New gun control laws

I just checked, no tanks rolling down my street yet looking for guns. But, it is snowing.

Dutchboy wrote:

I just checked, no tanks rolling down my street yet looking for guns. But, it is snowing.

Duh, they learned from the Nasty Guard in Wabasha…tanks get stuck in snow…wait until tomorrow!

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Randy Wieland wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gimruis wrote:</div>
I think the issue of selling a firearm to someone else “off the books” is questionable. You might think you know your 2nd cousin, but what if he or she turns around and uses that weapon in a crime or other malicious way? Or worse, they shoot you? If the person you sell it to is not registered in any database that prohibits them from buying a firearm, ya, its a moot point. But if the back ground is done, and catches something, and then prohibits that sale, its done its job and prevented that person from obtaining the weapon (legally, anyways). A universal background check system for every single firearm transaction, public or private, is fine. I’ve got nothing to hide. We, as responsible gun owners, have a responsibility to ensure that we’re not selling our weapons to a registered criminal.

So I should never sell anyone a used vehicle? Lord knows how many more drunk drivers kill people and I can’t predict if they are going to use that car or truck to kill your family

People don’t need to pass a background check to purchase a car. I don’t disagree that vehicles are a dangerous item in the wrong hands too but the system of checks and balances is not in place when privately selling or buying cars.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>suzuki wrote:</div>
Im against ALL new gun control measures except national reciprocity.

We all know that won’t happen as long as there are places like Illinois, New York, and California on the map.

People don’t need a background check to purchase a car, but cars used on public property require registration. All people who operate a car on public property also must pass a test. Since we are comparing guns to cars. Let’s have all guns that leave someones private property registered. Also, let’s have everyone take a test to have their guns off of their property. Any takers? Both are objects that can be used to kill or injure people, maybe they should be regulated in an equivlant mannor.

Comparing car laws to this, Reading my local police reports, I see lots of citations for driving w/o a license or insurance, driving while impaired, driving after cancellation, DWI, speeding, etc…. making something against the law only stops the good guys from doing it.

Let’s enforce our current gun laws before restricting honest guys even more.

Shooting someone is already against the law, so if we are having shootings now, is it a rational thought that outlawing a portion of firearm ownership would stop VIOLATERS? I can see it now: “I was going to shoot up my workplace, but gee whiz, I see that my permit to carry has expired, so I better not, since I wouldn’t want to break the law!”

Get real….

History repeats itself.

Timmy wrote:

Comparing car laws to this, Reading my local police reports, I see lots of citations for driving w/o a license or insurance, driving while impaired, driving after cancellation, DWI, speeding, etc…. making something against the law only stops the good guys from doing it.

Let’s enforce our current gun laws before restricting honest guys even more.

Shooting someone is already against the law, so if we are having shootings now, is it a rational thought that outlawing a portion of firearm ownership would stop VIOLATERS? I can see it now: “I was going to shoot up my workplace, but gee whiz, I see that my permit to carry has expired, so I better not, since I wouldn’t want to break the law!”

Get real….

So, if a law won’t stop all occurrences of a crime we should not have that law? Murder is illegal, but still happens. Should we make it legal?

I just find it very ironic that for the few shootings in the grand picture of all caused deaths, how people in general will drink the koolaid for gun laws. There are other means of causing more deaths per year, and crickets.

My point in the comparison to car laws is to open your eyes. Look how many laws are in place [ drunk driving, texting, traffic laws,….] and if you bring up that, look how the anti gun crowd pisses into that bowl of cheerios.
Bottom line is to find a way to get criminals to fear the consequences of breaking laws. As of now, there are so many criminals that laugh at the general population of sheep that will follow the next big media hype for more laws.
Enforcement of most laws (sentencing) is a joke. The liberal slap on the wrist and let’s hope they learn their lesson. It’s a dam joke.

I’m not against the 2nd amendment. I own firearms and use them regularly as a law abiding citizen. I just think we should try and do what we can to be responsible about it and prevent as many problems as possible. Better enforcement of existing laws would help. As of right now, people listed on the FBI’s no fly list as potential terrorists can still buy a gun. That’s the sort of law that should be updated in my opinion.

gimruis wrote:

As of right now, people listed on the FBI’s no fly list as potential terrorists can still buy a gun. That’s the sort of law that should be updated in my opinion.

I read this and took a moment to let it sink in. So I see this individual plotting to shoot up a shopping mall. He goes to Cabelas and is turned down because he failed a background check – (on the no fly list) In the perfect world, the FBI is flagged and go interview him to see what he’s up to. No laws broken, no reason to lock him up, and the FBI leaves and keeps a surveillance on him for 30 days. Nothing happens….
125 days later, I visualize this guy stepping out of a minni van with a relatively large box and the van drives off. Next day the News explodes with
65 people injured or killed at shopping mall Suspected terrorist was able to buy a gun and went on a mass shooting. Lets pass more restrictive gun laws.
HHHmmmm, wonder who was in that van that sold him the guns and ammo and if he would have performed an universal background check???? Doubt it

Randy Wieland wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gimruis wrote:</div>
As of right now, people listed on the FBI’s no fly list as potential terrorists can still buy a gun. That’s the sort of law that should be updated in my opinion.

I read this and took a moment to let it sink in. So I see this individual plotting to shoot up a shopping mall. He goes to Cabelas and is turned down because he failed a background check – (on the no fly list) In the perfect world, the FBI is flagged and go interview him to see what he’s up to. No laws broken, no reason to lock him up, and the FBI leaves and keeps a surveillance on him for 30 days. Nothing happens….
125 days later, I visualize this guy stepping out of a minni van with a relatively large box and the van drives off. Next day the News explodes with
65 people injured or killed at shopping mall Suspected terrorist was able to buy a gun and went on a mass shooting. Lets pass more restrictive gun laws.
HHHmmmm, wonder who was in that van that sold him the guns and ammo and if he would have performed an universal background check???? Doubt it

If a vehicle was used in your scenario to kill people. We would have an evidence trail to follow. The vehicle would be registered to a license holding driver. We would have a much better chance to track down how the criminal got the vehicle. Even if it was a stolen vehicle it would give law enforcement a place to start. If guns were all registered to license holders and used in a crime we have a evidence trail to follow. I have nothing to hide, I would be happy to register my guns to try to help prevent others from committing gun crime.

I am also in favor of a mandatory year in prison for DUI to try to prevent intoxicated use of vehicles. I mentioned this here before and it was not a popular option.

Nope you can’t register your guns. The whole National Guard will show up at your door and take them away from you.

This is all deeper than a US agenda. This is a global agenda. Think about that a little.

Just me drinking a Busch Light and wondering why I turned in all my firearms years ago. (Guns a bad word).

walleye216 wrote:

I would be happy to register my guns to try to help prevent others from committing gun crime.

I still don’t see where and how this will keep guns or any other means of mass murder out of the hands of criminals. There will always be a criminal looking make money and will sell stolen guns, criminals will always buy illegal guns.

Look how prohibition worked or still modern day moonshiners. Breweries/distilleries are highly regulated. Major paper trail and frequent inspections. But because there is money to be made, people illegally produce, transport, sell, and possess illegal booze. No different than guns. You can regulate, register, and create the most intensive paper trail all you want. But once your off the trail, have a serial number ground off, swap out to unmarked parts/accessories, paper trail is gone. But some criminal will be making money selling them and desperate criminals will buy them.

Its way too slippery of a slope to go down. Once “gun laws” are made, it just gets easier and easier to add more little restrictive laws. All it takes is another round of fearful people and feel-good politicians to make more laws that choke us even more. As an example, they had the Pistol Grip listed in a bill. Had that gone through, the vast majority of rifles I have would over night become illegal. WHY?? Am I really suppose to bow down to this and accept that I am no longer allowed to build a rifle for increased accuracy? What happens when it becomes restrictive to what magnification optics you can have? As tragic as these shootings have been (thinking in particular the Vegas shooting) the death toll could have been much higher. Its sickening, but think about what a well versed shooter could do at 1000 yrds with a basic bolt action. Then we make feel good laws to prevent that, and I have more restrictions forced on me. Sorry, not willing to give an inch on this.

I have no issue with uniform background checks as long as there is true check and balances to protect the 1000’s of innocent people that are flagged on there. Its crazy how easy you can be added to the list, and a real PITA to get yourself cleared and removed – If at all. Just like the no-fly list. All it takes is a data entry error, an unfounded suspicion, or simple human error and your flagged – guilty until proven innocent.

Randy,
I don’t want to speak for you but I believe the last sentence in this StarTribune article is what you are referring to.
My thoughts are punishments do not match the crimes, we need to deter crimes with much more severe penalties. The is little to no crime in Singapore.

A federal judge has added incarceration to injury with a long prison sentence for a Crystal man who was shot by a clerk while trying to rob a south metro Verizon store.

Jamaal M. Mays, 34, was sentenced Wednesday in federal court in Minneapolis to 15 years prison in connection with the armed robbery of the Inver Grove Heights store in August 2017.

Mays and his accomplice, Jaquon K. Moman, 26, of Rosemount, both pleaded guilty to robbery and discharging a gun while committing a crime. Moman was given a six-year prison term last month.

“These defendants showed complete disregard for human life when they made the decision to commit armed robbery of a business establishment located in a busy suburban retail area,” U.S. Attorney Erica MacDonald said in a statement announcing Mays’ sentence.

According to the defendant’s guilty plea and court documents:

Mays and Moman entered a Verizon Wireless store in a strip mall off Hwy. 52 in the 9000 block of Cahill Avenue. Mays held the gun at the clerk’s head while demanding money and cellphones.

The employee pretended to comply before he pulled a gun from his waistband and shot Mays, who fired his weapon as well.

Mays was wounded and remained at the store, while Moman ran from the scene. A stray bullet grazed a worker in an adjacent restaurant.

The clerk, employed by Verizon partner Cellular Connection, had a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a firearm in public and was not physically harmed during the encounter.

Mays did not have a permit to carry, and his handgun had the serial number scratched off.

Youbetcha wrote:

Im interested in your opinion on this… Truly to me I see the “red flag” law as a bigger threat. This will undermine due process as it has numerous times. This solely puts you in the hands of the government and takes away YOUR fourth amendment rights.

Red flag laws include due process. They require either the police or a family member to go to court and present evidence in a hearing. The hearing can be contested by the person who would be named in the court order, so there is an opportunity to contest the order.

A judge then decides whether a court order to remove firearms from the possession of the person in question and to ban them from new purchases is warranted. The police alone cannot remove firearms on their own initative. They can only do it with the court’s review and permission.

A friend of mine lived next to an elderly couple who had a paranoid schizophrenic son in his twenties. This mentally ill man became convinced my friend was secretly dumping toxic waste is his back yard and also was “bugging” his home with radio waves that could read thoughts.

The situation escalated each week as this mentally ill man became more and more aggressive and issued violent threats, but always shouted so proof was difficult to establish. My friend took this to the police but they could do absolutely nothing unless this man actually attacked someone or there was proof that an attack was imminent.

Now imagine living next door to someone this mentally ill and wondering if he has guns! You, your wife, your kids are all sitting ducks and the police can do NOTHING until he actually commits a violent act. I was worried every time my friend didn’t respond to a text or pick up the phone!

There is plenty of due process in red flag laws. They can be contested and the order can be lifted. As I said, severely mentally ill people obtaining or possessing guns and/or committing violent acts with guns are not the friend of the gun owner.

Grouse

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

Red flag laws include due process. They require either the police or a family member to go to court and present evidence in a hearing. The hearing can be contested by the person who would be named in the court order, so there is an opportunity to contest the order.

The way I have seen this been used there is no opportunity to contest before weapons are seized.

“There is plenty of due process in red flag laws”

I don’t know about “plenty”, but from what I’ve been able to find the order to act has to come from a Judge. It’s not just the Police or just the word of an irate neighbor. It goes in front of a Judge and he issues the order. What I wasn’t able to find out was whether one was allowed to plead his case or face his accuser, something that goes back to the Magna Carta. If not, then the “process” is seriously flawed. However it’s better than no process at all.

What concerns me is the fact that we’ve gone very quickly from “Innocent until Proven Guilty” to “Guilty until Proven Innocent” to simply “Guilty”.

S.R.

Youbetcha wrote:

The way I have seen this been used there is no opportunity to contest before weapons are seized.

I’m not familiar with the way all states that have red flag laws have implemented them, so it may be the case in some, but there is STILL an evidentiary hearing before a judge. Which is due process.

In this way, how would it be any different than the police obtaining a search warrant and using it to seize property? Something that is clearly not in violation of the 4th Amendment. There is no preemptive opportunity to contest the police obtaining a search warrant to search one’s property because there is due process that involves the consent of a judge who will demand a threashold be crossed as far as evidnece presented.

Steve Root wrote:

What concerns me is the fact that we’ve gone very quickly from “Innocent until Proven Guilty” to “Guilty until Proven Innocent” to simply “Guilty”.

Nobody is being tried or convicted of anything in the case of a court order to remove firearms. They are neither innocent nor guilty. It’s neither an indictment nor a trial.

I don’t think the rights of any individual should be trampled by anyone else claiming their rights are on a higher plane. Currently, it is nearly impossible to confine or legally act to stop someone who is mentally ill from doing harm unless they physically harm someone first.

Once you have that situation where you have to sit around and wait until a mentally ill person DOES something to you, your spouse, or your loved ones you realize the ridiculousness of putting that person’s rights ahead of other’s rights not to live in fear or to have to wait to be attacked and/or killed before something legally can be done to “protect” them. Some protection! If we applied the same logic to drunk driving, the police would have to follow the drunk as he drove around town and wait until he ran over your spouse before arresting them.

Grouse

Grouse….if my guns are taken away and other restrictions are placed on me then I am being punished, period. And that has happened without a trial, a lawyer representing me, etc. I don’t disagree with the intent of this law or your position. However I can see the potential for a lot of abuse. For example, what is the process you go though to get your guns back? A lot of possible scenerios here are very concerning.

S.R.

I disagree grouse. The drunk driver committed his crime when he started driving….. there is the offense he can be arrested for.

Confiscating a weapon from someone that has done no crime is different. The fear I have is who’s word is a judge gonna take? Seems like a real slippery slope that would a tough one to reclimb…… I am automatically EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS when the gov’t butts in to “help”.

Steve Root wrote:

However I can see the potential for a lot of abuse.

The problem right now is that the shoe is on the other foot. The people who are being abused are the people who are threatened by a mentally ill individual with weapons. What crime have they committed to be punished like this?

Timmy wrote:

The drunk driver committed his crime when he started driving…

Part, if not the majority, of the reason we have a law against drunk driving is because of the drunk driver’s potential to do harm to others.

Timmy wrote:

Confiscating a weapon from someone that has done no crime is different.

So you’d rather wait until he commits a crime by harming or killing your spouse or child in order to preserve his right to possess the weapons that could allow him to do so? It’s literally that serious.

You will not convince me that the right of a paranoid schizophreniac to participate in his skeet league should trump somebody else’s right not to live in fear of this individual killing him or his family. No right is unlimited.

Grouse

In theory Red flag laws sound like a sensible thing to do, but in a real life world when ex wives and ex girlfriends come into play, there is nothing to stop someone from falsely saying you threatened them, or anyone that wants to give you a hard time, say such, and there goes all your guns when you have done nothing wrong. It could spiral drastically wrong from there, if especially you live in a liberal state or community, or have to go before an anti gun judge. While you may get them back sometime down the road, you would still have a record on file, and more than likely incur considerable expense in clearing your name. I am very pro gun rights, but would support action being taken on someone that posts something on social media, threatening to harm someone.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Steve Root wrote:</div>
However I can see the potential for a lot of abuse.

The problem right now is that the shoe is on the other foot. The people who are being abused are the people who are threatened by a mentally ill individual with weapons. What crime have they committed to be punished like this?

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Timmy wrote:</div>
The drunk driver committed his crime when he started driving…

Part, if not the majority, of the reason we have a law against drunk driving is because of the drunk driver’s potential to do harm to others.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Timmy wrote:</div>
Confiscating a weapon from someone that has done no crime is different.

So you’d rather wait until he commits a crime by harming or killing your spouse or child in order to preserve his right to possess the weapons that could allow him to do so? It’s literally that serious.

You will not convince me that the right of a paranoid schizophreniac to participate in his skeet league should trump somebody else’s right not to live in fear of this individual killing him or his family. No right is unlimited.

Grouse

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in skeet league, fyi

Give an inch and they’ll take a mile

So someone sits around wondering if their paranoid skitzo neighbor even has a gun to do them harm?Id say its not just the skitzo neighbor thats paranoid.You dont even know if the guy has guns to take.Red flag sounds like a bully tactic to be used by anyone who says im scared of this guy or that woman better take their guns if they even own any to begin with.Whats to stop an anti hunter who sees me dreesed in blaze orange at the gas station during deer season and pretty much knows I have a gun report me as being a danger and boom I have to waste my time,money,resources proving I am not?Way to ripe for abuse by anyone against anyone based on nothing other than he said she said.

Didn’t President Bush pass a law where guns cannot be confiscated?

Look what the Dumbo-Craps are running on now.

Several candidates are running on declaring a national emergency on outlawing ammunition. They don’t need to get rid of the guns. They cannot confiscate them. They will get rid of the ammunition though.

Don’t think it’s far off their agenda? Check it out.

Don’t they already track and limit ammo sales in California? They recently realized that a firearm is useless without ammo.

ajw wrote:

Give an inch and they’ll take a mile

Agree. When it becomes glaringly obvious the Red Flag law does nothing to fix the problem, they will keep adding on new reasons to take your guns. Once implemented, the law never goes away. It will just get worse.

-J.

How about getting the mentally disturbed people the mental help they need instead of taking away more rights?

Years ago, we had mental hospitals available. Where do people get care now? Treating the disease instead of the symptom would be better for all.

Musky Ed wrote:

when ex wives and ex girlfriends come into play, there is nothing to stop someone from falsely saying you threatened them, or anyone that wants to give you a hard time, say such, and there goes all your guns when you have done nothing wrong. It could spiral drastically wrong from there, if especially you live in a liberal state or community, or have to go before an anti gun judge.

Exactly, and that IS how its going wrong. As for due process, its a joke. Its about the same as a DA getting a judge to sign off on about anything else that takes a court order. Someone calls you in as a threat, and of coarse its taken seriously. It goes before a judge WITHOUT you being present or represented. A watered down version of this happens in Colorado during a divorce. The about to be X-wife tells her attorney that you have a lot of guns. Without representation, a judge orders that your rifles are “held”. You go the next 1 or 2 years without your rifles. Then the divorce is final, and they want you to have a “cooling off” period of who knows how long????? Buddy of mine went through an ugly divorce with a lot of property and assets to split. Took 2-1/2 years. Hes at a year later – yes – 3-1/2 years – and still doesn’t have his rifles back. Now he has another issue. He got a judge to get him an itemized list of all his firearms held, and now there are some missing.

Nearly the same for IL and their red-flag BS. Buddy had a few friends over and they were hanging out in his back yard. He was showing them a couple new builds that he had done on a couple rifles and a neighbor flipped out. Called 911 and reported “they are marching through the neighborhood pointing guns at people”. Cops came out and saw it was a gross exaggeration that was called in, and Greg was suggested to keep a lower profile and and the rifles in his house so the neighbor didn’t panic anymore. Strange enough, cops returned the next day with a court order to hold his firearms while he was being investigated as a threat to himself and others. Its over a year, and still no signs of getting his firearms back.
You think for 1 minute this is right? I agree a better process needs to be in place to protect innocent people INCLUDING LAW ABIDING FIREARM OWNERS. But with the major flaws in the reality of these so called red flag laws, they strip law abiding citizens of their rights.