Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on October 05, 2015, 08:13:03 PM
-
So the first two parts of this three point plan we've all heard before (and hey, #2, lets start suing car manufacturers for drunk drivers). Part three though, has me perplexed. I don't understand what she's talking about. What difference does time make? They're a felon - they're not getting a gun anyway.
Sorry, it was only available as an image and I was too lazy to type it all:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQkgta2W8AE8tFT.png:large)
-
If the background check doesn't come back how do you know they are felons?
-
If the background check doesn't come back how do you know they are felons?
A new ATF requirement: only clairvoyants can have FFL's.
-
Would make the "What caliber for?" questions more interesting.
-
I just read an article about that, and they said it was the:
"Charleston loophole," a reference to the June shooting at a church in Charleston, S.C., by barring those with felony records from buying guns if results of a federal background check aren't returned within three days
I wondered if that was a true description of what happened, but it's difficult to find out since many sources are more agenda than reporting.
-
If the background check doesn't come back how do you know they are felons?
What it means is if the background check doesn't come back (perhaps ever) you don't get your gun. Currently when it times-out after 3 days, it defaults to "passed".
So they enact this law, then defund NICS or whoever does the checks, and voilà ! they just banned all gun sales.
-
The part about allowing victims to sue gun makers is out right bullshit, but we know that.
If they manage that I want to be able to sue:
The brewery/distillery/distributer and car manufacturer after a drunk driving crash.
If someone attacks me with a baseball bat I want to be able to sue the makers of Louisville Slugger bats. I don't care if they made the bat used, they have more money.
-
So, how could background checks on private sales be banned executive order?
-
What it means is if the background check doesn't come back (perhaps ever) you don't get your gun. Currently when it times-out after 3 days, it defaults to "passed".
So they enact this law, then defund NICS or whoever does the checks, and voilà ! they just banned all gun sales.
I doubt it would be defunded, but the NICS would make public complaints about staffing and problems while slowing down approvals and having unfortunate "system outages".
You more or less need a permission slip from the FedGov to buy a gun now. That would be worse. There is already a bad problem with late afternoon purchases on Saturday and Sunday at gun shows.
-
I doubt it would be defunded, but the NICS would make public complaints about staffing and problems while slowing down approvals and having unfortunate "system outages".
There's precedent for it. Restoration of gun rights for felons has been defunded for years. Even without that, the slowdowns you talk about could be many months at a time, with half the approvals mysteriously getting "lost".
-
What about prosecuting those that attempt to "legally" purchase a firearm who are felons.
They are breaking the law just by the attempt.
-
So the first two parts of this three point plan we've all heard before (and hey, #2, lets start suing car manufacturers for drunk drivers). Part three though, has me perplexed. I don't understand what she's talking about. What difference does time make? They're a felon - they're not getting a gun anyway.
Sorry, it was only available as an image and I was too lazy to type it all:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQkgta2W8AE8tFT.png:large)
She wants background checks (passed successfully by, among others, the Roseburg OR and Isla Vista, CA shooters);
She wants to nullify PLCAA and blame manufacturers and retailers for the criminal misuse of their products by end-users, like we do for alcohol and automobiles (what's that? We don't do that?)
And she wants to make it even more illegal for felons to buy firearms from a retailer.
Is there any part of her position that doesn't run straight past full-retard, past potato, and land firmly in turnip territory?
-
I just read an article about that, and they said it was the:
I wondered if that was a true description of what happened, but it's difficult to find out since many sources are more agenda than reporting.
If I recall correctly it is "true"; but what was reported then but never mentioned since is this.
The background check sat on a government employees desk so to speak for two days before they started so it timed out, but wouldn't have if it hadn't sat for two days.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-admits-error-in-charleston-suspects-gun-background-check-1436548909
-
Hahaha, the clintons think they're defining bernie sanders out of the race because he's generally supportive of gun rights.
We'll see how that works out for them - guns are such a political loser that Obama didn't dare make speeches about them until his second term. The Clinton team is seizing the moment alright - that point in the election cycle where serious candidates separate themselves from Ralph Nader. You can guess which side she will end up on.
-
If I recall correctly it is "true"; but what was reported then but never mentioned since is this.
The background check sat on a government employees desk so to speak for two days before they started so it timed out, but wouldn't have if it hadn't sat for two days.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-admits-error-in-charleston-suspects-gun-background-check-1436548909
Yep, I looked it up after this came up. The arrest showed up right away, but because of trouble finding the correct jurisdiction the request for info never got a response. Apparently the agent doing the check feels pretty torn up about it since the approval would have been denied if the request had gone to the right agency.
If Ms Clinton wanted to fix the inefficiencies that showed up in this case I would actually support that idea. But something tells me the conclusion will be that three days isn't enough time to do a good check, so they will extend the max time to essentially forever, then cut the number of people doing the checks since there is no rush.
-
Yep, I looked it up after this came up. The arrest showed up right away, but because of trouble finding the correct jurisdiction the request for info never got a response. Apparently the agent doing the check feels pretty torn up about it since the approval would have been denied if the request had gone to the right agency.
If Ms Clinton wanted to fix the inefficiencies that showed up in this case I would actually support that idea. But something tells me the conclusion will be that three days isn't enough time to do a good check, so they will extend the max time to essentially forever, then cut the number of people doing the checks since there is no rush.
But it was even worse. There was that error, and the original background request came in two days before it was assigned to an examiner. If it had been assigned immediately, the second mistake would have been caught before the automatic approval.
Then shouldn't there be a follow up procedure and someone should have contacted him?
This whole thing isn't a failure of the law that requires more laws; its classic government employee incompetence/inefficiency. It will of course never show up in headlines that way.
-
I can guarantee that, as soon as PLCAA is repealed (and someone successfully sues a gun manufacturer for a wrongful death), you will start hearing about car and booze makers getting sued for drunk driving deaths
-
I can guarantee that, as soon as PLCAA is repealed (and someone successfully sues a gun manufacturer for a wrongful death), you will start hearing about car and booze makers getting sued for drunk driving deaths
If there are successful lawsuits, I have to wonder how long it will be before someone sues the electric company for getting electrocuted. Or will society in general wake up to the absurdity before that point?
-
If there are successful lawsuits, I have to wonder how long it will be before someone sues the electric company for getting electrocuted. Or will society in general wake up to the absurdity before that point?
I'm surprised that no one has (or maybe they have) sued a medical school for the training/education that a doctor received, who is being sued for malpractice.
-
I can guarantee that, as soon as PLCAA is repealed (and someone successfully sues a gun manufacturer for a wrongful death), you will start hearing about car and booze makers getting sued for drunk driving deaths
What makes you think it stops there? The Democrats* are trying to destroy our industries (look what they've done to coal already) as part of their plan to reinvent America. Turn us into a 3rd world hell-hole utopia, I guess. Guns are a very high priority, but they are not their only priority.
*I'm not sure the current crop of Republicans is much better.
-
Or will society in general wake up to the absurdity before that point?
:rofl: At the rate things are going (gaymarriageandcaitlynjennerandotherSJWprojects) it will be quite some time. :rofl:
-
What about prosecuting those that attempt to "legally" purchase a firearm who are felons.
They are breaking the law just by the attempt.
That's just crazy talk...
-
Point #1. The Chicago Tribune (I think) asked 100 felons recently where they got their guns. Only 2 or 3 said at a gun show. (And if so that wasn't in Illinois as NICS checks are required.) Most got them from family or friends or purchased on the street (which wouldn't require an NICS check).
Point #2. How about suing the families of shooters for raising a defective person?
Point #3. Okay, but let's say it does happen like in the case in Charleston, perhaps having the ATF or local police go and arrest the buyer and return the firearm to the seller? Or does that make too much sense.
-
Point #3. Okay, but let's say it does happen like in the case in Charleston, perhaps having the ATF or local police go and arrest the buyer and return the firearm to the seller? Or does that make too much sense.
Can't do that. Guns are Bad Things, in and of themselves, with much bad juju, much bad mana.
-
And crap, I forgot to buy some gunmaker stocks after Obama and Clinton started shooting off their mouths again. S&W is up 7% on fearmongering.
-
What about prosecuting those that attempt to "legally" purchase a firearm who are felons.
They are breaking the law just by the attempt.
That's just crazy talk...
The basis for my comment was the Clinton Administration bragging about all the denied purchases to prohibited people during the first few months of NICS. When asked if any are being prosecuted for the purchase attempts it was crickets and/or change of subject.
-
The basis for my comment was the Clinton Administration bragging about all the denied purchases to prohibited people during the first few months of NICS. When asked if any are being prosecuted for the purchase attempts it was crickets and/or change of subject.
Why, there were a whole thirteen of 'em with 'Guilty' findings for 2010 denials! THIRTEEN, I tell ya! Out of only 73,000 denials!
What more do you want?!?
-
If you want an idea of the clinton wish list, look at what they were going to use as extortion on the manufacturers to release them from lawsuits- this was before the protection act was passed.. I don't have the document on file but someone quite recently pulled it out of the clinton library. It is not pretty.
-
Clinton needs to crack a book and read up on the French Revolution.
Just keep pissing on a well armed and already angry populace...
-
Does she want to create a massive firearm black market?.....because that's how you create a massive firearm black market....