Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Holder starting to impliment obamalama's "exective ideas?"

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Holder starting to impliment obamalama's "exective ideas?"

    http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pe...n-control-push

    The new rules would change that, allowing officials to perform a background check on people who receive those weapons to ensure that they are permitted to own a gun.




    So, they can continue to check, check, check a gun owner infinity times?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I think you are misreading the article. Currently, when the government seizes a firearm and then returns it to its owner, it does not perform a NICS check to see if the owner would still be able to purchase one. They just give it back. Under the EO, Holder wants to institute those checks--which are no better nor worse than the checks performed now. I don't like it, but I'd rather die on the hill of eliminating NICS altogether than to eliminate one tiny subset of those checks.

    I mention this separately only for clarity; the point above was best made talking about only one instance where new background checks are to be instituted. When a firearm is seized and then NOT returned to the person from whom it was seized, but transferred or sold to another person, NICS checks are not done under the current situation. Holder is proposing that the receivers of those firearms also be NICSed.

    The real tragedy is NICS, not the arrangement of these particular deck chairs on it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I think you are misreading the article. Currently, when the government seizes a firearm and then returns it to its owner, it does not perform a NICS check to see if the owner would still be able to purchase one. They just give it back. Under the EO, Holder wants to institute those checks--which are no better nor worse than the checks performed now. I don't like it, but I'd rather die on the hill of eliminating NICS altogether than to eliminate one tiny subset of those checks.

    I mention this separately only for clarity; the point above was best made talking about only one instance where new background checks are to be instituted. When a firearm is seized and then NOT returned to the person from whom it was seized, but transferred or sold to another person, NICS checks are not done under the current situation. Holder is proposing that the receivers of those firearms also be NICSed.

    The real tragedy is NICS, not the arrangement of these particular deck chairs on it.
    When I had a city PD take my handguns from me, it took them a month to do the 'back ground check' before they would give them back. I was about to get a court order for the immediate return of them but they got wind of the hearing and returned them before the hearing. The cops involved in the return were very rude and one kept he hand on his gun the whole time.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The cops involved in the return were very rude and one kept he hand on his gun the whole time.
    You mean he was brandishing his firearm at you? This behavior is a good way to get yourself shot...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You mean he was brandishing his firearm at you? This behavior is a good way to get yourself shot...
    It was holstered but he would not take his hand off of it while I was making sure that they had not damaged my guns while they had them.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95
    Currently, when the government seizes a firearm and then returns it to its owner, it does not perform a NICS check to see if the owner would still be able to purchase one. They just give it back.
    All 3 times I've had to retrieve guns stolen from me by a PD they (at least claimed they) did a background check.
    - Once they returned my property when the DA decided he couldn't charge me with anything.
    - Once (a different PD) I had to get a court order (which took 4 months & 2 court hearings, then several trips to various police offices).
    - And the last time (same PD as time #2), once the jury found me not guilty & left the room, the judge turned to the ADA & basically said "you ARE giving her back ALL her property RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?"
    . . . . . And the ADA squirmed a little when he explained that he'd have to do some paperwork & get a court order for the return. But 2 days later I picked up the paperwork from my lawyer's office, & made the required 2 trips to the property room to get all my property back. (So far, they refuse to return a firearm & ammunition at the same time.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man
    When I had a city PD take my handguns from me, it took them a month to do the 'back ground check' before they would give them back.
    The first time I had to get a gun back from a PD & went to pick it up (after they'd had it for a couple weeks already), they claimed they needed another week to run the BG check. When I listened to the radio traffic from the initial problem where they stole the gun from me, it took the dispatcher less than 5 minutes to do it.
    One more example of lying & delaying. Not the way to get the public on their side.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    - And the last time (same PD as time #2), once the jury found me not guilty & left the room, the judge turned to the ADA & basically said "you ARE giving her back ALL her property RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?"
    I believe that is Judge talk for telling the ADA "your a freaking moron" (the ADA that is not you)
    Last edited by Lasjayhawk; 01-27-2013 at 02:56 PM.
    I stopped stocking for the zombie apocalypse. I now stock for the liberal apocalypse.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post


    The first time I had to get a gun back from a PD & went to pick it up (after they'd had it for a couple weeks already), they claimed they needed another week to run the BG check. \
    See that's BS ... you were just in court ... if they had cause to hold your guns 1 minute past the "not guilty" verdict they should have produced such EVIDENCE.

    Thats why I do not support any further laws regarding BR checks .. like they have to prove you are OK to own.

    And that's why I do not keep all my guns in one location or state..so if they take away a gun where I am and this situation occurs then I still have the option of still being able to protect myself.

  9. #9
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    It was holstered but he would not take his hand off of it while I was making sure that they had not damaged my guns while they had them.
    I do believe I would have had to look him in the eye, stomp my foot and say BOO a couple of times just to see if there were any brown stains in his pants when I left

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    I do believe I would have had to look him in the eye, stomp my foot and say BOO a couple of times just to see if there were any brown stains in his pants when I left
    I was showing him that he could not scare me.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I was showing him that he could not scare me.
    Yes you stood up to him, but I would have had to see if he wasn't just a little jack booted Chihuahua that would shat and run at a foot stomp and BOO!
    Last edited by F350; 02-05-2013 at 05:00 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    (So far, they refuse to return a firearm & ammunition at the same time.)
    When I go to pick up my guns, I'd consider carrying a box of ammo with me. (Doesn't even have to have ammo in it.) Far as I know, it ain't against the law to carry a box of ammo around.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    It was holstered but he would not take his hand off of it while I was making sure that they had not damaged my guns while they had them.
    If a civilian did that in front of police in any of the states where OC is legal the cops would charge them with brandishing in a hot second. So yes, he was brandishing his firearm, and in light of the fact you posed no immediate harm, that was an illegal act. One for which a police officer would never be prosecuted, as is the case with all the illegal acts that most police officers commit on a regular basis.
    Last edited by arentol; 02-10-2013 at 12:25 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    If a civilian did that in front of police in any of the states where OC is legal the cops would charge them with brandishing in a hot second. So yes, he was brandishing his firearm, and in light of the fact you posed no immediate harm, that was an illegal act. One for which a police officer would never be prosecuted, as is the case with all the illegal acts that most police officers commit on a regular basis.
    Not going to argue that. You're right.

    Kirkland is so-so, Redmond can be hell for dealing with the police and guns.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •