President signed gun control bill
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
- Status
Antipitas said:
OK, then I'd point to Miller:
The Court rejected that argument, citing Sonzinski and various Harrison Narcotics Act cases. It is not surprising that there are not more such cases involving the NFA and guns, since the SC had already shot down the same argument repeatedly in cases involving the Harrison Act and drugs.
I do fear (and expect) that the agencies will be defunded again each year. So after a year, those who have the money can begin a court battle.
I disagree. If that function of the agency has been defunded, why should you have to wait around for them to do something they obviously will not do? If a court review is to happen because Congress refuses to fund an agency review, why should there be any delay at all? Upon learning that the agency has been denied ability to comply with the law, you should be able to take the matter to court THAT DAY.
Fremmer writes:
Well, we'll just have to go back to lobbying against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Perhaps it can be amended to allow some of the silly lawsuits against gun manufacturers and gun dealers to continue.
-------------------
Possibly a bit off topic, but as I recall, at least one such suit had been allowed tocontinue, that being a suit brought by the city of Gary Indiana. There might be others too.
Well, we'll just have to go back to lobbying against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Perhaps it can be amended to allow some of the silly lawsuits against gun manufacturers and gun dealers to continue.
-------------------
Possibly a bit off topic, but as I recall, at least one such suit had been allowed tocontinue, that being a suit brought by the city of Gary Indiana. There might be others too.
antitipas writes:
Now I will submit that perhaps you shouldn't have to wait a year to do this, but understand also that a year is not a long time in the scheme of federal processes. So that in and of itself is not entirely unreasonable.
----------------
Al:
I might not know all that much about what you describe as "the scheme of federal processes" however it strikes me that having to allow the bureaucrats a year to mess about before being able to seek redress in court is a longish time to have to wait.
I believe it was Barbara Boxer who once noted "rights delayed are rights denied". I don't think that she was thinking about gun rights when she opined, however it would appear that the Lady from California had a point.
Now I will submit that perhaps you shouldn't have to wait a year to do this, but understand also that a year is not a long time in the scheme of federal processes. So that in and of itself is not entirely unreasonable.
----------------
Al:
I might not know all that much about what you describe as "the scheme of federal processes" however it strikes me that having to allow the bureaucrats a year to mess about before being able to seek redress in court is a longish time to have to wait.
I believe it was Barbara Boxer who once noted "rights delayed are rights denied". I don't think that she was thinking about gun rights when she opined, however it would appear that the Lady from California had a point.
Brett Bellmore
New member
Going back to my remark about the nonsense they feed you in high school civics, have you ever watched a voice vote on CSPAN? There's no effort to count Ayes or Nays, "Allopposedsayayeallinfavorsayyeatheayeshaveit" being one word. And quorum counts are never permitted to go to completion, and note the absence of a quorum, unless the leadership want things shut down.
Have you already forgotten how Bob Dole screwed us over more than once, with voice votes where a whole THREE Senators unanimously agreed to something, and agreed that there was no need to count how many were present? Remember, that's how the '94 assault weapon law was revived AFTER we succeeded in killing it!
And I'm well aware that voice votes were, prior to the invention of electronic vote tallying with remotes, absolutely necessary to the smooth functioning of a legislative body. Even prior to that invention, they were NEVER APPROPRIATE IN THE CASE OF CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION, and this legislation was controversial.
Or haven't you noticed us arguing about it?
Good law or bad law, the way it passed stinks on ice, and I'm entitled to object to the NRA being a party to this travesty of legislative procedure.
The GOA has far more expertise than you or I in knowing the future ramifications of any given anti-gun bill.If you choose to think this is a wonderful bill that improves gun ownership in America that is your choice.I choose not to side with the Chuck Schumers and Carolyn McCarthys of the world.
Again!
So chalk up a victory for Chuck Schumer... and for Carolyn McCarthy as well, as she told CBS News, "This is the best Christmas present I could ever receive."
Maybe this is the reason so many LEO's shoot themselves in the foot or leg with their Glocks every year.
If a vote had any chance in hell of NOT passing do you think the voice vote would be taken? Realize that 90% of the votes are known to all parties well before the vote is take, especially in something like this with support on both sides of the aisle. If any representative wanted to protest the voice vote and force a real one I never saw it on this one.
and again!
If Schumer and McCarthy were celebrating the capture of Osama Bin Laden by US troops would it make the event a bad thing because they celebrated it?
If Schumer celebrates Hanukkah and McCarthy Christmas should we boycott those holidays because they can't possibly be good if they support them?
