POLITICANS; GUTLESS OR TRYING TO KEEP THEIR JOBS

The gun control issue has two sides; you’re either for it or against it. Politicians who should be representing what is the right thing to do whether it goes against the grain of the majority often fall short of doing that and only count votes they may lose toward their re-election.

The NRA is a good example of a group that likes to spend unlimited money to ‘protect’ the rights of Americans to bear arms no matter if they are a nut case, felon, whatever, as long as they can keep their membership.

The U.S. Senate voted down the proposed gun control legislation even after the two political parties reached a softened compromise which really did nothing to stop  legal people from purchasing fire arms except taking a few more steps of scrutiny to purchase their weapons.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, between 1998 and 2009, 1,613,963 people were denied gun purchases, that is only a turn-down rate of 1.7%. 

In Delaware 5,000 felons and mentally disturbed people were turned down since 1994 according to a News Journal editorial. I can only imagine what might have happened if these 5,000 were ‘denied’ their Second Amendment rights?

 

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “POLITICANS; GUTLESS OR TRYING TO KEEP THEIR JOBS

  1. Your true statement that 1,613,963 people were denied gun purchases between 1998 and 2009 only told half the story. According to PolitiFact Wisconsin article dated 1-23-2013, of the 71,000 denials in 2009, there were only 77 who were prosecuted. That says a lot about the rush to pass more gun laws. This feel good, I’m doing something goal does nothing to stop gun crime in this country. Having honest citizens under a microscope will not help. Do you honestly believe that criminals will register their weapons, or is it because you want to feel good that you are doing something?

    Also,your statement that the NRA wants to protect,” nut case, felon, whatever, as long as they keep their membership”, is pure hogwash. Another article in PolitiFact.com, dated 4-17-2013 had Wayne LaPierre, NRA President, saying,” We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale ay every gun show. No loopholes anywhere. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so that the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system. This isn’t new or a change of position, or a concession. I’ve been on record on this point consistently, from our national meeting in Denver, to paid national ads and position papers, to news interviews and press appearances”>

  2. 94% of initial declines are later overturned and the purchases are made. Think of it like the no-fly list, you know, the one that forced Ted Kennedy to miss 5 flights because his name was on the list.. A lot of false positives. These cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped, or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent flagged were still false positives. There is a good reason that neither Toomey nor the president ever cite evidence showing that background checks have reduced crime. There is no such evidence. A 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the Brady background checks didn’t reduce any type of violent crime. Nor have later studies found a beneficial effect.

    Now, lets say I am a woman involved in a domestic abuse situation, trying to leave and in fear for my life. I try to get a gun but am denied based on a false positive. While yes, eventually I can appeal and may be able to buy a gun, but what happens in the meantime. In Delaware, thanks to the useless law HB35 making its way through the legislature, I won’t even be able to borrow one from a known friend while waiting.

    Expanded background checks might intuitively seem to make sense. But how laws work in theory is often different from how they work in the real world. These feel good laws are useless, accomplish nothing and potentially falsely deny an otherwise law abiding citizen the constitutional right to defend oneself.

    Also, I was in attendance at the HB35 hearing when the SBI Detective stated 3,000 denials. As usual, the News Journal gets it wrong. No surprise there.

  3. Here’s another example of why background checks and more specifically, our own HB35 are bad ideas. In Watertown, MA right now cops are warning, amid gunshots, sirens, and explosions, residents to stay inside and not to answer the door unless it is clearly a police officer. There have even been a few short periods when cell phone service has been interrupted. The authorities are combing the area for an armed terrorist who’s brother died in a gun battle with police. Obviously this guy has no concern for your life.

    Now, say I don’t own a gun but I’m feeling very vulnerable right now. I could go buy one, but with mandatory background checks in place it could take several days. My neighbor has several and has offered one for my use for a few days, but, since we are stuck back at the mandatory background check issue, it would make a felon out of both of us. Do I obey the law, risking my and my families life, or do I commit a felony and borrow my neighbors gun?

    Unfortunately, logic is completely lost on the gun control advocates.

  4. If the liberals in charge would of let Immigration do their job, than the oldest bomber would of been deported in 2009 for the assault charge. However, because the current government policy and Mass, is a safe haven state (Obama’s Aunt) for illegal aliens no action was taken. Remember they want to restrict guns from those legally allowed to have them because of the action of some. But we are not allowed to act against Muslims because of the action of a few. I believe they have killed more Americans in their acts of terror than those acts committed by guns.

