Law enforcement groups urge more gun screening

[SecularMotion]

A group of law enforcement officials is calling for strengthened national background screening to prevent illegal gun purchases, and taking a stand against a federal proposal to make state-issued concealed weapons permits valid nationwide.

Touting those issues as public safety concerns, the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence has urged lawmakers to take action.

"We are united because we have seen too much violent crime committed with guns, and there are clear and effective solutions that will reduce it," said Staunton Police Chief James Williams, the incoming association president.

In particular, they want better sharing of state records with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a federal program that scours database records to determine firearm purchase eligibility.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/law-enforcement-groups-urge-more-gun-screening

[Remmah2]

1. Try enforcing penalties on the existing ones.

Penalize law enforcement agencies and jurisdictions that fail to enforce them.

[MicaelS]

2. I don't always listen to what police chiefs want,

Because they can't always be trusted. They is plenty of evidence of police misconduct out there. Police chiefs are often political appointees that keep their jobs only at the whim of local officials. Plenty of police chiefs have come out in favor of gun bans, even if the rank and file officers support the RKBA.

[bluestateguy]

3. Yes that is what we need: more people arrested on "weapons charges"

If the police chiefs are for it, there's a mighty good chance that it is a bad idea.

[gejohnston]

4. How much you want to bet

many if not most of these guys would love to over turn Miranda and get rid of the exclusionary rule?

[-..__...]

5. If they really want to take a bite out of crime...

What's really needed is better screening of law enforcement candidates and active duty cops.

[PavePusher]

6. "Blah, blah, blah....

...we want a better police state."

Fuck. That.

[bongbong]

7. If you're not going to do something illegal with your Precious

Then you shouldn't be afraid of gun registration.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. IOW, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear"

Once again, the subject of guns brings out the police-state apologists.
BTW, don't you have some research to do?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117247076#post67

'Sometime before the heat death of the universe' would be a good timeframe to produce that 'proof' that you mentioned...

[bongbong]

21. Sense & Dense

> Sometime before the heat death of the universe' would be a good timeframe to produce that 'proof' that you mentioned...

You're kidding, right? Nobody, even in the throes of religion, could be that dense.

Re-read my post AGAIN, REALLY SLOWLY. Here, I'll explain it to you - and I promise to type slowly so you're understand it. Here is what I posted:

"You gun-religionists are quite silly. It you didn't just cut-n-paste "SUPER-DUPER REBUTTALS!" from the NRA website (or where ever you got it from), you wouldn't look so dumb."

Check out (I promise you I am typing this REAL slow) the part &quot or where ever you got it from)". Now, (REALLY SLOW now; I'm doing about .5 WPM) that means it could be from the NRA, or from some other website, or even HIS OWN HEAD. Yes, "where ever you got it from" includes YOUR OWN HEAD!

Who said gun-religionists are dense?

[PavePusher]

28. Please quote the material we "cut-n-paste" from the NRA....

with links to the NRA source sites.

We'll wait.....

[bongbong]

29. Strawman alert again

I never posted what you claimed I did.

Your lack of reading comprehension ability is not my problem - it's yours.

[PavePusher]

43. Short-term memory fault alert.

Re-read my post AGAIN, REALLY SLOWLY. Here, I'll explain it to you - and I promise to type slowly so you're understand it. Here is what I posted:

"You gun-religionists are quite silly. It you didn't just cut-n-paste "SUPER-DUPER REBUTTALS!" from the NRA website (or where ever you got it from), you wouldn't look so dumb."

[bongbong]

50. Still haven't read it, I see

You gun-religionists are dense, dense, dense. No hope for you here. I've explained it, the only thing left for you is to re-take 2nd grade (where you learn reading comprehension)

[Marengo]

55. No, the only thing left is for you to provide evidence of what was cut & pasted...

and where it was cut & pasted from.

[PavePusher]

57. I truely don't think it can.

I am beginning to believe that copy-and-paste is a function beyond it's abilities.

That is, assuming there was something to copy-and-paste from.

[Marengo]

59. I think the latter is the case, there's nothing at all behind the accusation.

[PavePusher]

10. Surely you'd have no problem registering all your books and periodicals, amIrite? n/t

[bongbong]

19. Magazines

This is a new "argument" for the gun religionist! Finally!

"Magazines are as dangerous as guns!"

[PavePusher]

26. I suppose reading National Review is completely harmless.....

I'll also note that many people here have called for Fox News to be removed from the airwaves.

Arguably, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and Mao's Little Red Book have killed millions.

[bongbong]

30. Spin

Who said gun religionists only have spin & nonsense for their "arguments"?

It's not the book(s) that "killed millions", it's the ideas in the books.

I'm sorry I have to explain every little bit of logic to you, but I understand, you're a gun-religionist.

[safeinOhio]

22. If you want to compare the 1st to the 2nd,

don't leave out that the 2nd and the rights it speaks to has a prefatory clause. The first Amendment does does not, making the two very different.

Is your internet connection registered?

[PavePusher]

25. The prefatory clause is not a limiting condition.

Unless you can demonstrate that it is, with cites to grammar, history and case law.

[bongbong]

31. I'll let the SCOTUS do that

They have held that the 2nd is a "group" right, for decades, all the way until the super-conservatives & wingnuts now sleeping on the SCOTUS overturned decades of precedent with Heller.

[sarisataka]

33. I'll let the SCOTUS do that

I made the pertinent part in bold to make it easy

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms

Edit BTW: the Supreme Court does not have to follow any state or appellate court precedent, which were divided anyway. The SC's job is to be the final arbitrator of what is and is not Constitutional.

I await the smilies

[bongbong]

37. DUH

I already said the super-conservative bush/raygun court overturned decades of precedent with Heller.

You were too probably too busy responding to my post to read my post.

> It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms

Is this phrase from the Super God Authority Truth website or something? Prove it is the "Absolute" truth, as you seem to imply.

[sarisataka]

41. If you read it correctly

There was NO Supreme Court precedent

Sorry for forgetting the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
In case you are wondering the source of that info is

^ Barnes, Robert (2008-06-27). "Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. "The Supreme Court ... decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense."

Now if you have a Super Duper God Authority Truth the there is any SOCTUS case where the majority stated that it is a collective right go ahead.

and I will not care if it is bush/reagan, roosevelt/truman, cleveland/harrison/cleveland or washington/adams or addams


I don't judge facts based on the source

[bongbong]

49. Precedent

Boy you gun religionists never give up on the spin, do you? And you guys never give up on being amateur lawyers either.

Precedent doesn't mean EXACT precedent. Sheesh.

You gun-religionists really waste a lot of time with your inanities. It must pay well!

[sarisataka]

54. Who has comprehension issues?

overturned decades of precedent

BTW I am a bit disappointed, I had hoped for at least

[safeinOhio]

46. 5 to 4

Don't disregard the minority decision. In the next 4 years it may be the majority decision.



Justices Stevens and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions. Stevens asserted that the 2nd Amendment (1) protects the individual right to bear arms only in the context of military service and (2) does not limit government's authority to regulate civilian use or possession of firearms. He described the majority's individual-right holding as “strained and unpersuasive;” its conclusion, “overwrought and novel.” Stevens was joined in his dissent by Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter.

In his dissent, Breyer argued that even if the 2nd Amendment, in addition to militia-related purposes, protects an individual's right of self-defense, that assumption should be the beginning of the constitutional inquiry, not the end. Breyer contended that there are no purely logical or conceptual ways to determine the constitutionality of gun control laws, such as the District's law. Thus, a sounder approach would be a “balancing test” that focuses on “practicalities” to determine what gun control laws would be consistent with the 2nd Amendment even if it is interpreted as protecting a “wholly separate interest in individual self-defense.” Breyer concluded that under a balancing test that takes into

account the extensive evidence of gun crime and gun violence in urban areas, the District's gun law would be constitutionally permissible. Breyer was joined in his dissent by Justices Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens.


We will be long gone when the fat lady sings.

[sarisataka]

48. It took 225 years for the Supreme Court to make a ruling

I highly doubt there would be a 180 turnaround in just a few years from common to collective right. Could you imagine the outcry if that happened. Judicial activism would be the banner on Fox for years.

And correct that by ruling it is an individual right it still allows for regulation, just as does any other right. (different definition of regulation than how the word is used in the 2A)
I also agree there are several more generations of Constitutional law lawyers who will be employed arguing just what exactly those limits of regulations are.

My main point is that contrary to the often made claim, SCOTUS never ruled one way or another on if the right is common or collective. The closest they came was with Miller where they remanded the issue to lower court but the case was never argued as the death of the main party made the case moot.

[gejohnston]

34. they did?

They never ruled it was a group right. The previous rulings were pre 1895 "states rights" rulings that were consistant with the "the BoR does not apply to states" that applied to the other nine.

[bongbong]

36. Huh?

> They never ruled it was a group right.

You really gotta stop pulling "facts" from your gun armory or wherever the heck you do. Maybe from the Bible of the Gun Religionists?

Until 2001, SCOTUS decisions concerning the 2nd Amendment held it was a group right. Cruickshank & Miller for two of them. The super-conservatives on the court now overrule decades of precedent anytime they want to.

If gun-relgionists stopped making up "facts", only their faith would remain.

[gejohnston]

39. project much?

Cruikshank said no such thing. The court ruled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

In other words, congress could not take away your first and second amendment rights, but a state could pass laws to take away those rights. It's ruling on the 14th Amendment was even worse. That is why civil rights lawyers have been chipping away at Cruikshank since the 1930s. read it yourself. You won't, because we have discussed this several times. Each time I prove you wrong. BTW, learn to spell it right. Miller ruled that a short barreled shotgun did not seem to have a military use, and not a protected weapon under the 2A. In the age of Yahoo, Google, Ixquick, etc. anyone can verify what they are being told is questionable or not.

[bongbong]

40. Unattributed

Posting of various unattributed opinion pieces or Wikipedia articles supporting your ideas about your Precious are meaningless.

This is probably something you've heard a lot.

[gejohnston]

42. the Wikipedia cites the source

I find it useful because it is easy and on your reading level. You have not cited any of your claims.

[PavePusher]

45. Sez the one who has posted no citations at all.

[bongbong]

52. Nice picture

You and your fellow gun-religionists?

[PavePusher]

44. And again, we'll wait for your citations....

[bongbong]

51. Nice picture

You and your fellow gun-relgionists?

[Marengo]

56. Why don't you reply with citations?

[MicaelS]

11. If you're not doing anything wrong in NYC...

Then Stop and Frisk shouldn't bother you either.

Even if it targets People of Color at a much higher rate than Caucasians.

[bongbong]

20. Frisky!

So now the color of one's skin is the same as gun ownership!

I knew gun-religionists were crazzeee, but now they think you're born with a gun!

HILARIOUS!!!!

[Marengo]

60. Can we take that as a yes, that you don't mind "Stop and Frisk"?

[4th law of robotics]

13. McVeigh killed a few people without using a single gun

if cops had just had the right to kick open random doors and demand to know what citizens are doing in their own homes without warrants it might have been prevented.

If you're not doing anything wrong why would that bother you?

[bongbong]

18. Strawman alert

Don't worry, you gun religionists really don't have any logical arguments, so you're batting the same as the rest of them (.0000, BTW)

[4th law of robotics]

27. Not at all, you just didn't understand the point

That's ok, but next time just ask for clarification.


/saying why should you care about your rights to privacy if you aren't guilty is obscene. Yes, even when discussing guns.

[bongbong]

32. Strawmen, endless Strawmen

> aying why should you care about your rights to privacy if you

Show me where I said that. I'll wait.

[4th law of robotics]

35. Do you not understand how this works?

You post something that is clearly visible to everyone.

If you're not going to do something illegal with your Precious
Then you shouldn't be afraid of gun registration.

If you're not going to break the law, why worry about the law intruding in to your life?
Seems pretty clear to me. You have sided with the police state over civil liberties because you are afraid of some nebulous threat that they promise they will protect you from.

[bongbong]

38. Worry?

> Seems pretty clear to me. You have sided with the police state over civil liberties because you are afraid of some nebulous threat that they promise they will protect you from.

Seems pretty clear to me. You have sided with carrying around guns, praying for no gun laws, because you are afraid of some nebulous threat that your Precious promises they will protect you from.




(Note for the clueless and/or gun-relgionists, often the same person: Two can play the Strawman game)

[PavePusher]

58. You're the only one playing a "Strawman game" here....

and you're losing.

That should tell you something.

[hack89]

23. Sounds like the rationalization we heard for the Patriot Act

after all, if you are not a terrorist, what do you have to fear from warrantless wiretaps?

[permatex]

24. I got pulled over in NM about a year ago

by the highway patrol for my tail light being out.
After issuing me a ticket, the trooper asked if he could search my truck real quick to make sure I didn't have any weapons or drugs,
I said no.
His response was, why, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem.
At that point I asked him if he had any reason to believe that I had weapons or drugs in my truck, he said no, I said, then I'm leaving.
That really pissed him off but he had to release me. I got the hell out of there fast.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. Keystone Cops want new and better toys to play with. They will always be playing catch up to the

criminals because they are forever on the scene After The Fact. Minority Report was just a movie (and thank god for that)

[Pourshot]

12. And I ask Mayor Bloomberg for gun rights advice too....! (not likely)

Remember! Sheriffs are elected and the Chief of Police is appointed. So whereas one is a representative of the people, the other is a bureaucrat who only has responsibility to the hiring agents (mayor, town council, Board of Supervisors, etc). They are just parroting the desires of their leadership who, in many cases, talk the pro Second Amendment talk, but do not walk the pro Second Amendment walk! Get a gun and learn how to use it!

[petronius]

14. They are at least correct that states should be encouraged to provide data to NICS

in a timely manner, and maybe some federal funding should be made available to help with that if states are pleading poverty...

[Meiko]

15. I don't listen

to police chiefs and the lot. They are political appointees and we all know what that means. They are beholden to the man who gave them their job and that's where their loyalty lies.

The NICS system could use some work but most of the problems are internal, one agency not sharing information with another. The government is it's own worst enemy.

[rl6214]

16. Google dump time

[SecularMotion]

17. Thanks for the kick

[rl6214]

47. You're welcome