HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Waiting for the Gun Right...

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 05:45 PM

 

Waiting for the Gun Rights side's proposals

On Dec. 4, seven members of the ad hoc Gun Rights and Responsibilities Committee (GRRC), identifying themselves as the Gun Responsibilities (as opposed to the Gun Rights) side of that committee, published a position statement in the Viewpoints section of Wednesday Journal, the core of which contained a small number of significant recommendations for reducing gun violence in this country. I am one of those seven people.

It was our goal a year earlier to produce a set of recommendations from the entire GRRC, including the gun-rights advocates. We had hoped such a joint effort might produce many of the same recommendations as our Dec. 4 Viewpoints piece. It seemed early on that we would be able to move forward based upon our collective desire to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors.

Unfortunately, we never progressed as a group beyond that point. The Gun Responsibilities side felt the system was broken and improvements were necessary. The Gun Rights side seemed content with the system as it existed, stating that the answer to the problem rested with law enforcement officials more aggressively enforcing existing laws. When it became apparent that the GRRC was stuck in gridlock, not unlike that being experienced in Springfield and Washington, the Gun Responsibilities side decided not to let the hard work of the last year go to waste and produced a short and simple set of proposed changes to the law that would protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners and would reduce the ability of criminals, the dangerously mentally ill and minors to obtain guns.

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/12-17-2013/Waiting-for-the-Gun-Rights-side%27s-proposals/?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS

10 replies, 2061 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Waiting for the Gun Rights side's proposals (Original post)
SecularMotion Dec 2013 OP
oldhippie Dec 2013 #1
gejohnston Dec 2013 #2
DonP Dec 2013 #3
gejohnston Dec 2013 #4
ileus Dec 2013 #5
petronius Dec 2013 #6
DonP Dec 2013 #7
beevul Dec 2013 #8
Skeeter Barnes Dec 2013 #9
NYC_SKP Dec 2013 #10

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 05:50 PM

1. Hold your breath!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 06:14 PM

2. Let's see

So now instead of "control" it became "safety" now the PR buzz word is "responsibility". What will the buzz word be next week?
The Gun Responsibilities side proposed:
1) a nationwide, real time, background check on all sales and transfers of guns, conducted by and through federally licensed gun dealers who are obligated to keep records of all such transfers a real-time computer record check for criminal history and for a history of serious mental illness, that must be conducted with minimal inconvenience to legal gun owners.
Much of that is already federal law. Any transaction that goes through a FFL is recorded and records kept indefinitely. They also do background checks.

2) Limit the number of gun purchases per authorized person per month, to one gun per person per month making it more difficult for straw purchasers to supply the needs of criminals. This change must also be made on a national level.
Most guns that enter the black market are stolen, straw purchases are not that common. Even then, it is easy to beat by going to different dealers. If someone buys more than one handgun in five days, it must be reported per the 1968 Gun Control Act. Even the DoJ admits the BGC on private sales are impossible to enforce without registration.

3) Limit the production, sale, and possession of ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds per magazine.
What exactly would it do? There is no evidence that it would do anything.

(The gun-rights side steadfastly refused to join us in making any of these first three recommendations.)
Because part of it is already federal law and the rest is useless.

4) Require law-abiding citizens to do more to store and secure their weapons at home. (This is the one recommendation that could be effectively enacted at the local level.)
How would you enforce?

5) Require comprehensive in-depth gun safety training for all who own guns. (This recommendation could likely be effectively enacted into law at no less than the state level.)
This could actually be used as a back door ban. For example the NYC test has questions on the mechanics of switchblade knives.

All of the proposals are either current federal law or has no evidence that it actually do anything in the US or anywhere else. None of this actually addresses the real issue, which is gang warfare and the drug money that fuels and arms them. Take away the money, you take away the guns.

Since this article is about IL, number one is canceled out by the IL FOID. IOW, these people don't seem to know anything about current IL gun laws or current federal gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 07:21 PM

3. Same old shit - new wrapper

 

I love it when the grabbers try and sound reasonable by changing a word here and there or proposing things that are already in place.

Fer cripes sake, they are still stupidly using that; "40% of all sales have no background checks" line from a study years before the NICS system was even in place. Hey, in 1959 every gun sales was made without a background check. It was up to the guy that owned the Western Tire and Auto store whether he thought you were old enough or sane enough.

OK, pretty much everything listed has been tried at the state level somewhere at some time. Can they show us any examples of how effective these ideas are?

They're just talking to themselves again. Next year ... "Mom's Demand Action" will be the wholly owned subsidiary and the new face of Bloomberg, after his dismal record for 2013. Then they will become the next Million Mom March - remember them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 07:37 PM

4. They always were

Watts was a PR exec for Monsanto and GE before opening her own PR shop. I think the merger has more to do with not wanting a public IRS form 990, which would expose MDA for the astroturf that it is. This would be the first year MDA would have to file one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 07:57 PM

5. What they don't understand is guns don't have rights, humans do.

And as humans we should fight for the right to protect ourselves and loved ones with the most efficient means possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 08:46 PM

6. So a small group of people in a Chicago suburb sat down with the noble goal

of solving the world's problems, and are now faced with the disappointing realization that they can't actually do it... Sounds a lot like DU, actually.

I'm not sure what we're supposed to learn from this: these drawn-out conversations about generalized proposals must have been occurring on thousands of web sites and in thousands of communities over the past years and with pretty much the same result. I'm not surprised that the Oak Park GRCC didn't come up with the Grand Unifying Solution, nor am I surprised that one part of the Oak Park GRCC wants to blame that failure on the recalcitrance of another part...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 09:45 PM

7. FWIW, Oak Park got suckered by Daley and they aren't too bright there

 

They were the only suburb Daley convinced to go to SCOTUS with Chicago on the McDonald case. He promised them he/Chicago would cover the court costs, not to worry, it was a cinch to win, and they just needed to show solidarity with him for citizen safety.

They lost of course, but Daley and his promise are nowhere to be seen now and Oak Park is getting stuck with part of the $3.4 million in legal bills.

Doesn't look like they learned much from that.

14 other suburbs with the same restrictive bans, including Morton Grove with one of the nation's first total bans, all dropped out and changed their gun laws. Oak Park and Chicago were too "smart" to do that. So they're buying Gura & Possesky new cars while 14 schools get shut down per Rahm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 10:02 PM

8. Nope.

 

Until you guys start to proceed honestly, nobody is going to buy this.

By "proceed honestly", I mean examining what laws were broken in any given event, examining if any of these "new proposals" would do anything to effect these outcomes, and being open minded to actions that WOULD effect them.

Or you could continue to skip all that, go directly for the guns, and we can continue to dance as we have.

Nobody ever wants to discuss mitigation strategies for situations where someone DOES get a gun, and has bad intent.

That needs to change, because if it doesn't, nothing is going to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 11:09 PM

9. How do they decide one gun per month is OK but not more?

So if your local gun store is having a really good sale this weekend only, you can't buy two or three. Just one. You can't have more than that at once. Because we said so.

And I'm not giving up my 15 round magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Dec 22, 2013, 01:10 AM

10. Thank you for posting the minority opinion of the Gun Rights and Responsibilities Committee (GRRC)!!

 

Your last post of the day, apparently.

I'd love to hear the other side, but your post doesn't provide any kind of way for any of us to find out.

Ah, well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread