Please sign Howard Dean's petition for background checks for gun sales

[proud2BlibKansan]

The recent shootings in Tucson have once again exposed flaws in America’s efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, drug abusers, the mentally ill and other dangerous people.

I am joining more than 550 U.S. Mayors in calling on Congress to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people by taking two critical steps:

1) Get all the names of people who should be prohibited from buying guns into the background check system.

2) Require a background check for every gun sale in America.

Every day in America, 34 people are murdered with guns. We can't accept the flaws in our background check system that lead to these tragic deaths.

http://www.fixgunchecks.org/dean

[Mojorabbit]

1. Not a chance here.

I got the same email from John Kerry and Move on. It is a losing proposition for the Dems and I am amazed they are going to do this and give an issue for the Rebubs for 2012. We are a second amendment household here as are most Dems I know.

[RegieRocker]

2. I am with you on this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. You don't even favor background checks?

[RegieRocker]

11. No one said that and obviously you need to do some

more research or try to get a gun yourself. There are background checks. Sheesh

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. No there aren't. Not at gun sales. And not if you sell a gun to your neighbor.

That's the loophole he wants fixed.

I don't find that the least bit unreasonable.

And Dean had a high rating from NRA while he was governor of a pro-gun state.

[Maine_Nurse]

24. All FFL dealers at a gunshow must follow the background check laws.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. Does Howard Dean know that? Maybe you should email him.

From his email that included this petition:

Right now, anyone can go to a gun show and purchase as many guns as they want no questions asked, no background check, nothing.

[Maine_Nurse]

29. It is a common, and incorrect, inflammatory statement. He knows.

[cleanhippie]

80. And that is the problem, its a flat out false statement.

Its just not true.

[rl6214]

63. There are background checks at gun shows

And that would not have affected what happened in Tucson at all. Loughner bought his guns at a store, not a gun show.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. And since the petition is FOR background checks and you don't want to sign it

it's reasonable to assume you don't support background checks.

[RegieRocker]

25. Nothing reasonable nor logical or sane about that assumption.

End.

[RSillsbee]

42. Let's say the petition was for

legalizing both rape and same sex marriage. If I refuse to sign am I against same sex marriage?

[Callisto32]

77. That platform is rather vague.

I would have to see finished language before I sign my name to anything.

[Tesha]

31. Even in a private sale? (NT)

[RegieRocker]

33. The OP should have made it clear about private sales. and

not licensed firearms dealers. My guess is this is your spin and not the OP's. If it is a hidden agenda of the OP then what you are asking is complete gun registration of all guns owned. Then and only then can a background check be required. Therefore you're asking for the privacy of the American public to be invaded. At best, what could be expected is the seller to be somewhat responsible for the gun actions of the person they sold the gun to for a period of time. Anything else is never going to fly unless you get your, "government controls and dictates everything to you" way. No background checks, just some responsibility for the seller in private sales.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Howard Dean is the author of the OP

Maybe you should send him your thoughts.

[PavePusher]

50. Maybe you should stop shilling, shucking and jiving. n/t

[pipoman]

67. A private sale aka an intrastate

sale cannot be legislated at the Federal level. This is incredibly simple. The feds have no jurisdiction. If there were any way to assume jurisdiction without setting a dangerous precedent, it would already be done. If it is important to you it can and has been legislated at the state level.

[RSillsbee]

41. Criminals don't by their guns from any source that would require a background check

They get them illegally anyway. The only way that background checks on all sales would be enforceable is through unilateral registration.

Let us know how that works out for you

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. Yeah yeah yeah

Heard that oh maybe about a million times so far.

It's time to step up and find a compromise that works. The constant NO is reminding me of the republican party's approach to legislation.

[PavePusher]

51. Then suggest one. One that would work. n/t

[Callisto32]

78. Why presume that legislation is a good thing?

Maybe we should all say "no" until the .gov at least gets a handle on all the laws in place already.

[Maine_Nurse]

4. Same here

We are generally considered quite democratic here, but further gun control is not something that gets much support. Great way to divide a party over something that is effectively useless at doing any real good.

[notesdev]

5. The flaw in the background check

You do realize that the reason Loughner passed the background check is that there was nothing officially in his background to warrant stopping his purchase? That after a long history of disturbed behavior and death threats, no charges were ever filed and no mental health hold was ever put on him?

Both the things you say should be done are already law. Having the proper laws don't help when the actual human beings within the system don't play their roles properly!

You want to stop the next Loughner the thing to do is figure out whose job it was to make an official record of Loughner's previous crimes and hold them accountable for failure.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. But that's not true for the VA Tech shooter, is it?

[notesdev]

15. Something similar is true yes

the VA tech shooter had been declared mentally ill in 2005, somebody should have put him on the deny list.

[Maine_Nurse]

23. Not sure about the VA Tech shooter

but there is a huge difference between being diagnosed with a mental illness (which is not a prohibition to firearms purchaase) and being committed involuntarily or declared incompetent, which does bar purchase/possession.

[notesdev]

39. NYTimes says so

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?_r=1

fwiw

[Surf Fishing Guru]

91. Times is wrong . . .

notesdev wrote

the VA tech shooter had been declared mentally ill in 2005, somebody should have put him on the deny list.

NYTimes says so fwiw

Well, it isn't worth much because the Times is wrong.

18 U.S.C. § 922 says:

"(g) It shall be unlawful for any person— . . .

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; . . .

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

Regardless of what the NY Times and the various interviewees said, Cho's commitment hearing did not result in a outcome/determination that would legally bar him from purchasing firearms under federal law or VA law.

The http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/report/11_CHAPTER_IV.pdf">Virginia Tech Review Panel Report, Ch IV, pg 56 states <279KB PDF>

"Cho was found to be an imminent danger to himself by the pre-screener who also found that he was “unable to come up with a safety plan to adequately ensure safety.” He was unwilling to contact his parents to pick him up. However, Cho was found not to be an imminent danger to self or others by both the independent examiner and the treating psychiatrist at St. Albans, and accordingly neither recommended involuntary admission. At the commitment hearing, the special justice did find Cho to be an imminent danger to himself; however, he agreed with the independent examiner and treating psychiatrist that a less restrictive alternative to involuntary admission, outpatient treatment, was suitable."

Actual involuntary commitment is the standard, not that someone has been thought to be a danger to themselves or others. If one wants to argue that that mental health diagnosis should be the operative standard and not whether one receives in patient commitment or outpatient therapy from a judge . . . well I'd entertain that. But the law is what it is and misrepresenting what it is, isn't helping anything.

Shorty after the tragedy Gov Kaine issued http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/EO/eo50(2007).pdf">Executive Order 50 that changed the commitment standard to a mental health diagnosis standard for Virginia and mandated all such mental health determinations be included in the NICS.

[Upton]

6. No thanks.

I support the Second Amendment. We have enough gun control laws. And if I want to sell a gun to a neighbor, that's my business...not that of the government.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. If your neighbor has just been released from a psychiatric facility or a prison

and he goes on a spree and shoots people with that gun you sold him, it becomes the government's business though.

[old mark]

8. I just emailed them on this-it is a terribly foolish idea and I strongly urge

Dr. Dean and President Obama to end this foolishness immediately. The laws will accomplish NOTHING POSITIVE, and will give many votes to the GOP in 2012. The FBI annual reports on guns in crime repeatedly state, year after year the guns bought at gun shows and linked to later use in crime are so few that they are not statistically significant...this is a "Feel Good" law, and will certainly aid the GOP in taking over more congress and possibly the Presidency in 2012.

This idea is nonsense, accomplishes no real purpose, and gives political advantage to the Right Wing...I can not support anything about this, and I have emailed Dr. Dean this message as well...I am a frequent donor and supporter of DFA, but NOT ON THIS ISSUE-it is a potential disaster.


mark

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Dr Dean's email:

We can both protect our second amendment rights and keep our communities safe from illegal gun sales.

I was given an "A rating" by the NRA eight times during my years as Lt. Governor and then Governor of Vermont. Guns and hunting are part of our way of life in Vermont. But I don't think any Vermonter or gun owners anywhere can argue against common sense changes to our background check system to make our communities safer and more secure.

And common sense changes are exactly what Mayors Against Illegal Guns is proposing that President Obama and Congress take action on right now. They have a two-part goal. First, we already have laws that make it illegal for guns to be sold to felons, drug abusers or the mentally ill. The problem is that states and federal agencies are not required to make sure these prohibited purchasers are included in the background check database. That must change.

Second, it's time to stop the sales of guns without a background check at all. Right now, anyone can go to a gun show and purchase as many guns as they want no questions asked, no background check, nothing.

It's common sense to fix these two loopholes and make America safer from illegal gun sales.

