DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Gun rights advocates rally at state capitols across U.S.

Gun rights advocates rally at state capitols across U.S.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...-u-s/518099002/

INDIANAPOLIS — Gun rights supporters — some carrying rifles and ammunition — rallied at state capitols across the country Saturday to emphasize their views in a debate heightened by the deadly Florida school shooting earlier this year and the national protests that followed.

Hundreds of people gathered at the Indiana Statehouse, saying they disagree with those who have called for a repeal of the Second Amendment and for limits on gun rights. To Saturday's participants, the right to bear arms isn't given by the Constitution but simply protected by it, organizer Bill Slike III said.

"We're sympathetic to the fears of ... the people who want to take guns away, who want to ban things, but when you look at the details of what the actual proposals are, they aren't going to do what people think they're going to do," Slike said. “There's a great, huge misconception about what the proposed laws actually would do.

Slike said the Indiana rally was organized by a small group who invested their own money to make it happen.

At a pro-gun-rights gathering Saturday in Atlanta, more than a quarter of the estimated 160 rallygoers carried weapons, as well as flags and signs saying “Don’t Tread On Me” as they listened to speakers talk about the right to bear arms. A few people wearing “Black Lives Matter” T-shirts showed up at the rally and made videos, but didn’t interact with the rallygoers.

Protesters also showed up in Boston; Montpelier, Vt.; Albany, N.Y.; Austin, Texas, Des Moines; and other cities.

Saturday’s protests were planned in dozens of state capitols less than three weeks after hundreds of thousands marched in Washington, New York and elsewhere to demand tougher gun laws after the February school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17. Organizers of those protests demanded a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and called for universal background checks on potential gun owners.

The coalition behind the gun rights rallies describes itself as a collection of patriotic-based groups that “come from all walks of life, including Three Percent groups and local militias.”

The Three Percent movement vows to resist any government that infringes on the U.S. Constitution. Its name refers to the belief that just 3 percent of colonists rose up to fight the British.

Such groups lack the following of more mainstream Second Amendment advocates such as the National Rifle Association.

A group called the National Constitutional Coalition of Patriotic Americans spread word of Saturday’s gatherings on social media.

About 500 people gathered at the peaceful Indianapolis event, which encouraged participants to bring their guns — unloaded — but keep them off government complex grounds, in accordance with the law.

Some of the signs at the rally were familiar, including images of the Confederate flag and early American patriots' symbol of a coiled snake with the words "Don't Tread on Me."

But there were other signs, too, including one that read "If the 2nd (Amendment) doesn't apply to semi-automatic rifles today, then the first doesn't apply to the phone, TV and computers."

One man also held a hand-made sign that read "Two things I will die for are my sons and my guns."

A sweet new Thread begins!

Now once again we can discuss something that matters!

Membership in Gun Groups Is Spiking After the Florida Shooting

http://time.com/5176471/national-rifle-association-membership-florida-shooting/

The National Rifle Association and its allies have found their political influence under fresh scrutiny as gun control advocates push for new restrictions and corporations sever their ties in the wake of the deadly high school shooting last month in Parkland, Florida. But outside the gun control debate in Washington, membership in the NRA and gun rights groups across the country, which includes more than five million Americans, is spiking, according to people familiar with the numbers.

The spike isn’t a surprise, as such increases happen whenever people feel their Second Amendment rights are under threat, and many groups reported similar surges after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. But as gun control groups seek to use the anti-NRA backlash to mobilize their grassroots, recruitment this time seems to have taken on a more urgent tone.

“Wake up people and see what’s happening!!!!,” Charles Cotton, a member of the NRA Board of Directors, wrote on a message board, TexasCHLforum.com, a site described as “the focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions, earlier this week. “[Former New York Mayor Michael] Bloomberg and Hollywood are pouring money into this effort and the media is helping to the fullest extent. We’ve never had this level of opposition before, not ever. It’s a campaign of lies and distortion, but it’s very well funded and they are playing on the sympathy factor of kids getting killed. If you really want to make a difference, then start recruiting NRA members every single day.”

“The NRA better be 15 million strong soon, or this is only going to get worse,” Cotton, who didn’t respond to a request for comment, added on the message board.

