Post by: Special T on November 14, 2017, 12:38:56 PM
In many cases, we’ve seen restraining orders and firearm prohibitions based on considerably less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. It’s not like motives and incentives don’t exist, including revenge, or getting an upper hand in divorce settlements or custody proceedings. And in many cases, those unfairly caught up in such orders lack the wherewithal to defend the rights they’re being deprived of.
https://www.ammoland.com/2017/11/planned-king-county-gun-confiscations-foreshadow-larger-wider-plans/#axzz4yRMVmCq0
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2017, 02:49:53 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 15, 2017, 09:21:14 AM
Post by: Special T on November 15, 2017, 11:20:13 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 15, 2017, 11:29:37 AM
I know people who've been deprived of due process and were unjustly relieved of their firearms. One, whose wife did it just days prior to hunting season. While it's true that charges can be filed against people who falsely accuse, they're rarely levied. Due process, as outlined in the 5th Amendment to our beloved Constitution, is specifically there so that citizens can't be penalized or punished without a jury trial. In the case of domestic abuse, the accuser is assumed truthful and the accused, guilty until proven innocent until court is held. This is supposedly so because the courts are backed up. The fact that courts are unable to hear these cases immediately should not be reason for the government to ignore our rights. The Forefathers were quite clear that the rights of good people should not be trodden upon because of the acts of bad people. I've seen no attempt by any state government to give domestic abuse claims a speedy appearance before a magistrate to not only protect the alleged victim, but the accused before stripping away his/her rights. The answer is improving the court system to allow these cases to go to the head of the line, or even to have a dedicated court specifically tasked with determination of domestic abuse allegations. Stripping away rights isn't the answer. For some in our government, any excuse to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.
It goes beyond that, even in the cases where there is proper notice and opportunity to be heard. There is an innate, self-serving reluctance to disbelieve DV allegations and be that one judge/commissioner who was "responsible" for not disarming an abuser who then goes on to kill his/her victim.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 15, 2017, 11:31:31 AM
One of many reasons why choosing a good woman has the largest impact on a man's life... perhaps it is also the reason why men are limiting thier entanglements with women as well.
In tax terms, you get more activity that is subsidized and less that is taxed. The court's predisposition against men in marriages acts as a tax, whereas a court's predisposition to favor women acts as a subsidy to abuse such processes.
Post by: Special T on November 15, 2017, 11:33:47 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 15, 2017, 12:04:53 PM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 15, 2017, 12:10:25 PM
I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.
Not relevant. At all.
He was given his due process and found guilty of crimes that both sides agree should warrant losing firearms rights. He also was put in a mental health facility (and escaped from it) that would warrant losing his rights. Law enforcement failed on this. Not the laws of the land.
And that's assuming that the man who criminally bought a gun wouldn't have still bought a gun criminally under the table.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 15, 2017, 12:17:04 PM
There's not a lot one can do about bad due process. :dunno: The best you can do is show up with the right attorney and the right evidence.I know people who've been deprived of due process and were unjustly relieved of their firearms. One, whose wife did it just days prior to hunting season. While it's true that charges can be filed against people who falsely accuse, they're rarely levied. Due process, as outlined in the 5th Amendment to our beloved Constitution, is specifically there so that citizens can't be penalized or punished without a jury trial. In the case of domestic abuse, the accuser is assumed truthful and the accused, guilty until proven innocent until court is held. This is supposedly so because the courts are backed up. The fact that courts are unable to hear these cases immediately should not be reason for the government to ignore our rights. The Forefathers were quite clear that the rights of good people should not be trodden upon because of the acts of bad people. I've seen no attempt by any state government to give domestic abuse claims a speedy appearance before a magistrate to not only protect the alleged victim, but the accused before stripping away his/her rights. The answer is improving the court system to allow these cases to go to the head of the line, or even to have a dedicated court specifically tasked with determination of domestic abuse allegations. Stripping away rights isn't the answer. For some in our government, any excuse to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.
It goes beyond that, even in the cases where there is proper notice and opportunity to be heard. There is an innate, self-serving reluctance to disbelieve DV allegations and be that one judge/commissioner who was "responsible" for not disarming an abuser who then goes on to kill his/her victim.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 15, 2017, 12:22:14 PM
I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.
Do you even own firearms? So apparently you're ignorant about the facts in TX. This is a good opportunity for you to learn something. First, he was able to get guns because the government didn't follow the laws already in place. He'd already been convicted of DV. Because he was discharged for spousal abuse and dishonorably so, had they sent the information into the NCIC, as is required, he'd never have been able to purchase guns. Does that mean he wouldn't have killed a bunch of people anyway? Of course not. He'd have mowed them down with a rental truck when church was let out, or blew them up with diesel and fertilizer, or gasoline.
Post by: Special T on November 15, 2017, 12:45:55 PM
I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.I bet they wish they were packing iron. This was rural Texas not some anti gun utopia...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 15, 2017, 12:50:52 PM
I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.
Not relevant. At all.
He was given his due process and found guilty of crimes that both sides agree should warrant losing firearms rights. He also was put in a mental health facility (and escaped from it) that would warrant losing his rights. Law enforcement failed on this. Not the laws of the land.
And that's assuming that the man who criminally bought a gun wouldn't have still bought a gun criminally under the table.
Well said.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 15, 2017, 03:25:03 PM
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 05:49:44 PM
Due process, as outlined in the 5th Amendment to our beloved Constitution, is specifically there so that citizens can't be penalized or punished without a jury trial. In the case of domestic abuse, the accuser is assumed truthful and the accused, guilty until proven innocent until court is held. This is supposedly so because the courts are backed up. The fact that courts are unable to hear these cases immediately should not be reason for the government to ignore our rights. The Forefathers were quite clear that the rights of good people should not be trodden upon because of the acts of bad people. I've seen no attempt by any state government to give domestic abuse claims a speedy appearance before a magistrate to not only protect the alleged victim, but the accused before stripping away his/her rights. The answer is improving the court system to allow these cases to go to the head of the line, or even to have a dedicated court specifically tasked with determination of domestic abuse allegations. Stripping away rights isn't the answer. For some in our government, any excuse to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights is a good thing.
Not trying to be a know it all. In the 1970s SCOTUS actually ruled the 5th Amendment provision regarding jury trials actually doesn't mandate the possibility for jury trials for all criminal cases, only serious crimes. They went on to say that "serious" crimes are those where the possible punishment is over 6 months in jail. Now many states still allow the possibility of a jury trial for those with possible punishment less than 6 months in jail, but they aren't required to do so under this ruling. If for example your charged with poaching a deer at Mt. Rainier it's a federal Class B Misdemeanor with a maximum of 6 months in jail which means no jury trial.
But to get what I really wanted to hit on.
I agree it's wrong the government takes guns and then says well your court date is in 6 months. But how are we supposed to fix it? You suggest making these cases at the front of the line. So if I'm scheduled for a DUI trial Monday morning at 9AM, but 20 guys were arrested over the weekend for DV does that mean my trial is dismissed? Or do I basically just have to wait until sometime where there's not a guy wanting to get his guns back?
Up until about 10 years ago in WA if you were cited with a criminal offense you received your court date on-scene, but with a growing population it caused the courts to be backlogged, especially after busy weekends. So 100 people would show up for their court date but only 75 cases were heard, well under WA law those 25 remaining cases were dismissed. That's why prosecutors now tell officers to no longer issue criminal court dates, simply send the report to the prosecutor and they'll actually schedule it properly.
The big problem is cities and more importantly counties do not properly fund the criminal justice system. There is not a county in this state that could not use an additional judge, some counties literally just have one District Court (infractions and misdemeanors) and Superior Court (felony) judge. Some counties even share superior court judges. It's crazy but as WA's population has grown, the amount of prosecutors and judges have actually decreased. I hate to compare us to California, but California funds their criminal justice system a whole lot better than WA does. Even smaller counties in CA have multiple court locations with several judges and a lot of prosecutors.
The fact of the matter is it will all come down to $.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 06:42:00 AM
The other thing we have wrong in a great many states is the waiting period for gun purchases by people in fear for their own or their children's live with regards to DV and estranged partners. People whose lives are in danger can't get a firearm within a reasonable period of time for protection against someone who's threatened them. Several people, mostly women, have died waiting for the government's "permission" to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. It's ridiculous.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 06:49:29 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 06:59:11 AM
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. And incidentally, it's now coming out that all services have neglected to properly report felonies, dishonorable discharge, and DV cases to the FBI. We have a government which doesn't pay attention to it's own laws. So. by all means, let's write new ones. :bash:
It's pretty obvious from the rest of your comments how you feel about gun ownership and gun rights. Thanks for playing.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 07:07:14 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 07:13:33 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 07:13:39 AM
Nobody wants mass shootings to happen. Nobody wants wife beaters to have guns. Nobody. And guess what? There are laws in place to make sure both of these things don't happen. It's illegal to shoot people. It's also illegal to own a gun if you're a convicted wife beater. But when the people who are supposed to enforce those laws fail to, it makes it easier to get a gun and go shoot people.
The problem isn't legislation. It's execution. Remember civics? Legislative, Executive, Judicial?
You're barking up the wrong tree but I don't think you even realize it.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 07:15:01 AM
People who believe in gun control find facts irritating and tend to ignore them.
LOL I have to be honest, I would be just fine if bump stocks were banned. And I don't mind that Obama put more money into the FBI to help enforce criminal background checks. They're not extremely effective, but they have resulted in several arrests.
I'd like to see more help for people who have wrongfully had their 2A rights taken though.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 07:42:44 AM
People who believe in gun control find facts irritating and tend to ignore them.
It's not gun control that they believe in, it is people control. Shoddy, feel good laws and lax law enforcement against actual criminality are just tools to achieve that.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 09:14:44 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 09:24:45 AM
The topic was King County and its evil laws regarding DV suspects.My point was,if you read correctly,that King County law MAY have helped prevent the shootings in Texas.Military court is not King County court.Marysville shooter was not DV offender nor did he buy his gun.He took it from his father who took it from his father.His father who should not have been able to buy the gun did so before mandatory background check.Blaming Obama is pointless.The war cry when he took office was he was going to take all of our guns.That didn't happen.I am not anti-gun.I just offer a different point of view.Without that different point of view you guys might as well shout at a mirror.
He lied on the background check and it wasn't caught like it was supposed to be. The system failed. Again. In King County. Using the same background checks you're talking about. So there goes that argument.
So I'm not sure what hypothetical you have come up with... But even if the father legally owned the gun, he could have legally given it to his son (if he was of age) without a check. Mandatory background checks aren't required between family in King County or Washington state or under federal law.
A criminal stole a gun and shot people. He stole the gun from another criminal. This is kind of like the streets of Chicago. Look at the gun laws there... and guess what? The criminals have the gall to just ignore them! I know, crazy right? They just straight up ignore those laws and steal guns from other criminals and then they USE THOSE GUNS to shoot people! Isn't that weird?? You would think they would at least use low-capacity magazines and go through mandatory background checks. Nope - they just ignore the law altogether as if it doesn't exist.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 09:29:32 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 09:36:07 AM
Facts are still the same.
Literally no different outcome.
Curtis
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 09:37:21 AM
The topic was King County and its evil laws regarding DV suspects.My point was,if you read correctly,that King County law MAY have helped prevent the shootings in Texas.Military court is not King County court.Marysville shooter was not DV offender nor did he buy his gun.He took it from his father who took it from his father.His father who should not have been able to buy the gun did so before mandatory background check.Blaming Obama is pointless.The war cry when he took office was he was going to take all of our guns.That didn't happen.I am not anti-gun.I just offer a different point of view.Without that different point of view you guys might as well shout at a mirror.
But the Texas shooter wouldn't have been tried in King Co. He would've been tried at JBLM. Had JBLM neglected to report his dishonorable discharge and DV conviction, he'd have been able to buy a gun here, as well. But it's moot point. There's little doubt that he knew it was illegal for him to buy a gun - another felony. People who want to kill lots of people don't care about laws.
The Marysville shooter's father was illegally in possession of a firearm, the .40 cal Barretta the kid used to kill classmates and himself. The law didn't stop him from killing. And something else about that WA government you're so in love with: Over 90% of people who illegally attempt to procure firearms in King and Pierce counties have never been arrested or prosecuted for that felony. Over 90%. These are people, like DV offenders and felons, who we know are trying to get a firearm and the government does nothing. And you want common sense gun laws. What a joke. Don't you see that law abiding citizens are not the problem here?
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 09:41:06 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 09:42:06 AM
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2017, 09:50:59 AM
There in lies the crux of the issue... what good are sensible laws if they are not enforced?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 09:58:57 AM
The topic is King County and DV suspects surrendering their firearms while investigating guilt or innocence.No more no less.Good idea or bad.I say good idea.No love for anything or anyone,just policy.The topic was King County and its evil laws regarding DV suspects.My point was,if you read correctly,that King County law MAY have helped prevent the shootings in Texas.Military court is not King County court.Marysville shooter was not DV offender nor did he buy his gun.He took it from his father who took it from his father.His father who should not have been able to buy the gun did so before mandatory background check.Blaming Obama is pointless.The war cry when he took office was he was going to take all of our guns.That didn't happen.I am not anti-gun.I just offer a different point of view.Without that different point of view you guys might as well shout at a mirror.
But the Texas shooter wouldn't have been tried in King Co. He would've been tried at JBLM. Had JBLM neglected to report his dishonorable discharge and DV conviction, he'd have been able to buy a gun here, as well. But it's moot point. There's little doubt that he knew it was illegal for him to buy a gun - another felony. People who want to kill lots of people don't care about laws.
