[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think you will find all those students (and all others) killed and wounded by AR-15s don’t care if it’s an automatic or semi-automatic rifle - they’re more concerned with living than descriptives.

Since an AR-15 can fire up to 120 rounds a minute, I think the difference to the victims is fairly academic.

Err...I think you are making the argument here, as to why the weapon is irrelevant and yes the students would likely care as to who the lunatic is who is trying to kill them.

I mean if you get run over by a drunk driver the last thing you think is "hmmm, that car goes from o to 60 in 10 seconds, if only there was more regulation on cars being able to accelerate at such a pace"

No..you think "why is that maniac on the road?"

Once your injuries heal, you might call for a tough prison sentence, the same way that tough on crime advocates call for lengthy prison terms and mental health is a massive issue in this.

I mean you wouldn't blame the car in a hit and run issue so why blame the use of a gun in a massacre?

---------- Post added at 04:16 ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

C)Anyone can buy a firearm from a private seller, including at gun shows, without requiring a background check or licensing.

*sigh*

This again?

There is no such thing as the gun show loophole / nothing at all to do with gun shows. Nada, not a thing. Nothing.

If you purchase a firearm from an FFL, irregardless of the location (of said transaction) the FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase the gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on the prospective buyer via the federal NICS database, or confirm that he or she have passed a background check by examining the state-issued concealed carry permit or the government-issued purchase permit of the prospective buyer. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

If an individual purchases a gun across state lines — from an individual or FFL which resides in a different state than the buyer — the buyer must undergo a background check, and the sale must be processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state.

What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state. This is totally absent any issues of locality - it can happen wherever. So long as their residency (of state) matches.

There is no other law or regulation (nor the apparatus) , or precedent for any kind of background check, for any purpose for any sale of any item anywhere in the US, within the same state. And why should there be - interstate commerce is one thing but within the same state?

The 2012 ACA ruling let Roberts force 4 liberal justices of the SC to rule that there was a narrow definition of the commerce clause (but the ACA stood at the time, under the taxing provision of the IRS, since repealed) so even then, 4 liberal high court judges agreed on a narrow definition of the commerce clause (Scalia's famous line of not being forced to eat broccoli) so even at the federal level this one day might be determined unconstitutional, if appealed. Ironically, he was one of the few conservatives who has said that one day gun issues may yet be regulated.

States are free to do so within their own home state, several do:

For all Firearms:

Background checks for private sales:

These all require a background check by FFL:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Nevada [a]
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont

These all go farther and require a state issued permit for all firearms:

Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey

Maryland and PA require background checks for Handguns and state permits for handguns are required in Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and NC.

I am not sure where this idea of a gun show loophole started but it beggars disbelief - there is no merit / accuracy to the story, at all.

I think that it started after this vote:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...n=1&vote=00097

Word then started to spread that there was a gun show loophole, there is no such thing nor has there ever been. Ever.

On a related note - there’s something seriously wrong with a country’s priorities when kindergarteners learn this rhyme (to the tune of ‘Twinkle Twinkle’) - it’s a "lockdown" song in case a shooter comes to their school.

Better to use that as a means of awareness / alert people to the issue (especially kids) than not - no?

I see no problem in this.

---------- Post added at 04:18 ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

The so called gun show loophole is being closed as we discuss and i agree it took too long to close that.

What gun show loop hole????

Argh, there is no such thing!!!!!

---------- Post added at 04:26 ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Maybe the case could be made more strongly if, after each mass shooting where semi-automatics are used, the NRA are subpoenaed before a televised, live, Senate hearing to justify to the American people why they must own such a weapon.

Reading through the rest of your post it sounded like standard anti-gun talking points but I had to reply to this specific part - the NRA do not have to justify why anyone must own a gun of any sort. They purely justify and lobby / explain why the government doesn't have any right or ability to infringe upon any American's right to buy such a gun.

(Btw unless it is in a classified session / behind closed doors, all hearings on Congress are available to the public and are televised just FYI.)

The parents of the deceased are then offered an opportunity to cross-examine the NRA representative.

So they're now Senators, are they? Congress is not a courtroom (even if they do behave like a super judicial branch) and even in a courtroom you don't have the chance to cross examine unless you are counsel / defense attorney or prosecution.