Representatives from over a dozen gun rights organizations and shooting associations in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia told TIME they have seen membership rise since the Feb. 14 shooting left 17 dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. And two people familiar with the workings of the NRA, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss membership numbers, said that since the shooting the NRA has also seen more people than usual join, renew memberships or donate money as President Donald Trump and other Republican Party leaders have signaled an openness to gun control policies that are anathema to the powerful group. A spokesperson for the NRA, which says on its website that it has more than five million members, didn’t respond to requests for comment.





Dudley Brown, the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, estimated his organization — which claims more than 4.5 million “members and supporters” on its website — estimated online membership applications at his organization could have grown by 30% over the last week, a number he expected to rise after Trump this week called for comprehensive gun reform legislation, including raising the age limit for buying certain weapons to 21. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League, which has a membership of almost 29,000 people, said it typically gets 15 or 20 applications a week, but received almost 200 in the last week. Gun Owners of America, which says it has 1.5 million members, amassed “hundreds” of new members in the last week, according to an official at the organization familiar with membership numbers who spoke on condition of anonymity. The organization said it has seen it’s membership grow by thousands since the Las Vegas shooting last October. Don Turner, the President of the Nevada Firearms Coalition and NRA member, estimated membership renewals and requests had increased by 20 percent at his organization since Parkland, although this is an increase he said he did not witness after the shooting in Las Vegas.



After the deadly 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, when the gun control debate also reached a fever pitch, the NRA said it had gained 100,000 members in 18 days; NRA executive Wayne LaPierre announced that May that the organization’s membership had reached 5 million, although that claim is impossible to independently verify since membership rolls and figures are not publicly released. NRA tax filings from 2013, published by ProPublica, show that in 2013, overall revenue increased by more than 35% from the previous year, with a nearly $10 million increase in contributions. Revenue from membership growth from 2012 to 2013 increased by nearly $70 million, and the percentage of membership dues contributing to total revenue growth increased from 42 percent to 50 percent, the tax filings show.

Experts who closely watch gun rights groups said that while the NRA has remained silent about its membership numbers after the latest shooting, the rise in membership of other groups demonstrates the grassroots mobilizing power that is key to the NRA’s influence. “It’s not just a gun lobby, it’s much bigger than that,” said Scott Melzer, a sociology professor at Albion Colege who has spent almost a decade researching the NRA and is the author of Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War. “It relies on the support of a very large and activist membership base, and that base and that movement is connected to the broader conservative movement.”

Gun rights activists said the membership increase is also fueled by a feeling that public rebukes such as corporations ending partnerships with the NRA are simply publicity stunts. “There is no one. NO ONE. Who joins the NRA for a discount on a rental car,” Cleta Mitchell, an NRA member and former Oklahoma state lawmaker who sat on the NRA’s board from 2002 to 2013, said in an email. She was referring to Hertz ending its discount program for NRA members.

The Left keeps telling us the world is changing and they are right.

Trouble is, they ain't gonna like the change one bit.

The 15 minutes of fame is over it seems shame they got used like that.

I support their rights to have their voices heard.

I have zero problems with these marches, good for them

As well as their right to bear arms. As long as they do it peacefully.

Right, and people have the right to protest and ask for reform of gun control laws, but for some reason, you along with many others got all in a tizzy about it .

Commentary: African-Americans for gun rights: Blacks embrace Second Amendment

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-blacks-embrace-second-amendment-20180228-story.html

The evil massacre of 17 innocents at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland two weeks ago reinvigorated the national debate over gun rights and gun control; however, the debate has largely excluded African-American voices.

Despite its reputation for being apathetic to black life, the National Rifle Association has tens of thousands of black members. The National African-American Gun Association has 20,000 members and has grown from four chapters in 2016 to 30 chapters in 2017. Gun sales among African-Americans significantly spiked after the Charleston church massacre and election of Donald Trump.

One vital root cause of mass shootings curiously eludes public discussion: violent white extremist ideology. White supremacists murder more people through gun violence than any other domestic extremist group. Violent white extremist groups and actors, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVey, Charleston murderer Dylan Roof, and Parkland accused killer Nikolas Cruz, are American born and bred. What are we feeding them?

Does anyone doubt that when swastikas and Confederate flags offend Americans more than hijabs and skull caps, mass shootings will decrease?

African-Americans arguably have the richest tradition of gun-rights advocacy despite being targeted by and resisting local, state and federal gun-control measures since before America’s founding. The 1792 Uniform Military Act restricted militia service by excluding black men from joining. White fears that free blacks would rebel and organize slave rebellions proliferated violent search, seizure and punishing arms control law.

For example, the sale of firearms to enslaved people was unlawful in Florida. In 1825, when Florida was a U.S. territory, it adopted a gun-control law aimed at disarming free blacks. It created white citizen patrols with the power to search and seize arms and other weapons in “all Negro houses” and mandated that blacks could only use a firearm “in the presence of a white person.” It tightened said restrictions in 1831 and 1833. After Florida became a state, in 1846 and 1861 it permitted white patrols to summarily punish any blacks — free or enslaved — in possession of a firearm.

Further restrictions on black ownership of guns and racial conflict in the late 19th and early 20th centuries set the stage for the massacre and destruction of entire black communities such as Rosewood and Ocoee in Florida and in Colfax, La., and Tulsa, Okla. ln self-defense African-Americans were forced to establish private self-defense militias. Violent white extremism reached a zenith after the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dredd Scott v. Sanford ruling that “neither free blacks nor slaves could be citizens” of the country, setting the normative order for black codes intended to disarm and regulate African-Americans.

The 1874 Cruikshank decision essentially held that the federal government had no authority to prevent hate crimes (lynchings and murders) of blacks by violent white militia groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and White League. This case concerned the 1873 Colfax Massacre (Louisiana) where violent white extremist groups slaughtered 100 black male Republicans seeking to vote.

Black history demonstrates that African-Americans overwhelmingly embrace the Second Amendment and endorse the use of firearms for self-defense. Armed black citizens regularly guarded nonviolent civil-rights activists from Mississippi to Calfornia. James Farmer, the late head of the Congress for Racial Equality praised the 900-strong Deacons for Defense and Justice for providing him with armed protection from the Klan.

The Black Panthers were the pioneers of America’s modern gun-rights movement. From several armed slave rebellions such as Nat Turner’s (1831) to Malcolm X — recalling the Ebony magazine photo of him holding an M-1 carbine assault rifle — African-Americans have a tradition of gun-rights advocacy despite gun violence in urban America.

When the Black Panthers embraced gun rights in California, the state Assembly, with NRA support, speedily adopted the Mulford Act aimed at banning blacks from publicly carrying firearms in public places. Some 40 years later, Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old black grandfather seeking to protect himself from criminals, successfully argued that the Second Amendment right to carry firearms applied to states, defeating an ordinance that sought to ban private handgun ownership in private residences in Chicago, also known as “Chi-Raq.”

African-Americans have been pioneering gun-rights advocates and owners since before America’s founding. Our history of combating anti-black violence dictates that we cannot not adopt the privileged ideals of liberal white gun-control advocates and should be suspicious of those who argue otherwise.

There is a very good reason why Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X owned firearms. I understand. I’ve been a member of the NRA for years.

I don't get all tied up in it.


I have a couple of shotguns, long rifle, and 3 sidearms.



I am not going to give them up no matter what.

That said, I am good if a law was passed that you had to be 21 to buy one.


At the same time, you shouldn't be able to vote until you can buy liquor and be able to buy a weapon.

Well then there's that pesky little detail about being old enough to fight and die for your country that puts a fly in that ointment.

Can someone tell me who these people are that are calling for the repeal of the second amendment?

Totally disagree with that. If 18 is old enough to serve in the military according to the gov't then 18 is old enough to vote for the leaders that send them into harms way.

Justice Stevens Wants to Repeal the Second Amendment. Here’s Why That's So Hard

http://time.com/5216962/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/

Why The Left Will Finally Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/02/left-will-finally-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/

Retired Supreme Court Justice Wants Second Amendment Repealed

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...t-repealed.html

One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment to be repealed, national survey finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...m=.830f3517c0b4

One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment to be repealed, national survey finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

They are like snowflakes trying to make an inch.

Is that the same poll that had Hillary winning the 2016 election?

Protesters interrupt speech by gun rights advocate at UT

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2018/04...cate-at-UT.html

The lights went dark, and for a moment tensions escalated while Larry Pratt, executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America, spoke at the University of Toledo.

When the lights were turned back on, after being flicked off for the second time, Julian Mack, a local activist, abruptly shouted, “It is ignorant to have this event at the same time 50 years after Martin Luther King was shot.”