Join me in adding your name right now

Every day now it seems more news comes out about how these background check loopholes make America less safe. In the last week alone, the Federal government discovered that hundreds of guns bought in Arizona made their way to Mexico to help drug cartels destabilize the Mexican Government. This is not only a threat to the people of Mexico. When loopholes in our laws allow drug cartels in Mexico to stockpile guns, we can all agree it is also a threat to the United States. It's not just the conclusion of progressive Democrats, it's a conclusion drawn by Republican officeholders in the southwest as well.



Now, The Washington Post reports that President Obama is planning to speak out on guns in a special address soon, but it's not clear what actions he plans to take or goals he plans to set.

President Obama is listening. Now's the time to make sure the President and Congress know exactly where we stand.

Please join me now in calling on President Obama and Congress to fix gun check loopholes today

When progressives stand up for our core values of strong communities, security and liberty, America wins.

[nevergiveup]

9. Done

This is common sense stuff. I can't imagine a progressive being against an efficiently run background check system.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. LOL check this thread

Very common sense stuff. But there are those who oppose any additional accountability or enforcement of existing accountability.

[barbtries]

22. this thread is

Whoa! talk about cold dead fingers...34 americans killed by guns every day. oh we do love our guns.

the other day there was a thread about how to discuss the issue with civility. it was, don't do this, don't say that. i did not bother to respond. it was almost comical. i want to know one thing though: when did the NRA become the arbiter of all that is right? i am allowed to disagree!

and now, i will go away again. i hate being shouted down. i can't change their minds and i know damn well they cannot change mine. so be it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Saw that thread

Pretty crazy.

[PavePusher]

53. No-one has said you are not allowed to disagree.

But if you want to debate the issue, you have to bring verifiable facts and evidences and cites to such.

[barbtries]

57. 34 per day.

every day, to the tune of 4,000 a year.

and i don't HAVE to do anything.

[X_Digger]

58. 123 per day (45,000 per year) .. in auto accidents. n/t

[PavePusher]

66. Yeah, we can't talk until you can do basic math and cite your source.

Good luck with that.

Sigh...:eyes:

[krispos42]

82. 12,000 a year, give or take

Of course, if we lower the overall homicide rate, the number of people killed with guns should drop in a roughly proportional manner.

[PavePusher]

52. You either misunderstand peoples objections...

or you are deliberately mis-stating them.

It has been explained to you many times.

[Maine_Nurse]

18. The background check part of the system already works

it is the front end that fails.

Our legal system, at its most basic level, makes the background check portion weak. When you have prosecutors regularly making instant plea bargains dropping felonies to misdemeanors as a way to save time and money, the logical result is that these should-be-felons will not be prohibited from legally purchasing and possessing firearms. This has nothing to do with firearms laws, they work fine, and everything to do with the other laws that are being bypassed.

[hack89]

38. His facts are wrong

I refuse to give up my civil rights to someone who doesn't bother to take the time to understand the issue. Is that really an unreasonable position?

[hack89]

12. No thanks.. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Glad to sign it...

But the Second Amendmentists of the world will go apeshit at the very thought of people being responsibile.

[barbtries]

20. i will sign

and will pass it on.

[CountAllVotes]

21. K&R!

:kick: & recommend.

[-..__...]

28. How much privacy are you willing to sacrafice?

What mental health records and/or evaluations should be included?

Only court ordered (non-voluntary), evaluations and committals; or... should voluntary commitments be included as well?

Who should be able make any determination regarding a persons mental status?

Only qualified/licensed mental health professionals or should any medical practitioner, police chief, college administrator, etc be allowed to submit their concerns to the NIC's as well?

What about an appeals process?

If after a few years have passed, and a person is reevaluated as being of sound mind, should their name be removed from the NIC's database and that persons full 2nd amendment rights restored (FTR... an appeals process was put in place years ago, but due the inefficiency of Congress, it was never funded).

The NRA won't be the only organization to express concerns about mental health records and background checks.

If and when any bill that seeks to improve the background check system is filed, expect the greatest opposition to come from mental health officials and/or privacy advocates.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. What good is Christina Green's privacy to her now?

[-..__...]

49. Here's a suggestion that might have prevented her death.

Establish a law that grants schools, colleges, universities (and employers), the authority to order students, faculty, employees to undergo professional psychiatric evaluation if they receive reports of unusual, odd or aggressive behavior.

If the person is determined to be of sound mind, no further action will be taken.

