Republican Gun Control

[Dennis]

Are these the Republicans who will preserve our Second Amendment?

---------------------
((quote: Bold for stress added by Dennis)) http://www.freecitizen.com/

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry
Hyde said Thursday that negotiators were close to agreement on
legislation to tighten gun control and safety laws.

The Illinois Republican said that while one or two issues remain to
be resolved, negotiators have agreed on provisions to bar minors from
possessing assault weapons, ban certain large scale ammunition clips and
require ``reasonable'' mandatory background checks for purchases,
including those at gun shows.

There would also beprovisions for safety devices and trigger locks and
a lifetime ban on the purchase of a handgun by anyone convicted of a
gun-related felony as a juvenile, Hyde said.

Following the high school shootings in Colorado in the spring, the Senate
passed a juvenile crime bill that included a series of gun control
provisions. But the House version left out the gun measures after some
Republicans argued they were too strong and some Democrats asserted
they were too weak.

A House-Senate conference to work out differences in the two bills has
stalled for several months over the gun control issue.

Hyde spoke during debate on a motion by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.,
to urge the House-Senate negotiators to meet in open sessions beginning
Friday and continuing until a compromise was reached.

McCarthy said negotiators needed an incentive to move forward. ``I fear
the delays we have faced have been caused by the congressional
leadership's reluctance to enact meaningful gun safety legislation,'' she
said.

But Hyde argued that informal meetings have been taking place on a
daily basis. ``Nobody wants this to fail. Give credence to our good
faith.'' A vote on the motion was scheduled for Friday.

Earlier Thursday, the House approved, by 305-117, another measure
offered by Democrats to guide the House-Senate negotiators. That
motion recommended that the final version of the juvenile crime bill
include language to close loopholes allowing criminals to obtain guns
at gun shows and from non-licensed dealers.

It also said the bill should not include language that weaken current gun
safety law and that it should aid in enforcing current laws against
criminals who use guns.
((unquote))

At the moment, I'm too angry to comment.


[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 24, 1999).]

 

[bamaflier]

As I don't recall the exact reference for the following paraphrase, I'll just note here that I did not originate it, although I find it a most appropriate and satisfying response:

May God damn their paltry souls to hell.

So there. Have a nice day

 

[Gwinnydapooh]

Libertarian, Libertarian, Libertarian . . . .

Screw the Republicrats.

 

[Larry P.]

"...loopholes allowing criminals to obtain guns at gun shows..." Did I miss something? I haven't heard about those loopholes apparently, as I thought it was illegal for a criminal to obtain or possess a gun regardless of whether it was from a gun show or not. Who exactly passed this law which ALLOWS them to, at gun shows?

 

[Brett Bellmore]

"Nobody wants this to fail." Is Hyde really that delusional? You know, I seldom have anything good to say about Republicans, but our real problem in Congress isn't the average Republican member, it's with the "leaders", like Hyde, or Lott, who are deliberately trying to get gun control enacted over the objections of their own caucus. If the Republican "leaders" weren't pushing this agenda, it would go nowhere.

Maybe it's time to start working to defeat the GOP leadership in Congress? They're all from "safe" seats, but it might be possible to defeat them at the primary stage, particularly given a stealth approach: A not too serious looking opponent, and then a big turnout of gun owners at the last minute. (Primaries generally have low turnouts, so it's easier to throw them this way.)

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!

 

[hankrearden98]

True Larry. Convicted felons are prohibited under federal law and some state laws from possessing firearms. The beauty of the deal from the statist perspective is that more and more acts are becomming felonies. Pretty soon, one will not be able to breath without violating some statute or administrative decree which has the force as law.

Some states allow felons to possess firearms under certain conditions. Texas for example, allows ex-felons to possess a firearm in their own home if it has been 15 years or longer since the sentence was completed. Oklahoma allows felons to possess firearms during the course of their employment as a gunsmith.

I submit that it is not the above types of felons that guncontrol laws protect people against. As a matter of fact, its not the dangerous felons that guncontrol laws protect you against either. Guncontrol laws actually protect the predatory felons from honest citizens and those ex-felons who are actually leading productive lives.

Its important to note that felons were not prohibited from possessing firearms until this century, about the time that the movement began to be directed at non-criminals also. During the better parts of American History, when a person finished his sentence, when he paid for his wrong, his rights were restored fully and completely. There was no prohibition against firearms possession, as is firearms possession could be prevented.

With friends like these republicans and the NRA, who needs enemies? At least the democrats are eisier to oppose because everyone knows that they are our enemies.

 

[jimmy]

When it comes to gun control, Henry Hyde has always acted more like a liberal Democrat than a Republican. He ought to know better, but he doesn't. Even worse, Hastert seems to be leaning in his direction. At any rate, I believe that Hyde is still an exception when the Republican party is taken as a whole.

 

[EQUALIZER]

Crimminals obtaining firearms at gun shows?
What are crimminals doing at gun shows?...stealing guns....killing, raping, pilliging? Then why aren't they in prison, or hanging from a lamp post in the court house square?

If they are ex-convicts and justice was served in them paying restitution for their robbery, or whatever, what is the problem with them buying a weapon? Shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves and their families? After all if the crime was punished and justice was served. They are out of jail, got a job to buy a gun, why not. If they kill someone with the gun they buy or the tire iron they pick up or the poison, then try them and kill them if found guilty in a court of law. Why are all of these Republicans and such missing the point?

A: Because they are pointless thinkers and power hungry menaces to society, thinking that they know better than anyone else and have the right to deny them to everyone else, that's why.

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)

 

[Futo Inu]

Brett B, you hit the nail on the head. My repub guys (OK) always vote against anti-freedom bills, but the damn leadership is always for them (Gingrich, Hyde, etc.). Sorry SOBs. All I can say is, pay close attention to the GOA alerts, and when GOA asks you to, flood the RNC or the House Speaker, or Senate Maj Leader, or whomever, with letters and faxes, at the right moment. GOA is very good about picking the critical moments to avalanche them.

Dennis, I'm beginning to think you're right. If you're from a state where every last one of your critters (repubs all) are pro-gun, it's easy to get a little complacent and view repubs as friendly. The problem is they don't wield the power on the hill. It's the guys like Hyde with the seniority. Though J.C. Watts is big-time up and coming, and he's always been pro-Second. If you're from a state where one of these powerful guys derive (are you?), then I can see how you would be very disillusioned by the Repubs. You must understand that in this state, none of the Sens or House members vote in favor of any kind of "gun control" (they're no dummies).

Guys, about background checks at gun shows. Of course it's illegal for a felon to obtain a gun anywhere. But it's the ENFORCEMENT mechanism which is needed. Just because it's illegal to commit burglary, does that mean you leave all outside lights off and the doors unlocked. Look, applying NICS to gun shows is a GOOD idea, PROVIDED THAT those lazy assed FBI agents stay open on the weekends to provide the checks. This is something that will HELP our cause in the long run, not hurt us. Now, every other thing proposed by Hyde is wrong, violative of the second, and will do nothing to stop crime, not to mention being the camel's nose (i.e. trigger locks, ban on high capacity "ammunition clips", etc.). Let's get our story straght, and be in favor of those things which will in fact reduce illegal possession of firearms by criminals. Then they'll have to get off our case more about ridiculous symbolic crap like hi-cap bans.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited September 28, 1999).]

 

[swifter...]

Y'know, the risks involved in relatively unregulated firearms transactions are high. I don't think they are nearly as high as the risk involved in allowing "them" be "they" Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or "other..." to make decisions for us.
Dangerous? Damn well right! Freedom has always been, and will always be, dangerous.
The big problem is, most people fear that freedom...



------------------
The Bill of Rights, and the Golden Rule are enough for civilized behavior. The rest is window dressing. Shoot carefully, swifter...

 

[Dennis]

Texas Senators and Reps tend to be against gun control - there are a few vocal exceptions.

My problem is with the Republican Party at the national level. Many Republicans claim to be protectors of the Second Amendment, but then they support gun control under the title of crime control.

We do NOT heed to "redefine" the Second Amendment. Its language is clear. It's intent is completely, unambiguously confirmed by other documentation of the period.

Many Democrats want to negate the Second Amendment. Some are bold enough to suggest its repeal. Others wish to infringe upon it for truly humanitarian reasons (they are misquided) and others for more treacherous reasons (they wish to rule us).

Many Republicans apparently agree with the Democrats on the above or we would not have the parties playing good cop, bad cop.

Democrats propose truly draconian, clearly unconstitutional gun control. Republicans "fight" their way to a compromise - something "reasonable".

The Democrats again propose. The Republicans again compromise. The process gradually wears away the Second Amendment.

[rant]
Why are we, as citizens, restricted by great expense, by confusing paperwork, and by constantly have to "prove" ourselves in order to exercise our clear Right to own fully automatic weapons? Those are the weapons of combat which we are supposed to be well-trained to use!

Why in the name of God would the Republican Party state that a parent can not give a single-shot .22 rifle to a child who is old enough to die for his country? (Republicans want to raise the age for gun ownership to 21.)

We, as Americans, are all being punished for the crop of feral children being created (not "raised") largely by the welfare generation and by those who are struggling to pay our burdensome government taxes.

In my semi-rural area there is little juvenile crime other than under-age drinking - and that usually is done on private property. To force honest youngsters to give up their heritage and their Rights because of gangbangers in big cities is just flat wrong.

It's like putting a 55mph governor on your vehicle (even though the speed limit clearly says 70mph) because in some place, some people, sometimes, drive too fast for some conditions.

I'm angry. I'm getting old. I want to confirm our Rights at the ballot box. But if that doesn't work, I don't have many years to secure for my children what my parents let slip away. We used to call it, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way."

Now foreigners tell us we can't say that.
- Other countries are better because they have socialized medicine.
- Other countries are better because they control guns.
- Other countries are better, just read their Constitutions.
- Other countries are better, because the people aren't fat, don't drive big cars, don't have as many TV sets, never meddled in others affairs, etc.

Well, I'll compare our history with anybody's. I'm an American! And I don't give a rat's ass if that term bothers others in our hemisphere or not. Join us or stay out of our way.

And by God I will not stand by and watch the misguided, the hypocrites, or the elitists take away more Constitutional Rights from my children's generation.

I've had it. I've drawn my line. I'm joining other brave Americans who are being called terrorists by foreign slaveholders because we joined Gun Owners of America.

So here I am. I have my guns! I will keep my guns!
((Deleted by Dennis as violating TFL standards. Sorry.))
[/rant]

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 29, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited October 03, 1999).]

 

[Gale McMillan]

There is a big uproar that we need to be protected from our selves and to pass more laws that are not wanted or Needed! As an example of them not enforcing the laws that are on the books is a case right here in Phoenix. Wes Harris of Harris Gun Works is a convicted felon guilty of an assault on an employ with a deadly weapon. He took a Colt 45 to an employ. He is on probation. From the day he was sentenced he Has been working at Harris Gun Works making and selling guns. This fact has been reported to the court ,the probation officer, the Local law enforcement, the BATF. No one gives a dam!!! This has been going on for 2 years. Until they start enforcing laws on the books there is no point in us following the laws they pass.

 

[Gale McMillan]

There is a big uproar that we need to be protected from our selves and to pass more laws that are not wanted or Needed! As an example of them not enforcing the laws that are on the books is a case right here in Phoenix. Wes Harris of Harris Gun Works is a convicted felon guilty of an assault on an employ with a deadly weapon. He took a Colt 45 to an employ. He is on probation. From the day he was sentenced he Has been working at Harris Gun Works making and selling guns. This fact has been reported to the court ,the probation officer, the Local law enforcement, the BATF. No one gives a dam!!! This has been going on for 2 years. Until they start enforcing laws on the books there is no point in us following the laws they pass.