Someone approached Mr. Mack and left the room repeating, “Hands up, don’t shoot.” As he walked out of the room, a group of protesters in the hall joined him in chanting. Mr. Pratt remained calm, tried to respond to Mr. Mack, and continued with his speech.

The UT Young Americans for Liberty invited Mr. Pratt, a gun rights advocate, to speak Wednesday evening at the UT student union.

Mr. Pratt has held elective office in the Virginia legislature, serving in the House of Delegates, according to Gun Owners of America’s website. He has also appeared on national radio and television networks, including CNN, NBC, and Fox, where he has debated Democratic lawmakers and former Vice President Al Gore.

In the wake of the recent shootings, Jori Schlievert, chapter president of UT’s Young Americans for Liberty, said she wanted people to have an opportunity “to hear from the other side.”

“We think gun-free zones are more of a hurt than a help,” she said. “There are no safety measures in that.”

During his speech, Mr. Pratt touched on the most recent push for gun reform legislation.

“Since 1950, when we began taking account of mass murders that occur in our country, 98 percent of our mass murders have taken place in gun-free zones,” he said.

“The absence of guns in schools in the right hands has been leading to mass murder since Columbine.”

Protesters stood outside the room where Mr. Pratt spoke. Cindy Matthews, one of the protesters, carried a sign that read: “Protect Kids not Guns.”

“We need to protect our children,” she said.

Large numbers of protesters, outraged by the recent massacre at a South Florida high school, took to the streets in Washington, D.C., Toledo, and around the world calling for action against gun violence last month in a “March For Our Lives” rally.

Throughout the evening, Mr. Pratt provided historical references and anecdotes to emphasize the importance of the Second Amendment.

Mr. Pratt’s appearance comes two weeks after the university allowed the UT College Democrats to hang a banner in the student union depicting President Trump wearing a white Klansman’s hood.

In response to the controversial banner, UT held a town hall meeting that allowed students to discuss free speech rights and air their grievances or support of the banner.

and if 18 is old enough to yield a weapon in defense of your country, 18 is old enough to yield same defense for your home and person.

Agreed. It's why if we were to talk about reforms and sensible gun control, age limits aren't sensible. Gun access to those with mental health issues are the problem, and we should be proactive about solving that problem. Not repealing 2A, or age limits , or bans on scary guns.

Unfortunately NRA is against any sensible regulations of any kind at all, and we run the risk of going too far in the other direction if/when Democrats gain Congress.

Mental Health and Firearms

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer.”[1]

More recently, the NRA has supported legislation to ensure that appropriate records of those who have been judged mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to mental institutions be made available for use in firearms transfer background checks. The NRA will support any reasonable step to fix America’s broken mental health system without intruding on the constitutional rights of Americans.

Federal Law

Since 1968, federal law has barred the possession or acquisition of firearms by anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”[2]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued regulations that define an “adjudication” as a “determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” This includes a finding of insanity or incompetency in a criminal case.[3]

“Committed to a mental institution” is defined as a “formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority.” The definition makes clear that “[t]he term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission.” The Supreme Court has held that an involuntary commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that requires due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[4]

A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment. Doing so would actually discourage troubled people from getting the help they need.

Instant Check Improvements

In January 2008, President George W. Bush signed the bipartisan “NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.”[5] The NRA-supported legislation created incentives for states to upgrade their procedures for timely and accurate reporting of records—including mental health records—to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. All federal firearm licensees are required to check the system (either directly or through a state point of contact) before proceeding with a sale.[6] To accomplish this task, the legislation authorized federal grants to states that improve their record keeping and supply those records to NICS, while also developing procedures under which people who have recovered from mental illness can get their firearms rights restored.

To support state cooperation in providing records, the NRA has worked with lawmakers in many states to pass legislation to implement the federal law. Passage of such legislation, along with other administrative and policy changes at the state level, has allowed states to provide hundreds of thousands of mental health records to NICS since 2008.

In recent years, anti-gun lawmakers have introduced legislation to expand the definition of people barred from possessing firearms to include persons who have simply been ordered to receive counseling. This could include a person whose employer or school administrator orders him to receive counseling as a condition of employment or enrollment, regardless of the outcome of such counseling. Similarly onerous legislation has been introduced in some states. At least one attempt has been made to ban gun ownership by anyone with any recognized diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—an outrageously broad standard that would affect the rights of countless Americans.

