a nightmare for liberty. As Jazy laid out so well, the Founders saw this problem all too well, and giving up massive liberty for tiny (and in this case nonexistent) gains in safety is not worth the tradeoff. They actually faced a good deal of "modern" violence. Riots and mobs were far more commonplace during that period. People would march down and burn the local newspaper that they didn't like. There was a great deal of religious violence as well, and even from the start Franklin described us as more violent than our European "parents". We've always been a more violent nation, and Franklin and others were addressing exactly this kind of violence in their comments. So it's not like "times have changed".

1,000s of children are murdered every year over what amounts to the drug war, violence by those getting money to buy and those fighting over distribution rights. Let me suspend the rules against unreasonable search and seizure and I can save FAR more children than these laws. If one incident of 20 people is enough, isn't 2,000 EVERY year more than enough for you to support that solution?

If not you're being hypocritical, valuing a single horror over the ongoing stream of daily horrors of living in Chicago or Compton. Why are these 20 kid's lives more valuable? If you do agree, you see the horrible path you've chosen. The reason is simple why we have more violence and crime than other nations: we have more individual liberties. We have more protections of privacy, more limits on law enforcement, more freedom of movement.

If one of these incidents on average every couple of years is enough to justify reducing the liberty of 10s of millions in sheer hope something stops it, surely 10s of 1,000s dying annually would justify reducing liberty of fewer people to do something we know would help reduce that number.

It's not just a liberty loser though, it also reduces public safety. All we are doing with these gun laws is

a) diverting pressure for a solution from things that might work to things that won't, which means we've missed a chance to really improve public safety (like better school security), and
b) reducing the ability of millions to defend themselves and their families. We move the whole country closer to Chicago and DC, where criminals act with impunity on innocent people b/c they know they are effectively defenseless. These don't go that far but they do clearly at the margin reduce the ability to use guns to defend yourself.

So we monitor millions of people, reduce their liberties and choices as individuals, reduce their self defense options, and don't lower the chance of the next Aurora or Sandy Hook 1/1000th of a percent. That's a loser deal. You reject it and demand something better.

[CitizenBBN]

If someone really wants to get into a school and shoot a bunch of people, one guard isn't enough and security cameras are irrelevant to preventing a shooting. I just disagree that the solution to this problem is veritably locking down schools. Just like the answer to terrorists on planes isn't the TSA doing full body scans and pat downs of old ladies or children, the answer to school shootings isn't turning them into a fortress. It can't be. Because as un-American as it would be to take people's guns, every step we take toward a police state is just as bad.


So with security, that reduces no one's liberty and at least directly tries to address the problem in some way you demand proof it will make a substantial difference, but when the call is to reduce the liberty of all law abiding Americans and it has vastly less chance of being effective you think it's worth a try when there is a vast amount of empirical evidence it won't work?

Further, putting armed, readily identified security in public schools, akin to adding more police but stationing them in specific buildings instead of particular neighborhoods, is a "police state", but creating a national database of every handgun or modern rifle owner in the country and requiring them to submit to licensing and tracking of all weapons with undefined rules about who is eligible to have one is somehow less of one?

Your definition of police state and mine are two very different definitions.

FWIW you're taking Paul far out of context. He doesn't support EITHER option. He's a libertarian, and is following Franklin's view on the tradeoff between liberty and security that you have rejected. But if you wish to cite him as a source I'm thrilled:

Paul says registry first step to confiscation, considers it the most dangerous part of the proposals: http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/01/31/ron-paul-says-members-of-both-parties-are-trying-to-gut-our-second-amendment-freedoms/

Paul is against doing much of anything, sticking very strongly to the line that one such incident is not enough to give up our liberties. Guarantee you Paul sees the gun laws you support as a FAR larger step to a police state than school security. Way far.

[CitizenBBN]

"Don't take my guns, just put an armed guard in every hallway of every building."

And I'm the one trading liberty for safety? Please.

Yes you are.

Even if it were "every building" (you dismiss one above then use this one?), they wouldn't be searching people on the streets, or preventing me from buying a gun to defend myself or to stockpile them if I thought the government were going to act against the People. My ability to defend from tyranny would be unimpeded, my ability to defend myself as I saw fit would be unimpeded. My choices as to how to pursue my happiness (like shooting guns) would be unimpeded.

So yes, you're the one trading liberty for safety. I can leave that security officer in a school till the Rapture and it wouldn't change a thing I'm doing as a gun owner for my defense or concern about preventing tyranny. Your proposals would wreak havoc on my current decisions and actions. Pretty simple case to show it's the less invasive solution.

[BigBlueBrock]

Paul says registry first step to confiscation, considers it the most dangerous part of the proposals: http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/01/31/ron-paul-says-members-of-both-parties-are-trying-to-gut-our-second-amendment-freedoms/

Paul is against doing much of anything, sticking very strongly to the line that one such incident is not enough to give up our liberties. Guarantee you Paul sees the gun laws you support as a FAR larger step to a police state than school security. Way far.

And I say guards in schools are first steps to a police state. Because what about Aurora? What happens the next time if, instead of a school, its a crowded mall? Do we load malls up on armed guards? Do we post guards in any place where people gather in large numbers? Wal-marts? Theaters? Best Buy? How long before we've tripled every police force in the country in the name of not irritating legal gun owners?

[BigBlueBrock]

Our entire student body goes through a metal detector. Items like purses, bulky notebooks, etc are searched every single day as students enter the building. People coming in from the outside have one way in. After Sandy Hook our office security was increased, learning by Sandy Hook mistakes.

And I think that's too far.

[CitizenBBN]

http://humboldtdems.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gun-deaths.png

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

Which you already agreed were in the vast majority caused by illegally obtained guns used by criminals. Which means that dethbylt is not a factor in that data yet you want to regulate him, and those in that data won't be regulated by that law.

There's a LOT of gun violence in this country, and it sickens me. The thread on the Front Porch about the watch maker who was robbed 5 times and killed 5 criminals shows how bad it is, and it also shows the reason: the one guy who shot him FOUR times and lived was back on the streets in 5 years.

I desperately want this nation to be safer, but I know regulating dethbylt's choices (or mine or anyone else who would go get a license) won't do that so why on Earth would I support it as the response to gun violence?

What I'd recommend though is looking at that data in a more refined way, breaking those deaths down over time. You'd find that as states have liberalized gun ownership over the last 20 years gun violence has declined, not increased. States establish "shall issue" conceal carry so you can get your permit fairly easily and crime goes down. More people buy handguns for self defense seems to drive down violence.

that data is basically useless for policy. It makes a point, one with which I agree, but then we have to move past outrage to "what do we do" and all the data says we don't do what you're proposing. If anything we do just the opposite.

[CitizenBBN]

And I say guards in schools are first steps to a police state. Because what about Aurora? What happens the next time if, instead of a school, its a crowded mall? Do we load malls up on armed guards? Do we post guards in any place where people gather in large numbers? Wal-marts? Theaters? Best Buy? How long before we've tripled every police force in the country in the name of not irritating legal gun owners?

Most all the other places you list already have armed security. They're private businesses, not a public school. Most other public buildings got security long ago, like court houses, federal buildings, state offices. They've had security since 9/11 if not before.

Take down the "gun free zones" signs in those places and they'll have free armed security. :)

[BigBlueBrock]

Most all the other places you list already have armed security. They're private businesses, not a public school. Most other public buildings got security long ago, like court houses, federal buildings, state offices. They've had security since 9/11 if not before.

Take down the "gun free zones" signs in those places and they'll have free armed security. :)

Malls, theaters, and Wal-Marts in Kentucky do not have armed security. And if you take down "gun free zones," all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW it's interesting that data starts in 1960. What else happened in the 60s through early 70s that may have had an impact on those numbers?

Maybe the War on Drugs that created a Prohibition like situation driving massive crime in a battle over a black market profits? the War on Poverty that began to destroy the family unit and create a generational underclass with no hope of it changing?

We took the poor in this country and put them in public housing projects and government programs where you lose your benefits if you save a little money or get a job and set up organized crime with a multi billion dollar revenue base and we wonder why we have crime and gun violence problems since we started those efforts?

[BigBlueBrock]

I'm done with this discussion. We're going around in circles and it has become (if it didn't start out that way) an exercise in futility.

[CitizenBBN]

all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

Prove it.

That's the call of the anti-gun crowd every time a state liberalizes carry laws and it has yet to be proven the case in any state that does it. In fact just the opposite gun crime goes down and accidents do NOT go up. Carry permit owners almost never are involved in any public shooting that isn't a self defense situation and there is no evidence they harm bystanders at any greater rate than police in those situations. Statistically they are the safest people in the room.

