GOP Readies Push to Loosen Gun Laws

http://washingtonindependent.com/75779/gop-readies-push-to-loosen-gun-laws

GOP Readies Push to Loosen Gun Laws
By Mike Lillis 2/4/10 11:26 AM


One in five Americans is either jobless or underemployed, and one in six is without health insurance. What’s the GOP’s response? Gun amendments.

Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), are readying a number of gun-friendly amendments they intend to offer this year on must-pass appropriations bills, Roll Call’s John Stanton reports today.



Among the provisions Coburn is eying, Stanton writes, is a proposal allowing veterans deemed “mentally defective” to own firearms, and another extending concealed-carry permits across state lines. The latter failed in the Senate last summer by just two votes. GOP strategists think that Brown’s arrival could tip the scales in favor of the provision the next time around.

No you say?
What? the gun grabbing Dems are out to take your guns?

But don't be ridiculous. It just looks bad.

You're for “mentally defective” individuals carrying firearms?

I'm sorry but veterans are not royalty.

One cannot deny ANYONE's rights without following due process. Royalty has nothing to do with it.

Whoa.. It suddenly got damp in here...

or you either, since you are into personal attack with the usual low-grade snark.

Now, sir, what do you think of the 5th Amendment, or have you used it to wipe up the "dampness?"

And though I don't agree with you on this particular topic, I apologize for the remark.

I'm a fan of metaphorical invective (I learned that from reading Zora Neale Hurston). What is the meaning of "dampness?"

Damp. Dungeon. Seemed funny at the time!

My wifi is about to crap out, and I didn't see the shift down below for a while. I was thinking one of us had pissed our pants.

People like Gatorboy would toss away the rights of others on a whim, with little to no thought of due process. The utter foolishness of so many so-called progressives is baffling.

All the proposal would do is make the Veterans Administration go through the same process already in place for adjudicating an individual a danger to him/herself or others and having them involuntarily committed.

It's called due process, and most progressives stand behind it. Bushies and the like, however, love to put someone on a list that a person has no legal recourse (there's that due process again) to get away from, denying them the right to fly on a plane, requiring them to strip before boarding, etc.

SO which are you?

All the proposed law says is that vets need to be ruled incompetent by a court. Same standard as for civilians. Once again, the anti-gun people are just using fear tactics.

it dosent effect me but its common sense for states to reciprocate each others licences for CC, the problem with the mentally defective one is that its all to easy for a vet to get labeled it and then be unable to own any firearms, it should be a more subjective evaluation specific to owning firearms...

:sarcasm:











Gungeon Dwellers--It's a joke....a joke!

Poverty, desperation, failing schools and more guns. Sounds like a recipe for peace love and understanding.

sounds like whatever recipe is being used is kinda working, nu?

This means the mentally challenged, criminals, toddlers, terrorists... Every American should be able to have guns.

That's where the GOP is headed. Right?

clear about that.

That's why baby is 'packing.'

You two really do need to either read up on the constitution and how it has been interpreted or stop posting ignorant shit like that. It really does make you look bad.

"Of 60-plus law review articles treating the Amendment that have appeared since 1980, only a handful defend the position (that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms)... and that handful appears generally in minor journals authored by officers or lobbyists for anti-gun groups. Even its most vehement opponents are compelled to recognize that the individual right view now represents the 'standard model' among scholars writing on the Amendment." SEE: 62 Tennessee Law Review, 461 (1995).

Further, in the most influential "popularizer" of the "militia clause" controlling the intent of the Second, Laurence Tribe, now concedes that the Second Amendment recognizes an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

The entire debate on the 14th Amendment (1868) was suffused with concern by Congress that gangs, the KKK, and STATE MILITIA were roaming the South in search of firearms owned by blacks, and confiscating same. And the arguments centered on an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to bear arms as a necessary (though not a guaranteed) means to resist those gangs, the KKK and MILITIA. SEE: www.georgiacarry.org and search locally for the legal brief submitted in the Heller decision.

Virtually ALL MODERN GUN CONTROL LAWS are based on the templates constructed during the Slave-era South, during Jim Crow, and during the 20th Century.

Though your position is absolutely untenable, I am sure you will continue to chant it, mantra-like, for those who have not studied this misconception in great detail ad nauseum.

Is a private militia.

:applause: :applause:

important, like HCR or uemployment.

follow just behind in a vain effort to locate the center.

I strongly advise putting gun control completely on ignore, such a battle can only make a bad electoral situation worse. Virtually every anti-gun vote is a Democratic or further left locked in vote for other issues.

This one is a putting toothpaste back in the tube issue, we need to focus like a laser on economic liberalism and civil rights before we lose those wars and the game is completely over.

and from what I'm seeing here so far it's working. shrug.

TO THIS DAY, the Democratic Party contains a platform calling for a "stronger" and "permanent" ban on "assault weapons" (medium-powered semi-automatic rifles, owned by some 17,000,000 Americans).

TO THIS DAY, similar positions can be found on President Obama's web site.

Why do the "disgusting" Republicans keep pushing for more "liberalized" gun laws? Because the Democrats keep inviting a fight they know they will lose! It is PROFOUNDLY disturbing that these failed gun-control positions remain as big fat targets for the GOP to keep pumping lead into.

The best way to deal with this issue is to JUNK these failed prohibition attempts; to do otherwise is to call into question the quality of "leadership" that exists in the Democratic Party.

We KNOW that the GOP will BLOCK ANY REFORM attempt proffered by the Democrats. Now, we must know that they will fully take advantage (as they ALWAYS have) of the Democratic Party's stupid, misguided, and morally-bankrupt position on the Second Amendment. There must be something strangely addictive and masochistic about gun-control that keeps it WIDE-OPEN to GOP advantage (at no cost at all to them).

And everyone MUST know that the expansion of concealed-carry licensing, and the impending expansion of open-carry is brought to you by the gun-controllers, most especially the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center. If Democrats are so in need of an "easy enemy," look to the Brady Center and their ilk.

One-issue voters aren't as rare as some of us would like to pretend. shrug.

getting rid of DADT?

yes

marriage equality?

yes

protecting RKBA?

yes

Harry Reid needs to tell his troops to stand aside and let these things go.

If they get gun bill added as amendment they Dems aren't going to vote against their own bill.

On the other hand is the Democrats defeat the amendment it plays into the "Obama is going to take ur gunz" meme.

Really from a strategy point of view it is win-win.

Eventually Democrats will learn to stop taking the bait but I doubt it will be this year.

same old tune...

merry-go-round of hot-button issues they can play at will

it gets old fast...

What more do you want?

Why was none of this done then?

That is what we should keep reminding people on this issue. The Republicans will *not* loosen gun controls. They just want you to think they will.

They didn't face the problem Dems do where the Senate has a Democratic majority but also a Conservative majority. There was NOTHING stopping the solid Conservative and Republican majorities from loosing gun restrictions. They simply chose not to.

They pushed through the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

There was a bipartisan bill that outlaws gun confiscation during natural emergencies. That was in response to the Mayor of New Orleans telling the police to take everybody's gun away after Katrina.

There were a couple of other minor things that I don't specifically remember right now.

he was lukewarm AT BEST

fwiw

Just mentioning.

My carry permit should be recognized nationwide.

'zackly.

is not so much getting the states to honor it but to get the Feds to honor it.

Full faith and credit from the Constitution. It's hard to believe the Supreme Court wouldn't validate it but then there are the felonius five...

The SCOTUS can't just hand down a decree. They have to have a case before them. And those cases have to start in the lower courts and work their way up by being appealed. And they have to involve that particular aspect of law.

Right now, it looks like the first will be California's Prop 8, IF the plaintiffs prevail. If the federal judge in
SF finds for the defendants, it's back to square one and nobody knows how or when it will get to the USSC.
Almost for sure after my shift is over, I'm close to 70. grr.

I know several people who railed on about Obama being a "gun grabber" before he was elected, and it was a position that the Republican's campaigned on. The lack of any movement on the gun issue looks good for the Democrats and bad for the Thugs, so they're wanting to force things.

Depending on how we react, it might work.

Sorry if no one informed you of that

related to guns whatsoever.

Relax. Obama's not going to take away your weaponized anthrax (for duck huntin').

If Theodore Bilbo and Ross Barnett were alive today and running for office on a platform of "segregation for Negroes," but in their utterances said: "we have no plans at this time to pass legislation encouraging segregation," would you feel assured?

It is one thing for an individual to say he/she won't move on gun control, and quite another TO HAVE YOUR PLATFORM (Prez. and Party) positions calling for just that. I would remind you that only last year AG Holder verbally called for yet another assault weapons ban, and had to be "canned" by the White House. Note: President Obama's history of supporting gun-control is both extreme and extensive.

You have introduced a personal component into this argument ("Relax. Obama's not going to take away your weaponized anthrax ." Your "cleverness" completely overlooks the problem alluded to in the post: it is NOT me you have to worry about, but the most powerful political force in this country, the Republican Far Right. Unlike you, I cannot "relax" in my humble attempts to RID our Party of the corrosive, self-defeating gun-control philosophy. I can only add that the silly "weaponized anthrax" is an attempt to use flippant snarkiness to substitute for meaningful discussion.

I am asking you seriously: Do you not see the political consequences not only to the Democratic Party, but even to the misguided policies (whatever they are) of gun-control? Or do you really harbor a desire to continue this culture war for gratuitous reasons?

The GOP are jerks, so why do Democrats keep asking them to slap 'em around some more?

Thanks for considering this.

use it as ammo just because you said so.


I feel so reassured!

Give us a vote or at least drop the filibuster on health care with the public option, or on a jobs bill that makes sense and we'll include that carry licenses are valid for all states.

I was hoping while the damn Repukes held the ball of wax with the presidency and the congress from 2001-2006 they would've passed the law allowing civilians with carry licenses not be be restricted in another state. They did pass it for LEOs.

except when it becomes a useful club to beat Democrats with come election time. That's not to say that some individual Repubs (and Dems) aren't strongly pro-2A year-round, but hardly a majority in either party.

At least, that's my perspective.

Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.
--- William Safire (originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html

***

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm

***

The ban on assault weapon imports was first enforced by the George H.W. Bush Administration in response to growing threats to law enforcement personnel from the increased use of assault weapons by drug traffickers and in mass shootings, like the Stockton schoolyard massacre in 1989.
http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/engel-imports.htm

***

George W. Bush on Gun Control

Q: You said if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage Congress to extend it.

BUSH: I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks. The best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

---snip---

Bush has said he would sign a law requiring trigger locks with handgun sales but wouldn’t push such legislation. Bush has endorsed outlawing the import of certain high-capacity ammunition clips. Bush also would raise the legal age for handgun purchases from 18 to 21. emphasis added
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/george_w__bush_gun_control.htm

"Politician speak with big wind and no rain..."

Old Indian proverb that I just made up.

As a rule of thumb, you're going to find that any politician from the Northeast or California is going to be more anti-gun than any politician from the southern or western states. In addition, politicians from more heavily urbanized areas will be more anti-gun.

Thus, you get types like Giuliani, Bloomberg, Carolyn McCarthy (who is more Republican than Democrat on all issues except gun control), Romney, and Schwarzenegger, all being more anti-gun than, say, Bill Richardson. Nixon and Reagan were, of course, from California, in addition to which, Nixon came from a Quaker background, so he had some pacifist baggage.