Do you think Trump deserves criticism for taking off an Obama’s executive order that expanded gun bans for the mentally ill?
Twitter flips the script—victims to Trump
- Thread starter CowboyUp
- Start date
Do you think Trump deserves criticism for taking off an Obama’s executive order that expanded gun bans for the mentally ill?
Sure.
Now do you want to address the obvious dismantling of our system of checks and balances that the previous administration put in place?
Now do you want to address the obvious dismantling of our system of checks and balances that the previous administration put in place?
Trick question, huh? Anything? Wait.....
Ah, there's something. Finally. Checks and balances. And like, military industrial complex n' shit, man.
I agree that Constiutional law is ever evolving....certainly very, very slowly, but evolving.
I also agree that is why we have a SCOTUS.
At the same time, the argument you “would make”....was made...and rejected by the SCOTUS in 2008.
Furthermore, the SCOTUS make-up of likely votes on the issue hasn’t changed since then and the most likely retirees coming up are predominately from Justices that might agree with you. So I don’t see the SCOTUS giving much credence to your “argument” in the immediately foreseeable future. As I said SCOTUS jurisprudence evolves very slowly.
Therefore, continuing to rest on this argument is really nothing more than a vote for the status quo. How about some suggested changes that we might be able to reach some kind of consensus on within the state of what the 2nd Amendment means right now within the context of recent SCOTUS decisions rather than discussing how you think the SCOTUS got it wrong (which presently accomplishes nothing).
Anybody else?
I practically begged for commentary on my proposed changes and so far have only gotten @Medic007 bowing down to my intelligence and insight.This is a prime opportunity for anyone to “come at me bro!”...metaphorically speaking, of course.
I’m sincerely interested in what changes others here buy into or think should be made or learning whether they think the status quo is the way to go.
It seems we have room for discussion about Constitutional “common sense gun control” measures.
In fact, it doesn’t look like you two are that far apart.
Which is weird. Encouraging, but weird.
Its a good thing there aren't any requirements for adulthood or you'd be like a midget at Disney,
I'm convinced he doesn't read anything before he forms his conclusions. Just sees a name and starts with the bitching.
Do you think if a private citizen (shooting victim) sued a mega clip maker SCOTUS would grant cert?
Greeds man and checks n' balances is the reason for this. Policies will fall in line after that.
That and the dems 7 years ago didn't do anything. Didn't get that from Trump, though. About right?
That's a perfect example of why you're such a good little bunt. Ignore and blame the other guys instead of acknowledging a systemic problem.
Wikipedia (cut-paste blah blah blah)...
“Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checkson buyers. Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification.”
That makes things pretty easy for felons, wouldn’t you say?
Right, but it doesn't really happen. It's fun to claim loophole, but there just isn't evidence of it being a big thing.
1. Increased funding for mental health care.
2. Better more extensive background checks...will cost money. Will also likely necessitate a longer waiting period.
3. Maybe change the Brady Act on mental health from adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to something like:
“Currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder. For purposes of this paragraph, "currently undergoing treatment for a mental illness, condition, or disorder" means the person has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as being afflicted with a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, psychological orientation, or memory that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life“ as a disqualifier.
Maybe even an “in the past X number of years” time period.
4. Either a monetary stick (decrease of funding to states under Omnibus Crime Act funding) or carrot (increased funding under same) for reaching benchmark arrest/conviction information and mental health record reporting to NICS by the states.
5. Increased funding for school security measures....seems like a nice infrastructure program I could get behind.
Would all be on the table for me. This has become a public safety/public health issue as important as the opiates crisis to me. I don’t know if either side has the political will to actually dedicate real resources to improving the crisis.
Things that I’m not particularly interested in pursuing:
1. Arming teachers or authorizing carry in the classroom by teachers.
2. Particular weapon bans for certain semi-automatics. I understand the attraction to and fear of scary looking “assault rifles”, but functionally they are no different than other semi-auto rifles and semi-auto handguns. Discussion of banning things like bump stocks or cranks would be worthy of discussion.
Thing that I’m on the fence on:
1. Required training and qualification licensing for general public carry (with particular policy based exceptions including, but not necessarily limited, to possession on property owned by the possessor and possibly others.
P.S. not cut and pasted from anywhere else. I feel like a nine year old defending that I did this “all by myself”...but I did.
We all need to agree that no regulation is going to eliminate the problem, but the focus should be on decreasing the carnage.