Prove it.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm done with this discussion. We're going around in circles and it has become (if it didn't start out that way) an exercise in futility.

I quit too, but like Michael Corleone it pulled me back in. :)

In a way it is futility, but in a way it isn't. By both sides putting out facts and thoughts and points people do learn and think about the problem and it is a problem that needs as many people thinking and investigating and questioning as is possible. Obviously we need a lot more than our little group, but reasoned discussion is always a good thing, even if at the end of the day no one is persuaded to another position.

it's tiring, but it is still a good thing.

[dan_bgblue]

Malls, theaters, and Wal-Marts in Kentucky do not have armed security. And if you take down "gun free zones," all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

Recommended reading

"Beyond this Horizon" Robert E. Heinlein.

[BigBlueBrock]

Prove it.

That's the call of the anti-gun crowd every time a state liberalizes carry laws and it has yet to be proven the case in any state that does it. In fact just the opposite gun crime goes down and accidents do NOT go up. Carry permit owners almost never are involved in any public shooting that isn't a self defense situation and there is no evidence they harm bystanders at any greater rate than police in those situations. Statistically they are the safest people in the room.

Prove it.

Statistically, a significant number of gun owners have never had safety training. Statistically, they aren't trained marksman (especially with a handgun, which is even more difficult to aim). But there's a video (maybe a couple) where local law enforcement asked gun owners with CC to come in for a class and they were told that at some point, an officer would bust in at some random time as if he were coming in to shoot them. They were given unloaded pistols and asked to attempt to brandish and aim. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say the results weren't encouraging if you're hoping that a room full of people with guns will prevent a mass shooting. I'm looking for the video and will post it when I find it.

[CitizenBBN]

Statistically, a significant number of gun owners have never had safety training. Statistically, they aren't trained marksman (especially with a handgun, which is even more difficult to aim). But there's a video (maybe a couple) where local law enforcement asked gun owners with CC to come in for a class and they were told that at some point, an officer would bust in at some random time as if he were coming in to shoot them. They were given unloaded pistols and asked to attempt to brandish and aim. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say the results weren't encouraging if you're hoping that a room full of people with guns will prevent a mass shooting. I'm looking for the video and will post it when I find it.

That's not proving anything. I've seen a TV show set up thing in a college classroom that "proved" they were more dangerous than no guns at all.

The thing is millions in this country have their carry permits and carry. There are 100s of 1000s of uses of guns in defense situations annually. We have tons of sound empirical data from objective sources. we can do scientific studies with confidence intervals and statistical significance. we don't need to rely on a hypothetical set up by people who usually have a desire for a particular outcome.

that's evidence like me citing Dumbo as proof elephants can in fact fly.

Carry permit holders defend themselves daily in this country. The data says they are a net benefit to public safety by a wide margin.

[BigBlueBrock]

That's not proving anything. I've seen a TV show set up thing in a college classroom that "proved" they were more dangerous than no guns at all.

The thing is millions in this country have their carry permits and carry. There are 100s of 1000s of uses of guns in defense situations annually. We have tons of sound empirical data from objective sources. we can do scientific studies with confidence intervals and statistical significance. we don't need to rely on a hypothetical set up by people who usually have a desire for a particular outcome.

that's evidence like me citing Dumbo as proof elephants can in fact fly.

Carry permit holders defend themselves daily in this country. The data says they are a net benefit to public safety by a wide margin.

Then show me the data.

[CitizenBBN]

Even the Violence Policy Center, founded to lobby for restriction of firearms, shows that between 2007 and 2009 only 117 people were killed by carry permit holders, including suicides and long gun killings. Most of the 117 in fact occurred in the shooter's homes as suicides of some kind. They even included accidental discharge in the home like when cleaning a loaded gun. During the same time there were 25,000 firearm murders. Millions of people with permits who carried firearms were less than 1% of all firearms murders. Really less than one quarter of 1%. Yet there are many 1,000s of reported cases of those people successfully defending themselves with their firearm. So statistically they are not "more likely" to wrongly kill someone as successfully stop the attacker. They're many 1,000s of times more likely to be successful than hurt someone else in fact.

That's from one of the most anti-gun groups in the country. Even slanting the numbers as much as they did it still shows just how responsible carry permit holders are with their firearms.

[CitizenBBN]

Then show me the data.

First, you raised the assertion. Your burden of proof.

Second, I'm delighted to show mine. See last post citing the gun control lobby's own data. Google on John Lott, sort of at the epicenter of the debate. See the FBI statistics for states as they passed the laws.

I'll find lots more as time goes on. Most of my bookmarks for this are on another computer.

[CitizenBBN]

Slight aside, your data above on deaths since 1960 no doubt includes suicides, which usually run a little over 50% of all gun deaths in the US annually. So take those gun deaths and divide by half when talking about public safety. Also includes accidental deaths where you shoot yourself, several such areas that have nothing to do with a threat to public safety per se.

One of the favorite distortions of connotation used by the gun control crowd. It's "true", but it's not true like people think it's true.

[dan_bgblue]

Statistically, a significant number of gun owners have never had safety training. Statistically, they aren't trained marksman (especially with a handgun, which is even more difficult to aim). But there's a video (maybe a couple) where local law enforcement asked gun owners with CC to come in for a class and they were told that at some point, an officer would bust in at some random time as if he were coming in to shoot them. They were given unloaded pistols and asked to attempt to brandish and aim. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say the results weren't encouraging if you're hoping that a room full of people with guns will prevent a mass shooting. I'm looking for the video and will post it when I find it.

Whatever the video shows will be worthless from a statistical point of view. Hundreds of thousands of folks in this country with CC licenses and we get to see a handful of people on film? Honestly how does that prove anything except that the people chosen for the experiment were not capable of handling the situation? Are you wiling to take such a small sample size and extrapolate it to mean something relevant to the real world?

[BigBlueBrock]

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you about law-abiding people with guns. I don't care about that. I want the gun out of the crazy person's hand.

[dan_bgblue]

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you about law-abiding people with guns. I don't care about that. I want the gun out of the crazy person's hand.

Why not lobby for enforcement of laws that will put felons that use a firearm in the act of committing a crime in prison for a minimum of 20 years with no chance of parole?

[BigBlueBrock]

Why not lobby for enforcement of laws that will put felons that use a firearm in the act of committing a crime in prison for a minimum of 20 years with no chance of parole?

That's fine. I'd also like to make it much more difficult for the criminal (or potential criminal) and mentally unstable from getting the gun in the first place. I'd like to hold gun dealers more accountable for catching and preventing straw purchases. I'd also like to provide some basic gun owner's safety training to first time gun owners. I think there should be background checks required at gun trade shows. None of that should prevent a stable law-abiding citizen from purchasing a gun, but it might make the process a little lengthier/more arduous. And I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

[dan_bgblue]

OK, I get a "thats fine" comment, but that is where the real problem lies, not with more regulations and laws that only serve to regulate the honest citizen's opportunity to protect themselves from those that should be in prison.

Quite frankly, in my opinion, if a person uses a gun with deadly force in the act of committing a crime, I do not think they should live in prison or anywhere else. Let the courts decide guilt and innocence and if convicted of the crime, take them to the courthouse square and hang them that day.

When the jury knows that every crime of this nature is a death penalty case and they will be forced to watch the proceedings, they will be much more conscientious about rendering a verdict and prosecutors and defense will be more mindful of their tactics.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you about law-abiding people with guns. I don't care about that. I want the gun out of the crazy person's hand.

And your solution is to restrict law abiding people's ability to have guns.

[BigBlueBrock]

OK, I get a "thats fine" comment, but that is where the real problem lies, not with more regulations and laws that only serve to regulate the honest citizen's opportunity to protect themselves from those that should be in prison.

Quite frankly, in my opinion, if a person uses a gun with deadly force in the act of committing a crime, I do not think they should live in prison or anywhere else. Let the courts decide guilt and innocence and if convicted of the crime, take them to the courthouse square and hang them that day.

When the jury knows that every crime of this nature is a death penalty case and they will be forced to watch the proceedings, they will be much more conscientious about rendering a verdict and prosecutors and defense will be more mindful of their tactics.

Human beings are not infallible. Given that undeniable fact, it is possible that an innocent person has been and will be sentenced to death. As long as that possibility exists, I cannot support capital punishment.

[BigBlueBrock]

And your solution is to restrict law abiding people's ability to have guns.

As long as they ultimately have the ability to own the gun they want, then a few more hoops for law-abiding citizens is more than reasonable.

[dethbylt]

Malls, theaters, and Wal-Marts in Kentucky do not have armed security. And if you take down "gun free zones," all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

I understand what you are trying to say with this, but it is a direct slap in the face to me. I don't disagree that some gun owners are irresponsible, but dang I have been trained. FWIW, I am not opposed to better training for CC permits. Not everyone has a military or LEO background that affords them proper training.

[CitizenBBN]

I understand what you are trying to say with this, but it is a direct slap in the face to me. I don't disagree that some gun owners are irresponsible, but dang I have been trained. FWIW, I am not opposed to better training for CC permits. Not everyone has a military or LEO background that affords them proper training.

As you know Kentucky does require some, but it's not much. I think the section on grip helps some people who are very handgun inexperienced. The law section is really the class, but it helps on safety too b/c people know when they may be justified and when they're going to prison.

I've probably instructed 80 or so people in the ccdw class and I've only had one person shoot what I'd call bad, and most drill the bowling pin or center mass without much if any effort. That includes a dozen who have never shot a handgun before. None have shown a reckless attitude about safety. I've had to correct a few things, but none of it was major. They're doing this to protect themselves and others, not to feel powerful or play Rambo.

No doubt there are going to be some accidents, but there are also a lot of lives saved and rapes prevented. It's a huge net gain.

I'm glad Kentucky has the class. Even the basic marksmanship helps some, but the section explaining when you are being negligent and when you have the law on your side clarifies a lot of things for people. Answers a lot of questions and helps encourage responsibility.

[jazyd]

the sheriff of our county is a very good friend of mine and the 'video' portraying people not being able to do anything correctly isn't about facts of permit holders as police officers have the same problem. He told me about 60% of officers miss on the first shot because of all the things that goes thru their minds at that point, especially being killed. He said many of those forget to take the safety off, and now all his officers have new Glocks that have no safety, their fingers become the safety. So if trained officers miss more often than not on first shot, forget to take the safety off, then how does one silly video prove that most if not all permit holders should be denied or will accidently kill someone. And who produced and paid for that video? I wouldn't be surprised that it was done by an anti gun crowd.

Citizen you have put up some great points. What many can't accept or can't see thru, all this by Obama and his crowd is for show to get the base wired up, so that in the end they can outlaw as many guns as possible, make it as hard as possible to purchase any firearm, raise the price of ammo so the average person can no longer buy it so therefore the gun is useless, register every gun owner for whatever purpose they need and want but also to appease their anti hunting crowd to limit or take away totally my ability and right to hunt. And I can tell you this for fact because of things that have happened in schools in years past, if they can get hunting all but outlawed, fishing is next. When teachers begin to tell 5 and 6 yr olds how the poor fishes mouth is hurt when a hook is put in it, you know what they are after. Teach at a young age how horrible it is to fish, how much pain that poor little fish goes thru. When I was still in the sporting goods industry, I had friends in Michigan whose children were being taught this very thing. Don't laugh at it, the anti crowd that is the 'as we called them..acorn eaters' wants this.

If we limit who can buy, when we can buy, how much we can buy, make it too expensive to buy, make us register our names before we can buy, know everything about us, limit our clip size, even make individuals who sell to a friend jump thru hoops to make the sale, the only ones affected are law abiding citizens, not criminals, and not the mentally ill. And if they get away with it, it will show future administrations who are just like Obamas that they can finally have total control over the citizens of this country and there would be nothing we could do to fight back because we would have been stripped of our weapons to defend ourselves not just against criminals in the streets but the criminals in DC

Chuck we allow politicians to get away with their nonsense because not enough people actually spend time finding the facts like you have, they just take what ever the media says Obama and his like say as gospel. Benghazi is a prime example, nothing has been said in the media outside of Fox News so therefore no one cares because they dont' think it was a big deal. Unfortunately 90% of the media won't allow someone like yourself to represend the facts, proven facts, not just something some liberal group puts together to distort the true facts. all one has to do is listen to what people say and it is just repeating the talking points of the democrat crowd when it comes to gun control or whatever is happening at the time.

So many will google the latest trend in clothes or where a particular restaurant is, or where they can get their nails done or who is going to win the Oscars but they won't spend 5 minutes googling the truth about guns and crime. I would be willing to bet less than 25% of the people of this country knew that Chicago had a tad over 500 murders in their city, has some of the strongest gun laws in the country nad had more children killed than what was killed in Sandy Hook. The media won't talk about that at all, might make some people look bad. Same people probably think there were several thousand killed in Afghanistan and ten or twelve in Chicago.


As you know Kentucky does require some, but it's not much. I think the section on grip helps some people who are very handgun inexperienced. The law section is really the class, but it helps on safety too b/c people know when they may be justified and when they're going to prison.

I've probably instructed 80 or so people in the ccdw class and I've only had one person shoot what I'd call bad, and most drill the bowling pin or center mass without much if any effort. That includes a dozen who have never shot a handgun before. None have shown a reckless attitude about safety. I've had to correct a few things, but none of it was major. They're doing this to protect themselves and others, not to feel powerful or play Rambo.

No doubt there are going to be some accidents, but there are also a lot of lives saved and rapes prevented. It's a huge net gain.

I'm glad Kentucky has the class. Even the basic marksmanship helps some, but the section explaining when you are being negligent and when you have the law on your side clarifies a lot of things for people. Answers a lot of questions and helps encourage responsibility.

[KeithKSR]

And I think that's too far.

Parents don't think it is too far, none have complained and we have been doing this for a decade district wide. Your assertions of a police state are downright stupid. We have had School Resource Officers for at least 15 years. We have had video cameras for as long as I have worked at my current school, 12 years.

BTW, there have been several mall shooting stopped by armed mall security officers. Most of the malls I have been in have armed security officers.

A police state is one in which one of the first acts is to pass massive gun control laws, which lead to confiscation. You advocate actions that would make us a police state, yet rail against things that are proven to add safety to schools and malls.

[KeithKSR]

Malls, theaters, and Wal-Marts in Kentucky do not have armed security. And if you take down "gun free zones," all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

What? I have seen armed security guards at all of those venues around the state.

As far as your statement, it shows the kind of slant one can only find at extreme leftist anti-gun sites around the web, or picked up from ant-gun socialist types anywhere. This has been proven to be a false premise time and again.

[KeithKSR]

Here is the latest on the proposed gun laws from the Justice Department. They conclude that the proposed laws will have no impact, or little impact violence.

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Some of the conclusions:

"an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence"

The 1994 ban on large capacity magazines had limited effectiveness

A perfect universal background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However, this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed.

The proposals are liberal window dressing with no root in reality.

[KeithKSR]

[QUOTE=BigBlueBrock;55863]http://humboldtdems.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gun-deaths.png

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/[/QUOTE

You do realize that is posted purely for political purposes as an attempt to persuade the exceedingly gullible don't you?

Here is what IS included in that statistic"

All firearm related accidents
All instances of where suicide using a firearm are completed
Criminals killed by police
Gang banger shootouts
Hunting accidents, including those where the wounds are accidentally self inflicted, or those where a firearm did not cause death
The Kent State massacre
Criminals killing criminals
Criminals killing unarmed citizens
Homeowners killing intruders
Members in the armed forces killed in training maneuvers on US soil

I can go on and on about all the things lumped in to come up with those gun related "incidents,"

Here is the truth behind the numbers, from the same Justice Department white paper linked above:

"On average there are about 11,000 firearm homicides every year. While there are deaths resulting from accidental discharges and suicides, this document will focus on intentional firearm homicides. Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year."

If there are 11,000 firearm homicides each year on average, then the graph you are showing is an extreme misrepresentation. That means that there are 800,000 to 900,000 "incidents" that were not homicides.

[KeithKSR]

BTW, one set of gun laws often desired for the U.S. to mirror are those of Australia, where they had a massive gun buy back and some extreme laws on all manner of firearms. The Justice Department white paper reports the extreme Australian firearms law, "appears to have had no effect on gun homicide."

[KeithKSR]

...we allow politicians to get away with their nonsense because not enough people actually spend time finding the facts...

That pretty much goes for all the issues, not just gun issues.

[dan_bgblue]

Olympic Arms and New York State (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/17/firearms-manufacturer-ends-sales-to-new-york-in-wake-new-gun-law/?test=latestnews)


New York Gov. Cuomo last month signed into law tough legislation aimed at strengthening state laws on assault weapons, gun-magazine capacity and reporting potential harmful behavior. Though the law allows law enforcement agencies to purchase assault-style weapons, Olympic says it will no longer serve the state's first responders.