The Marysville shooter's father was illegally in possession of a firearm, the .40 cal Barretta the kid used to kill classmates and himself. The law didn't stop him from killing. And something else about that WA government you're so in love with: Over 90% of people who illegally attempt to procure firearms in King and Pierce counties have never been arrested or prosecuted for that felony. Over 90%. These are people, like DV offenders and felons, who we know are trying to get a firearm and the government does nothing. And you want common sense gun laws. What a joke. Don't you see that law abiding citizens are not the problem here?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 10:00:03 AM
"Over 90%. These are people, like DV offenders and felons, who we know are trying to get a firearm and the government does nothing. And you want common sense gun laws. What a joke. Don't you see that law abiding citizens are not the problem here?"
There in lies the crux of the issue... what good are sensible laws if they are not enforced?
The "good" they provide is for self-styled, right-thinking people to call for more gun laws, that won't be enforced, and that won't be obeyed by those with criminal intent. It works very nicely for gun control proponents.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 10:01:28 AM
The topic is King County and DV suspects surrendering their firearms while investigating guilt or innocence.No more no less.Good idea or bad.I say good idea.No love for anything or anyone,just policy.
I bet the folks burying their loved ones in Texas wish more had been done to keep guns out of the hands of the DV offender that gunned them down in church.
Now you want to limit the topic of discussion to King County?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 10:02:13 AM
The topic is King County and DV suspects surrendering their firearms while investigating guilt or innocence.No more no less.Good idea or bad.I say good idea.No love for anything or anyone,just policy.The topic was King County and its evil laws regarding DV suspects.My point was,if you read correctly,that King County law MAY have helped prevent the shootings in Texas.Military court is not King County court.Marysville shooter was not DV offender nor did he buy his gun.He took it from his father who took it from his father.His father who should not have been able to buy the gun did so before mandatory background check.Blaming Obama is pointless.The war cry when he took office was he was going to take all of our guns.That didn't happen.I am not anti-gun.I just offer a different point of view.Without that different point of view you guys might as well shout at a mirror.
But the Texas shooter wouldn't have been tried in King Co. He would've been tried at JBLM. Had JBLM neglected to report his dishonorable discharge and DV conviction, he'd have been able to buy a gun here, as well. But it's moot point. There's little doubt that he knew it was illegal for him to buy a gun - another felony. People who want to kill lots of people don't care about laws.
The Marysville shooter's father was illegally in possession of a firearm, the .40 cal Barretta the kid used to kill classmates and himself. The law didn't stop him from killing. And something else about that WA government you're so in love with: Over 90% of people who illegally attempt to procure firearms in King and Pierce counties have never been arrested or prosecuted for that felony. Over 90%. These are people, like DV offenders and felons, who we know are trying to get a firearm and the government does nothing. And you want common sense gun laws. What a joke. Don't you see that law abiding citizens are not the problem here?
Tinman, you brought up Marysville as your case scenario. So in 2002 he is convicted and gives up his guns. 10 years later, he lied on a background check, passed it, and got more guns.
I'm failing to see how gun laws saved the day here. The gun laws you're calling for.... He got around them!
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 10:06:18 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 10:14:50 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 10:17:00 AM
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.
Post by: Pegasus on November 16, 2017, 10:34:32 AM
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 10:34:46 AM
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.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 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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 10:47:55 AM
Excellent video here:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 10:48:29 AM
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.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 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.
Cat got your tongue?
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 10:55:45 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 11:11:45 AM
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.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 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.
The United States Constitution, and it did a great job :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 11:17:09 AM
Read all of my posts.I was not the one who brought up Marysville.I brought up Texas and a DV offender and IF he had went to court in King County.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Had he been tried in civilian court in TX, he wouldn't have been able to buy a gun either. And you did bring up Marysville in response to my post. Deal with the fact that you're not coming out well at all. And it's because your arguments don't even make sense to you. You're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Just keep in mind that you can always change your views when you find out what you've been believing is wrong.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 11:23:11 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 11:25:45 AM
Responce to a post and bringing up the subject are two different things.Now there are 2 people claiming title to Marysville.Some folks don't know the county it's in.Who's confused?
Doesn't even matter what state it's in. You used it as an example and it was a terrible example. Look up cognitive dissonance. Please.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 11:54:42 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 11:57:37 AM
Post by: BeWitty on November 16, 2017, 12:09:09 PM
Common sense is in short supply here.You want to keep wife beaters armed,so be it.Over and out.
Is this guy real life?
Wow
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 12:16:31 PM
Common sense is in short supply here.You want to keep wife beaters armed,so be it.Over and out.
