Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumCCW national reciprocity may come out of the gun control debate in Congress
Republicans said the prospect of having many amendments, an assurance they got from Reid, was one of the reasons that so many of them voted in favor of allowing the bill to proceed.
The reciprocity proposal was last put to a vote by the Senate in 2009 and received 58 votes just two short of the necessary 60.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-rights-advocates-see-senate-debate-as-an-opportunity-to-weaken-current-law/2013/04/12/c43c5290-a38a-11e2-be47-b44febada3a8_story.html
elleng
(130,156 posts)Not in MY backyard!
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)On the condition that national minimal standards were established. It makes sense in our mobile society, but not if they give CCL's away like prizes in a box of Crackerjacks.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Texas, even though it is a shall issue, has a training requirement and be able to get a minimum score on marksmanship test.
New York, has no standards that I can see, other than the background check everyone else does. Some counties are functionally "shall issue" and some are functionally "may issue" based on the whims of some authority. NYC, you have to be a one percenter.
I would say Texas is a better model than New York.
http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)That would definitely need to be addressed, with the more rigorous guidelines followed. Probably won't happen, though. The people in the states with next to no standards will never compromise to make it better for everybody else.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because arbitrary decision making on any civil liberty has no place in a liberal democracy.
I disagree with forced national reciprocity and think it would be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)You get nothing.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)even if I don't like the result. Can't help myself.
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)Bob Costas nailed it the other night on Maher. "As soon as something is suggested, they get all high minded and go running to the Constitution". (Paraphrasing - couldn't find the exact quote).
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you will see I said as much months if not years before I heard of Bob Costas. I doubt he had what I said in mind. Besides, why some clown sports announcer tells a bigoted sexist?
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)Costas has been around for quite a while. (Your smear of the messenger and disregard of the message notwithstanding.) Your reaction was exactly what he was talking about.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and he wasn't. I doubt he understands what I was talking about. It is a smear only if it isn't true.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)it is the one and only issue you post about here.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I don't post mostly because I don't have anything to add. If I do have something to say, I say it. Is there a Japanese history group? You are here, but you have no interest in guns.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)just have to take your word for it. you only post on guns, and to the right of the party and the president (who himself governs fairly centrist-ly), but you're really a great progressive, a motivated one, who just doesn't post on any non-gun issue.
as for me, i have an interest in guns, but primarily an interest in democratic and national politics from a liberal perspective, which is pretty much what DU is about.
i don't recall DU's mission being to come and to only talk about gun politics from a right wing perspective, to the right of almost all the party and to the right of all recent Democratic presidents.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I would be to the left of you.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/hinkle-cognitive-dissonance-on-guns/article_96d4210e-43e0-53cc-8a1b-2a1efe545723.html
According to the ToS, DU is for all center to left Democrats.
I agree 100 percent of my state of residence's Democratic Party platform
http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/2012-platform2010-bylaws
What you think is a "right wing" perspective (BTW, Bloomburg and King are right wing. So was McCarthy until a few years ago. She was still a registered Republican, who ran a Democrat only after losing a Republican primary, during her first term as a Democratic representative.) is in fact a rural perspective. I never claimed to be a great anything. My efforts in other areas, like saving Social Security and environmental issues, are in the non online world where I need to "win hearts and minds".
You will think what you want.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)say what you will and what you want, it's allowed, but...
the moment you try to make a case that you're to the left of me, or even most on DU, you're asking everyone to believe that despite posting on basically one issue and posting to the right of nearly everyone on DU on that issue, that you are somehow to the left of the average DU member, who is politically a lot like myself.
you may find it believable that you're to the left of me and most here, but that you don't bother to post on any other issues and for that matter, do you post to the left of them on any issues, but somehow you expect us to believe you're to the left of the norm here.
i don't think that's as convincing as you do.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just not high enough percentages to be picked by the counter. So, you don't actually know what I post. You only know the top two area. There are a lot of groups that one can make one or two posts.
BTW, what difference does it make what I do or do not post?
If you base your opinions on someone based on one subject on a message board, perhaps some introspection is in order?
I said, if one were to be logically consistent, am to the left of you on this issue. Did I say I was to the left of most here? Least you can do is not put words in my mouth.
BTW, is there some reason why I need to prove anything to you?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Account status: Active
Member since: Sun Aug 6, 2006, 09:19 PM
Number of posts: 12,060
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1066
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 10 posts in the last 90 days (1% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 1031 posts in the last 90 days (97% of total posts)
Last post: Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:22 PM
I guess you post on other topics.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and this seem to be the happening place. Seems like GD is mostly about guns lately.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)other interests and other posts here that put you to the left of me and most others? no way.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I suggest you look harder.