    I believe it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

  5. The problem with denying felons and crazies the natural right to own weapons is who’s doing the denying: The state. The government. The group of people with the most weapons and power.

    When one group of people decides who else is allowed to be armed, tyranny and genocide are inevitable.

  6. The Government does not want to prevent tragedies from happening because they love the Power and, the Glory that is given to them by the foolish part of the population when they step in after the fact and make a bigger mess by attempting to justify making more laws that cannot be enforced because of the tragedies! TRUE!! And don’t think for one minute that the Government COULD have prevented some of these tragedies and, was probably part of some of them!

  7. Frank, part of the problem is that the State is great about recording an arrest but not so much about recording the outcome. The whole system has more holes than a sieve. Some true stories that I’ve been involved in as an attorney. Back in the early 1980s a local man was arrested for a burglary (a felony). When the matter came to court for his preliminary hearing it was determined that the proper charge should have been a criminal trespass (a misdemeanor). The man never got in trouble again. Fast forward 25 years, despite having bought several firearms over the years (all with background checks) the man is “flagged” when he attempts to purchase a shotgun. The appeal process is so cumbersome that it took almost a year to finally get the feds to decide that he wasn’t a person prohibited,
    Second story, a local gentleman, who has purchased many firearms over the years, all with background checks,(for many years he also has held a valid license to carry a concealed deadly weapon which also requires an extensive background check) is suddenly turned down when he too attempted to purchase a shotgun recently. The only explanation he is given by the FBI is that their computer “flagged” him because of something in Pennsylvania. The FBI can’t tell him when or why he showed up in the Pa system. Believing that it must be a case of mistaken identity the gentleman travels to Dover and goes through the expense of being fingerprinted by our State Bureau of Identification and submits his fingerprints to the FBI. The FBI says that his fingerprints match the “flagged” prints but still can’t tell the gentleman why he was flagged. The gentleman remembered being arrested for a DUI in Pa in 1978. Now a DUI, especially one 34 years old is no disqualification to owning or possessing a firearm but also is very rarely fingerprinted. It turns out that the man’s wife was mad at him and didn’t want to pick him up so the police parked him at the local jail for the night. The jail fingerprinted him and thus he ended up in the system (with apparently no reason given for him being in there in the first place).The gentlemen is still trying to get the FBI to lift its rejection.
    Third story, this doesn’t involve an attempt to purchase a firearm but rather a young ladies attempt to “clear” her record. A woman in her late 20s contacted me because she had been turned down for a job after a record check. Seems that her state Bureau of Identification (SBI) had a notation “Mental Patient”. When she was 16 years old, after her boyfriend broke up with her, She tearfully said something to the effect “I don’t want to live anymore”. Her concerned mother called the police and she was transported to one of the up state facilities. It was determined that she didn’t really want to harm herself or anyone else and in less than 48 hours she was home again.. While her issue was employment, under the Delaware law she would be turned down if she was attempting to purchase a firearm.
    Frank, the percentage of the 5,000 rejections, here in Delaware, that are truly “persons prohibited” is infinitesimal in comparison to the number of citizens who have had their 2nd Amendment rights infringed upon because of shoddy record keeping by the government.

  8. I understand as Herman alluded to that the government has had their share of mishaps when it comes to processing. But in the case of the lady who said she didn’t what to live, that is a catch-22 situation; although deemed not mentally incompetent, don’t you think a person with that frame of mind could ‘go off’ sometime; now it’s unemployment next her spouse leaves her. I understood in elections determining a person mentally incompetent was difficult to determine if they were eligible to vote, and I imagine it’s the same with obtaining a fire arm.

    • Frank, re read what I wrote. She was 16 years old at the time of the incident. She was 28 when she discovered that the State of Delaware labeled her a Mental Patient. It took trained, experienced mental health professionals, (Drs, nurses and social workers) less than 48 hours to determine that she wasn’t a threat to herself or anyone else). Don’t get me wrong, if her mother knew her well enough to be concerned it certainly was appropriate to look into it. On the other hand, is it right that the incident have any impact whatsoever on her life after she was cleared by the doctors?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s