Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2014, 10:56:09 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82973 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 32 Print
Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )  (Read 247162 times)
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #450 on: January 14, 2011, 09:21:55 AM »

Woof,
 The 40's offer maximum punch with less recoil than a 45 and more ammo in the mag and like I said you can turn them into another set of guns by just dropping a 9mm barrel in them for even more ammo capacity, less recoil and cheaper bullets when you want.
                          P.C.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 11:14:00 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #451 on: January 14, 2011, 10:50:20 AM »

I have a 19 and a 26, but will be selling the 26 when I get around to it.  The shorty handle, even with a pinky extender on the mag, just does not feel right for my hand.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #452 on: January 14, 2011, 11:25:58 AM »

Crafty,

Have you tried using a 19 mag in the 26 with a grip extender?

I've used this on a 26 carried as a backup gun.

http://www.lonewolfdist.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=14&CAT=24
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #453 on: January 14, 2011, 11:33:02 AM »

I've used a naked 19 clip, and yes it works, and I like the look of the accessory shown there, but why not just carry the 19 then?
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #454 on: January 14, 2011, 11:34:59 AM »

Woof,
 I've heard a number of people with that complaint about the mini Glocks, everyone is different in some regards, which makes it important to notice and go to a different weapon if serious enough to be a bother. I can handle my G27 fine, but for a conceal carry weapon it is a little bulky and I normally carry it on my hip and just wear a jacket over it. I've tried it in an ankle holster and inside the beltban but both are uncomfortable and not easily drawn, so for more concealment and utility I would opt for another weapon. However, I know guys that carry them in that manner with no problem. My fave comfort deep concealment pistol is the little 32. cal Davis Derringer with Glasser slugs, I carry with my change.
                    
                          P.C.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 11:36:50 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #455 on: January 14, 2011, 11:40:55 AM »

Woof,
 The 40's offer maximum punch with less recoil than a 45 and more ammo in the mag and like I said you can turn them into another set of guns by just dropping a 9mm barrel in them for even more ammo capacity, less recoil and cheaper bullets when you want.
                          P.C.

I've talked to a forensic pathologist with a huge database of GSW documentation. He was very clear that there is no way to differentiate between handgun caliber wounds in human tissue. He identifies the caliber by the bullets/casings recovered.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #456 on: January 14, 2011, 11:42:44 AM »

I've used a naked 19 clip, and yes it works, and I like the look of the accessory shown there, but why not just carry the 19 then?

It's still easier to conceal. The 26 rode in a inner pocket of my duty jacket, a 19 wouldn't have fit.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #457 on: January 14, 2011, 12:01:58 PM »


GM:  When testing it in my house (CC being off limits to me as a subject of Los Angeles) the 26 seemed bulky to me too.  Interesting about GSW and caliber detection.

PC:  Do you have a URL of that gun?  Why those particular bullets?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #458 on: January 14, 2011, 12:12:59 PM »

Crafty,

Everything is a trade off. A .380 is easier to conceal, but I like being able to use the same mags. I like my Ruger SP101 .357 Mag, but I like having more than 5 shots.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #459 on: January 14, 2011, 01:44:34 PM »

Woof Guro Craftydog,
 Unfortunately Davis was forced out of business during the flurry of lawsuits of the Clinton reign but another company called Cobra is making the same guns. www.cobraderringers.com/category/96-Corba_Derringer_Pistols.aspx
 
 I use the Glaser in the little gun because the 32 ACP round is rather small for a personal defense round and have little expansion even with hollow points but these bullets have pellets in the tip and delivers more footpounds of energy at terminal velocity. They don't over penetrate and they don't ricochet like other rounds do, which is why they call them safety ammo. www.shopcorbon.com/Glaser-Safety-Slug/500/500/dept

 Now just because I picked these for this particular weapon doesn't mean I think they are the best choice for all pistols or situations. As a matter of fact I only have one of these in one chamber and a solid in the other in case there is something between us. Also they make these guns in bigger caliber but they are heavy and bulge out in your pocket. You don't want the scare the women folk you know. cheesy
                   P.C.
 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 01:52:25 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #460 on: January 14, 2011, 01:54:51 PM »

Thank you.  That ammo looks interesting.

