[BBMW]

As I said, is NV, this would be the camel getting its nose under the tent. Look at CA to see what happens when the whole camel gets in the tent.

Originally Posted by MediocreButArrogant

The background checks aren't an impediment to acquiring firearms. It's all the other requirements that came after it - the ten day waiting period, the 30 days between handgun purchases, the CA roster and microstamping requirement, the crazy rules on "features" and detachable magazines. I would do a dance if all we had here were background checks.

[BBMW]

Forgetting that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be DOA in Congress, it would only take 13 states to reject it to stop it. I doubt that 13 states would even approve it.

Originally Posted by livintheratrace

I guess my point is that there is now a growing groundswell against the proliferation of guns, and as you said, it may be time to look at the 2nd amendment.

[MediocreButArrogant]

Originally Posted by johninvegas

That exemption only is allowed if you are at an approved shooting range. If you want to just go out to BLM land, the exemption doesn't cover that. Therefore, a criminal act.

That's not how I read it:

#6 below is the last in a list of six exemptions to the statute

6. A temporary transfer of a firearm if

(a) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is prohibited from
buying or possessing firearms under state or federal law;
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use
the firearm in the commission of a crime; and
( c) such transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm following the
transfer is exclusively:

(i) At an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the
jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(ii) At a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm;
(iii) While participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized
group that uses firearms as a part of the public performance;
(iv) While hunting or trapping if the hunting or trapping is legal in all places
where the transferee possesses the firearm and the transferee holds all licenses or
permits required for such hunting or trapping; or
(v) While in the presence of the transferor.

Several of those are mutually exclusive, so it has to be an OR, not an AND.

[BBMW]

Don't argue about the details. Just $hitcan it.

[Throckmorton P. Ruddigore]

Such laws probably don't do much to disarm serious criminals, however the funny thing about crazy people is that most aren't too competent and are easily frustrated. If a very mentally ill person is prevented from buying guns over the counter, they probably don't have any clue how to buy them on the black market. Laws won't prevent all tragedies, but minor inconveniences to sane people can be insurmountable obstacles to some would-be mass-shooters. Even if they have no documented history that would red-flag them, a waiting period may help; someone who wants to kill the world today might be in a different mood tomorrow.

[nickydim]

For those who need our founding fathers interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

Thomas Jefferson, whom has my highest respect wrote, " "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."

And background checks do exactly that, bar some freemen.

[BBMW]

I haven't seen this to be the case. In the Santa Barbara mass shooting, the shooter got around all of Cali's gun laws. He was reported to the police for mental instability, who interviewed him, but took no action. None of it stopped him from his attack.

Originally Posted by Throckmorton P. Ruddigore

Such laws probably don't do much to disarm serious criminals, however the funny thing about crazy people is that most aren't too competent and are easily frustrated. If a very mentally ill person is prevented from buying guns over the counter, they probably don't have any clue how to buy them on the black market. Laws won't prevent all tragedies, but minor inconveniences to sane people can be insurmountable obstacles to some would-be mass-shooters. Even if they have no documented history that would red-flag them, a waiting period may help; someone who wants to kill the world today might be in a different mood tomorrow.

[Irish4evr]

For those yet undecided or unclear to exactly what this proposition entails might I suggest that you read that proposition as written...not a short preamble.

If you have any questions, make a few calls...get it clear in your mind exactly what you are voting for. The State Attorney General has voiced his opinion on this particular pending legislation and worth consideration. It is a bad law as written !

Don't let emotion overrule common sense. I get the "anything is better than nothing" sentiment. No lawful gun owner wants firearms in the possession of those proven to be a danger to society...Backgound investigations are not a bad thing...however in this instance the devil in in the details.

[basnobua]

summary: You can't give your neighbor your gun to go shoot at garbage in the desert unless you go with him.

[Buzz123]

What we should be up in arms about is the amount of prescription drugs being given to people, particularly children. A kid doesn't agree on being forced to sit in school and listen to words he doesn't understand all day, so they drug him, to make him compliant. Then he decides not to take the drugs anymore. Probably sells them. And he becomes suicidal. Every kid who has shot up a school has been on psychiatric drugs, and decided to quit taking them. Even the Muslim terrorists that have shot up the place have been on psychiatric drugs. It's part of how they get them to commit suicide. The psychs know that when people stop taking those drugs they shouldn't have been on in the first place, they are going to feel super-suicidal. Especially kids. Anyone who would allow their kid to be drugged by a psychiatrist is an evil person who shouldn't be around kids anyway. If you want to outlaw crime, start by outlawing psychiatry. REVEALING QUOTES ON THE GOALS OF PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY