It's back! Gun Control Bill To Be reintroduced

[LarryP]

http://kstp.com/news/stories/s3014777.shtml


One of the architects of failed gun control legislation says he's bringing it back.

Sen. Joe Manchin on Sunday said he would re-introduce a measure that would require criminal and mental health background checks for gun buyers at shows and online.

[Heffay]

I think it's just to update the NICS database in a more timely manner.

It'll be interesting to see if they try to add more stuff to it, but I don't think that's likely.

[LarryP]

nope expanded federal background checks gun shows etc

[Heffay]

nope expanded federal background checks gun shows etc

Oh, I thought you were talking about the one that they just created in the MN legislature. This is the federal one.

I'm not worried.

[SkyRock]

It sounds like an expansion of NICS ("...background checks at gunshows and online..."), not an update.

I vote "No!"

[ijosef]

We shouldn't be surprised. If anything, we should expect this type of thing (and more). The anti-gun folks are going to push for more and more gun control, which is why it's important not to cede any more ground. If the last batch of bills (both state and federal) had passed and we now had a federal "assault weapons" ban and universal background checks, does anyone really think that the anti-gun crowd would suddenly be okay with the state of firearms in the United States? They might be low key for a few more years but trust me they'd amp up again (likely after another tragedy they could exploit) and clamor for more gun control. It will never end with these people.

Some of those in the crowd might want to put the brakes on the whole thing if the legislation overreaches (let's say we institute gun bans akin to what Australia did), but you can get a lot of those folks to go along if its done incrementally. First you get the bans on "scary" weapons and universal checks, then a couple years down the road you can broaden the ban after people have gotten accustomed to the current state of gun laws. Piece by piece.

[brewerbob]

There is a bill to be introduced into the minn senate. Scaled way back. No backround check crap or anything controversial. GOCRA, per KSTP, said they would not stand in the way of this. Mostly improved reporting criteria.

Latz pinky swore that nothing else would be added to the bill.

[Heffay]

Latz pinky swore that nothing else would be added to the bill.

He needs *something* to trumpet his success against the gun lobby. We should take this opportunity to add things we want as well.

[Thunder71]

Latz pinky swore that nothing else would be added to the bill.

He needs *something* to trumpet his success against the gun lobby. We should take this opportunity to add things we want as well.

I don't understand why we don't have pro gun (rights) items on the agenda when we have the opportunity. I realize it's unlikely to go anywhere this year, but I feel we are on the defense more than we're on the offence.

[Heffay]

Latz pinky swore that nothing else would be added to the bill.

He needs *something* to trumpet his success against the gun lobby. We should take this opportunity to add things we want as well.

I don't understand why we don't have pro gun (rights) items on the agenda when we have the opportunity. I realize it's unlikely to go anywhere this year, but I feel we are on the defense more than we're on the offence.

That's why now would be a good time to throw on a few freebies. GOCRA shouldn't have said anything at first, and instead said they'd support it if we can get a few nice to have things along with it.

Oh well, missed opportunities.

[ex-LT]

I don't understand why we don't have pro gun (rights) items on the agenda when we have the opportunity. I realize it's unlikely to go anywhere this year, but I feel we are on the defense more than we're on the offence.

You mean like in 2012, when Governor Crazy Eyes vetoed "stand your ground" after it passed both houses of the legislature (with bi-partisan support)?

[XDM45]

You mean like in 2012, when Governor Crazy Eyes vetoed "stand your ground" after it passed both houses of the legislature (with bi-partisan support)?

That still irritates me.

I still say that we need to amend the Minnesota Constitution for more pro-gun rights, pro-freedom, and to have legislation on top of that here in MN as well. We need to get out of those defensive posture we as a gun community are stuck in and go on the offensive - hard - when it comes to pushing for legislation in our favor.

[JJ]

compromise[ kom-pruh-mahyz ]
noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.


As much as I support GOCRA, I think we should be asking for [i]something[/i] in return. We cannot sit back on our haunches forever. The language is all easy to access, why are we not at the very least demanding last years Stand Your Ground legislation as our compromise?

Make the Governor put up, or shut up!

[XDM45]

compromise[ kom-pruh-mahyz ]
noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.


As much as I support GOCRA, I think we should be asking for something in return. We cannot sit back on our haunches forever. The language is all easy to access, why are we not at the very least demanding last years Stand Your Ground legislation as our compromise?

Make the Governor put up, or shut up!

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" pretty much sums if up for me with "GTF off my (guns) lawn!!"

I know what you're saying, and I agree with it, but if you remember HF1325 ( think it was, where the NRA and GOCRA backed a bill that Tony Conrnish and others authored which actually DID do something to help mitigate crime without punishing law-abiding gun owners, Paymar wouldn't even allow it onto the floor. Obviously we CAN get legislation through such as the MPPA of 2003, but what a battle it is. For such a gon-laden country with a heavy gun history, the AGers seem to have a lot of pull.

I'm sure if it were possible and the founding fathers introduced a bill that said "Knock it the eff off and people can own whatever the hell they want when it comes to firearms", the modern politicians would gripe about it and argue what the founding fathers meant - with them standing right there.

Very frustrating.

[bstrawse]

Paymar didn't even hold a hearing on that bill in the House, nor did Latz in the Senate....