Brady II" bill -- introduced S. 436

[pcfixer]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s436is/pdf/BILLS-112s436is.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6494

We all need to write and call our state senators to stop this bill.
SB 436

 

[wilcam47]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s436is/pdf/BILLS-112s436is.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6494

We all need to write and call our state senators to stop this bill.
SB 436

maybe Im lost but isnt that the intended purpose of the NICS check? to stop or prevent people not authorized to purchase weapons?

 

[pcfixer]

maybe Im lost but isnt that the intended purpose of the NICS check? to stop or prevent people not authorized to purchase weapons?

Wilcam47. Yes the NICS currently in place is intended to stop unauthorized people from the purchase of guns. ( I don't like the term weapon).
The S 436 bill doensn't addres gun shows at all. This proposed senate bill proposes ALL private sales be subject to NICS.
It also sounds like this bill would also regulate the the reporting to a national database the arest of drug users and any people that receive mental health services. This in itself paint a broad brush which I think too is inhearently wrong. I think too this is a hugh step toward national registration and depriving people of their constitutional rights without due process.
We need better NICS database I think. Also police need to jail criminals instead on letting some on the street, Baltimore judges do this routinely as I read & hear about Baltimore news.

 

[Inigoes]

We need better NICS database I think. Also police need to jail criminals instead on letting some on the street, Baltimore judges do this routinely as I read & hear about Baltimore news.

No we don't.

If you are convicted of a crime, then your name should be in the system.

If you are just arrested, then no go; Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

 

[pcfixer]

No we don't.

If you are convicted of a crime, then your name should be in the system. If you are just arrested, then no go; Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Yes, I agree and this is what I meant.

Indeed, saying this means the people running the database are not without fault.

 

[squirrels]

This?? Now??

What liberal moonbats elect people like this??

 

[ToneGrail]

With the GOP controlled House, this thing is dead in the water.

 

[pcfixer]

With the GOP controlled House, this thing is dead in the water.

I am sure your right. This is in senate judiciary committe at the moment, and don't think It'll come out with all the issues with budget for next few months.

 

[jaypark]

this will go no where

 

[Kchen986]

Jesus. OUR NATIONAL DEBT IS EQUAL TO OUR GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT. Theoretically, if we taxed everything and everyone at 100% we probably still be in debt.

And they want to talk about gun control right now? Give me a ****ing break.

 

[pcfixer]

Jesus. OUR NATIONAL DEBT IS EQUAL TO OUR GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT. Theoretically, if we taxed everything and everyone at 100% we probably still be in debt.

And they want to talk about gun control right now? Give me a ****ing break.

And this along with Alinsky's rules for radicals.

'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"

 

[QuebecoisWolf]

Oh, that pesky "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is getting in the way of Brady's gun control bill again! Why can't it be "innocent until proven guilty beyond Paul Helmke's doubt?" Or better yet, how about "guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?"

 

[zoostation]

This one is absolutely devious.

In addition to requiring background checks for all private transfers, it expands the lists of prohibited persons.

Under this, the "unlawful drug user" exclusion would also apply to anyone who has failed a drug test, or been merely arrested (not convicted) for a drug violation in the past 5 years.

It would require all colleges receiving federal funds to create mental health "assessment teams," made up of anyone they want, and give those teams the power to require those who they perceive as needing it to receive treatment. Those that are required to receive treatment are then prohibited persons, as the bill expands the definition of prohibited.

 

[bean93x]

**** them and their whack ass ideas. and its already been proven that the ATF is just as corrupt as any other federal sector..

 

[pcfixer]

This one is absolutely devious.

In addition to requiring background checks for all private transfers, it expands the lists of prohibited persons.

Under this, the "unlawful drug user" exclusion would also apply to anyone who has failed a drug test, or been merely arrested (not convicted) for a drug violation in the past 5 years.

It would require all colleges receiving federal funds to create mental health "assessment teams," made up of anyone they want, and give those teams the power to require those who they perceive as needing it to receive treatment. Those that are required to receive treatment are then prohibited persons, as the bill expands the definition of prohibited.

Exactly!!! It' why it fits for Alinky's rules. Magicians try the same stunts.
I pray more Americans get it.

 

[matt_b89]

New Gun Law

I was doing some reading on whether or not I'd be eligible to get a CCW I found this proposed law on gun control. Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law.

Either way, you can forget about buying a gun.

The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 would greatly expand the definition of those legally prohibited from owning firearms to include anyone who’s ever been arrested — even if never convicted or found guilty — for drug possession within a five-year period. The legislation is certainly troubling for those who want a “common sense” debate about drug decriminalization. And it would seem fears that any new national gun-control legislation would be used to limit the gun-rights of law-abiding citizens is at least partially justified.

Sponsored by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and introduced earlier this month, the expanded background checks bill includes a “clarification of the definition of drug abusers and drug addicts who are prohibited from possessing firearms.” Under Schumer’s bill, the definition of a “drug abuser” would include anyone with “an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years.”

Current federal law already specifies that two kinds of drug users can be barred from owning a gun: (1) Those who have been convicted of possessing or using a controlled substance in the past year and (2) Anyone who has had multiple drug arrests in the past five years, including one within a year of applying for a firearm, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

If interested in rest of article go here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-One-arrest-to-take-away-2nd-Amendment-rights

Also, if I can get help in this area from someone knowledgeable. Recently I got charged with possession because of my friend I was giving a ride to(panicked and threw drugs under seat) and now I'm wondering if it affects my status to own guns. It wasn't a felony, but I believe was punishable by 1 year or more. Does this affect my status for permit to carry or gun ownership in general?

 

[matt_b89]

P.S.I understand that some of you may agree and think that someone with a drug charge shouldn't own a gun, but look at someone in my situation or someone who may have had a drug problem(doesn't make them a creep or have a propensity for violence) and got help many years ago has to still pay the price. I feel this isn't right if someone has truly been helped or was genuinely a non drug user and was guilty only of poor judgement in friends. Plus this kind of legislature will only lead to more restrictions. Soon you'll have to take a personality test that's been composed by anti-gun psychiatrists to show you're in your right mind and have a "reason" for a gun.

 

[zoostation]

threads merged.

 

[Brychan]

threads merged.

Ah thats why I got lost for a couple of sec.

 

[SkunkWerX]

Even though i despise the man, Harry Reid is Pro-gun, and won't allow a bill like this to come to the US Senate floor. Think of Frosh in reverse.

Likewise, anything put forth from the House, that is pro-gun, will have an ally in Reid, to do his best to prop it up for a Senate Yes vote.

Strange bedfellows.

Pro-2A is this man's ONLY redeeming quality.