Veterans and Mental Health

The danger of overbroad mental health disqualifiers is already clear to tens of thousands of veterans. Veterans and family members who receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs and have simply had personal representatives appointed to manage those benefits are currently labeled as “mentally defective,” reported to NICS and barred from gun possession. Fortunately, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act required federal agencies that make such decisions to provide avenues for legal relief as well.

that is just false gage. The NRA has submitted and noted that they would back ANY regulations against solving that problem. The issue is when bills are submitted, they never clean bills. The left throws in crap amendments and sub sections that no one could stand for. That way, they can point fingers when its voted against.

Why isn't their a ban yet on bump stocks? Same reason.

Link needed for those gun control bills you claim have been submitted to law makers showing the left has thrown crap into it. Thank you.

People talk about this mental health test a though it were some sort of magic bullet. There is no such test. There never will be any sort of test that will predict whether or not someone will go whacky in the future, or tomorrow morning. Whacky right now? What if they believe the earth is flat? You could make a case that being a Browns fan involves a certain amount of depression and delusion.

Psychology is a guessing game, not an exact science.

There are some obvious causes, sure. But take the Cruz kid. No laws were broken. People say crap like that all the time. At what point does it become enough to take away a fundamental right, Recognized but not Granted by the law, away from somebody? Anybody got a Mother-in-law, or ex? Have you by any chance expressed negative feelings about such an individual?

We have several mass murder perpetrators in custody now. Their names and pictures are famous. Why is this allowed? They are still sucking our air, drinking our water, eating our food. Why are they not dead yet?

We make statements and noise about how much we do not like what they did, how totally unacceptable their actions are to all of society. Why are they not dead yet?

Welcome back Greatness.

The second part of your sentence is why the NRA hasn't done much. If the action is to prevent mentally unstable people from owning guns, the NRA would consider that a violation of the 2A rights. If you have a bill that the NRA has publicly sponsored that says I'm wrong, let me know.

the NRA can't have their cake and eat it too. They have made donations to over 100 members of Congress, yet it seems the usual people putting forward legislation on gun control are those who have not received NRA donations. We finally got some action in the GOP Florida congress after Parkland, and even that came with alot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. If the NRA truly cared about getting the guns out of the hands of crazy people, they would lobby those members of congress to enact sensible gun legislation. Instead, they pretend to care while their pocket politicians tweet "thoughts & prayers"

The goal of the NRA is simple: Put a gun in every hand possible, and more if we can. The messaging makes it obvious that they are OK with bad guys having guns; after all only a good guy with a gun can stop them. And the reason this is the goal is because the NRA is a commercial lobby group, not an invidual rights group. Just look at who donates to the NRA. Follow the money.

The last time a gun maker tried to police themselves, the NRA practically drove them out of business! source

Most people understand that mental health testing will not catch everyone. Yet more and more people (myself included) are wondering why we will let anyone walk into a gun store, and as long as they have no priors, collect a firearm. No licensing. No testing. Nothing. We don't even make sure the person knows which way to point the gun.

The understanding that people change over time is a big reason why countries like Japan enforce periodic testing, in an effort to catch someone who may become radicalized or otherwise destabilized over a period of time.

The realistic calculation here is that while you would not catch every perpetrator, you would be able to catch significantly more than with our current system of reactive policing. Reactive in this case usually not being enforced until the person is an active shooter.



If Cruz had to be licensed, trained, interviewed by a sheriff, and submit himself to a mental health evaluation, I find it incredibly unlikely he would have been approved to buy his rifle when he did. As for taking away a fundamental right, that is indeed a larger part of the discussion we're having in this country. I know in the case of incarceration, some states eliminate voting rights for that individual until they are released.



Good question, and one I don't have an answer for at the moment. I'll admit my priority lies with figuring out why we let a mass murderer walk in and out with a highly effective killing tool with no more than a background check, than whether or not they are being terminated by the state.

I don't see the point you're trying to make...define mentally unstable people please who should decide and what tests need to be done to prove "mentally unstable people" the government, private doctor and who pays for the testing?

NRA-backed bill aims to keep guns from the mentally ill

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/nra-backed-bill-aims-keep-guns-mentally-ill-2

He didn't say the right age for all of that was 21, he just said it should be consistent.

We here in the US are very weird about that.. we have ages for consensual sex, ages for driving, ages for drinking, ages for voting, ages for joining the military, ages for buying a gun, ages for renting a car... and many of them are different. It's like we are really really confused as to when a kid becomes "old enough" to make responsible decisions for themselves.

If the 21 gun limit were to pass, we would have determined that you are capable of handling a 3500 lb, 400 horsepower vehicle, that goes 130 mph... 5 full years before you are mature enough to own a hunting rifle... weird.

There's two big monoliths of potential voters - the very young and the very old.

One turns out faithfully, one turns out in more fickle but as potent numbers.

Neither have too many daily responsibilities, so they're free to stand in line where someone say 23-59 may not.

I think a lot of these weirdos terrified of the Hogg child is that they see the dormant threat of the youth vote mobilized.

The point I'm trying to make is simple: We should make it as hard as we can for mentally unstable people to buy or own a gun. I think looking at how we currently provide licensing for restricted items is a good start, and looking at other jurisdictions as well, even international. I think the testing can and should be two fold, with a mental evaluation as well as an interview with a member of law enforcement, such as your local sheriff. The citizen would pay for the tests. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you don't have to pay to exercise that right. I have the right to vote, but I still have to drive to the polling location on my own dime, for instance.

Thanks for the link to the bill. I'm unclear as to why this bill thinks it's a good idea that an individuals right to buy a gun would be restored immediately upon release from commitment, instead of the current system where you have to appeal to a judge. Mainly because commitments only last a few days, so the underlying problems are often still there for the commitment in the first place. An involuntary commitment to hurt yourself or others is one of the most significant markers I could think of that says "that person should not be around a loaded gun." It appears to me that bill narrows the focus instead of expands it...

The cost should be shared a tax.

As far as having local sheriff in Fla. they were notified what 29 times and did nothing, who decides if the sheriff is qualified to make such determinations?

By what I've read the biggest issue has been Due Process before a gun is taken away unless it's a case such as in Fla. where he posted he was going to kill and was reported to police 29 times then a immediate suspension and possible
permanent ban.

I contend that there is a big difference in police being notified of potential misconduct by a person, and requiring that person to go through checks with law enforcement before procuring a license for a firearm. Additionally, I find it curious that even being reported on for misconduct is not enough to automatically log that in your background check. It would go a long way, if anyone who was reported for misconduct, had to verify their status to a sheriff or judge before they can procure a firearm. I think individuals should be afforded ample opportunity to explain themselves, but we should at least question someone with a record (even if just calls) before just handing them a gun.

We owe it to ourselves to treat firearm rights with the same respect we treat actual firearms.

It's about due process this is something that needs to be done right for all concerned.

I believe there was an option in place for the police to take the guys gun in Fla. I'll try to find it if you are really interested.

So I guess innocent until proven guilty would be officially over at this point

From my post earlier above...

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

That's what it sounded like.

But, rest assured - no one is looking to take any guns.

I can absolutely understand why there are some people that are worried about gun control people taking their guns. I mean, right here we have 1 person saying "well, if you've been reported for something, even though it was nothing, it's up to YOU to prove you didn't do what you didn't do.

Justice Stevens Wants to Repeal the Second Amendment. Here’s Why That's So Hard

http://time.com/5216962/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/

Why The Left Will Finally Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/02/left-will-finally-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/

Retired Supreme Court Justice Wants Second Amendment Repealed

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...t-repealed.html

One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment to be repealed, national survey finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...m=.830f3517c0b4

To consider my suggestion a violation of "innocent until proven guilty" is a false equivalence fallacy for many reasons. One, there is no equivalence between someone demonstrating competence to own a gun with the idea that enforcing said competence precludes any guilt. We don't consider someone guilty of vehicular homicide when we force them to get a drivers license, for instance. Secondly, we already keep track of any calls to law enforcement, so in the event a crime is committed we can use that as additional evidence. Using that cross referencing to aid in assessing someones fitment to buy a gun makes sense.

I own several guns including 3 rifles, one an AR-15. I'm certainly not looking to take any guns unless I'm handing over my credit card to pay for it. I just believe our status quo is not working. Look at Vegas. Look at Newtown. Aurora. Parkland. We need to evaluate the best techniques possible to prevent these shootings from happening. I don't believe age limits will work. I don't believe reactionary policies work. We need proactive policies.