 

[hankrearden98]

If it were a serious, unprovoked assault Mr. Harris should be in a prison or a jail where he cannot have guns. But he isn't in jail and he isn't harming anyone. He is earning a living rather than stealing or mooching off of the taxpayers. That is what Probation & Parole Officers want. That is what everyone should want. The fact that he is not legally entitled to possess weapons, yet does, only illustrates that those laws can't protect you. The fact that he works handling firearms openly and honestly, for all of the world to see, rather than using them to commit robberies, rapes and murders, should indicate what what kind of person he is and what kind of person is punished by prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. It also indicates that you have some very sensible law officers in Arizona, both state and federal.

 

[Gale McMillan]

Hank: It is very evident you don't know the subject. He is a very bad guy! At no time does he have less than 15 law suits againt him. He has transfered all assets of the company to himself twice and filed bankruptcy. The first time the creditors got nothing. and the same thing will happen this time.

 

[Futo Inu]

Dennis, of course you right, in general, about everything you said. But we need to make a big distinction between:

(A) Keeping guns from ending up (through channels legal or illegal) out of criminals' hands. Now I mean people CONVICTED of a FELONY. The RKBA, which actually pre-dates the 1791 BOR, has always been restricted to non-felons. As much as I hate to use this phrase, a NICS instant background check is a reasonable restriction on RKBA (unlike most everything else). Contrast this with

(B) Anything restricting (1) when (2) how, and (3) what type - of small arm a law-abiding citizen can (1) obtain/own/keep and (2) carry/bear. These are all violative of the second.

Now, as for banning minor from POSSESSING assault weapons, this is ridiculous and only symbolic. Any minor should be allowed to POSESS any firearms owned by his parent and given to him by his parent to use. As far as minors OWNING/BUYING firearms, YES, there ought to be some age below which one cannot purchase a firearm. The very important point (IMO) on this subject is PICK AN AGE AND STICK WITH IT, NO EXCEPTIONS, and it should be the same age at which people are held accountable for their actions (i.e. the same age at which juvenile may be tried as adults). We can't continually send a message to youngsters that "you're not resonsible" because you can't drink or purchase a firearm until 21, and expect them to feel responsible for committing an adult crime. There ought to be one and only one age (state-by-state) at which you become responsible in the law's eyes - prob 18. At that point you can vote, be drafted, buy guns, drink, buy porno, whatever. You also do the crime at that age, you do the time. If the message is "we don't really expect you to be responsble enough to use a firearm safely until 21", then the kids will rightfully think "hey, I'm a kid, I can commit this crime and shouldn't be held responsible for my actions". Pick an age & stick with it.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited September 29, 1999).]

 

[hankrearden98]

Gale, no I don't know the specifics of the actual case, I was reasoning from the information that you provided. Still, my scenario could just as easily be true. Guncontrol laws can only protect the predators from the law abiding, whether the law abiding are ex-felons or not. When republicans and the NRA advocate their enforcement, they are proposing to do more actual damage than the democrats.

Lets examine what strict enforcement actually means using the case of Mr. Harris. He makes and sells guns. Perhaps his employer accepts trades for new guns. I don't know about Arizona law, but federal law prohibits providing firearms to felons. So, now do you prosecute customers who may know of Harris' past, but not being lawyers assume that giving him their trad-in is legal since he is allowed to do it. If you are going to have strict enforcement of federal firearms laws, you will have to prosecute them also. That is what strict enforcement means.

 

[EQUALIZER]

Hank,

That makes a lot of sense. I have no problem with anybody on the street ordering through Sears and Robuck catalog, like in the good ol days, even if they committed a crime at some point in their lives. I'm speaking as one who has never been in trouble with the law. As someone who does not like to be around criminals of any kind. Althesame, the ONLY thing that gun control laws do, INCLUDING the ones the republicans, NRA, or any other group , is to violate the rights of law abiding citizens. If a guy who wants to rob me got his weapon at a gun shop, show, or had to go through the trouble of stealing one, buying one from his next door neighbor, I don't realy care where he got it from: JUST DON'T DENY ME THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE MEANS TO DEFEND MYSELF/FAMILY AGAINST LETHAL FORCE.

All of this ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS stuff helps nobody but those in power to exercise power over the innocent. If you don't believe me, just ask the well over 50,000,000 innocent men, women, and little children who have been tortured, raped, and murdered by those who pass and enforce gun laws in recent history. Oh, that's right....they can't anwer, they are dead.

Aren't there too many gun laws on the books already?



------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)

 

[Dennis]

Futo,
(quote)
(A) Keeping guns from ending up (through channels legal or illegal) out
of criminals' hands. Now I mean people CONVICTED of a FELONY. The
RKBA, which actually pre-dates the 1791 BOR, has always been
restricted to non-felons. As much as I hate to use this phrase, a NICS
instant background check is a reasonable restriction on RKBA (unlike
most everything else).
(unquote)

1) Calmly, without either of us launching major research efforts , I was
not aware that criminals, once they served their punishments, were
forbidden by law to own firearms even before the Bill of Rights. Even if
its true (and I’m not arguing), criminals in the “old days” could simply
change their name and move - voila! New guy!
However, whether or not it is true, as was discussed on an earlier TFL
thread, it raises some questions about our legal system. I’d bet many of
us on TFL have committed felonies and never even knew it. But that’s a
separate issue.

If prison is rehabilitation or punishment is irrelevant to me on this
thread.

- We need to restore Jury Nullification to our courts so honest people are
not victimized by bogus laws and prosecution.

- We need to keep bad guys in jail. “Truth in sentencing” is a good
start. “Forty years” should mean “forty years”. (I MAY be willing to
compromise on “good behavior” but I’m not sure.)

- When a person gets out of jail he should be considered a normal citizen
(or he would NOT be out of jail).

- If we ever must take up arms, all I care about is that my buddy keeps
me alive - I could care less about his failure to pay child support, etc.

2) As for NICS - National Instant Check System.

- It is not “instant”. I slip my MasterCard into a gas pump and 2 or 3
seconds later I pump gas. NICS always takes several minutes and can
take days.

- NICS registers guns and, in at least some cases, registers buyers. It is
gun and gun owner registration and is against the law and against our
Constitution. I believe it to be in violation of the “...shall not be
infringed” concept.

3) “Reasonable restriction” is a snake in the grass. I kill snakes, I don’t
invite them to multiply their “reasonableness”. We have just about
“reasonabled” (MY new word!) our way out of the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms.

Basically, if someone has the power to say, “No” to my firearms purchase
it is a restriction, an infringement, a violation of Amendment Two.

DC, in the past, has caught me (and other) parsing the law. She said
something to the effect that “arms” include a .22 Saturday Night Special,
a jug of anthrax, and atomic weapons. I didn’t like it at the time, I don’t
like it now, but I have absolutely no rebuttal. So (for the moment) I’ll
have to agree.

So, no big deal, we merely disagree on some of the “fine print”.

We DO agree on your paragraph B, "Anything restricting (1) when (2) how, and (3) what type - of small arm a law-abiding citizen can (1) obtain/own/keep and (2) carry/bear. These are all violative of the second."

I consider the felon who served his time and has mended his ways "a law-abinding citizen" (until proven otherwise) and I want to punish harmful actions rather than violations of unconstitutional restrictions "violative of the second" Amendment.

I always reserve the right to be convinced and change my mind!

 

[Gale McMillan]

Dennis I would like to agree with you that a person convicted of domestic violence should not have his 2nd amendment rights revoked unless it was with a gun, but where I disagree with you is when a felon commits a felony with a gun he has no second amendment rights! I would doubt if I gave you a week you could come up with a felony that the felon would not know he was committing at the time! Any felon has the right to have his second amendment rights reviewed and restored if he can convince the authority that he is rehabilitated . That is if the original crime was not committed with a fire arm! What most people don't think of is that convicted felons give up or I should say loose their constitutional rights to do several things. Vote is one and own fire arms another. We could argue this matter from now on the subject and not convince either of us. I feel that any time some one commits a felony with a gun on me he has forfeited the right to breath.