House Tempers Background Checks for Guns

Associated Press ^ | Wed Jun 13, 12:58 AM | JIM ABRAMS

[Panzerlied]

WASHINGTON - The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help.

[badboy21224]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll299.xml
Hate crimes bill pass in the the house

[doug from upland]

Maybe Ron should have been there for that vote.

[tiger-one]

My NRA membership is up for renewal, not gonna happen.

[Beagle8U]

(iii) A record that identifies a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance (as such terms `unlawful user’ and `addicted’ are respectively defined in regulations implementing section 922(g)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act) and whose record is not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General under any provision of State or Federal law.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c1100XmHnO:e977:

[Publius Valerius]

It’s now been a few years, so I might be rusty on the details, but about five years ago, a friend of mine and I looked into getting an FFL. As I recall, some of the changes that the Clinton administration made to the licensing procedure made it very difficult to obtain an FFL unless you had a fixed place of business that was not your residence.

Something at which you might want to look further.

[stephenjohnbanker]

They are trying to take our country, and hand it over to Mexico. They sure as hell won’t take our guns too!

[nicmarlo]

The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help.

SECOND AMENDMENT

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

But, what's a little ole Constitution, anyhow's....."it's just a GD piece of paper"

[383rr]

Thanks for the reply. I’ll be checking into that.

[Gondring]

The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul of Texas. He described the bill as “a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms.”

And yet, some Freepers don’t like that guy...

Some FReepers are flagrant Statists...

[M203M4]

America dies from the inside. The damn terrorists just need to sit back and watch Rome fall from within. Disarming citizens, welcoming hordes of invaders, running up enormous debts owed to foreign enemies.

Maybe Ron Paul wouldn’t be so bad afterall.

[green iguana]

Quit being disingenuous. Subsections g and n of Title 18 Section 922 define who cannot own a firearm that has been part of interstate commerce (afaik, legally they can still roll their own.) Subsection n is minor, g is what matters. It reads:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable
by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that
term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to
participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or
threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such
intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that
would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily
injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence,

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.

g(3) refers to the controllled substances act. Find it here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/802.htm

You’ll see it specifically says this:

(6) The term ‘’controlled substance’’ means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Stop making things up B8U!

[Czar]

"But, what's a little ole Constitution, anyhow's..."

These corrupt clowns are picking up speed toward that day when they will discover the Constitution means what it says...

[nicmarlo]

that day when they will discover the Constitution means what it says

You'd think since they swore an oath on the Bible to uphold the Constitution, they'd know exactly what it meant, before they ever stepped foot in their offices....

[tpaine]

Dead Corpse:
You better read it because it says more than that and it will ban far more citizens than just crazy people. If a judge orders any sort of drug treatment you will go on the banned list.

No, it doesn't and won't.
Specifically, it does say: [boilerplate deleted]
green iguana

The point being ignored is that the Congressional ~power~ to make laws infringing on our rights to own arms is being approved and reinforced.

The boilerplate Congress uses to enforce the new 'law', can and will be easily changed.

We all know that, or should.

[Spottys Spurs]

Any links available for the voice vote on this bill?

[Gondring]

I simply would never trust Ron Paul to make the decisions necessary to protect our national interest. They hate us, not for what we have done, Ron Paul, but for what we are. We are what stands in the way of the Islamofascists. You think it through.

Regardless of their reason for hating us, we shouldn't weaken ourselves in a misguided strategy to fight them.

Ron Paul's actions would be in line with the Constitution. I believe the Constitution is one of the strongest barriers against any single group grabbing power in this country, and keeping it strong is the best defense. Nipping away at it is the surest way to open chinks in the armour, allowing the fall of our great Republic.

[tonysamm]

“The bill, as is, is not bad—it simply ensures that people who are adjudicated a danger to themselves or others will be known to the NICS system. That alone I can live with.

But yeah, if they start tinkering with it, things could go South in a hurry.”

Can you say: Assault weapon renewal, semi-auto ban, ugly guns ban, toy gun ban, etc., etc. What makes anyone think that once you give in to any form of gun control, that will appease these socialists? So the chances of things going south are 100% then!

[Beagle8U]

It still looks like something that will be amended through other unrelated laws where it will be abused by liberal judges.

I’m not a lawyer but I don’t trust a law endorsed by the Brady bunch.

[DancesWithCats]

They will legislate gun control thinking that they’re doing something to stop the Chos of this world and it’s incredibly naive. Guns can be found at gun shows, yard sales, private newspaper ads and there is no background checking happening in any of those circumstances. If someone wants a gun, they’ll buy a gun whether or not 18 courts have said ‘no you won’t’ ...

[TheKidster]

I agree with you, I don’t see a problem linking the two systems, but if new “disorders” are added year after year then we do have a problem. I would like to see some sort or time limit just like there is in some states for felons to petition the governor to reinstate thier rights, maybe after a nut shows a few years of stability he can be taken off the blackball list.