The 2nd amendment, gun laws and some ideas

a reply to: Xcathdra


The biggest beef I have with a national 5 day delay/background check is that's an automatic rubber stamp for an unofficial gun registry. Far too easy to use the back-ground check data for a list of gun owners.

This story goes back about 6-7 years now.

I ran Alaska for a couple of years trucking produce up and usually halibut-in season- back to the lower 48. The U.S. has it's customs/border crossing right at the border. it's called 'Alcan'. The Canadians keep theirs 20 miles inside Canadian territory at Beaver Creek, Yukon. In between the two is technically Canadian territory and is sporadically patrolled by the Canucks.

One winter trip, southbound, I see a woman sitting on a rock in a 'pull-off' in that region between the two border offices.No car. Nothing but her sitting there all by herself. I report the fact to the Canadians when I arrive at the Canadian port of entry at Beaver Creek. As everyone knows everyone and no story goes untold in the "north of the 60" country, it only took the next trip to get "the rest of the story".

Apparently, she was a U.S. citizen stuck in Fairbanks with a hefty Psych history. She was, therefore, on a no-fly list. This also includes ships, ferries and even getting a ticket on a Greyhound bus is blocked. She was also blocked by the Canadians when trying to get to the lower 48 when in a car or an unsuspecting truck-driver.

She had an intense dislike of Alaska and only wanted to get back to the lower 48. She had tried hitching numerous times with the intent of sneaking past the Canadian port and grabbing a ride south from there. It never worked. The Canadians would drive back to the U.S. port 20 miles back and dump her there. They'd get her back to Fairbanks and the process would repeat....again and again.

Such is the power of the no-fly list....

IMO, 99% of the gun issue arises from either a mass shooting or the shooting of a prominent person. In these past cases the firearms were legally acquired weeks, months or more before the shootings.

The real problem is state of mind for which there is no easy measure. People in close contact with a person have to care enough to watch for issues which are leading to a state of mind which leads a person to a violent act such as a shooting.

My biggest fear for the wrong person possessing a firearm are the ones who have anger issues.

a reply to: butcherguy


Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I'm just trying to figure out why its necessary to subject everyone to a delay when the stated purpose relates to those on the watch lists. It just seems to me that you can achieve the exact same thing by limiting it only to those actually on the watch lists.

a reply to: vor78

No, I agree with you.
Just pointing out that even the small pool of 'suspected people' contains people that are not bad guys.

a reply to: Xcathdra

"This country is not 100% republican or democrat and we need to break Washington of the deadly mindset that they will not compromise with each other."

Can you name any recent law that Obama or other Democrats have proposed that would've stopped a single mass shooting in the last 100 years? Nope. They could not care less about the criminal element committing acts of violence.

FYI- many are blaming the national rifle Association for the shooting in Orlando. I do not understand this at all. It was a gun free zone, the NRA was not allowed near the building. You cannot blame them. If the NRA was there I guarantee you that no one would have died that night- besides the terrorist maybe. Smh

The no fly list is only in existence because legal theory say you have right to travel but deems certain modes of travel as a privilege.

Because the no fly list denies what is deemed privileged activity it should not be used to deny 2nd amendment right.

a reply to: Phoenix

The Orlando shooter, Columbine shooters, Sandyhook shooters, none of them were on this list. Actually, the Orlando shooter flew twice

a reply to: Xcathdra

You want to have legislation based upon what ifs and maybes.

All of this goes directly against the Constitution and BoR.

This is basically the Patriot Act 2.0.

a reply to: butcherguy

Again, you are stuck with the present situation and the watch lists. The ideas listed here are based on the watch lists being redone to comply with the constitution and law.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Xcathdra

You want to have legislation based upon what ifs and maybes.

All of this goes directly against the Constitution and BoR.

This is basically the Patriot Act 2.0.

You guys need to read.. It says ideas. The lists are based on revamped criteria that makes them actual law with built in protections that comply with the constitution.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Denying a US citizens 2nd rights, because the Govt puts them on a "list" does not meet Constitutional muster.

Im a CCL holder in Florida and I would be open to a required safety/training course for first time gun buyers. I learned a ton when I had to do mine. This would reduce the accidental discharge issue as many don't realize removing the clip still can leave a bullet in the chamber.

I say no to list as they can be manipulated by politicians and govt. Don't trust either.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Xcathdra

Denying a US citizens 2nd rights, because the Govt puts them on a "list" does not meet Constitutional muster.

Yes as we all know and have bitched about it for some time now. Thats why I made this thread and labeled the section
ideas on how to get reform and it be constitutionally lawful.

I dont think we need to keep repeating why it doesnt work now.

a reply to: sirlancelot

Question -

Would you have better standing / due process to challenge an ad hoc terror / no fly list or a list established by law with specifics on what the law does, how its applied and how anything occurring under that law can be challenged in court?