Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Why would this bill need to prohibit use of NICBCS records for a national gun registry when the original Brady Bill already does?
The reason has to do with "coupling" statutory clauses. In law, as in computer programming, the law of unintended side-effects reigns supreme.
So, a "bare" background-check statute goes into law, depending upon the Brady Bill to ensure no record-keeping. Then the Brady Bill expires, is overturned, is ultimately found unconstitutional, or for a host of other reasons goes away. Now the background-check statute is sitting there truly "bare." Perhaps it even takes awhile, but eventually (or suddenly), some legislator (or government agency) tumbles to the fact that the background-check statute has nothing in it precluding record-keeping. At the exact moment that fact is discovered, you can bet your bottom dollar that the system will become a record-keeping system. Probably the public will never tumble to the implications, and likely the public will never recognize that now the system IS a record-keeping system.
"Coupling" of statutory provisions is a critical aspect of good law. If you want the background-check system to NEVER be used as a record-keeping system, then you simply have to include such a clause in the background-check bill itself, so that as goes the authority for the system, so goes the explicit lack of authority to keep records.
Of course, any statute can be "broken up" over time by various other statutes. But at least then the move toward record-keeping has to be public and explicit, not just a back-door or unrecognized, unintended side-effect of some totally other law being changed or going away.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't include the link to the summary of the "full text" I posted. Somehow I totally forgot that step.
Here is where the full text (lengthy!) can be found.
It's sad that none of the sponsors provide the full text themselves. As you found, TE, it is not easy to unearth the full text anywhere!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ironically, it turns out that this "universal" background-check actually exempts from the checks all transfers made to "close" or "immediate" family members:
(C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law;
Look, I don't know about you, but I have NO idea of the actual mental condition of my "first cousins," and could only take a guess regarding my various "nieces or nephews or their spouses" (emphasis supplied)!
Not having any particular reason to believe otherwise, I'm confident, however, that I can gift them firearms willy-nilly. It's all good.
My proposed statute would not even have allowed these sorts of exemptions, so mine would have been more "universal" than the one that's actually under consideration by Congress!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
It gets even better....
(c) PROHIBITION OF NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY —
Section 923 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: "(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the --
"(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by —
"(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
"(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
"(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity."
Show me in that text where a national gun registry is ACTUALLY prohibited by the statute! Even the single reference to the "Attorney General" leaves loopholes huge enough to sail an aircraft carrier through.
And the actual sections specifying WHO the Attorney General may not maintain records on is a small subset of the records that will pass through such a system.
This is no "prohibition" at all; it is the guise of a prohibition that will actually encourage the feds to keep all manner of records that will indeed amount to a national gun registry.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Do like AZ and a drivers license IS your CCW permit. And make open carry legal. Vote in stand your ground laws and by all means practice at least once every two weeks shooting some targets.
I'm with you, Ron. I'm also willing to compromise on a background-check law, provided that it does not amount to yet another step down the road toward full federal tyranny. At the very least, it must not grant the feds the power to maintain a national gun registry. I personally think that yet another law will have little positive effect. But, if it makes some people feel more secure, while not granting the feds insights into our private lives they should not have, I'm okay with it.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
funny, i just bought a few boxes of 223 at walmart yesterday. they sell DPMS 5.56 ar's starting at just over $600. plenty in stock.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Please tell me why being humiliated or abused in public without fear of personal mortality is justifiable grounds for retaliatory homicide.
I don't know of a jurisdiction where it is. Can you tell us of one? I'm honestly curious!
I can't speak to the possible stupidity that might exist in other states, but Colorado has been a model of "stand your ground" laws for other states, and in CO you most certainly CANNOT initiate "retaliatory homicide" for "getting your feelings hurt!"
The standard of justifiable homicide in CO, in all contexts (including "stand your ground") is quite clear: Imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death, as perceived by a reasonable person.
All "stand your ground" means is that you don't have to first try to flee from a confrontation before you are legally allowed to defend yourself. But a jury of 12 will almost certainly review the situation to determine (regardless of "stand your ground") whether or not a "reasonable person" (namely: those 12 "reasonable persons") would have considered your situation to be indeed a threat of severe bodily injury or death.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Pretty sure if the fake Seal did "stand his ground" and start shooting that would have been manslaughter/murder... Stand your ground laws or not. Getting slapped being clearly told to leave repeatedly (and not leaving) isn't justification for lethal force anywhere.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What patent bullshit spread around as justification. If an individual is able to avoid harm by fleeing a situation, that is the bottom test legally for self defence.
Don't complain to me. If you don't like it, complain to your legislators.
I'm only expressing what CO law actually says. In CO, as in other "stand your ground" states, you do NOT have to attempt to flee first before defending yourself.
The idea is that you should not have to spend your life running from bullies and other provocative threats, such as gang-bangers.
Again, if you don't like it, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just stating how it works in CO, which has been a model for other "stand your ground" states.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
You are being the messenger that shoots.
Whaaaaattt???
You seem to be ranting now rather than thinking.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
JB, you need a session breathing into a paper bag while intoning,
"I'm Canadian and I don't get it."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The terminology is actually a mess. Here's a site that helps clear it up, as well as explain how these statutes are derived from the common law "castle doctrine."
In Colorado, there has never been a "duty to retreat."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:27pm PT
|
Someone pushed me around and I shot him dead.
Relentless straw-manning. That's not how the law works, even in "make my day" or "stand your ground" states. I'll repeat: "Imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death, as perceived by a reasonable person." That's a far, far higher bar to get over in front of a jury of 12 than, "He pushed me around."
Darn, It would be perfect if every castle didn't have a back door. Apartment dwellers, not wanting to jump out a third floor window could be a mitigating factor.
Do you really believe, I mean really (no trolling), that "society" (whatever that can possibly mean to you) so strips away your right of self-defense that the ONLY legitimate thing people can do in the face of aggression is to flee if flight is even remotely possible?
I mean, even a third-story window is scant excuse to "stand your ground!" Better to jump even from there and RISK maiming or death (certainly not guaranteed) than to (gag!) shoot the intruder bent on raping/killing you. Flee, flee, flee.... Whatever it takes to never actually stand up to evil and put it down.
Call a cop, if there's time, but always FLEEEEEEE!!!
Run, Forest, run!!!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:40pm PT
|
Yet when Trayvon Martin stood his ground against an armed stalker his murderer got way with it on stand your ground.
So, the last stand-your-grounder left standing is the one in the right?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:51pm PT
|
Ahh... Gary. Always the master of the ridiculous. Every new post pushes the edges of the envelope a bit further. :-)
Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2015 - 05:39am PT
|
Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"
If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2015 - 07:19am PT
|
Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"
If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?
I wouldn't be straddling someone on the ground (who apparently scared me so with their gun) punching their head repeatedly into the street...
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2015 - 09:32am PT
|
^^ That wasn't the question.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2015 - 10:35am PT
|
It depends on the details which you do not provide.
If an unknown person had a firearm(or any weapon) in their hands pointed at me in the dark, then of course I'd feel threatened.
I fear people's anticipated behaviors or intent, not just objects.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2015 - 11:02am PT
|
Well, if TRULY cornered and having nothing else.....
But then straddling the (still armed) guy and pounding his head like something out of MMA on the tee-vee? Uhhh... no... lol ...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!