HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Some lawmakers talk gun c...

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:26 PM

Some lawmakers talk gun control after Florida shooting, scant hope for change

Source: Reuters

World | Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:13pm EDT

Some lawmakers talk gun control after Florida shooting, scant hope for change

WASHINGTON | BY PATRICIA ZENGERLE

The deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history prompted calls on Sunday by some members of Congress for legislation to tighten control of weapons sales, although there were slim hopes for much change after 50 people were killed at a gay nightclub in Florida.

Democratic Senator Robert Casey said he would announce a bill on Monday that would ban anyone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime from owning a firearm.

Under current law, those with felony convictions are prohibited from buying or possessing a gun, but those convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes are not.

Casey planned to make the announcement in his home state of Pennsylvania after a meeting with members of Pittsburgh's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Lawmakers, including some Republicans, have sought some gun restrictions after earlier mass shootings, but even minor changes failed to gain enough support to become law. Backed by the powerful gun lobby, many members of Congress see controls of weapons sales as a threat to Americans' constitutional rights.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-congress-guns-idUSKCN0YY0ZP

18 replies, 1845 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 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Some lawmakers talk gun control after Florida shooting, scant hope for change (Original post)
Eugene Jun 2016 OP
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #1
CanonRay Jun 2016 #3
spin Jun 2016 #2
virginia mountainman Jun 2016 #4
Herman4747 Jun 2016 #5
gejohnston Jun 2016 #7
Herman4747 Jun 2016 #8
gejohnston Jun 2016 #10
gejohnston Jun 2016 #6
TeddyR Jun 2016 #9
mwrguy Jun 2016 #11
gejohnston Jun 2016 #12
mwrguy Jun 2016 #13
branford Jun 2016 #14
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #15
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #17
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #18
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #16

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:27 PM

1. I think the big changes will come at the state level.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:10 PM

3. I think you're dreaming.

But I hope you are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:01 PM

2. There are 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation and that is probably ...

an underestimate.

While firearms are unpopular in many big cities they are quite popular elsewhere. Since gun owners vote most politicians in Congress from the more gun friendly areas are somewhat reluctant to vote for strong gun control. They fear they will not get reelected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:34 PM

4. not so much fear...

Than the KNOWLEDGE, they will not get reelected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:16 PM

5. They should instead fear the endless carnage.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:16 AM

8. When "gas cans or firebombs" kill as many as guns do...

 

then do let us know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Herman4747 (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:03 AM

10. while they don't in suicides and everyday street crime

terrorist attacks they certainly do around the world. When gun prohibitionists say "Australia" they ignore the fact that there were just as many mass shootings, using US FBI definition, before and after Port Authur and the National Firearms Agreement. Of course they don't bother to mention the several mass murder by arson since the NFA.

My point was had he used that, none of those politicians would say or do shit. Why? Because there is nothing in it for them. Or, what if they used machine guns off the black market like like the attackers in Europe?

I despise what Sam Harris calls the regressive left as much as I do the right wing. Actually more, because of the added bonus of hypocrisy. Just watch the Young Turks, which is ran by an Armenian genocide denier, or MSNBC. Had he been an NRA member, it would be "all NRA members or rednecks", if were a Mormon, Larry O'Donnell on MSNBC would be screaming about evil Mormons. Christians, then the floodgates of bigotry would be opened up by fake liberals. Since it wasn't, silence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:14 PM

6. I'm sure the gun laws of France, Belgium,

and Denmark prevented ISIS types from getting machine guns and attacking a magazine, concert, art gallery, and pub.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:23 AM

9. As someone who believes

 

That the 2d protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms I probably could live with an AWB after yesterday. I know that those types of weapons are used in very few crimes but they do seem to be a weapon of choice for mass shooters. Frankly doubt it would make a ton of difference though - shooters would just switch to other weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to mwrguy (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:05 PM

12. aren't hate crimes felonies?

if so, it is redundant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:11 PM

13. No, plenty are misdemeanors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:04 AM

14. What crimes would such a law have prevented?

 

Just like the Omar Mateen who possessed no criminal record at all, few, if any, shootings have been perpetrated by people who legally possessed a weapon that otherwise would have been ineligible because they possessed a misdemeanor "hate" conviction.

It's a solution looking for a problem, grass and gratuitous gun control grandstanding aimed at ideologues and the uninformed, has little chance of passing in Congress, and just the attempt to pass such useless laws will do little but energize pro-gun rights people in the upcoming election, many of whom are in important swing states and will definitely not support Democrats.

In fact, I don't believe there's been a single law that could remotely pass constitutional muster proposed recently that would have prevented the recent shooting, including an new AWB, as even the most common pistols in civilian hands are capable of firing with the same rate of fire as any "scary black rifle" (semi-automatic: one pull of the trigger, one shot), or a prohibition on the purchase of weapons by anyone on the various and generally secret and unappealable government "watch lists." Note that Mateen also carried a Glock 17, one of the most popular pistols in the world, during the attack, and he was removed from government lists when the FBI determined his contacts with an alleged suicide bomber had been minimal.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-omar-mateen-was-taken-off-a-terrorist-1465772737-htmlstory.html

I'll begin to take gun control advocates seriously when they actually begin to propose laws that have a reasonable chance of successfully reducing gun violence or crime generally and are carefully targeted at those who actually commit such violence without impeding the rights of tens of millions of other law-abiding Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:30 AM

15. Innocent until proven guilty

 

Just saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 08:18 PM

17. From the current NICS list of prohibited persons

"reasonably suspected" could actually be rather arbitrary and capricious in practice.
I think the existing list is complete enough.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.

Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.

An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.

A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.

A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.

The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.

A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:08 PM

18. What the hell is reasonably suspected?

 

What is the standard?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:09 PM

16. The gun-banning Reuters forgot "backed by a majority of Americans..." Fixed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread