Page 4 of 5

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:25 pm
by VMI77
Hard to believe this:
GTRich94 wrote:The bill will not take away anyone's guns.
In light of this, with what is already happening in NY, and lack of any detail about what constitutes a mental health record and grounds for denial.
GTRich94 wrote:Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA)
The mental health record aspect looks like a hole big enough to drive an MRAP through. No mention of any appeal process, what kind of records will be submitted, how they will be vetted, basis for denial, or if denial will lead to subsequent confiscation.

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:26 pm
by baldeagle
sjfcontrol wrote:
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
What about the rest of us?
I think that provision was motivated by the stories about the VA turning in vets to NICS.

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:51 pm
by ShepherdTX
XinTX wrote:
gthaustex wrote:I'm tired of everyone telling me I have to compromise. Every compromise has resulted in giving up more with nothing gained for my side.

No more. Ever. :mad5
In a 'compromise', both sides get something, both lose something. I see NOTHING the 2A community gains from this. And nothing that couldn't be taken back in a heartbeat.
:iagree:

Here's the compromise we're getting out of this deal:
The pro 2A allows a "small" incremental infringement on gun rights and freedom.
In return the antis promise not to push for anything bigger (*for now, until next mass shooting)

I hope they filibuster, or at least try to do so.

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:33 pm
by jimlongley
BigGuy wrote:
gthaustex wrote:I'm tired of everyone telling me I have to compromise. Every compromise has resulted in giving up more with nothing gained for my side.

No more. Ever. :mad5
:iagree:
:iagree:

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:35 pm
by Mike1951
anygunanywhere wrote:
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
Right!

I trust you. After all you took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.

Anygunanywhere
IIRC, the GCA 1968 made maintaining records illegal.

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:40 pm
by The Annoyed Man
anygunanywhere wrote:The GOP will save us.
You have greater confidence in them than I do.

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:25 pm
by K.Mooneyham
The Annoyed Man wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:The GOP will save us.
You have greater confidence in them than I do.
I'm pretty sure he's being as sarcastic as he can.

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:23 pm
by Whatthaduece
Buy buy buy...before this communist government regulates your firearms. I am sick of these judas republicans that are selling out on our 2nd amendment rights!

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:08 am
by XinTX
Looks like Toomey caved in to Bloomberg. That's why he's on board with Schumer, et al.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/10/bloom ... ng-toomey/

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:23 am
by anygunanywhere
Mike1951 wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
Right!

I trust you. After all you took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.

Anygunanywhere
IIRC, the GCA 1968 made maintaining records illegal.
Sure it did. We all know that the fed.gov lives by the rule of law.

Anygunanywhere

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:24 am
by anygunanywhere
K.Mooneyham wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:The GOP will save us.
You have greater confidence in them than I do.
I'm pretty sure he's being as sarcastic as he can.
Zackly.

Anygunanywhere

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:55 am
by Syntyr
K.Mooneyham wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:The GOP will save us.
You have greater confidence in them than I do.
I'm pretty sure he's being as sarcastic as he can.
Likewise I am pretty sure TAM is being very sarcastic as well :thumbs2:

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:08 am
by The Annoyed Man
Syntyr wrote:
K.Mooneyham wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:The GOP will save us.
You have greater confidence in them than I do.
I'm pretty sure he's being as sarcastic as he can.
Likewise I am pretty sure TAM is being very sarcastic as well :thumbs2:
Yeppers. anygunanywhere and I are on pretty much the same page. I don't think that our federal government has many more years left before it implodes completely, and the squishy wing of the GOP—which appears to me to dictate what the party will do in any moment of crisis—is as responsible for the situation as any stalinist democrat. There's nothing wrong with our system of government—as prescribed by the Constitution. In fact, I believe that our system is perfect. But there is something vastly wrong with the failure of current government to act within the boundaries of that system, and the result is completely unsustainable without one of two things happening: A) Chinese style totalitarianism; or B) libertarian regeneration. In the end, The People will never willingly submit to the former, but they have the very bad habit of electing professional politicians who will never willingly submit to the latter. Thus, things will remain unsustainable fand it will eventually collapse in on itself. I don't think we're that many years away from that point.

IRS announced that it is free to hack everyone's email accounts and read their email without warrants (SOURCE). The IRS and DHS reserve the right to scan your Facebook posts to determine if you require further attention. On the flip side of that, there now exists technologies for private citizens (and terrorists) to encrypt secret messages in the images they post to Facebook, which require a password for the recipient to decode the messages (SOURCE). Even the administration's Kathleen Sebelius admitted the other day that the implementation of Obamacare is vastly more complicated than either congressional democrats or the administration had imagined that it would be, and that the costs were far FAR beyond what they planned for......and this is just one of the crypto-communists' efforts to remake the nation. Obama's latest proposed budget is worse than anyone predicted, and certainly worse than he wants you to think it is (SOURCE). The general trend of government has been to ignore the issues over which it truly does have constitutional authority (immigration, for instance), and to meddle deeply into things over which it has no constitutional authority.

The public's response? NICS has processed 32 background checks per minute since Feb 2009, the first full month of Obama's first term, for a total of 70,291,049 since then (SOURCE), and this does not include states like California and others which do not use NICS. All of the ammunition importers and domestic manufacturers of the greatest industrialized nation the world has ever known cannot keep up with the demand for ammunition—particularly in "military calibers"—between government orders and the retail market (SOURCE). This is unprecedented in the entire history of the nation. Somebody is preparing for something.

I'll leave it at that.

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:19 am
by VMI77
And to add to TAMs list, the State of Missouri has turned over their CHL holder list to the Feds, twice.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/hig ... 0f31a.html

Kinda makes you wonder what other states have done....since apparently the Feds asked for the list. I think the Feds are illegally creating a de-facto registration by whatever means they can get the data, including the easy way, via requests as above, and by snooping and stealing data. The next move is probably for Holder to require gun dealers to submit copies of their 4473's on some pretext, like a "study" of gun ownership, claiming it won't be used for registration.

Re: Federal background check "compromise"

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:20 pm
by bdickens
Mike1951 wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
Right!

I trust you. After all you took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.

Anygunanywhere
IIRC, the GCA 1968 made maintaining records illegal.

And of course, the .gov never breaks the law, do they?