CNN with sensible topic?
 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/opini...abe/index.html


Thoughts?

I say No! We already have enough problems with the illegal gun laws, we don't need to refine them further, and make them more restrictive. Go after the crooks, and leave the other 98% of gunowners alone!

I think he is saying what every gun owner and LEO is saying.

Fund and enforce the laws you have already put on the books before trying to cut the BATFE budget further and pass new laws that disenfranchise Americans’ civil rights. As he loosely alluded to with the undue burden section, most people are so caught up in the second amendment infringements that people overlook how much many of these new laws also blatantly violate the 4th-9th as well as the 14th amendments.

It’s amazing every time a high profile crime is committed, I have to trace back the number of laws already broken before the incident happened to people who clamor for more laws that we already have, but refuse to give enough funding to enforce.

As a general rule, I tell people to substitute the word “guns” or “firearms” in a law for “religion” or “the right to vote” and see if they still agree with it

Most people at that point get really mad that I have the audacity to view the second amendment as the enumerated constitutional and civil right that it is alongside the rest of the bill of rights.

This was one of the better articles I've read lately on the subject.https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...rime-proposal/

The way I read the article, it's not proposing any changes to the gun laws at all. What it says is that laws are of no value if they are not enforced, and I couldn't agree more. There's already laws in place, and what the author says is that new laws won't help a bit if you don't have the resources to make sure that they are followed. Seems like DOJ even issued more lenient guidelines to take some of the load off NICS. The bottom line is that the background checks could work quite well in its current form, given enough resources.

Read it again.

1. Anyone with outstanding warrant be prohibited is a proposed change to backround checks.

2. Giving NICS more than 3 days is also a proposed change to backround checks.

Sounds like changes to "gun laws" to me. As I said before, "no more unconstitutional gun laws", thank you very much.

The media is starting to carry stories of exactly what the President and Republican Senate in the United States are considering, and it appears to be a revived version of the Toomey / Manchin "Universal background check" amendment which was rejected in 2013.

I am posting this here because, as currently written, the language effectively eliminates any use of the FFL 03 Curio and Relic license for transfers. All transfers will require a NICS background check, and C&R License holders do not have access to that system.

Here's the actual text of the Toomey / Manchin proposal (starts at page 16, top center column):

https://www.congress.gov/113/crec/20...-PgS2598-3.pdf

I do not list this as political discussion, but want to share details with our collecting community likely to be impacted in the United States.

CA has most of the bs gun laws and they still add to them every session. The Democrats have a super majority so not much can be done. The worst thing about background checks is that there is a 10 day cooling off period except for FFL 03. So if you travel and buy a gun you have to return to the store between 10-30 days to pick it up. I passed up many guns because I would not drive 8 hrs each time to get a gun.

The changes the author proposes are not in the laws (even if he happens to say so), what he's saying is that current laws would work quite well if they looked over the way they're enforced.

First, somebody with an outstanding warrant should be defined as a fugitive from justice, and I really don't have a problem with that. People of questionable character are the ones that cause the problems for us law abiding gun owners.

Second, NICS obviously has a problem with the 3 day time frame, and many transactions (more than 4,000 in 2018) would have been denied if NICS would have had the resources to really do it in 3 days. I sure don't have a problem with giving NICS ample resources to stop criminals from obtaining guns. Again, this is the kind of people that give us all a bad name and make the politicians come up with new "feel good" laws.

With the changes the author proposes, the current laws don't need to be revised. That's what we all want, isn't it?

I am of two minds here..No, we do not need any more unconstitutional laws clouding the issue..but is seems to me that these simple proposals within existing statutes couldn't help but help take guns out of the hands of criminals.

taking guns out of the hands of criminals is ONLY a small portion of what needs to be done OUTSIDE of making laws. Society needs to change but I fear the ills we see taking place in our fractured society are here to stay and any new or even many existing gun laws are not going to have any great impact on crazy criminals.

We closed mental health facilities without giving much thought to what happens next. We legalized drugs, we accept homeless drug users and tolerate their violent drug fueled behavior. Our justice system is broken. Out medical system is broken. Our school system is broken. Name a system we have and they are all out of order. Money is our God. Society is breaking down. Stress levels are out of sight. I threw out my TV 10 years ago because it's mental poison. Of course all will remain as long as the status quo exists. In this environment..any spark could ignite a large change.

Interesting times...

I would contend the war on drugs is the problem. The statutes enacted in pursuit of it have led to the erosion of due process rights, as now manifested beyond drugs in the red flag laws. It sounds incredibly counterintuitive, it has been a demonstrated success in lowering the overall crime rate with the legalization of pot in the states and districts who did, as well as freeing up police resources for doing things other than arresting/booking college kids for smoking and playing video games/bad music. Like enforcing penalties for NICs denials and straw purchasers.

Much of American gang violence (where we know that the vast majority of homicides by gun take place in the USA) is centered on the drug trade. By legalizing and regulating/taxing the everloving crap out of said drugs, we undercut much of the gang business overnight, and thereby quickly reduce the impetus for the resulting gang violence. As much as I hate to compare the US to Europe, the European models on tackling Drug epidemics and addicts have been far more successful than their US counterparts. Legalizing seems to remove the social “taboo” around it there, and rate of users dropped as it’s no longer a “forbidden fruit”.

The mental health is spot on, and an absolute train wreck in the USA. .