[Delacon]

I don’t know ND. I am as receptive as the next pro gun guy to accusations of encroachment by the federal government but your reply doesn’t do much to convince me that my view of the summaries are incorrect or lacking understanding. You use terms like “implications”, “has the potential” and “In the discussions” to assert that there is sufficient concern for gun rights advocates if this law is enacted. Still as far as I can see, this is a law to facilitate the exchange of information between the states and the federal government, mostly of those who have already been deemed not qualified to own guns by the states. It doesn’t expand or contract the rights of the citizens, as far as I can see. If your concerns are based on how the anti-gun crowd will interpret them, well thats why we have our lawyers and they have theirs and why we count on judges to come up with the right interpretations.

[looscnnn]

Let’s try this, if a person commits a crime (let’s say littering) that is a misdomeanor in one state but a felony in another. Should that person be barred from owning firearms? The bill does not state how to handle such instances, but you can bet that they will side with the felony given the choice. Also, it would expand the list with names of those that have restraining orders which have become boiler-plate (regardless of need) for divorces in some states. If someone moves during a divorce, the restraing order would still affect them.

As neverdem said, look at it from the bad guys point of view. How could it be used against us if Hillary and the Dems are in charge? Where are the holes, where are the grey areas, etc. that can be twisted and reintereted?

If the bill was nothing to worry about, why do a voice vote the way they did? Why not let your name be on record on how you voted, if it a good bill? If it is a good bill, why is the Brady Bunch, McCarthy, Schumer, etc. for it?

It expands the Brady Law (which was considered gun control, isn’t it still?), why isn’t this bill considerd gun control?