"For example, right now if you go to a gun show, you have registered firearm dealers who are there, but if you have a casual sale ... they're not a registered dealer, perhaps they can make a sale" and conduct a background check because "you've got accessible, they're right there in the same venue, so you can have those background checks done very easily without being a burden." [More]So, Asa --who's going to pay for it, and how is that not a burden? Seeing as how we're talking about a right, how would that not be analogous to, say, a poll tax? And what happens if someone refuses to go along with your demand -- what kind of "burdens" will they be exposed to then?
And then there's this, from NRA "clarifying" their School Shield czar's position with all the skill of Juliet Johnson:
"He meant expanding it to include more people into the national instant check system," the spokesman said. "And by number of people, this is in reference to the quality of information within NICS."You know: Blanket dragnets!
No? I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "adjudicated" is:
“This is a good bill. It is essential to being able to follow the law to keep people with mental illnesses from purchasing firearms.”, says Marion Hammer, National Rifle Association/Unified Sportsmen of Florida.Funny. I'm still not seeing what needs to be said in no uncertain terms:
Under the legislation, anyone voluntarily checking themselves in for mental health treatment would have to sign a form. The form acknowledges they had been ordered to seek help and if they do not go voluntarily, they would be committed. When they sign the form they also give up their right to gun ownership.
WE WON’T STAND FOR SCAPEGOATING
NO NEW GUN LAWS
DENY SUCCESS TO MASS MURDERERS BY ABOLISHING PHONY ‘GUN-FREE’ VICTIM / KILLER ENABLING ZONES NOW
WORK WITH US OR WE WILL WORK TO RETIRE YOU
It's almost like some are desperate to find a way to make some deal, any deal...
No comments:
Post a Comment