Justice department looking at tighter gun access.

[pcgizzmo]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/14/ ... l?hpt=Sbin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


They just don't get it. That idiot in Arizona didn't have any criminal history. He was not accepted by the army and had some mental issues apparently but I don't really see any way you could have seen this guy coming short of tracking his every move. Do they want to give Dr's a direct link to the NCIC?

Why do they insist on trying to come up with new laws instead of enforcing the ones already on the books?

[OldCannon]

Why do they insist on trying to come up with new laws instead of enforcing the ones already on the books?

Because the current ones don't let them take guns away from law abiding citizens.

[DoubleJ]

if they take away the confidentiality of Dr/Pt interactions, they're just going to make "those people" less inclined to seek help/treatment.












*for fear of having RDJ's Kirk Lazarus bust me for my "those people" comment, I'm referring to people with mental disorders...

[hirundo82]

Do they want to give Dr's a direct link to the NCIC?

Yeah, they do. They want your neighbor to be able to call in because he's angry you don't cut your lawn often enough, say you're unstable, and the nice men from the ATF show up, shoot your dog, and take all your guns. Won't happen, but that doesn't mean some people don't want that to be reality.

[VoiceofReason]

Why do they insist on trying to come up with new laws instead of enforcing the ones already on the books?

Because the current ones don't let them take guns away from law abiding citizens.

By definition that is all “law makers” can do-make laws. They also have to give the appearance they are doing something to justify the money and perks they get.

States and cities are on a streak of passing laws prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving. Almost all already have laws concerning inattentive or reckless driving that they don’t enforce.

Have a problem? Make another law.

BTW I read somewhere recently that a bill has been introduced that would allow the federal government to take over the licensing of drivers from the states “for the safety of teenagers”.

[MeMelYup]

"BTW I read somewhere recently that a bill has been introduced that would allow the federal government to take over the licensing of drivers from the states “for the safety of teenagers”".

Where is that in the U. S. Constitution?

[RPB]

Why do they insist on trying to come up with new laws instead of enforcing the ones already on the books?

Because the current ones don't let them take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Well said.

[RPB]

We, law-abiding citizens are "others"
Complete article title =
Justice Department looking at tighter gun access for criminals, others

[MeMelYup]

if they take away the confidentiality of Dr/Pt interactions, they're just going to make "those people" less inclined to seek help/treatment.

They have allready done that with the VA. A lot of the soldiers that have come back from Iraq and Afganistan that go to VA about stress and such are required to be reported to NICS. I cannot remember where I read this a couple months ago.










*for fear of having RDJ's Kirk Lazarus bust me for my "those people" comment, I'm referring to people with mental disorders...

[Poldark]

Senator McCain and Gun Control .

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ntrol.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Poldark]

Article this morning from the Daily Caller on the coming debate over more gun control !

Everything you need to know about the most recent gun-control debate (but didn’t have anyone to ask), Part 1

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/17/every ... sk-part-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Poldark]

Gun Control. Part 2 from the Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/22/every ... k-part-ii/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[EconDoc]

It is time that we get realistic about gun control. Weapons "control" (which predates even the invention of the gun) has never been, is not now, and never will be about reducing crime, except as propaganda rhetoric. Look at some of the history of weapons laws. In the Middle Ages, many feudal lords tried to limit weapons in the hands of their serfs. In Japan, the Tokagawa Shogunate banned possession of swords by anyone not from the hereditary Samuari class. In the South, after the Civil War, gun laws were put in place and administered in a way that made sure that freed slaves were defenseless when the KKK came calling. New York's infamous Sullivan Law was passed at the behest of Tammany Hall politician and thug, Tim Sullivan, purportedly as "crime control", but in reality all it did was make sure that only Tammany Hall thugs could carry pistols, the better to intimidate voters. Britain's National Firearms Act of 1920 was passed, ostensibly to reduce crime, as a result of fears of a Bolshevik-style revolution in the aftermath of World War I. And, the beat goes on. Gun laws, and knife laws, sword laws, club laws, and all of their assorted variants are really about rendering a majority of the population helpless for the ultimate benefit of rulers. There is really no other reason.

[Poldark]

New gun-control legislation would prohibit those arrested but not convicted of drug crimes from possessing firearms


Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law.

Either way, you can forget about buying a gun.

The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 would greatly expand the definition of those legally prohibited from owning firearms to include anyone who’s ever been arrested — even if never convicted or found guilty — for drug possession within a five-year period. The legislation is certainly troubling for those who want a “common sense” debate about drug decriminalization. And it would seem fears that any new national gun-control legislation would be used to limit the gun-rights of law-abiding citizens is at least partially justified.

Sponsored by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and introduced earlier this month, the expanded background checks bill includes a “clarification of the definition of drug abusers and drug addicts who are prohibited from possessing firearms.” Under Schumer’s bill, the definition of a “drug abuser” would include anyone with “an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years.”

more here:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/new-g ... -firearms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;