Nice strawman, Tinmaniac.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 12:16:43 PM
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 12:23:05 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 12:28:10 PM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 12:32:27 PM
Twice.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 12:37:05 PM
OK, buh bye now. :hello:I have heard little girls say that but never a grown man.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 12:43:05 PM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2017, 12:54:11 PM
My US Constitution response was freakin' awesome. I was like "WHA-BAM!" when I posted that. Seriously @pianoman9701 and @Fl0und3rz, nothin???? :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2017, 12:57:23 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 01:05:46 PM
OK, someone has to say it.
My US Constitution response was freakin' awesome. I was like "WHA-BAM!" when I posted that. Seriously @pianoman9701 and @Fl0und3rz, nothin???? :chuckle:
Better late than never, but yes, good, if not awkward response to the question "who?". With a little work, you could have had "the founders."
:chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 01:14:57 PM
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.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 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.
The United States Constitution, and it did a great job :tup:
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?
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 01:26:08 PM
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.Read this post carefully.You blame Obama for taking no action and then others say the constitution prevented him from taking such action.Fools!
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 01:36:46 PM
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.Read this post carefully.You blame Obama for taking no action and then others say the constitution prevented him from taking such action.Fools!
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.
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! :hello:
Post by: ribka on November 16, 2017, 01:37:58 PM
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.Read this post carefully.You blame Obama for taking no action and then others say the constitution prevented him from taking such action.Fools!
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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 01:44:30 PM
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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 01:50:20 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 01:51:50 PM
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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 02:00:29 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on November 16, 2017, 02:02:30 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2017, 02:10:36 PM
You said it not me.Admit it in a war of wits you are unarmed.
:chuckle:
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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 16, 2017, 02:22:12 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 16, 2017, 04:34:00 PM
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.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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 17, 2017, 05:37:04 AM
Understood,I must have missed his tweet on that one.
Whose tweet? What are you talking about?
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 17, 2017, 05:54:44 AM
OK, same result. It didn't get entered. I've never entered anything into NCIC, so I'm a little in the dark there. :dunno: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.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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 17, 2017, 06:02:37 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 17, 2017, 06:10:47 AM
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.Read this post carefully.You blame Obama for taking no action and then others say the constitution prevented him from taking such action.Fools!
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.
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 healthcareinsurance. See, they're not mutually exclusive. You can have both. So glad you came back! :hello:
Fixed that for you. The ACA isn't a healthcare law, it's a health insurance law. The health insurance companies that pocketed billions off all this didn't design the law to help anybody but themselves.
Thank you Obama for that! :tup:
Post by: bigtex on November 17, 2017, 08:41:09 AM
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.).My point was that in Pianoman's post he made it sound like the Air Force sends (or in this case didn't send) the info regarding his conviction to the FBI. That's just simply not how it works. Courts and the originating law enforcement agency for the case are responsible for updating/inputting criminal histories and convictions. There's a lot of people that think that's the FBI's duties, that's untrue. It's also the reason why in some states a criminal history may include all crimes, in some states it doesn't. Obviously this DV conviction should've been reported no matter what.
As to MPHS, honestly I can't remember.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 17, 2017, 08:52:20 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 17, 2017, 11:16:32 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 17, 2017, 11:20:31 AM
Post by: Stein on November 17, 2017, 11:32:36 AM
Piano is there a posting or video of that quote by Giffords?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/gabby-giffords-gun-control-group-releases-report-warning-muzzleloaders-firearms/
Probably not fully unbiased reporting, but you get the jist. 50 cal is particularly lethal and silenced muzzleloaders are all the new rage to avoid background checks and the NFA in general. The gun industry is leveraging this loophole as evidenced by the number of muzzleloaders used in crimes as well as the number of them flying off the shelf these days.
I heard Remington is going to release a new tactical trebuchet by utilizing the loopholes as well. You can fire a high-powered, particularly deadly, military round of 5 gallons of flaming tar without any background check or permit.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 17, 2017, 11:38:08 AM
Post by: ribka on November 19, 2017, 10:59:01 AM
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.).My point was that in Pianoman's post he made it sound like the Air Force sends (or in this case didn't send) the info regarding his conviction to the FBI. That's just simply not how it works. Courts and the originating law enforcement agency for the case are responsible for updating/inputting criminal histories and convictions. There's a lot of people that think that's the FBI's duties, that's untrue. It's also the reason why in some states a criminal history may include all crimes, in some states it doesn't. Obviously this DV conviction should've been reported no matter what.
As to MPHS, honestly I can't remember.
Post by: csaaphill on November 21, 2017, 08:29:48 PM