If the person is determined to have issues that could jeopardize public safety, that info will be forwarded (and kept on file), to the FBI/NIC's system, local police and school administration/employer so that they are aware of any potential problems.

Failure or refusal to be evaluated can result in dismissal, termination or suspension.

Sound outrageous?

Of course it does, but at least Loughner's problematic history would be in the database and Christina Green's privacy would be a moot issue.

Like I posted... how much privacy are you willing to sacrifice (think of the children before you answer)?

[one-eyed fat man]

59. why don't you blame

his parents, the girlfriend, the buddy who was all over the TV saying as soon as he heard the first news report he "KNEW" Loughner was the shooter.

They have been telling every one who will listen they knew he was crazy. NOW!!!!

Not a damn one of them thought he was crazy enough to tell the FBI.

Y'all have such damn perfect vision LOOKING back.

And he didn't buy his guns at a gun show. That's just a little crap thrown in to add to the beat while you're dancing in the blood.

“Never Let a Good Crisis Go To Waste” - Rahm Emanuel

[beevul]

60. Perhaps you should hear the words of her father before envoking her name in your own support.

John green:

"we don't need any more restrictions on our society"

"If we live in a country like the United States where we are more free than
anywhere else, we are subject to things like this happening, and I think thats the price we have to pay."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ir9437zO0

As he ended the NBC interview, he defended America's freedoms.

"This shouldn't happen in this country or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this," Green said. "So I prefer this to the alternative."

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/arizona-shooting-youn...

Just a thought.

[PavePusher]

61. Thank You. n/t

[RSillsbee]

68. The Bixby letter

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming... I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

[krispos42]

83. The 3,000 people that died on 9/11 didn't justify torture

Waving the bloody banner to force the reduction of constitutional, civil, and human rights is wrong, regardless of who does it.

In this particular case, I do support a background check for all gun purchases, but not in the manner of forcing all purchasers to hunt down an FFL and pay a fee to transfer a gun.


I have what I think it a good idea that I will post as an OP in the Gungeon sometimes tonight... I don't have time now, as I have to go to work.

[PavePusher]

54. Actually, IIRC, the appelas process...

was deliberately not funded.

[L0oniX]

30. It's already the law in Florida ...hey go figure ...Florida.

[crim son]

32. Signed.

Duh.

[X_Digger]

34. Make sure states enter records into NICS? Sure.

Expanding the list of prohibited persons to include those NOT adjudicated mentally incompetent or a danger to themselves or others? Oh HELL no.

Force private sellers to register their guns with the state, so that I can't give my son a firearm without engaging the services of an FFL? Not going to happen.

[upi402]

36. Trade law and media reform are urgent, this is for show -NO n/t

[blondeatlast]

37. Proud to be reasonable--done and k/r. nt

[RSillsbee]

40. I'm sure you've heard "When hell freezes over'?

Hell will freeze solid before I sign that petition

[lawodevolution]

43. I hope they fight hard for this useless piece of legislation that will be overturned in the courts

due to being unconstitutional meanwhile we continue to advance real gun rights. Please waste as much time and money on this stupidity as you can.

[lawodevolution]

44. self delete

[lepus]

47. I can say that this is not going to fly and will cost a lot of votes.

1) Get all the names of people who should be prohibited from buying guns into the background check system.

Who should be denied? Is it based on law? Are those of us of darker skin going to be arbitrarily denied? Can you guarantee it ever be politicized or made public?

Even the mental health runs into issues. I do have a right to privacy from the government, this is the foundation of Roe vs Wade. Unless I am forcibly committed, than it is no ones business but my own. Likewise, a mandatory reporting system for mental health would likely be excessively invasive and deter people from seeking the help they need.

The VA already ran into this when one of their gun controllers entered 20,000 veterans into the system because of PTSD.

2) Require a background check for every gun sale in America.

This requires the government to violate the interstate commerce clause of the constitution to regulate private sales. It already happens for FFL sales.

That gun show loophole myth that is often bandied about might just as well be the garage sale loophole.

In my estimation, all this law would do is cost votes. It can be spun way too easily by republicans and many centrists who are already suspicious after the assault weapon ban fiasco.

Most of the problem people are already in the NICs system and do not buy their guns from dealers. I don't think the guy that sells them their guns out of his trunk cares too much about background checks either.

[DissedByBush]

48. Can I sign a petition for requiring checks before Dean talks? n/t

[Khan Descend]

55. No, I can't support that at all.

If current law were followed in the right way, #1 would already be in effect but #2 is absolutely not acceptable. Not now, no how and not ever.

[saras]

56. Killing isn't about 'mental health'

The decision of who should be shot without criminal charges or trial isn't a 'mental health' issue. It's a political issue. Some think that women ought to be able to shoot potential rapists in self-defense, but who draws the line as to what is 'potential'? Everyone who is inappropriate sexually isn't necessarily a rapist. Others think that people ought to be able to shoot potential burglars, but who draws the line as to what is 'potential'? Everyone who might be on private property illegally isn't necessarily a burglar.

Personally, I would trust pretty much anyone I've ever heard advocate for better gun control before I would put more trust in the corporate mental health system. Because, under the current system, most progressives who think our government behaves illegally would be found to be not sane, while right-wingers who threaten public officials, doctors who give abortions, tax collectors, etc. are generally considered to be sane.

At this point, I think it ought to be the responsibility of those who support the private ownership of guns outside of a militia (preferably publicly regulated - not either private or government controlled) to come up with a workable system to remove guns from those who clearly can't be trusted with them - without violating the rights of people whose opinions they merely disagree with. Labeling people 'mentally ill' is clearly not a workable system.

[PavePusher]

62. "I think it ought to be the responsibility of those who support the private ownership of guns"

Umm, no. That's not how it works. You want it? You work up the proposal.

Those of us who favor civilian ownership of firearms, in clear concordance with the Constitution, have proposed many things already, mostly to do with enforcing existing laws.

[oneshooter]

64. Not the Militia shit again. n/t

[slackmaster]

75. Welcome to DU. I suggest that you study the actual laws concerning the use of deadly force.

The states differ in details, but in all cases there has to be some kind of "reasonable" fear of impending death or bodily injury before you can shoot someone.

In my state (California) you are protected from prosecution if you use deadly force"

...in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein...

Read and learn.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

BTW, the militia is the people.

[DonP]

65. Aw hell no, it's wrong, dumb and as pointless as all those other internet petitions

I like Howard, but whoever talked him into slapping his name on this turkey did him a great disservice.

Come up with a solution to getting mental health records into NICS that the ACLU thinks will work constitutionally, and you got me. This is just more feel good BS.

[pipoman]

69. You have essentially stated and shown

the dishonesty here. Why can't these people simply be honest?

1. They believe the American people, Dems in particular, are too stupid to understand the difference between a gun show and a private sale, which should insult all of our intelligence.

2. They are being deliberately dishonest in an attempt to fool you and others into believing a lie, then demand action based on that lie, which should insult all of our intelligence.

To the point. Private, intrastate sales of legal personal property cannot be policed by the Federal government. There is no precedent and to set one would be dangerous on other levels. OTOH, states can legislate all private sales be subject to a BG check, though few do there are some which do require this. Two lines in the existing FFL guidelines followed by a public awareness campaign could go a very long way to solving this problem.

Something to the effect:

All FFL holders are required to perform, within a reasonable time, an NICS check for private firearm sales upon request. The fee for this mandatory service will not exceed $20. Failure to do so will result in revocation of FFL.

Then a public awareness campaign, including NICS checkpoints at all gun shows. The vast majority of gun owners who sell an occasional gun from their collection (which is really what we/they are talking about) would take advantage of the voluntary opportunity to be sure their buyer is eligible to buy a firearm. Tie to this a limit of liability for any sale made to any person who later used the gun in commission of a crime if NICS was used in the transfer and a lot of this problem vanishes...also more states would likely make NICS mandatory under these conditions.

But, alas, they really aren't interested in answers, just lies, distortions, and demonization....oh and losing elections for Dems..

[Callisto32]

79. I think the RKBA folks around here should take a page from your book...

and continually harp for public access to NICS.

[virginia mountainman]

70. I can assure you, that I, as a life long Democrat

That I, will NOT SIGN, and I WILL ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST ANY PERSON THAT ADVOCATES such misleading legislation from the likes of Republican Bloomberg...

I will also help to organize and mobilize resistance to such laws, and help to unseat reps that even GIVE LIP SERVICE to such a law...NO MATTER POLITICAL PARTY...

My colleagues and I have had much success in the past over this sort of issue, if they refuse to accept history's lesson on this issue, they are unfit to serve in public office.

My loyalties are for this Nation, and my family, NOT a political party.

[Tejas]

71. Please enable ActiveX and Remote Access to your PC......

That way, if your PC is stolen and the thief uses it to access the intarwebz, we can recover your PC for you.....after all, we are here to help you. ;)

[Abq_Sarah]

72. No,.

[Euromutt]

73. Loughner passed the NICS check. Twice.

He bought two guns, both from a Type 01 Federal Firearms Licensee, who ran NICS checks as required on both sales. Invoking the Tucson shooting to push this agenda point, when in fact the two have nothing to do with each other, is pretty fucking ghoulish.

[Union Scribe]

94. Exactly. Very well put.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. And here's what the head of MAIG is doing: Bringing back patronage hiring

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x190992

Bloomberg wants to return the civil service to the old patronage system

Hannah Bell (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-13-11 04:55 AM
Original message
Bloomberg wants to return the civil service to the old patronage system
Edited on Thu Jan-13-11 04:57 AM by Hannah Bell
The self-proclaimed Emperor doesn't like the Civil Service System that was established in 1883 which was set up to eliminate favoritism, nepotism, and patronage when hiring, firing, and promoting government employees.

The Mayor4Life selected a hand-picked group of friends and executives to revamp the Civil Service System to bring back the very abuses that was the reason for the Civil Service System in the first place.

This elitist group was called the Workforce Reform Task Force and its mission was to reduce worker protections under the Civil Service system. Mayor Bloomberg did not see fit to include any union leaders in the group and made sure the unions were kept in the dark about the task force and did not know about the report until the New York Times brought attention to it. Predictably, the unions were very upset about not being involved in the process and have formed a united front to stop any of the Bloomberg proposals that require State approval to see the light of day.

One of the major reforms Mayor Bloomberg wants is to eliminate the "last in, first out" requirement for City teachers and changes to the Taylor Law making it easier for the City to use department seniority, rather than total seniority to determine layoffs. This would allow the City to eliminate whole departments rather than have bumping occur. Predictably the union leaders were very negative to the changes led by the Uniformed Firefighters Association President, Steve Cassidy who was disgusted with the secrecy of the task force and said had the union been included in the discussions, maybe common ground could have been found for the union to support some of the 23 recommendations.

[kudzu22]

76. So you want me to urge the party to push legislation

that does nothing to make us safer, is probably unconstitutional, and gives moderates one more reason to vote for Sarah Palin? Um, sure. Where do I sign?

[Common Sense Party]

88. +100 n/t

[Glassunion]

81. Nope...

[YllwFvr]

84. i think not

[oneshooter]

85. HA! HA! HA! You funny person!!! n.t

[Spoonman]

86. Dear Howard,

Fuck your petition, and the horse that shit it out!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

87. I don't think congress has the power to regulate intrastate sales...

It's a state-powers issue. When you sell a gun from your private collection to you neighbor... it does not involve interstate commerce. I don't see what power congress has to regulate all sales of firearms.

[Euromutt]

89. Under the same rationale as in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, I suspect

After all, when your neighbor buys a gun off you, he's not buying a gun from an FFL, so it affects interstate commerce by not affecting interstate commerce, therefore Congress has the power to regulate it. QED.

Even though that's obvious bullshit, that was in effect the federal government's argument in the two cases mentioned in the subject line.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

90. but in the two cases cited, the product in question was a required commodity.

People have to eat and livestock needs fed... so if they don't buy from their neighbor they have to buy it from someone else. Therefore somewhat directly affecting IC.

I would argue that buying (or not buying) a firearm from you neighbor does not necessarily affect IC because the buyer is not compelled by necessity to purchase from at least some other source. Buying a gun is purely an extraneous choice. In fact, the case could even be made that some people buy used firearms intrastate because they DON'T want to buy from a dealer and have a record of their sale recorded (anonymity). Such a case would not affect IC.

So between my reasoning, and the fact that the commerce clause reasoning is bullshit anyways, I don't believe that Congress has that power.

[Euromutt]

93. Gonzales v. Raich was about (medical) marijuana

A crucial element of the government's case was that the Controlled Substances Act does not recognize a medical use for marijuana; it thus follows that it could not, in the government's view, be a required commodity.

Clarence Thomas argued in his dissent:

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

I might not like Thomas very much, or his political views, but I will grant him that he's not a "fair weather constructionist" (read: hypocrite) like Scalia.

Anyway, FWIW, I don't think the federal government has the authority either; I'm just pointing out that's never stopped them before.

[beevul]

92. Nope.

No more free gun control.


Offer up something we deem reasonable in return, first.