I'm flattered that you are my personal biographer.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)what if we grant you that?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but since you rarely have anything of substance to say, I really don't care.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)do you post substantive things on the environment, on civil rights, poverty programs, on racial and other types of discrimination, on feminism, etc.?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)your posts here are generally not.
I like to think mine are.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you keep insisting you do, and then you characterize my posts outside the group even though you can't be bothered to read anything i write outside the group.
though i write plenty of substantive things in the group.
this is your only issue here, let's just acknowledge that.
liberal politics? you aren't interested in that on DU.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)most of your posts here make no logical sense, and jump to conclusions based on nothing, just like you are doing here.
Do you actually do anything on those issues, or just write posts?
Think what you want, I really don't care what you think.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)seriously, who is going to take your arguments seriously when your posts are almost all taking the right wing position on just one issue?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)since it isn't a "right wing" position. It is also the position of liberals where I'm from. Yours is also popular with conservatives in the bay area and NYC.
to answer your question, logic, empirical data. How does anyone take your arguments on guns when they contain neither.
The perfect analogy for this exchange would be me basing my opinion of the SFO area just knowing Mike Savage got his start at KSFO.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)CD is using the same method he used in META to try and get someone to say something to be locked or PPR'd. I think he has me on ignore -- I didn't play his game. He has absolutely no knowledge on this subject so he goes into attack mode right off the bat to cover his lack of knowledge.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Not trying to get them locked or juried or anything.
When it comes to long term posters, I probably only alert maybe one time per month, total.
I'm just at a loss and I ask questions.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)When you first responded to a couple of my posts a while ago you really turned me off and I have been snarky with you since. I know we don't agree on guns and never will. I do read your posts on the environment and seldom disagree. I believe we both want the same thing environmentally and civil liberities speaking. I believe RKBA is a civil liberty and you don't -- oh well. You have your beliefs and I have mine. From now on if I disagree with you I'll be civil and leave the snark at home.
Take Care,
sir pball
(4,726 posts)It just means if a person meets the standards, including BGCs and completing any prescribed training/live-fire qualification, they shall be issued the permit. The permit can't be denied on the basis of "we don't think you need it" is all.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That said, I could agree to a strict "may issue" national standard. Never to a "shall issue".
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)"Shall issue" means there are standards that must be met, but that the permit must be issued if they are met. It doesn't mean "no standards," and it doesn't mean "lax standards."
"May issue" means the government has total discretion to deny without giving any reason: a little too reminiscent of star chambers and lettres de cachet for my liking. It's inherently abusive and antithetical to any notions of fairness and equality before the law.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)However, when it comes to carrying guns, I think that local authorities have the right to determine what they permit. Just as an individual decides what is permitted in his home.
Therefore, if national reciprocity is imposed, then it should comply with the most stringent of laws. Individual states can still be as permissive as they like, but you can't impose that on others.
If we ever get to a national "shall issue" system, then I may agree.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)May issue is completely arbitrary with no standards. If you look at the NY state law, you only have to show "cause", no training, no need, simply be drinking buddies with the issuing authority or be rich.
arbitrary authority has no place in a liberal democracy and is antithetical to liberalism.
Or be campaign contributors, like Orange and LA counties
Cronies, like LA County
Police chief's daughter in law, Honolulu
just be rich, NYC
Like I said before, what WY did until 1995 would be better. Who qualified were specified in the statute. Most of the CCW holders in NYC would not qualify under Wyoming's old system. For example, the publisher of NYT, Don Imus, Howard Stern, Sean Hannity, Bill Cosby (when he was alive), Don Trump would not qualify.
Why? Because the law specified those working in the following occupations
security
private investigator
pharmacist
MDs who did house calls
and a couple of others. No where on the list was pundits, business executives, actors, and shock jocks.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I used to listen to his LPs when I was a kid. I liked the original Cosby show (where he played a gym teacher) the best.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)If you leave it up to the judgement of local officials, you're just asking for applicants to be profiled on qualities that are not pertinent to their worthiness to receive a permit.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Rather than it being some kind of bullshit "right". You may allow people to smoke in your home or put their feet up on the table, or piss in the sink, but don't expect the same in the homes of others.
Fuck national reciprocity.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but the reality is that it is profiling and giving a sheriff, police sgt, or judge arbitrary authority over exercising a civil liberty. That has no place in a free society for any reason.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Tat's what we as a society deided
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)not accepted in the rule of law. There is a difference between what they take for themselves, violating the law and the Constitution, and giving it to them.
hack89
(39,171 posts)then it becomes a problem. Or are you one that thinks the police don't racially profile?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)show me in America where it is not a government official of some sorts.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It seems to be used for just about everything else...
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)standards for its LEOs.
sir pball
(4,726 posts)I walked into the sheriff's office, filled out a single-page form, got an NICS check, got my picture taken and ~10 minutes and $25 later had my CCW in hand. Even I thought that was a little lax.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Registration problem but don't want the background checks because the guberment will come for your guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)although I see a 10A or Commerce Clause challenge to requiring BGC between individuals within a state.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)It definitely could be challenged and with the current court, could be struck down.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)There is not total background checks.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)I don't like the idea of having to pay an FFL $20 and then waiting three days just to lend my (brother,hunting buddy...) a pistol for a few hours. then repeating the whole process to get it back.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Also the internet sales does not do the background check. If I am a collector or hunter this is not my issue. So I have to wait for a could of days, its no big deal.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)
gun shows/internet sales-- if you sell firearms as a business it does not matter how you sell them a background check must be done. If you do not sell firearms as a business you by law can not use the instant background check system.
If you as a citizen put up a gun for sale in the newspaper/online/billboard/smoke signals whatever, that purchaser must be a resident of your state. If they are not you must ship the firearm to a dealer in their state to have a background check done.
That couple of day wait may not be a big deal to you but to me it is a big deal.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)It applies everywhere in the U.S. individual states can be more restrictive and some are, but they can not be less.
Stuff like this shows just how far our news industry has fallen
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)created for propaganda. If you go to a gun show and all of the sellers are FFL holders, there must be background checks and comply with all federal and state laws. What they are talking about is an individual who decides to sell or trade one or two guns for whatever reason.
Online sales, if they are interstate, the gun must be delivered to a licensed dealer in the buyer's state. The buyer usually pays the dealer for the effort of logging it in his or her inventory and log it back out with the 4473 and do background check along with any other state and local law requirements.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)It's not the background checks that people object to: it's the gun registration. It has been used in the past to facilitate confiscation.
There is a case breaking now in New York, a state that registers all handguns. A man's permit was revoked because he had once been prescribed an anti-anxiety medication. He was sent a list of his registered handguns with an order to surrender them all. Failure to do so would have resulted in a warrant for his arrest. Yes, the "guberment" was going to come for his guns. Now the state police are saying it was a case of mistaken identity. The man is suing.
People aren't as concerned about registering themselves. What's the fear? That the "guberment" will send them a notice saying that CCW is now illegal and they should turn themselves in?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you really think national registration would result in mass confiscation of guns?
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)It's a very new law in New York State. The man's lawyer is alleging that the state police are data-mining prescription records looking for every permit holder who has been prescribed any kind of psychoactive drug. This has not been verified, and it will probably be a long time before anything is known for certain. However, if true, it is an extreme violation of privacy and is not, repeat not legal even under the new NY SAFE Act, which only allows for notification by a mental health professional that the person is a credible danger to him/herself or others.
I don't know about the "mass" part, but confiscation is one of the strategies. Reduction of the number of firearms in society is the goal -- I'm sure you would not dispute that. Registration will certainly facilitate that.
Not to be too dystopian, but a society that routinely overprescribes psychoactive drugs (starting with Ritalin for schoolchildren) and then uses said drugs as an excuse to deny certain rights is a society that has some very severe internal conflicts. It has some disturbing Brave New World overtones.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The goal is to reduce the number of firearms in society, but not to eliminate them. Reasonable people come up with reasonable solutions. At present, a few reasonable solutions are being presented and the gun lobby is shooting them all down. Ideally, the number of guns is not reduced by confiscation, but voluntarily by those who realize they no longer have a use for them. Many gun owners get rid of their guns when they start a family.
Unfortunately, they sell or give them to others and the number in circulation keeps growing. I can't help thinking that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where there are more guns than screwdrivers.
Both are tools, but one is far more useful.
premium
(3,731 posts)You're not serious are you?
Every household in america has at least 2 screwdrivers, and that's not counting practically every business having screwdrivers.
In my toolbox alone, I have at least 20 different screwdrivers, long, short, phillips head, standard.
Maybe you should use a different tool to make your point.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think it was a good tool to make my point. Screwdrivers are incredibly useful, probably the most used tool out there. While guns are the least used, and there are far more than 20 types of gun. The average gun owner has 5.
premium
(3,731 posts)I guess I'm not your average gun owner, I only own 2, a pistol and a shotgun.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'll probably get a shotgun and maybe a pistol if and when I ever move back on land, as I won't be living anywhere near a city.
premium
(3,731 posts)I never really saw any reason for anything more that 1 gun and 1 shotgun and the only reason I have the handgun is because I got it at a really, really good price, I'm not into collecting guns, but I have no problem with those that do as long as it's done legally and they are stored safely.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Straw Man
(6,613 posts)... that I don't think digging through medical records for anyone who has ever sought treatment for anxiety is "reasonable."
I know that the goal is an overall reduction in the number of firearms in circulation, but I don't agree that that will lead to greater public safety. Some people can and do safely own hundreds of firearms. Others should not own a single one, nor should they own pointy objects or inflammable materials.
I'm more and more inclined toward the belief that people who pose so much of a threat to public safety that they shouldn't own firearms should probably also not be walking freely among us. But that's another discussion.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I've never disputed the fact that many, if not most gun owners, are law abiding and never harm anyone. That doesn't alter the fact that millions of guns, that were once legal, have leached out into a less savory world. Reminds me of all those nukes in the former USSR, all safely tucked away until the wall came down. Now where are they?
The "liberty" of gun proliferation is a classic case of "be careful what you wish for". We may not be able to contain this monster without eventually resorting to some level of confiscation. That's the sad reality, but I doubt it will translate into banning gun ownership across the board. Just certain types of guns.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)The truth of the allegation remains to be seen.
The "monster" is human. Confiscation is already the order of the day for people who are legally barred from having guns. They are the bulk of the problem. Banning "certain types of guns" is and always has been a red herring.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Certain types of weapons have no place in any society, unless that society is in a state of civil war and even then, it's debatable.
The fact that Ar-15s etc. are popular and "convenient" doesn't justify their existence. The very fact that it only takes one or 2 crazies to kill so many demonstrates my point. Imagine if 20 or 30 out of the millions who own them went on sprees like Aurora and Sandy Hook.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)The number would still be dwarfed by the total of the one-and-two-at-a-time killings that arise from gang and drug wars.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Straw Man
(6,613 posts)We always have. I think it's possible to attack root causes through social justice without limiting freedom through heavy-handed police-state tactics.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nobody wants a police state, but restricting clip sizes and certain types of guns hardly fits that description. The UK is not a police state, in spite of those who describe it as such, but it is probably more violent than the US, in general terms. Difference is, the violence is more nuanced there, more shades of grey. Much more chance of getting in a fistfight in the UK, or Canada, than a gunfight. I'll take a bruising over a coffin any day.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)than the dictionary definition of police state.
You are also likely to be beaten with a baseball bat in Chicago than shot in Wyoming.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/28/terrorism.humanrights1
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/03/30/breaking-chicago-police-swarm-mag-mile-wilding-scene/
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm really not trying to nitpick, but that's the most original spelling of surveillance I've ever seen.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)for the past few days.
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25489
Flintlocks and crossbows are under rated.
Some of my kids' former classmates have actually used text format in essays.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/6840888/Traditional-English-spellings-could-be-killed-off-by-internet-says-language-expert.html
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The only objection I have toward Webster's simplification of English spelling is that it makes it more difficult when traveling in countries where one doesn't know the native language. The etymology becomes less apparent. English is an incredibly rich language, with roots in Latin, German, French, Greek, Celtic, Gaelic, Danish and among others. This means we usually have several options for words that have similar meanings. For example, if we are in Italy, France, Portugal or Spain, we would try to communicate using a Latin or French rooted word, rather than one with a Germanic root. Our spelling tells us where those words came from.
Very often, our nouns have a German root, like water (wasser), book (buch), inn (inn), folk (volk), while many of the associated nouns and adjectives have a Latin root, like aquatic, library, hotel, people.
Meanwhile, we tend to use German rooted verbs as auxiliaries - to be, to have, to get; while our more explicit verbs tend to have Latin roots - to exist, to possess, to obtain.
Bazinga
(331 posts)when early English kings were asked what they wanted to eat they'd say the French "boeuf" or "porc" and the servant would go tell the German speaking peasant to kill the "kuh" or "schwein." So in English we get beef from cows and pork from swine.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Would registration enormously aid such a scheme should it come about? No less obviously yes.
In any case, as hack89 points out, at least as great a concern is the privacy issue.
hack89
(39,171 posts)as long as there is no permanent record - which is the way it works now. The argument in Congress is that the proposed law to mandate universal background checks made it appear that private sales would generate permanent records.
And the concern is not that the "guberment" will take our guns. As the ACLU pointed out in opposing this part of the law, it is a privacy issue. The ACLU thinks you do not have to be in a government database before you can exercise a civil liberty.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It's not a registry of the guns that people own. That's the sticking point of the national NICS check requirement for all purchases.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And many are really proud to get the license and don't seem to care about their weapons taken away. As an enumerator for Census one reason one person did not want to fill out his census was because the guberment was gonna take your guns.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)You went from "many" to "one reason one person" and followed it with a backhanded insult. Do you know how to have a conversation?
Firearms confiscation, while a possibility, is a remote one. While I understand some fellow in New York has already gotten a letter in the mail listing the guns he owns (from a registry) in a demand to surrender them to the authorities because of his prescribed medications, and guns have been confiscated in California, general confiscation is not a great concern.
What most people, including you apparently, don't seem to understand is that you are not trying to regulate guns with universal background checks. You're regulating relationships. When someone buys a gun in a gun store it is a relationship between a merchant and a customer with all the rights and responsibilities thereto. And that's where the relationship begins and ends. Try to go in a gun store and borrow a gun. Not only will the proprietor laugh his ass off, it would be illegal for him to loan it to you.
Outside a retail establishment people have all sorts and kinds of relationships for all sorts and kinds of reasons. The only way national background checks can work is if we institute the same regulations on transfers between private persons as any retail transaction. You are asking people to change the nature of their relationship to transfer the gun, and document it for the government. That's an invasion of their privacy.
So while confiscation is not a big concern, documenting people's relationships is a data mining opportunity too rich to pass up for people like this. Or are you too busy dodging rainbows shooting of unicorn asses to consider the possibility that maybe we're aren't out of the oppressive kleptocratic government woods yet?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Productive conversations involve a good deal more than that. Maybe you should get out more and practice.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)In your replies to me I just assumed that english is not your first language.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I don't look like a grammar Nazi
I do my best to decipher the post and ignore things that don't make any sense
I make the world a slightly more intelligent place by correcting headline based information with actual information
most importantly I don't get hung up on things that don't matter all that much.
Or were you making a joke?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)I hate that joke, my previous post illustrates a few reasons why.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Be lots of opinions, I prefer not to be of the same opinion every one else. So it is fine with me if you do not like jokes but remember it takes less muscle to smile and it will make you happier.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)..without knowing what you are talking about? You are in a position to let people know.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)But I've got you beat without even trying.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)carry permit include the pistol description and serial number. If you carry any firearm not listed you are committing a crime. I believe California and Mass. both require this.
When all is said and done I predict a rash of NRA court filings to push back against laws like that. When you energize a group of people on an issue and give them the initiative you gotta give 'em somewhere to go. Judging by the way the legislation is shaping up gun rights groups will have more reason to celebrate than gun control groups and the NRA will have another boatload of money to play with.
If national reciprocity goes through I would expect laws like that to end, but I'm not that much of an expert.
DonP
(6,185 posts)That first big check, signed by Rahm, was just the first of several. He also lost the appeal and the Ezell case (no shooting ranges in the city but range practice required to own a gun in Chicago) and is still farting around in court trying to keep as much of their gun ban as they can.
Now Illinois is considering appealing the appellate decision on CCW since none of their other stall tactics are working.
Chicago doesn't have any money to hire police or keep their pension commitments, but they have millions to piss away on outside counsel on these cases.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)In NY you cannot even own, much less carry, a handgun that isn't listed on your permit.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)I believe that most who have concealed carry licenses accept the fact that the government knows we own firearms.
When you consider how our privacy rights have deteriorated because of the War on Terror and the data mining capacity of our government and private corporations, I would guess that the government could come up with a very accurate list of all gun owners in our nation if they wished. They may already have one. Of course they do not know exactly what firearms a person owns unless they live in a state where firearm serial numbers have to be registered.
Pullo
(594 posts)to be attached to the overall package?
Of course, the finalized bill will likely require 60 to pass the full Senate, but I'm curious about the rules for amendments.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)these gun fetishists are all psychopaths.......
disgusting bunch of people
hack89
(39,171 posts)gun controllers have been warning about blood running in the streets for decades as gun rights have expanded - and yet here we are enjoying historically low levels of gun violence after 20 years of steady declines.
Time to stop crying wolf.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)And also calling them "disgusting bunch of people".
If not then I would ask you to edit your language to reflect that .
shedevil69taz
(512 posts)Being active duty military and forced to move all over this would make things MUCH easier.