Trump testing the winds on gun control

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Since he tends to make emotional, rather than reasoned, decisions... yes.

    The good news is that with control of Congress, it isn't likely to go anywhere. Remember Repeal and Replace?

    Hello gridlock, my old friend....
     

    spencer rifle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    6,544
    149
    Scrounging brass
    Reminds me of Buchanan:
    “President James Buchanan shows conclusively that it is the duty of the president to execute the laws — unless somebody opposes him; and that no state has a right to go out of the Union — unless it wants to.” - William Seward
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Looks like Trump is floating "improvements" to the gun background checks. Sure, the big data issue will always be there. How in the world do we define the kind of mental issues that should strip someone of a constitutional right, AND how is that determination made - by a judge or administrative agency or what.

    One thing that I'm wrestling with is the idea that someone could buy a gun, THEN get a diagnosis making them not a proper person. It would be great to be able to know if they've already bought a firearm and go ask them about it.

    But, that would require a near-universal registration, which would still have significant cracks through which situations could slip. And that's not something I'm particularly enamored of.

    Ultimately, we are left relying on those close to such non-proper person designees to tell authorities if they have weapons.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Looks like Trump is floating "improvements" to the gun background checks. Sure, the big data issue will always be there. How in the world do we define the kind of mental issues that should strip someone of a constitutional right, AND how is that determination made - by a judge or administrative agency or what.

    One thing that I'm wrestling with is the idea that someone could buy a gun, THEN get a diagnosis making them not a proper person. It would be great to be able to know if they've already bought a firearm and go ask them about it.

    But, that would require a near-universal registration, which would still have significant cracks through which situations could slip. And that's not something I'm particularly enamored of.

    Ultimately, we are left relying on those close to such non-proper person designees to tell authorities if they have weapons.

    Two things come to mind here. First, in Indiana we have the "Jake Laird" law, allowing an ex parte order to seize firearms if the individual is mentally ill and dangerous. (Here is a PDF produced by ISP's Lt. Pete Wood with an explanation.)

    Second, Canada tried registering long guns, and eventually gave up after the program cost way more than expected and yielded nothing. Given that the FBI or the ATF would be the agency tasked with establishing and operating the registry, I doubt they would achieve any greater success than our friends in the Great White North. (Here is a Forbes article detailing Canada's overall abandonment of the program: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...gistering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#7f2063915a1b).
     

    riverman67

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 16, 2009
    4,105
    48
    Morgan County
    Focusing on the guns is easy for politicians, they can say they did something. The fact that new laws, bans or whatever they come up with will do little to stop the next attack of this type doesn't even figure in the their thinking.
    For them it's about optics and getting reelected.
    The focus in this case needs to be on the warning signs and the reports that were essentially ignored. We can all play Monday morning quarterback but what would have happened if the football coach was allowed to be armed at work?
    Would there be 17 bodies? Would he have been able to stop the shooter before he killed anyone? I don't know but I can imagine the death toll being much smaller and that while not acceptable is a better outcome.
    There needs to be serious people looking at how things like this can be stopped before they get started and how to limit the carnage once the shooting starts.
    Laws and regulations have never been a deterrent to people determined to do others harm and they never will be.
     

    Sylvain

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 30, 2010
    77,313
    113
    Normandy
    Looks like Trump is floating "improvements" to the gun background checks. Sure, the big data issue will always be there. How in the world do we define the kind of mental issues that should strip someone of a constitutional right, AND how is that determination made - by a judge or administrative agency or what.

    One thing that I'm wrestling with is the idea that someone could buy a gun, THEN get a diagnosis making them not a proper person. It would be great to be able to know if they've already bought a firearm and go ask them about it.

    But, that would require a near-universal registration, which would still have significant cracks through which situations could slip. And that's not something I'm particularly enamored of.

    Ultimately, we are left relying on those close to such non-proper person designees to tell authorities if they have weapons.

    Over here you need a doctor's note saying you don't have any contraindication regarding firearms use and ownshership before you can operate or purchase a gun.

    There are no guidelines of any sort telling the doctor what would make someone unfit to own a gun though.
    No exam of any kind and no specific questions asked by the doctor.

    Even if specific questions were asked it would be easy enough to just lie.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    Looks like Trump is floating "improvements" to the gun background checks. Sure, the big data issue will always be there. How in the world do we define the kind of mental issues that should strip someone of a constitutional right, AND how is that determination made - by a judge or administrative agency or what.

    One thing that I'm wrestling with is the idea that someone could buy a gun, THEN get a diagnosis making them not a proper person. It would be great to be able to know if they've already bought a firearm and go ask them about it.

    But, that would require a near-universal registration, which would still have significant cracks through which situations could slip. And that's not something I'm particularly enamored of.

    Ultimately, we are left relying on those close to such non-proper person designees to tell authorities if they have weapons.
    Oh they have a database of who buys guns. They aren't supposed to keep the info in their computers but the ATF does. They have it when they need it
     

    ghuns

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    9,308
    113
    We have a database of felons to look up during a background check because they have had their due process in a court of law.

    Nobody wants crazy people buying guns, but does anybody want a database of crazy people that you could land on without due process?

    A list similar to our super-accurate and well maintained no-fly list or terrorist watch list.:rolleyes:
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,153
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Well, maybe if you have a situation where you're fielding several tips from people pointing to someone's social media presence where they're seriously talking about shooting up a school, maybe that can be taken before a judge to get some kind of emergency ruling to allow intervention.

    As far as being put on any can't-buy list, that needs to be through the courts.
     
    Top Bottom