King county gun confiscation DV

[pianoman9701]

I brought up MPHS, as an example, where more gun laws (or at least regulatory review and proposed rule changes after MPHS) could have made a difference, in Texas, because Texas was brought up. 

The firearm used in MPHS was acquired by the murderers father, because the tribe failed to report, as the AF failed to report in the Texas case.  Obama had the means and opportunity to tighten up NCIC and reporting, and did not. 

The law was passed, similar to KC (for which WA was after the feds, IIRC), to make misdemeanor DV a prohibited possessor category.  So regardless of whether KC, or WA, etc. law applied in Texas, the murderer was a prohibited possessor. 

The failure of NCIC reporting that obama failed to rectify or at least review for regulatory changes could have made the difference in Texas.  Maybe not, as we are well aware of the stunning lack of enforcement for even more heinous felony violations of attempting to obtain a firearm by prohibited possessors.

Thank you for clearing that up.You also mention Obama.Would you like to remind us all who it was that fought Obama on EVERYTHING he tried to do?

The United States Constitution, and it did a great job

I missed this masterful response and therefore, did no give it the attention it was certainly due. You have just shown yourself an Ultimate American God!!!!!! How's that?

[Tinmaniac]

I brought up MPHS, as an example, where more gun laws (or at least regulatory review and proposed rule changes after MPHS) could have made a difference, in Texas, because Texas was brought up. 

The firearm used in MPHS was acquired by the murderers father, because the tribe failed to report, as the AF failed to report in the Texas case.  Obama had the means and opportunity to tighten up NCIC and reporting, and did not. 

The law was passed, similar to KC (for which WA was after the feds, IIRC), to make misdemeanor DV a prohibited possessor category.  So regardless of whether KC, or WA, etc. law applied in Texas, the murderer was a prohibited possessor. 

The failure of NCIC reporting that obama failed to rectify or at least review for regulatory changes could have made the difference in Texas.  Maybe not, as we are well aware of the stunning lack of enforcement for even more heinous felony violations of attempting to obtain a firearm by prohibited possessors.

Read this post carefully.You blame Obama for taking no action and then others say the constitution prevented him from taking such action.Fools!

[pianoman9701]

I brought up MPHS, as an example, where more gun laws (or at least regulatory review and proposed rule changes after MPHS) could have made a difference, in Texas, because Texas was brought up. 

The firearm used in MPHS was acquired by the murderers father, because the tribe failed to report, as the AF failed to report in the Texas case.  Obama had the means and opportunity to tighten up NCIC and reporting, and did not. 

The law was passed, similar to KC (for which WA was after the feds, IIRC), to make misdemeanor DV a prohibited possessor category.  So regardless of whether KC, or WA, etc. law applied in Texas, the murderer was a prohibited possessor. 

The failure of NCIC reporting that obama failed to rectify or at least review for regulatory changes could have made the difference in Texas.  Maybe not, as we are well aware of the stunning lack of enforcement for even more heinous felony violations of attempting to obtain a firearm by prohibited possessors.

Read this post carefully.You blame Obama for taking no action and then others say the constitution prevented him from taking such action.Fools!

Calling people "fools" is against the forum rules of civility. I know you're desperate to get a chalk mark up on your side of the board. To do so, try to use facts instead, like this. There are, in fact, places where Obama didn't take action where he should have, and there were other places that he took action that was unconstitutional, like the federal subsidies for healthcare. See, they're not mutually exclusive. You can have both. So glad you came back! 

[ribka]

Someone from the Seattle area is anti gun

Well I am shocked!😁

I brought up MPHS, as an example, where more gun laws (or at least regulatory review and proposed rule changes after MPHS) could have made a difference, in Texas, because Texas was brought up. 

The firearm used in MPHS was acquired by the murderers father, because the tribe failed to report, as the AF failed to report in the Texas case.  Obama had the means and opportunity to tighten up NCIC and reporting, and did not. 

The law was passed, similar to KC (for which WA was after the feds, IIRC), to make misdemeanor DV a prohibited possessor category.  So regardless of whether KC, or WA, etc. law applied in Texas, the murderer was a prohibited possessor. 

The failure of NCIC reporting that obama failed to rectify or at least review for regulatory changes could have made the difference in Texas.  Maybe not, as we are well aware of the stunning lack of enforcement for even more heinous felony violations of attempting to obtain a firearm by prohibited possessors.

Read this post carefully.You blame Obama for taking no action and then others say the constitution prevented him from taking such action.Fools!

[Fl0und3rz]

Read this post carefully.You blame Obama for taking no action and then others say the constitution prevented him from taking such action. Fools!

Put your own powers of reading comprehension to the test, and explain to the class that what I referred to, specifically, in a serious capacity of explaining a point, is different than someone's offhanded joking remark. 

I'd have to look at the actual empowering legislation to see whether obama had the regulatory authority to order agencies and military services to review and put in place specific procedures to ensure accurate reporting, or whether it would have required legislative action for which the Constitution may have been an impediment.

Fortunately for my point, obama did nothing, and your point is irrelevant. 


First rule of holes.  Stop digging.

[Tinmaniac]

So your saying you don't know what you are talking about?

[Fl0und3rz]

So your saying you don't know what you are talking about?

No. I am saying that I am amazed that I continue to try and reason with you.

[Tinmaniac]

You said it not me.Admit it in a war of wits you are unarmed.

[Rainier10]

Let's try to get the topic back on track before this thing just gets locked up and people get to go on vacation for awhile.

[Fl0und3rz]

You said it not me.Admit it in a war of wits you are unarmed.

Let me walk you through it, because I don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse as an argumentation tactic, or whether you truly believe you are making a coherent point.


Obama had the power to order a review of Federal Agency and Military services rules and procedures regarding reporting of DV cases and/or other prohibited possessor categories, without Constitutional limitation on his actions.

He did not.

Obama had the opportunity, given the lessons learned (tribe(s) not reporting into NCIC) and the publicity of the MPHS shooting to actually take what appears to be a common sense action to ensure this did not happen again.

He failed to do so, at a time when many other Executive Actions and Executive Orders were undertaken to address gun control.

Obama had the power to propose administrative agency rules, subject to the APA, and limited by the enabling legislation's grant of authority, to actually impose regulatory changes to fix this apparently system-wide problem.  The Constitution limits the executive's authority to the enabling legislation's grant of authority.  That is what remains to be seen here.

But that is irrelevant, because he did nothing.  Nothing.


Follow?

And this is despite the many EOs/EAs that obama also undertook, which were later overturned on Constitutional grounds because they exceeded the enabling legislation's grant of authority, as an example, helpfully given by pman.

But he did nothing.


So when someone makes an offhanded remark to a question about arguing against EVERYTHING obama did, the Constitution is a proper and funny response, AND the point is still valid that obama did nothing.

[Tinmaniac]

Understood,I must have missed his tweet on that one.

[bigtex]

Absolutely relevant as to what would happen in anti-gun utopia King County.Because of the strict gun laws in King County his information would have been sent to NCIS.If Texas requires a background check like Washington does he wouldn't be able to purchase a gun legally.What is irrelevant is if he would get a gun illegally,run people over or blow them up.My ownership of guns is irrelevant to the topic as well.There is a way to allow DV offenders to keep their guns while awaiting due process.Arrest them,charge them,get them in front of a judge with 72 hours,deny bail,make sure the don't waive their right to a speedy trial and they will have due process within 60 days.In other words if they don't want to surrender their guns keep them away from their guns.

That's simply untrue. This isn't about where the crime happened; the state or county. He was tried in a military court. King Co. or any other county in the nation wouldn't have received the information unless the air force sent it to the FBI to have it entered into the NCIC, which they didn't. We have the laws. The government didn't abide by them.

The Air Force (specifically their Office of Special Investigation) was supposed to enter it into NCIC, not ship it off to the FBI for their entry.

[Fl0und3rz]

Understood,I must have missed his tweet on that one.

Whose tweet?  What are you talking about?

[pianoman9701]

Absolutely relevant as to what would happen in anti-gun utopia King County.Because of the strict gun laws in King County his information would have been sent to NCIS.If Texas requires a background check like Washington does he wouldn't be able to purchase a gun legally.What is irrelevant is if he would get a gun illegally,run people over or blow them up.My ownership of guns is irrelevant to the topic as well.There is a way to allow DV offenders to keep their guns while awaiting due process.Arrest them,charge them,get them in front of a judge with 72 hours,deny bail,make sure the don't waive their right to a speedy trial and they will have due process within 60 days.In other words if they don't want to surrender their guns keep them away from their guns.

That's simply untrue. This isn't about where the crime happened; the state or county. He was tried in a military court. King Co. or any other county in the nation wouldn't have received the information unless the air force sent it to the FBI to have it entered into the NCIC, which they didn't. We have the laws. The government didn't abide by them.

The Air Force (specifically their Office of Special Investigation) was supposed to enter it into NCIC, not ship it off to the FBI for their entry.

OK, same result. It didn't get entered. I've never entered anything into NCIC, so I'm a little in the dark there.

[Fl0und3rz]

Thanks, bigtex.  Can you clarify what you mean by "ship it off to the FBI"?  Did they just send an email or something?  Was that in accordance with existing procedure?  Also, can you opine on the MPHS situation, as to where that failure was (e.g., lack of process/requirement, failure to follow adequate process, etc.).