Evidently Daniel "lying liar" Webster is teaching a course at Hopkins

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    I felt the need to reply to another student's post. I wonder if I will get a reply.

    Student's Name Removed · 12 minutes ago

    In Colorado, we have very active and vocal gun rights organizations. They threaten recall elections any time that they work themselves into the minority because they want to overturn sensible gun laws such as the recent Red Flag bill that we passed. They see low turnout recall elections as their way to win legislative seats and base the argument for recall on their ideology rather than malfeasance on the part of an elected official.

    Colorado has experienced some of the most horrific mass shooting incidents in the nation's history. Each one motivates the need for stronger gun control laws but achieving lasting policy is difficult with the opposition vehemently opposed to any movement towards legislation that might save lives.

    My Post

    KJ
    KJackson · a few seconds ago

    Not living in Colorado, I am not familiar with the specifics of your Red Flag bill, however we also have one in Maryland. In yours, if someone is such a danger to himself or others that he needs his guns taken away, what happens to the person? Are they taken for medical evaluation and possible treatment or are they just given a receipt for their guns and ammo and left to fend for themselves? If the latter, then I would then ask, If this person is such a danger then why are they allowed out in public? Is it felt that they are only capable of danger if they have a gun? Makes me wonder what is feared more, a person with some serious mental issues or an inanimate piece of metal that cannot do anything on its own.

    You mentioned the number of mass shooting incidents in Colorado. Well look at the people committing them. What do they have in common outside of the tools that they are using to act out on their problems. Hopefully, that will be looked at later in the course.
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    Just noticed that the poster has replied to some others. This could get interesting:

    Someone posted:



    "The theory is that guns have an ability to speak to people, control them, change who they are. Thus guns "cause" crimes, and "cause" suicide. The person pulling the trigger is simply a different kind of gun victim."

    His reply:

    Strawman
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    The topic for Week 2 of the class is "Legal Issues Relevant to Preventing Gun Violence". My next module includes the interview with Brian Frosh. Here is my first posting for this section:

    Many times in this section it was mentioned about various levels of government having the ability to create new gun laws to prevent "gun violence". The lesson also mentioned the 3 major classes of people that are already prohibited BY LAW from possessing firearms. They are the convicted felon, drug user/alcohol abuser, and the "mentally defective."

    With these groups being prohibited from possessing firearms, what more laws need to be made. How about enforcing the ones we have? The police are out there on a daily basis arresting people for having guns who should not have them, yet for some reason they are not prosecuted and punished. Instead of creating more laws to infringe on the rights of the law abiding, how about prosecuting those who break the laws that we have?

    In reading many of the comments in Week 1, lots of people mentioned gang activity near them. So what is the government proposing? More restrictions on lawful gun owners instead of actually doing anything about criminals. I am sure that most states have searchable on-line databases or court records. The next time you see a news report about someone arrested with a gun that shouldn't have one, look them up. I can pretty much guarantee that there is a history there. Then ask why this person was on the street.

    When dealing with "gun violence" or "gun crime", how about a little less focus on the "gun" and more on the "violence" or "crime"?
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    I couldn't finish watching the Frosh interview, so I skimmed over the transcript. Here is one of the forum questions created by the instructor for this week and my reply:

    Legal Issues Relevant to Preventing Gun Violence
    Daniel WebsterInstructorWeek 2 · 16 days ago

    Did this module change or influence the way you understand the policy development process?

    Can you think of a state-level policy designed to address gun violence that you are particularly interested in?

    Are there ways this policy could be improved? If so, how?

    My Answer

    I have a novel approach. Let's have the state actually prosecute and jail those who commit "gun violence!!"

    Let's stop with the nonsense of creating more restrictive gun laws that only affect the law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws because they are criminals.

    In going through this module, I see topics about creating more restrictive gun laws. I won't call them "progressive" gun laws like they do in the module because I don't see them as 'progressing' to anywhere good. There was also a whole section about litigation against makers and sellers of firearms. Where is the section about prosecuting and punishing the criminals? I would think that would definitely fit in the topic of "Legal Issues Relevant to Preventing Gun Violence."
     

    eruby

    Confederate Jew
    MDS Supporter
    Here is what I believe is an accurate summation of the Frosh interview:



    PlainTautIrishsetter-mobile.jpg
     

    CrabcakesAndFootball

    Active Member
    Jun 14, 2017
    697
    KJackson thanks for updating this thread. I've found it very interesting. I think it is also yeoman's work to provide a counterbalance to the brainwashing, although I suspect this type of class attracts pre-indoctrinated anti-gunners.

    Have you found that you are the only voice of sanity, or are there others pushing back?
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    There are some others pushing back, especially where the Red Flag laws are concerned. It has been polite for the most part. We will see if it continues.
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    I haven't posted anything from the class for a while. Currently on the section dealing with concealed carry. In the lecture about permit types and how they are issued, this came up when talking about why some states that do not require permits still offer them:

    "The first, is that if you have a valid concealed carry permit, you often qualify for and exemption from the federal background check requirement. So if you go to a federally licensed dealer to purchase a firearm and you have a valid concealed carry permit, you may not have to undergo a background check to purchase that firearm."

    This is something that I had never heard before. Wondering how a state can exempt someone from a federal requirement.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Yeah I think some states exempt you from the background check if you have a CCW. I think that's true for handguns only though.

    Keep in mind: to get a permit you need to pass the check first. Typically its the more stringent fingerprint based one with cards and everything. And if you get in trouble afterwards they are supposed to revoke it. So a background check for the CCW holder is largely redundant.

    And finally CCW holders are extraordinarily law abiding...

    Oh and btw if you have a CCW you already have a gun, so who cares anyway.
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    Yeah I think some states exempt you from the background check if you have a CCW. I think that's true for handguns only though.

    Keep in mind: to get a permit you need to pass the check first. Typically its the more stringent fingerprint based one with cards and everything. And if you get in trouble afterwards they are supposed to revoke it. So a background check for the CCW holder is largely redundant.

    And finally CCW holders are extraordinarily law abiding...

    Oh and btw if you have a CCW you already have a gun, so who cares anyway.

    I could see that for exempting someone from a STATE check, but not a FEDERAL check, since the CCW is a state license, not a federal one.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I could see that for exempting someone from a STATE check, but not a FEDERAL check, since the CCW is a state license, not a federal one.

    They run both federal and state. It would be a little awkward if you just moved to a state, they only checked state records, but it turns out your a murderer from 2 states over.

    "State" vs "federal" is a misunderstanding of what's in the Federal NICS. NICS contains both federal and state prohibitors (or is supposed to anyway if the state reports them, ahem), precisely so that someone cannot move from one state to another avoiding their records. So if you are a murderer in NJ and an arsonist in DE, you cant move to FL and buy a gun. If they only checked FL state records while you lived in FL you could.
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    They run both federal and state. It would be a little awkward if you just moved to a state, they only checked state records, but it turns out your a murderer from 2 states over.

    "State" vs "federal" is a misunderstanding of what's in the Federal NICS. NICS contains both federal and state prohibitors (or is supposed to anyway if the state reports them, ahem), precisely so that someone cannot move from one state to another avoiding their records. So if you are a murderer in NJ and an arsonist in DE, you cant move to FL and buy a gun. If they only checked FL state records while you lived in FL you could.

    I understand that. What I mean is that the NICS requirement is made by the federal gov't when you buy a firearm through an FFL. How can a state exempt you from that? I could see them exempting them from their own requirement, such as the 77r, if you already have a CCW permit, but the 4473 is a federal requirement. Unless the 4473 is NOT a federal requirement.
     

    bmkoenig

    Active Member
    I understand that. What I mean is that the NICS requirement is made by the federal gov't when you buy a firearm through an FFL. How can a state exempt you from that? I could see them exempting them from their own requirement, such as the 77r, if you already have a CCW permit, but the 4473 is a federal requirement. Unless the 4473 is NOT a federal requirement.

    Certain state permits qualify as "NICS Exempt" as the ATF has determined the permit requirements as an alternative to a NICS check. I believe that there is a box that is checked on the 4473 signifying a "NICS Exempt" permit holder.

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-transfers-are-exempt-nics-background-check-requirement
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,879
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom