wasfuzz wrote:Makes perfect sense Fed law says it is a crime - there fore you can not own a gun, whats so hard about that? Just makes sense that the tract the public records to see who has guns. Hell if MN eve rcross-referenced the hunting license file with people who are not allowed to own guns, there would be a lot less hunters in MN.
BigBlue wrote:wasfuzz wrote:Makes perfect sense Fed law says it is a crime - there fore you can not own a gun, whats so hard about that? Just makes sense that the tract the public records to see who has guns. Hell if MN eve rcross-referenced the hunting license file with people who are not allowed to own guns, there would be a lot less hunters in MN.
That would make sense if it were the Feds sending out the letters and confiscating the guns. But according to the article it is the local PD doing it. If they are OK ignoring one federal law (grass) why are they not OK ignoring something related to it?
BB
Rip Van Winkle wrote:Because they hate guns maybe?
Because they hate gun owners maybe?
xd ED wrote:Because they hate gun owners maybe?
Fixed it for you
LarryP wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article187082303.html
yukonjasper wrote:Or cross reference with prescription records for psychoactive drugs as part of "common sense " solutions.
Geezer43 wrote:I realize that these restrictions apply to the purchase of guns after the prescription is granted, however there seems to be a bit of overreach in some cases.
Geezer43 wrote:Despite the fact that she has never purchased a firearm and has no intention of doing do, does this apply to any member of the household?
Geezer43 wrote:In light of recent events, and of a seeming tendency of politicians to cave-in to a now ever increasing anti-gun sentiment and demand for more anti-gun legislation, my concerns of more aggressive interpretation and enforcement of existing laws relating to this particular issue are growing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests