Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumObama Administration Proposes Sweeping Gun Regulations
http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-administration-proposes-sweeping-gun-regulations-1945483For some strange reason, I can't copy and paste the gist of the article, but you can click on the link and read it for yourself.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Both of his LBN posts were locked due to him failing to follow the SOP in Latest Breaking News. He did post it in the other group though.
(snip)
The proposed rules would prohibit ownership of a gun by someone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime. The rules would also prohibit the mentally ill from owning guns. Another regulation would impose requirements about gun storage. And the Department of Justice through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would regulate high-powered pistols, a controversial move since attempts to place restrictions on handguns have drawn intense opposition.
Groups pushing for changes to the nations gun laws have long called for stricter rules about the ability of domestic violence convicts to obtain and keep guns. Curbing access to guns, they argue, will result in a decrease of homicides in domestic violence cases.
http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-administration-proposes-sweeping-gun-regulations-1945483
Interesting as it is already against federal law as far as I can tell.
Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.
The definition of 'convicted' can be found in the chapter 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) and has exceptions:
(33) (B)
(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless
(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Usually I can highlight the paragraphs, hit Control-C, go to where I want it, hit Control-V, and it posts, but in this case, it just wouldn't cooperate.
Anyways, EM said he was waiting for one of us "gunthusiasts" to post it without using a Breitbart or Fox source, so I did it without the snarky comments usual to their side of the issue.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Curious if he will venture over here. He asked for someone to post it in GD. I think the gun related groups are a better fit. This group at least will allow all viewpoints 😀
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 2, 2015, 12:53 AM - Edit history (1)
GCRA
Obama Administration Proposes Sweeping Gun Regulations
LBN
Obama Administration Proposes Sweeping Gun Regulations
NRA unhappy with Obama over new rules to keep guns out of hands of mentally ill, domestic abusers
edit: I almost forgot
General Discussion (20 recs and counting)
Obama Administration Proposes Sweeping Gun Regulations
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)due to you not being able to follow the group SOP. Kind of embarrassing as you so strictly enforce yours beyond even what it states.
Don't you think?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)It got more exposure there than it would have otherwise, which is why you tried so hard to get them locked, because guns.
(and you know that's true)
beevul
(12,194 posts)You'll do the latter to others because guns (and you know that's true) but when the former happens to you, that's different, and its time to 'point the finger while pretending that the rules really aren't the rules'.
Comic fuckin relief, right there.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Correct?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And it was not a technicality. You failed to follow the SOP and if you were held to the same standard as you enforce as a host, you would have been blocked from that group. I would think that as a host that enforces SOP violations, you would read and adhere to them yourself.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Malraiders
(444 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The most sweeping thing is likely having AR and AK "pistols" reclassified as "AOW" under the NFA.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)what will be the definition of mentally ill?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Cayenne
(480 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Please, tell us how you really feel about it. Or are you afraid if you honestly did so then the DU admins would toss you out on your ass?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)He's like Sheryl Crow's friend in "Soak Up The Sun"...
ileus
(15,396 posts)One trolls another sets the hook.
Used to be a real common technique here when the banner from Canada was around.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Are you Pinky, or The Brain?
It appears
has devolved into middle-school level heckling of opponents...
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)And your post was....?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I see you still haven't reined in certain posters in your group, you're still letting the insults rule supreme, yet you have to come here to get an honest and robust debate.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Says something about the level of intellectual discussion over there.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The two links in post #19, and my comments in post #30 after doing a little research
at those two links pretty much sum it up...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)the one you talk about spammed this group with multiple hundreds like that and you know it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=21&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=22&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=23&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=24&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=25&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=26&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=27&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=28&sort=author
Not even a close comparison
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)All those fine words for gun controllers have worked nicely- for gun makers
Smith & Wesson Holding went from $2.56 a share in January 2009 to $15.12 at closing today
Sturm, Ruger went from $6.49 a share to $54.56 today
Maybe if some more empty threats are made SWHC and RGR can hit a 1000% increase
in stock valuation since Obama took office...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)posting any comment?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...when they see something that they believe requires their attention
The short version: Controllers gotta control...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)he is not a host in. Does not work fortunately.
petronius
(26,602 posts)has been proposed, and little is known of what the DOJ intends to propose.
BumRushDaShow posted a link ( ) that I think does a good job of describing what's out there so far; it looks like all this is based on some entries in the Unified Agenda listing some temporary rules that the DOJ means to make permanent, and some other areas in which the DOJ intends to make some unspecified proposals.
Perhaps it's just that I don't understand this stuff, but as I look at the threads on this topic so far it appears that everyone is just waving their team flags before the game has even been scheduled...