At least 16 people dead and suspect at large after multiple incidents in area of Lewiston, Maine

I don't get it???? This guy was obviously disturbed and reported that and went to a mental institution this past summer. Threaten to shoot up places because the voices in his head. I believe there are already laws that say he loses his right to keep his guns. Who dropped the ball here is the question that needs to be asked. Talk about red flags and poster person for the gun laws already on the books to catch yet somehow didn't. The questions is WHY?

 

Imagine that, a solution that would actually work that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Almost like it is possible for there to be a win-win here.

 

The same people who decry the police are the same ones who want them to have a monopoly on force.

Unfortunately, this isn't going away. In general, I am against red flag laws, but if you have been Baker acted, probably shouldn't keep your firearms.

 

Okay. Preventing criminal private transfers is a good thing. That is why we should have a registry.

 

another failure on the system to enact the laws on the books?

who should be held accountable for these failures?

do we need to raise taxes on weapons and munitions to pay for a more robust team to enforce these laws?

 

If the problem was resolved there would be no reason to fundraise or campaign. Hegelian Dialectic.

 

1) Register Firearms
2) Demand surrender of said Firearms
3) Forcibly remove said Firearms left un-surrendered

It's not hard to see the progression.

Also, confiscation of firearms is ALWAYS done by men with...you know...firearms.

 

ever been to Alaska? Even the tourists are coming in strapped for bear as a sign of machismo lately. trails with very low chance of bear encounters and we see people carrying like a badge of honor.

 

How would anybody know if a prohibited person has a gun? As pointed out, we have no registry. So it would just be a guess or based upon somebody else being willing to inform on them, right?

 

What could be tightened up in the prohibited persons statute is what is disqualifying on the basis of mental illness.

As it’s written now, you’re disqualified if you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

There are some due process concerns about tightening up certain aspects of that, but the gaping hole is in the second prong - it has to be an involuntary commitment. What that means is that, if for example you’re taken in for a psych evaluation and you voluntarily agree to commitment, you didn’t become a prohibited person. You’re only prohibited if they have to go get a court order to commit you.

 

Okay. So your view is that the only thing preventing a tyrannical government, who could, of course, search anywhere they want for guns as they are tyrannical, is the lack of data?

 

Pretty easy for LE to check the records of a local FFL. That is where about 99% of people purchase their firearms. It is a defacto registry as the AFT [sic] requires FFLs to keep Form 4473 in their possession until they go out of business, in which case the AFT [sic] requires them to turn over the forms.

 

This presumes we have a political system capable of identifying and solving problems, like basically one faction has given up on issues altogether and lets the courts do its legislating. Which by the way, would nuke any sweeping gun legislation anyways even if the will existed to pass such a thing. Right now the court is hearing cases on whether domestic abusers can be deprived of their guns because of their insane interpretations of the 2nd, that's where we are.

 

yes, just like probation inspections around the country every day for much less serious issues than crazy people with guns

 

Then, by this argument, since we already have a "defacto" registry, according to you, why oppose a registry where we attempt to eliminate the transactions you claim are only 1% of how people get guns (id dispute that assertion for sure, but the whole thing seems like a counter argument to the point that we can't have a registry because of tyranny)?

 

Cars can actually be quite effective in fighting "tyranny," as we've seen from insurgents in the Middle East. Votes being a physical possession is irrelevant. If a tyrannical right- or left-wing government wanted to destroy the opposition, wouldn't they start with people registered to the opposition party? All registration must go!

 

Cute, only 2. and 3. do not necessarily follow 1.

 

yes, if a person is a convicted sex offender their spouse/roommates/family are subject to the same rules of residency (not close to schools) that the offender is. a parolee can't say those are my brothers drugs when they find an 8 ball in his bedroom drawer during a home visit.

 

I oppose the required storage of the 4473. A person who clears a background check, done by the NICS system, should be free to go about their business.

 

Yes because the federal government has our best interests in heart.