Gun Violence Survivors Push For Tighter Restrictions

[jpak]

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/142369477/gun-violence-survivors-push-for-tighter-restrictions

Patricia Maisch, one of the people who helped halt the Tucson shooting that killed six and wounded 13, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, holds up a photograph of victim John Roll, a federal judge, while testifying before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday. Maisch testified in support of legislation that would strengthen federal power over the states' handling of background checks.

Dozens of gun violence survivors and family members of victims traveled to Capitol Hill this week to try to convince lawmakers to pass a bill that would tighten loopholes in the background check system for people who buy firearms.

Supporters of the legislation want to keep guns out of the hands of more criminals, domestic abusers and people who are mentally ill. They say that might have made a difference last January, when a gunman in Tucson, Ariz., killed six people and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, who has been charged in the shooting, is being treated after he was found not mentally competent to stand trial.

<snip>

"Changing the past is impossible, no matter how desperately we want to change it," Maisch told lawmakers. "But it would be a pitiful shame if no action were taken to change the future."

<more>

[jmg257]

1. Isn't there a recent post here complaining about the House passing a federal bill that

would limit state rights/powers by forcing states to comply with a federal law dealing with reciprocity?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x480441

"Maisch testified in support of legislation that would strengthen federal power over the states' handling of background checks."

Now I am confused - do we want federal interference in state powers, or not?

:shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. The prohibitionists very much talk out of both sides of their mouths on this issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x479976#480317

[iverglas]

14. I'm confused too

Is the legislation under which the federal government establishes bars to firearms possession, and sets up the NICS and requires that firearms purchasers from dealers be conditional on queries to NICS showing no bar, ultra vires that government?

That is, is that legislation unconstitutional because it is not within the powers assigned to the federal government? Is it actually "federal interference in state powers" as you seem to imply? I had thought not, and if anyone had thought so, I would have thought they would have challenged the legislation in the ordinary way, in the courts.

If the legislation is not outside the powers of the federal government ... I don't understand your question.

Licensing to carry firearms within a state seems to be a matter intra vires the state government -- a matter within the powers assigned to state governments.

So I'm not seeing any equivalency.

[rrneck]

2. Better watch it.

Sometimes political footballs bounce funny.

[Hoyt]

3. Yes, they do. Good to hear those there speaking against gunners who think answer is more guns.

[rrneck]

5. Right into the hands of Republicans for a touchdown. nt

[ObamaFTW2012]

10. Why is that good?

Do you really believe the way to make lawful citizens safer is to disarm them, knowing full well that criminals - the people MOST likely to use guns to threaten and/or assault others - will not disarm? How does disarming people not inclined to commit crime while failing to disarm those who are inclined to commit crime make people, individually and as a society, safer?

It doesn't.

[spin]

4. Improving the NICS background check as Obama suggested would be a good first step ...

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am

***snip***

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1e5K6eyDV

[jmg257]

6. That is the main component of the bill. Penalties for states that

don't comply in supplying records to the feds. Make colleges implement mental health assesment programs. Expand mental health assesments to include 'compelled services' like counseling. Expand definiton of drug abuser to include an arrest for controlled substance.

And of course force all gun sales through an FFL (or PD).

Started out OK, got a little over-reaching by the end.

[spin]

7. I personally have no problem with opening up the NICS background check for private sales ...

providing that the cost is reasonable and there is no further registration of the weapons than is currently involved in a sale at a gun store.

I will only sell my firearms to a person that I know and he/she has to have a current concealed weapons permit.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. Yawn...

Yet one more bunch of stupid people blaming the tool rather than the criminal.

[Paladin]

15. Yeah, They've Got A Lot Of Fucking Nerve, Don't They?

Just because they've had up close and personal experience with gun violence, they don't share your pro-gun sentiments? Where the hell do they get off? "Stupid people," indeed.


(Sarcasm alert, for those who always seem to need one.....)

[GreenStormCloud]

16. And there are gun violence survivors who are pro-gun.

Just because they've had up close and personal experience with gun violence, they don't share your anti-gun sentiments? Where the hell do they get off? "Stupid people," indeed.

You may want to listen to this survivor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

[Simo 1939_1940]

17. I've been up close and personal to gun violence

(hit by two 9mm ricochets) but I'm not so naive as to believe that trying to "control" firearm ownership among the vast majority of law abiding citizens with do squat to "control" the firearms that end up in criminal hands. I also have a female friend who has been assaulted four times.

If anything, these experiences have made me aware that the only thing a criminal understands is equal or greater force directed at him.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

20. Yep - stupid.

They are blaming the tool, not the problem. Just because they have had "up close and personal experience" does not in any way give them the right to attempt to take away my rights.

The 2nd Amendment is just as sacrosanct as the rest Paladin. Give it up. Your side lost. Get over it.

[SteveM]

9. NPR didn't say who supported this? Anyone know? nt

[burf]

12. This was hearings on Schumer's bill

S 436 in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Link at post below.

burf

[burf]

11. It seems there is a problem with

the NICS.

As a practical matter, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) questioned witness David Cuthbertson of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division on the completeness of felony conviction records being provided to the NICS database. The exchange revealed that only 50 percent of arrest dispositions end up in the federal database. Sen. Sessions went on to infer that it should be of a higher priority that accurate data on convicted felons be available to NICS, explaining that there are already gun laws on the books that should be effectively enforced before the Congress contemplates additional restrictions on a constitutional right.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7179

For those opposed to going to a NRA site, you can listen to the committee webcast at: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=9b6937d5e931a0b792d258d9b33d0484

The hearing was 114 minutes long. If you wanna hear Sessions and Cuthbertson, happy listening.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

19. I do realize that you are a drive by one shot poster

But I have a question about this statement of yours " Ban them all and consficate."

How are you going to pay for them? That pesky Fifth Amendment ya know.

Oneshooter
Armed and livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. You may want to think your suggestion through...

I wont waste the time documenting the idiocy of your suggestion.