doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Red Flag Legislation Alert

craig, my point is simply that once you negotiate a deal such as the gun show loophole as was done in 1968, you shouldn't be able to just come back to renegotiate only that point. My opinion is that the 68 law would not be passed at all in present times...Geo

I was 30 years old when the 1986 Gun Law went into effect, so remember it well. The NRA did not register as a Lobbyist until after it was passed, TOO BAD. Prior to this about all, they could do was alert members of upcoming laws being put forward. I also remember the Cincinnati Reforms Keith mentioned. Matter of fact I was by then a Life Member & Voted to Oust the Foot Draggers & put the NRA in the hands of a New Group. As Keith Correctly stated our Gun Rights became much more secure after that.

Had it not been for the NRA our gun rights would have long ago vanished, in spite of the 2nd Amendment, & we would not even have this Forum. The "
Liberal Left" do not Want Reasonable Gun Control, they want "Total" Gun Control, which means totally Disarming America except Law Enforcement & the Military. One simply has to look at other countries where that has occurred to see the results.

IF that's what you want, MOVE to one of those countries & leave AMERICA alone.

Just so everyone understands, "Universal Background Checks" have little to do with background checks; rather it is a scheme to "back door" registration. A background check should determine if a person is prohibited from owning any gun. For this, make, model, and serial number of any gun is immaterial. The only reason to record this information is to establish a registry. The only reason to record a grandfather's gift of a shotgun for Christmas is for updating a registry. If the idea were really about making sure a prohibited person doesn't buy a gun in a private sale; presentation of a current concealed carry permit should be enough. The buyer had to undergo a background check for the permit, what purpose would another one serve? Since FFL holders have to do a background check for all sales, it seems to me that the Clintons( Democrats) running a quarter million dealers out of business ( saying it was a hobby not business, the home was not in area permitted for business, etc.,etc.) shows their constant harping on the so called "gun show loophole" is hypocritical.
Mike

Mike is correct about so-called Universal background checks. They are nothing except a back-door gun registration scheme by anti-gun Democrats. Unfortunately, there are a few RINO's such as my Republican Senator Pat Toomey who also support them.

I cannot recall even one recent mass shooting where the shooter did not buy his guns from an FFL, and go through and pass a background check. Such laws would not prevent these shootings. It is a Liberal Left Democrat smoke-screen which uses tragedies to advance more anti-gun laws.

I have taken the time to contact the White House, both U.S. Senators, and my Congressman to tell them that I will not support them if they support Universal Background checks, or other infringements upon the rights of law abiding U.S. citizen gun owners. I told them that current background checks should not include the make, model number, or serial number of the firearm being purchased. If all gun owners took the time to tell their legislators to stop messing around with our gun rights, these constant attacks would end very quickly. Remember what happened to anti-gun Democrats in the 2014 mid-term elections. Quite a few got their asses handed to them, and they joined the millions on Obama's unemployment lines.

I wouldn't think so either. Makes one wonder even more so why an nca type would be so generous with his advice about contacting representatives. He knows the ones he votes for don't have enough upstairs to legislate, but maybe they do enough to keep the bench activists apprised of which way the wind is blowing.

I fear no background check into my fitness to buy a gun. I have no interest in the government knowing what I own or what I do. If I am cleared to own that should be the only question. After background checks for military security clearance, FBI background checks, State Background checks for a Concealed Carry permit in a state who absolutely hated to issue them, six total IRS audits and a wife of 43 years, I�ve got nothing to hide. I do not agree that they should use this as a backdoor way to restrict gun purchases or ownership.

What we have is a mental health issue, not a lack of gun control laws. 100% rapid reporting of mental health issues, which could lead to violence should be a federal law. Put mental health issues out in the open instead of hiding them or pretending they don�t exist. In fact a warning to police that a resident may become a violent problem should be the law. Instead of letting a cop walk into a potential hostile situation they should know in advance do they can show up in enough strength to deal with any situation safely and quickly.

Only a fool believes that gun control law numbers 2126& 2017 will make any real difference. We�ve got laws. Most are well enforced and well followed. What we don�t have are good means of dealing with mental health problems people. A pill does not cure most mental health issues. A pill which is not taken properly does not help at all. Most of our homeless people have mental health issues and the ever loving Democrats defend their right to live on the street, crap 💩 in the street and make our cities into a slum. As long as we have large homeless numbers you can be sure that all mental health care is failing to deal with the problem. If you get the mental health afflicted people off the streets or at least identified most of these shooting would cease. Those left will be terrorist attacks and hate crimes.

If someone is too crazy to have a gun, they are too crazy to be walking the streets in the first place. Taking their guns will do nothing but make them mad

I'd guess most if not all of us have legally purchased a firearm or two with their associated checks.

I believe there was a time, may still apply, that a veteran making an appointment for possible ptsd would be declined to make a purchase. How many emotion stirring headline criminal acts involved that condition? In recent years, I know of minors being asked if there are guns in the house as part of a routine physical, without the presence of either parent. Most, all(?), medical associations that would provide 'expert' input for creating guidelines regularly affiliate or associate with the left.

I'd be a little cautious of who gets to decide on the rules and who gets to interpret them. The mental health conditions that are of concern here is very rare. In today's world, mental health problems are exaggerated, glorified and mainstreamed. There's a left wing industry creating and invested in increasing those numbers, are we going to get honest rules for reporting?

Mills,
I agree, they should only be able to take the guns if the subject is involuntarily committed. Then that would meet the current requirements of the law, therefore provide due process.
Mike

I hope I'm wrong but I'm not so sure the mental health argument is going to win the day when there is a palatable fear across the nation of being killed in a mass shooting.

That fear is going to become controlling sooner or later and something is going to get done, & whatever that is going to be, its going to be the easiest thing to achieve. And what do think that is going to be? Identifying individuals with MH issues and then going through the due process of removing their firearms or just legislating a ban?

You might not like hearing it from me but the left is picking up on the right's tactics of fear mongering and fear will get it done. My instinct is that the wave is going to be to large to be blocked by a wall. Its just going to flow over it, so the gun lobby's best chance is to get ahead of it and work out a reasonable solution.