Just my opinion....Fire/criticize away. Call me a snowflake lib...statist...Nazi...whatever. I’m thick skinned (relatively).
1. Increased funding for mental health to what purpose. Increasing funding to increase funding is not productive and wasting recourses. Unless you can come up with something more than increase funding I would say no. Give me something that is tangible.
2. Better background checks. Like what? Again vague. What are they looking at? Who is doing the background check? This would be a no again unless you can show that the organization doing the background check is not going to make it political. Not going to happen in todays day and age. Better left to the states to decide.
3. Again no. You've just cut out a good majority of veterans, and will cause them to not seek help.
4. Don't like benchmark numbers to convict for money. This incentivizes litigation, and makes only the lawyers happy. So no.
5. An idea I can support. Again vague. Spending money on armed guards would be a program to support. State and federal money can be used to create programs. Would support a state run organization for this. Federal dollars to support state run programs.
2.1 If teaches wish to arm themselves I would not say so to that, but would require a gun safety course at a minimum, and leave the states to decide if they want more training and what kind.
2.2 We agree on this. However bump stocks and cranks won't make a difference either way. So on the fence and can discuss. You could convince me on a crank, but the bump stocks would take a lot, and would definitely be one of those what are we getting in return negotiating items. Don't believe that banning these would accomplish the goal.
3.1 Squarely on the fence, but with so much trepidation that I'm probably going to jump off it and go into the no camp. Too many questions that I don't think can get lined out through the politics of it all.
I don't think the solution to this problem lies in he 2nd amendment and gun control. Focus should be on the FBI, and restructuring of an organization that is clearly not meeting it's mission. They are focused on the wrong targets, and not even close to being non-political. At this point blow up the organization, and give it a clear mission of focus for it's LE to pursue.
From the FBI's own page its priorities are as follows: Protect the United States from terrorist attack/Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage/Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes/Combat public corruption at all levels. There is your problem. They are not focused on the right priorities. Reprioritize to 1. Provide federal/state/local law enforcement with forensic and investigative support in solving felony crimes 2. Provide and facilitate communication between states in support of criminal investigations 3. Support DOJ investigations. 4. Combat public corruptions at all levels (they can keep that one). Let the DOD handle anti-terrorism and cyber attacks. They can provide support to the DOD, but concentrating on it as a priority takes away resources that can be utilized to their mandate.
Restructuring of many of government's departments and missions should be a big priority. What departments are better utilized to solve problems like this? Perhaps the ATF can be given the task of focusing on school shooters and a task force developed.
What I do know is doing the same things with the same arguments will get us no where. Many times a solution such as this will shake things up and get the results we want without major changes in our law. It is something that would not take an act of congress and can be initialized the executive. Congress can quibble about the detailed budgetary issues as they like.
You wanted a thought out approach. Been thinking about this since Sandy Hook. Everything else is just bla, bla, republican, bla, bla democrat, second amendment arguments that get no where every time. The FBI dropped the ball on this and many other things. It's clear they are not functioning as they should. College Basketball investigation, Russia, etc.. etc.. I can list a number of things that take their focus off the ball, and that is why it was dropped. At least it would be start to the overhaul needed.
Now back to popcorn, and lurking.
It’s an issue and contributes to the overall problem. More regulation, say requiring a gun show-only seller license and NICS no matter what, are common sense.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-shows-statistics
I could support a law that requires an FFL to sell at a gun show to eliminate the "loop hole". It won't make a difference but it sounds good.
Nope.
What federal question basis do you think these hypothetical private citizens are going to be sued on is the first question we should be asking ourselves.
Last edited:
"A study by ATF found that 25% to 50% of gun show vendors are unlicensed."
This has been debunked as it includes all vendors at a gun show. I'm not going to tell you what other vendors are at gun shows...you should seriously go check it out.
Of course my propositions were vague. It’s not like we’re writing the legislative language here at Rivals.com. That being said.
1. To the purpose of curing or providing treatment to individuals with mental health issues that could lead to violence.
2. The OSBI does extensive background checks for SDA licenses, and they do it in a completely non-political manner. There are two statutes in Oklahoma law with issues that disqualify you from getting a license and they research all of those.
3. If a veteran has a mental health condition defined as I did, you’re in favor of them carrying? We are just gonna disagree if so...which is fine.
4. The benchmarks I mentioned have NOTHING to do with obtaining convictions. It has to do with accurately reporting convictions, arrests, and other dispositions including mental health adjudications.
While many of your criticisms of the FBI may indeed be valid, the enforcement of the Brady Act and many gun regulations already rests with ATF. Yes, the FBI maintains the NICS system, and investigates crimes. IMO, your focus on just reorganizing the FBI is itself as vague (if not more so) than any proposition I made. What specific restructuring do you believe would likely lead in a reduction of gun violence?
Thanks for the input, btw.
“The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not “engaged in the business” and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.”
https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/gun-show-loophole-faq/
It was actually a Congressional resolution nullifying a Social Security Admin Rule about reporting designated payee status from SSA to NICS that passed in both Houses before being signed by Trump.
It was neither an Executive Order of Obama to enact that rule or an Executive Order of Trump to nullify it. It was an administrative rule enacted pursuant to the APA by SSA, nullified by vote of Congress which was given the effect of law once Trump signed the resolution.
I personally believe it was a bad public policy decision to not give NICS this information, but it is what it is...and what it is ain’t an Executive Order
There's no loophole if it's not prohibited. Loopholes are unintended flaws in the design of a law. Private gun sales aren't regulated by the ATF by design, not in spite of it.
1. If the focus is on that then I don't think the amounts of money needed would be overly burdensome. 20-30 million on the federal level can go a very long way. I would suggest a program that works along with veterans organizations that are already dealing with this. Much of the research and treatment can compliment each other.
2. I would be ok with allowing OK and individual states to choose how and what they do here.
3. The way you defined put up immediate red flags for me. While veterans are coming home from war with mental health issues, they are not shooting up schools. I would simply caution you that when talking mental health that 90% of veterans are being diagnosed with these on return home. While your intention in the language may not be for them, you could have unintended consequences of the language crafted to deal with this issue.
4. Not sure what to say to that other than I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, but remain cautious.
Sorry I was purposely vague on the structuring. It's extremely large organization with 30,000 employees, and multiple sub departments. Detailing the restructuring would take time on here I do not have nor want to put into it. Suffice it so say in summary I would take them out of the intelligence gathering, and move a lot of their cyber crimes to other departments in the government such as the NSA that would be better suited to handling the issues (Granted I think the NSA is oversized as well). The gun violence issue could be handled by the ATF task force with the FBI providing interagency and state to state support. Ultimately rebranding the FBI into a smaller organization with more focus on the DOJ. I would want to come in around 5,000 to 7,000 employees at most and pull the FBI from overseas assignments. Let me say as well that I don't think those in government would want or be open to pursue an idea like this but it is an idea that can be implemented with no legislation. On the vagueness I do apologize but I'm just not going to get into the weeds of it as it would end up being a 30 page dissertation and I'm not getting paid to do it. I'm sure you can understand that. Thanks for the response, and hope you find more people to provide ideas outside the norm. Long odds though.
https://taskandpurpose.com/podcasts/veterans-commit-mass-shootings-alarming-rate/
“As anthropologist Hugh Gusterson noted in The New York Times last year, more than a third of the 43 worst mass killings in the United States between 1984–2016 were perpetrated by veterans, though vets never exceeded 13% of the population during that period.”
Has a single gun that was used in a mass shooting event been purchased with this gun show “loophole”?
What if I want to pass along my gun to my child? Should I be forced to do a background check on the “transaction”? The FBI can’t keep up with the background check system as it is, who will govern this new addition?
3. Fair point. FWIW, that definition comes from Oklahoma Law in the SDA. The OSBI deals regularly with veteran applicants for such licenses...many of them with varying levels of mental health issues. The overwhelming majority of those licenses are approved.
I certainly understand not wanting to write a dissertation here. Me calling vagueness on your propositions was more of a tongue in cheek response to you pointing out the vagueness in mine when I wasn’t interested in drafting actual statutory language without getting paid to do it as well. It’s all good.
I also agree that there probably isn’t much political will to do that type of a reorganization.
It has nothing to do with the gun show "system." The gun show "system" isn't a real thing. People that don't meet the requirements for federal licensing as a firearms dealers can sell guns without doing background checks under the current law. Those transactions can happen at gun shows, the local Wal-Mart parking lot, or your house, etc.
People do go to gun shows to sell their personally owned guns and people at gun shows can buy them. But again, a gun show doesn't have to happen for those private transactions to occur. People take guns they are wanting to sell to the gun show because it's an obvious buyers market.