Schumer voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 ) as did Feinstein. Does that mean if you previously supported such action you should change your mind because they were on the same side?
If your enemy is celebrating it could have nothing to do with you. Learn to tell the difference.
Welcome to the place where alleged gun rights advocates rationalize every act of government that the NRA says is okay.
I'm an NRA Life Member, I wrote the NRA to knock off supporting gun control, yet again*, they sent me information as to why the bill was good law as if I didn't already know what the bill was. That's hubris, pure and simple.
* The NRA sponsored the original gun control law that was the philosophical father of it all, the National Firearms Act of 1934, they again sponsored the Gun Control Act of 1968 which removed the last roadblock against federal gun control, the tax nexus.
Like anything it is an incentive issue. Incentives both positive and negative.
First you make it illegal, which it is for those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves and others. Then you put a system in place so those conducting legal transactions can ensure those they are selling to do not fit that category. Finally you penalize those who break or attempt to break the law.
It will not stop all but it will reduce the instances where a person who meets the requirements of the law is able to legally purchase a firearm. Tough enforcement and stiff penalties for violation of the law will reduce the amount of people willing to break it by selling them weapons.
It will not stop all of them any more than a law against murder will stop all murders. If the lack of perfection though is your grounds for dismissing the law I ask this, would you dismiss the law against murder?
I deleted the original e-mail I received from GOA so for right now all I can post is how delighted the Brady campaign is with the signing of this law.And gun owners here still think its innocent and wonderful.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/2008/01/08/america-is-turning-a-corner/
http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/2008/01/08/america-is-turning-a-corner/
The same Larry Pratt that Pat Buchanan let go form his presidential campaign in 96. I guess that explains the ideology of the GOA articles on the bill. If you are too far right for Pat you might be way out there in right field which would put you at odds with any legislation by the government. Its ironic that the government uses the politics of fear and that the GOA engages in the same.
Of course Brady is going to toot the horn..the truth of the matter is the NRA muscled the Brady folks, Schumer, and McCarthy into putting stuff in the bill they wouldn't. I would be willing to bet the only art they put in the bill was about the two shootings...lol. If you read the bill and look at it close you know all Brady and the gun control folks did was endorse it vote for it...lol.
Its one of the greatest coups ever pulled by the NRA on the anti gun folks. The equivalent of the anti gun folks getting sold swampland in the everglades and telling them to smile for the camera.
Of course Brady is going to toot the horn..the truth of the matter is the NRA muscled the Brady folks, Schumer, and McCarthy into putting stuff in the bill they wouldn't. I would be willing to bet the only art they put in the bill was about the two shootings...lol. If you read the bill and look at it close you know all Brady and the gun control folks did was endorse it vote for it...lol.
Its one of the greatest coups ever pulled by the NRA on the anti gun folks. The equivalent of the anti gun folks getting sold swampland in the everglades and telling them to smile for the camera.
Here's a quick blurb from the anti gun Brady campaign page linked to above for those who don't want to bother reading the whole thing.
"America is turning a corner on the gun issue, because the people are finally being heard.
Today, President Bush signed into law the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 – what some have called “the first major new gun control bill in more than a decade.”
The President and Congress are to be congratulated for this achievement. They know that Brady background checks are designed to prohibit the dangerously mentally ill, felons, and domestic abusers from getting guns legally. They also know, however, that at present only an estimated 10-20% of the records of the dangerously mentally ill are in the system.
What’s more, fully 25% of felony records have yet to be added to the system. This is unacceptable.
Brady background checks have stopped an estimated 1.4 million people from legally buying guns since 1994, but background checks are only as good as the records in the system.
What we’ve been doing isn’t working, and the President and Congress have taken meaningful action to do better."
"America is turning a corner on the gun issue, because the people are finally being heard.
Today, President Bush signed into law the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 – what some have called “the first major new gun control bill in more than a decade.”
The President and Congress are to be congratulated for this achievement. They know that Brady background checks are designed to prohibit the dangerously mentally ill, felons, and domestic abusers from getting guns legally. They also know, however, that at present only an estimated 10-20% of the records of the dangerously mentally ill are in the system.
What’s more, fully 25% of felony records have yet to be added to the system. This is unacceptable.
Brady background checks have stopped an estimated 1.4 million people from legally buying guns since 1994, but background checks are only as good as the records in the system.
What we’ve been doing isn’t working, and the President and Congress have taken meaningful action to do better."
- Status