This is some of the crap that the anti gun Brady group does:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/x...arch/AGS-delears.pdf

Well, smokin3, what are you saying? Is the information false? Should we not care? Didn't Ronald Reagan sign the Brady Bill into law? Do you think there should NOT be background checks? Should every certified insane person have the right to own a gun? How about someone with a criminal record? If you remember that was the point of the "Brady Bill", to require background checks.
Peter.

What I'm saying is that a firearm has to be sold and bought somewhere unless the perpetrator has and FFL and bought the firearm he used in a crime by himself.

This is just Sarah wanting to make legit gun dealers looks bad and look like the blame.

How about someone makes a survey and names the model of car that killed someone and what dealership it was purchased from?

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Well, smokin3, what are you saying? Is the information false? Should we not care? Didn't Ronald Reagan sign the Brady Bill into law? Do you think there should NOT be background checks? Should every certified insane person have the right to own a gun? How about someone with a criminal record? If you remember that was the point of the "Brady Bill", to require background checks.
Peter.

Oh I could be wrong but I think it was Geo. Bush who signed it into law. roger

Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Guys, until keeping and bearing an automobile is enumerated as one of our natural god-given (irrevocable) rights, then register everything you want.

No one is honestly saying that insane ( a rarity) or mentally ill ( another rarity) should be given unfettered access to arms (or automobiles?) All most are saying is those cases are required to be ADJUDICATED BY a COURT, not a bureaucrat.

While many doubt the veracity of the thought that armed citizens deter crime all by themselves, it is a reality-if only to deter the one crime that affects an armed person individually.

All the rest is about control. Government or nosy folks who should be enjoying what they like, not interfering with the rest of us. Most of whom never had a bad incident to their names....

Brady et al like to cherry pick yet decries really good research that is contrary to their self-righteous position.

I think it is time for you all to read "1984" again and see how interesting and parallel the comparisons are to the last thirty years are.

Socialism is about creating bureaucracies that answer to no one. Like TSA, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I think it is time for you all to read "1984" again and see how interesting and parallel the comparisons are to the last thirty years are.

Socialism is about creating bureaucracies that answer to no one. Like TSA, etc.

Yeah you're right Rich, remember when you and I were teens and young men the then Soviet Union said they would defeat the United States from within without firing a shot? That's what we have now my friend. Lot of Communist inside our government, particularly one party I won't mention.

You are correct, the Brady Bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. However Ronald reagan voiced his support for the bill!
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03...-the-brady-bill.html

For the record it is NOT some bureaucrat who decides. If you ever read the form 4473 you sign when you buy a gun it asks have you ever been adjudicated by a court. I am assuming that you think that this is an infringement on the rights of a lunatic to own a gun? How about someone convicted of domestic violence or an alien illegally in the USA, or a fugitive from justice?
Peter.

There are categories of people who shouldn't own guns. These are the same people who shouldn't vote.

Felons.

Even then, there should be exceptions made on a case-by-case basis. For instance, a close friend of mine is a mortgage broker. His son is a convicted felon. He did 5 years and got out of prison a little over 15 years ago. Since then he's led an exemplary life. He has worked very hard to rehabilitate himself. A couple of years ago he moved back here to work for his dad's company. The state of Texas refused his application for a mortgage sales' license based upon his felony conviction. He appealed and his case went before an administrative law judge. The judge reversed the ruling, he got his license, and the judge actually told him that he should be proud of the way he turned his life around. I believe the judge actually said that he, the judge, was proud of the way this man had reformed. I wasn't there; the story was relayed to me by his proud dad. But I do have independent knowledge of the fact that the son got his license and is working in the industry.

A penitentiary is so named because it is supposed to be populated by penitents. Most of the population comes out unrepentant. Some, though, really do their penance and come out better people then they were when they went in. This is one such person. His dad will tell you that, his wife will tell you that. Anyone who knew him before and after will tell you that. I would have zero problem if this man were to have his rights restored and were he to possess a firearm. Neither would any of you. You simply wouldn't know this man is an ex-con. He is one of the most sober, responsible people I know, or anyone could hope to meet. Somebody would have to tell you this guy was convicted of a felony 20 or so years ago for you to put him in a different category than the average guy you'd meet at work or at church.

There are two categories of people you mention, Peter, who should not be barred from owning firearms. At least, not permanently. You mention those convicted of domestic violence. I don't believe you understand just how easily one can be convicted of that misdemeanor charge. For instance, I know a gentleman (and he is, in all respects) who a couple of years ago returned to Japan. He was a restauranteur. While living here as a resident alien he got married, had a couple of kids, and set down roots. He and his wife also started having problems. One night she threatened to commit suicide by downing a bottle of sleeping pills. In front of their kids. He grabbed her arm and stopped her. She broke away, dashed into the bathroom, and locked the door. With the bottle of pills and her cell phone. The police show up. Guess what? There's no bottle of sleeping pills to be found, but there are red marks on her wrist where he grabbed her. He now has been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

It turns out his wife intended to divorce him, and wanted to have sole custody of the kids and score as much loot as she could. This was her way of manufacturing such a case against him that would enable her to do so.

I tend to believe his version of the story because I know his wife, I know what she got out of the divorce, I know that he wasn't really upset over the misdemeanor conviction (which will not effect his life in the slightest back in Japan) but he did lament the fact that he lost his kids and a lot of money he otherwise could have used to jumpstart his life back in Japan.

If he were an American citizen with the slightest interest in owning a firearm (he was neither) he'd be barred for life from doing so. I don't think that's right. I also didn't think it was right that Lautenberg's bill was retroactive. Anyone who has ever been convicted of a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence is now barred from owning or possessing firearms. I am certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are a great many men who were falsely accused years ago but simply did not think it was worth the resources to fight that charge while also going through an expensive divorce battle simply because, at the time, it wasn't anything that would effect their rights.

Had they known that 10 or 20 years later some guy from New Jersey would introduce a bill destined to become federal law that would strip them of their rights, many would have decided differently and fought more vigorously against the false allegation. But they don't get a do-over.

As far as I'm concerned there should be a bright, shining line. If it's a misdemeanor it shouldn't be a lifetime ban. There are tons of states that disqualify people for a grap-bag of misdemeanors for a certain number of years from owning or possessing firearms, and I have no real argument against that. But if you want to disqualify someone permanently, convict him or her of a felony. At least at that point, the defendant knows that this is a serious charge that will permanently change his or her life if it stands. Unlike a misdemeanor which may, decades later, retroactively be used in ways the defendant couldn't have imagined at the time.

There's another category of people who can't own or possess firearms but it's related to the domestic violence cases. Those who have restraining orders filed against them. The people I know in law enforcement and the legal profession consider accusations of domestic violence/child abuse and the subsequent application for a restraining order part and parcel of the modern divorce process. Most consider these complete BS and just a way of improving one side's bargaining position, but be that as it may it can be extremely easy for an estranged wife to get a restraining order against her soon to be ex-husband. Now, without benefit of true due process, he loses his right to possess firearms.

Is this also how you think things should be?

Finally, you mention "lunatics." Really, there should be no stigma attached to once having a mental disorder. No more than there is to having heart disease. What we should want is for people to come forward on their own for treatment, and not have to get a judge involved. But too often they don't because people are going to call them "lunatics." They're afraid of the fallout. They will self-identify to a system that will induct them and over time they will lose control over the course of their lives. Suppose one of your hunting buddies goes into a deep depression. Would he tell anybody? Probably not. It wouldn't help his state of mind to concern himself that he might potentially lose one of the few pleasures he finds in life; hunting. So their condition has to get really out of hand before they receive treatment.

Even if it's necessary for the legal system to involve itself and adjudicate an individual as a danger to himself or others, it shouldn't be grounds to ban someone from owning firearms for the rest of their life. Some people have chronic conditions they have to manage with a variety of drugs. These people shouldn't own firearms. On the other hand, it's possible to recover from other conditions and get well. These people shouldn't have to go through life with the equivalent of a "Permanently Damaged Goods" tattoo on their forehead.

Fortunately, I believe there is a mechanism for people who've recovered from a mental disease to restore their rights. Technically, there is also for those who've lost their rights due to their prior criminal convictions, but Congress prohibits any funds it appropriates to be used for that purpose.

And that's why we sporterize Military rifles roger

CFS, I do not disagree with much of what you have said. The point is that that you are pointing out exceptions.There are legal mechanisms to have such convictions expunged, pardoned etc. The issue is: should everyone be allowed to legally purchase a firearm. I say no. As to "bureaucrats" deciding, they don't. They follow the law. There was a recent case where a woman in Florida shot her husband three times with her 357 mag. She had a Florida CWL. She was also medically diagnosed as Bi-Polar. She just decided to stop taking her meds! I am not claiming we should change the law as she was not court adjudicated.
Peter.

CFS,

You are a credit to this board and our state, it would be a pleasure to buy you a beer sometime.


.

quote:

The point is that that you are pointing out exceptions.

I'd like to think I'm pointing out that exceptions are the rule.

quote:

You are a credit to this board and our state,

As the saying goes, I got here as soon as I could. I was temporarily delayed because I was defending the country.

Your service is most appreciated.


.

This Brady report is another example as how stupid the liberal left is...

for a criminal who wants to purchase a firearm.. these idiots just gave him a list of the best places in the USA to be able to do so...

I wonder if the Brady group has a list that is available that lists every home in a given neighborhood that does not own a firearm.. complete with all non gun owners annual vacation schedules and what times during the week that they work....

liberalism is certainly a mental disease...an incurable one...

I've read all the posts on this report and think not a single one of them addresses the pertinent points. One - the guns were used in a crime but were they used by the person who purchased them. Two - were the purchases in compliance with the law,ie did they have the right to buy the gun and did they furnish proper ID and did they pass the required background check. That's the major thing wrong with these statistics. And that is exactly what the Brady group tries to do - present statistics without the underlying data to support the premise they make. You should be asking for this data rather than bitching about their presenting it. Counter it with the TRUTH and you will win everytime.