"It didn't make sense that citizens can't have what police departments have," Brian Schuetz, Olympic's president and co-owner, told the Times Union.

[dan_bgblue]

Mapgul Industries and Colorado (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/16/colorado-gun-bill-could-cost-state-hundreds-jobs/)


A package of gun control measures that won initial approval in Colorado's Democratic-controlled House Friday night could result in several hundred jobs lost at the state's largest manufacturer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Erie-based Magpul Industries has threatened to leave the state if lawmakers are successful in passing the sweeping gun-control package, which limits the number of rounds a magazine can hold, according to The Denver Post.

"If we're able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here," Doug Smith, Magpul's chief operating officer, told The Post.

[CitizenBBN]

Magpul will pull out completely if it passes, I have no doubt. He's right, they will not only have their own objections and motives but it would hurt sales if they didn't. The gun community is not kind to those it sees as breaking ranks, esp. now with us under siege. It wouldn't break them, but they'll also increase sales by moving and being seen as standing up to this nonsense, so the total difference in sales is more than enough to justify it.

Kentucky would be wise to be courting every one of these manufacturers in these states. They won't, b/c we're dumber than rocks, but those are good jobs for a state that has a strong gun owning tradition. We could have a very good manufacturing niche of pretty clean manufacturing but we're too dumb to do it.

[Catonahottinroof]

Kentucky is courting is courting Remington to leave NY State.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57569783/tough-ny-gun-law-could-jeopardize-jobs-in-one-town/

[badrose]

Money talks.

[jazyd]

Good



Kentucky is courting is courting Remington to leave NY State.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57569783/tough-ny-gun-law-could-jeopardize-jobs-in-one-town/

[CitizenBBN]

Kentucky is courting is courting Remington to leave NY State.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57569783/tough-ny-gun-law-could-jeopardize-jobs-in-one-town/

Awesome. Give these makers anything they want b/c long term it will be like Toyota for us. Martha Layne is probably the best Governor in my lifetime b/c of that deal and she was roasted for it as giving away too much. Anyone think it's a bad deal now, wants Toyota to leave?

Imagine the global attention of having Kentucky the new home of arms making. Connecticut was attached to that trade for more than a century.

The only note though is politically it may be best for the arms industry as a whole to have sway in more politically powerful states with more House votes and thus more Congressmen with pro-gun constituencies. They wouldn't find a warmer reception though than in the South.

[KeithKSR]

I'd like to see Kentucky push for a law preventing federal restrictions from being implemented.

[dan_bgblue]

I'd like to see Kentucky push for a law preventing federal restrictions from being implemented.

Join in Kentucky (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/18/nine-states-proposing-montana-like-law-challenging-federal-reach-on-gun-rights/)

[dan_bgblue]

Texas and Mississipi (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/texas-mississippi-invite-gun-makers-to-move-to-state/)

[dan_bgblue]

Mapgul (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/02/company-will-move-if-colorado-approves-gun-control/)

[CitizenBBN]

Democrats have tried to ease Magpul's fears, amending the bill to make clear that the company can still manufacture magazines of any size, as long as they're sold only out-of-state, to the military or law enforcement.


This shows how little they understand. Magpul isn't afraid it would ban them from making them. They simply refuse to pay taxes in a state where their products aren't legal. He's (Fitzpatrick) never once said it would keep him from making anything, just that he refuses to be in the state if they pass these laws.

[CitizenBBN]

Supporters of the proposals say Magpul is bluffing and that a move would prove too costly.

"I don't think Magpul is about to pull out," said Bill Hoover, 83, whose grandson AJ Boik was among the 12 killed in the theater shooting. "It's going to cost them a bundle of money."

Fitzpatrick said his company is serious.

"It's not really a threat. It's a promise," he said.




Another person who doesn't get it. First off Fitzpatrick won't care. Most ex-marine hard core individualists don't flinch at that kind of thing when he's already got plenty of money, but it misses the economic point completely.

First, other states (sure wish Kentucky would go after them with everything we have) will happily help offset those moving costs. Most important, as Fitzpatrick has said, NOT moving will hurt his business b/c gun people will pressure him to move, and actually doing the move in response will generate HUGE loyalty in the gun community.

All different kinds of people own guns, but one very pervasive trait is a strong sense of loyalty to companies beyond the dollars. Few market segments have as much "buy American" emphasis where people routinely spend more just b/c it's US made, and I'm not sure any has the sense of "with us or against us" gun buyers have with companies. S&W was ravaged when they cut a deal with the Clinton administration to put gun safety locks on their guns, even to avoid the DOJ coming after them. Had they resisted buyers would have bought S&Ws just to support the company's fight. Heck they would have gotten donations.

Fitzpatrick isn't stupid. If Magpul pulls out of Colorado he will not only be standing up for a principle in which he believes, that he's not making evil products to be banned, but he'll actually make money doing it. Between other states giving him tax breaks, avoiding sales losses by staying and the increased sales he'll see by standing up to this BS, he's going to end up in a win/win if they pass this and he leaves.

Besides, no matter what may have happened prior, now that he's said to the entire gun industry he'll leave he has to or he really will get hit by buyers. He doesn' thave a decision to make if it passes, he's already made it with the announcement of what he'd do. No going back on it, and he knows it.

I can't root for nonsensical gun laws to pass, but if they do I admit it will be fun to watch Magpul follow through. Don't think it won't have an effect on the Connecticut legislature either with Mossberg and others rattling those same sabers.

[CitizenBBN]

Speaking of Magpul, yesterday they suspended sales to LE in ban states pending a new policy where officers will agree to support the Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments for items purchased for duty carry.

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/magpul-suspends-all-sales-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-bill-of-rights-states/

Think the Colorado move may have him hacked off?

Worth a read, b/c he talks about being torn on how to handle this b/c of his desire to support LEOs but also that some of those LEOs are calling for bans like in New York. No easy answers.

[KeithKSR]

Speaking of Magpul, yesterday they suspended sales to LE in ban states pending a new policy where officers will agree to support the Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments for items purchased for duty carry.

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/magpul-suspends-all-sales-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-bill-of-rights-states/

Think the Colorado move may have him hacked off?

Worth a read, b/c he talks about being torn on how to handle this b/c of his desire to support LEOs but also that some of those LEOs are calling for bans like in New York. No easy answers.

Gotta respect Fitzpatrick, he is making a stand of loyalty to the 2nd Amendment, despite losing some near term sales.

[dan_bgblue]

Colorado (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/09/democrats-push-gun-measure-in-colo-give-up-others/)

[KeithKSR]

The louder the Dems squeal about gun control the fewer of them there will be elected in 2014 at the federal level.

[CitizenBBN]

Colorado Senate has passed the magazine ban. Magpul, come on down!

He's gone, and I can't wait till those who thought he was bluffing see him wave goodbye.

[dan_bgblue]

Colorado Sheriff Opinions (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/17/colorado-sheriff-says-new-state-gun-laws-wont-be-enforced/)

[suncat05]

So let's deal with the good Governor and his Democratic lackeys in Colorado in our own special little way.........BOYCOTT ANYTHING COLORADO.........DO NOT PUT ONE RED CENT INTO THE STATE'S TREASURY..........if there's any way you can avoid doing business with anyone in Colorado, then do it. Hurt their wallets.

[KeithKSR]

I was listening to a radio interview about a week ago, it was asked by the interviewer what happened to Colorado to pass such radical legislation, given the state's pro-2nd Amendment history. The individual being interviewed responded that liberals had ruined their states and moved to Colorado, and brought with them their liberal views.

The influx of liberals now give the Dems a majority in both houses, and leave the state with a Dem governor.

[suncat05]

It's kinda like a plague of locusts, isn't it? :mad0176:

[CitizenBBN]

I was listening to a radio interview about a week ago, it was asked by the interviewer what happened to Colorado to pass such radical legislation, given the state's pro-2nd Amendment history. The individual being interviewed responded that liberals had ruined their states and moved to Colorado, and brought with them their liberal views.

The influx of liberals now give the Dems a majority in both houses, and leave the state with a Dem governor.

Colorado has been overrun by the California Left. been going on for decades and now they have a majority. Knew some folks from Aspen in the 80s who were lamenting the invasion way back then.

[CitizenBBN]

Colorado Sheriff Opinions (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/17/colorado-sheriff-says-new-state-gun-laws-wont-be-enforced/)

LEOs holding press conferences to announce they will refuse to enforce the state's laws? Safe to say this nation is more and more two different nations, one of which IMO needs to move back to Europe. lol.

Magpul will be gone, and others will follow. I'm with suncat on boycotting anything of theirs I can, which is part of why all the gun companies will leave.