Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good question. And first off, I think how Michigan handles firearms ownership is good, as far as handguns. If that could extent out to long guns on both new sales and any secondary or more transfers.
Now to your question. I really think that HIPAA regulations should be loosened so information could be shared with the BATF/NICS. I'm pretty sure that an FFL can refuse the sale to an individual even if they pass the check, so with that , if they were also aware that the individual has a history of violence or has mental issues they might deny the sale. I know this would probably be unconstitutional but in the case of Cruz, and Parkland if the FFL knew he probably wouldn't have sold him the firearm.
I don't see how she (Rep. Dingell) will be able to pull off a "confiscation" without due process. As far as the "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" , So I guess , what is different about this , than the law we currently have ?
Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.422.
A person will not qualify for a license if:
The person is under an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to mental illness; or
The person has been adjudged legally incapacitated in this state or elsewhere.
Replying to the portion in red: She's trying to ENSURE due process on the federal level. If there is a process at the federal level, it may prevent state overreach, I guess. I'm just confused about the furor over this as a "gun grab," when what she's trying to do is prevent a "gun grab." It's kinda funny, really.
Regarding the rest, this isn't about selling a gun. It's about a gun owner who is a danger to himself or others. He already has the gun. But is perhaps making threats, or behaving violently. This is about creating a law to manage how that would be handled.
I have the right to vote, granted to me by the 19th Amendment (thank you to all the women who fought for that right!).
I do not have the right to vote without registering to do so.
My right to vote does not allow me to vote whenever I choose.
My right to vote does not allow me to vote wherever I choose.
My right to vote does not allow me to vote for whomever I choose.
There can be limits legally placed on rights - yes, even on rights granted in the Constitution. Some want to limit the right to vote to those who can show a state-issued ID.
How is regulating the right to own a gun any different?
Where in this entire thread has anyone attacked the victims ? If you can't add to the topic, and just want to insult those that think differently than you (Conservatives), go run along somewhere else, the adults are talking...
I think that what the poster is saying is that the more conservatives attack the Parkland victims, the louder the cries for taking guns away from everyone will be. The more the movement is marginalized, the harder and harsher the push will be. So when people are trying to talk about sensible reform, maybe it's a good idea to engage and talk with them to find compromise and common ground, rather than saying it's all about a bunch of stupid snowflakes. Avalanches are a bunch of stupid snowflakes, too.
Because for one, the 19th refers to citizen
the 2nd refers to people.
Uh ... what?
Quote:
What keeps you from voting? Surely you consent for others to think for you.
Nothing keeps me from voting. Too many women risked too much for me to abandon the right they fought so hard for.
I can't vote wherever or whenever I choose: I can't vote in any district other than the one I live in, or at any polling place other than the one I'm assigned to. I can't vote at any time other than on Election Day or by absentee ballot within a specific window of time. Voting regulations prevent that.
I can't vote for whomever I choose: I can't vote for candidates who do not run in my district. I can't vote in the primary election because my state has a closed primary, and I'm registered as an Independent; if I were a Democrat or Republican, I could not vote for the other party's primary candidate if I wanted to. Voting regulations prevent it.
I can't vote without registering in my county of residence. Voting regulations prevent it.
The right to vote is guaranteed in the Constitution, but the act of voting is regulated by federal and state law.
Good grief ... I can't believe I had to explain that further.
Replying to the portion in red: She's trying to ENSURE due process on the federal level. If there is a process at the federal level, it may prevent state overreach, I guess. I'm just confused about the furor over this as a "gun grab," when what she's trying to do is prevent a "gun grab." It's kinda funny, really.
Regarding the rest, this isn't about selling a gun. It's about a gun owner who is a danger to himself or others. He already has the gun. But is perhaps making threats, or behaving violently. This is about creating a law to manage how that would be handled.
The author of the article must have added the "gun confiscation" thing. The only think quoted by her was this, Dingell said, “Rep. Fred Upton (R) and I are looking at introducing … legislation … at the national level.”
Which I think we already have. Both at the State and Federal levels. Like you said, maybe this is about adding threats and displays of violence to the law we already have, which is based mostly on mentally ill.
If you can't add to the topic, and just want to insult those that think differently than you (Conservatives), go run along somewhere else, the adults are talking...
Uh no my comments are germane to the topic of gun control, and people who want to 'take your firearms' and why they want to do it.
The morally abhorrent reaction from conservatives plays a critical role in the escalation of gun control policy. People are seeing that conservatives cannot be reasoned with, which directly impacts their perception of the second amendment and gun control legislation, which is the topic of the thread.
I do realize, however, your desire to pretend that the two are unrelated, and exclude discussion of one of the key factors of the topic you're wanting to discuss.
Nothing keeps me from voting. Too many women risked too much for me to abandon the right they fought so hard for.
I can't vote wherever or whenever I choose: I can't vote in any district other than the one I live in, or at any polling place other than the one I'm assigned to. I can't vote at any time other than on Election Day or by absentee ballot within a specific window of time. Voting regulations prevent that.
I can't vote for whomever I choose: I can't vote for candidates who do not run in my district. I can't vote in the primary election because my state has a closed primary, and I'm registered as an Independent; if I were a Democrat or Republican, I could not vote for the other party's primary candidate if I wanted to. Voting regulations prevent it.
I can't vote without registering in my county of residence. Voting regulations prevent it.
The right to vote is guaranteed in the Constitution, but the act of voting is regulated by federal and state law.
Good grief ... I can't believe I had to explain that further.
The author of the article must have added the "gun confiscation" thing. The only think quoted by her was this, Dingell said, “Rep. Fred Upton (R) and I are looking at introducing … legislation … at the national level.”
Which I think we already have. Both at the State and Federal levels. Like you said, maybe this is about adding threats and displays of violence to the law we already have, which is based mostly on mentally ill.
No, that's not what's going on here.
So, Rep Dingell is saying there are instances when a gun that is legally in possession may be a problem.
Here's a scenario: Everyday Jane is a fine, law abiding citizen. She enjoys many hobbies, including target shooting. She has legal possession of one or more firearms. One day, Jane is called into her boss's office and told a complaint has been leveled against her and she's being placed on immediate leave pending the results of an investigation. Now, Jane's husband recently told her he wants a divorce as well. She also got pulled over for speeding, and with the ticket and increase on her insurance, her paycheck isn't going to stretch to pay for everything. She's already 30 days late on the mortgage. She is also responsible for taking care of her ailing mother, because her siblings live in different cities, so it all falls to her. Add to that a neighbor that just put a fence up 3 feet onto Jane's property line, and a septic tank that is backing up. Jane doesn't handle her anger well, and drinks too much that evening, and starts making threats that the world would be better off without her, or maybe it's time that aaalllllll those other people pay for what they've done. It would be easy to just walk up to them one-by-one and shoot them. Jane's soon-to-be-ex is legitimately concerned, so he calls the police. Now, Jane hasn't done anything yet. But perhaps her threats are becoming very specific and troubling. What Rep Dingell is saying is there should be something, at the federal level, that addresses how this would be handled, so that we aren't taking guns away willy-nilly.
Interesting, because it looks to me like Rep Dingell is trying to make sure that a law is in place to ensure a gun owner has due process. In other states, guns can be seized without the owner being notified. So, we basically have three possible scenarios:
1. No gun can ever be taken out of the possession of the owner.
2. A gun can sometimes, if situations warrant, be taken out of the possession of the owner.
3. A gun can be taken from the owner any time for any reason.
What Dingell is proposing is #2. If there is a clear indication that an individual is a danger to herself or others, her gun(s) can be legally removed from her possession if the correct procedure is followed, and (I assume) a remedy to return the gun(s) to the owner if the seizure is unwarranted.
So, what do you think is the best way to handle it? You don't think there should be a legal process to address a gun in the possession of someone who is making threats? Or do you think it should be a free-for-all, where any time someone points & says, "She shouldn't have a gun!" that gun can be removed without due process? Or is it that a saying "I'm going to shoot everyone at work tomorrow" should be allowed to keep all the guns all the time?
So, sounds like the Dem work around here is to redefine "due process" and expand the justifications for initiating the redefined "due process".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