BTW, I've always wondered with the derringer design of no trigger guard, what prevents the gun from going off from inadvertent contact with the trigger?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #461 on: January 14, 2011, 02:08:21 PM »

Aside from being very expensive, Glaser has a very poor track record in real world shootings.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #462 on: January 14, 2011, 02:37:57 PM »

Woof,
 There are some safety concerns with the design but they are safe so long as you know and understand the weapon. First like you said there is no trigger guard, so you should never carry the weapon fully cocked. There is a safety, a little bar stock pin that is pushed in that blocks the hammer from falling but it is awkward to get off and usually takes both hands to deal with, so forget taking it off quickly and firing the weapon. There is another safety and that is the half cocked position. Once the hammer is pulled back to the half cocked position and locked in the hammer cannot go forward again without being fully cocked back and the trigger pulled. Even if the weapon is dropped, damaged whatever it is impossible for the hammer to go back down from half cocked without going on to the full cock position. So it's best to carry it in the half cocked position and not bother with the safety slide pin. Now I know some guys are thinking that can't be right, carrying something half cocked has got to be dangerous. Well with a Derringer the opposite is true because when the hammer is down the firing pin is fully engaged. In other words if you have a round in the chamber and the hammer is down then the firing pin is in direct contact with the primer of the bullet, bang! Not all guns of this type are like that but these are. The thing you really have too watch for is when loading the weapon and closing it up, because if the hammer is down and you forceably close it up, again bang! So you must have the weapon at half cocked when loading it or carrying it loaded. To fire the weapon you simply pull back the hammer to full cock at that point you can fire the weapon... and so can anything else that hits the trigger. You are the safety at that point. To back down the hammer, is when I engage the safety and drop it back down to half cock, because to do this you have to hold back the hammer and pull trigger then ease the hammer back down. With the safety engaged the hammer can't just drop and fire the weapon.
                      P.C.
Logged

prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #463 on: January 14, 2011, 02:39:43 PM »

Woof,
 Like I said I don't recommend it for all uses.
                         P.C.
Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #464 on: January 14, 2011, 03:13:36 PM »

I recommend finding ammo that functions 100% in your weapon. You'll need to run 150-200 rounds through to see if your ammo is reliable. I'm not sure I'd want to try that with Glaser.

Like real estate, ammo is all about location, location, location. Put the rounds where they need to go and they'll work.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #465 on: January 14, 2011, 04:10:45 PM »

Woof,
 I agree with that you want to make sure your weapon feeds and functions with the ammo you're going to be using for self defense. Some really good ammo just doesn't work in some guns but with the variety of ammo out there it's nice to have a choice that fits the conditions and situation that you personally are most likely to encounter with a gun that best fits the same. The little Derringer is what my Grandfather called a bellygun, you stick it to your attacker's belly and fire because if you don't you'll probably miss. The bullet when it leaves such a short barrel is barely scratched by the rifling and has little if any spin put to it, which of course makes it very inaccurate. So having a round that doesn't shoot through walls or bounce around ain't such a bad idea in the confines of a crowded 7/11, and most self defense ammo is +P and could blow my little gun up, Glaser isn't. So I think it's a good pick for my little gun that I carry when wearing my shorts, tee shirt, and flipflops when going to get ice in the summer. Besides I'll still have the shotgun in the trunk and my revolver or something else in the glove box and I don't use Glaser in those; all I use it for is one bullet in my little gun tucked in my pocket. grin
                       P.C.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 04:48:10 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #466 on: January 14, 2011, 04:49:46 PM »

I agree that the gun you have is better than the one you don't have if you suddenly need one.

Contact wounds are massive, compared to the damage of a bullet alone.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #467 on: January 14, 2011, 05:16:28 PM »

Woof GM,
 Where I live it's more important to have a little gun that no one can see because if they see it I'll get stuck in there for two or three hours talking about guns and my ice will melt before I get home. cheesy
                           P.C.
Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #468 on: January 15, 2011, 10:42:31 AM »

I know the L.A. Times can be biased, but I think this article presents a pretty good
summary of Joe Zamudio's actions (favorably), yet discusses the dangers of having an ill trained person with a gun.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-zamudio-shooting-20110115,0,7713862.story
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #469 on: January 15, 2011, 12:37:45 PM »

Being a subject of Los Angeles, Pravda on the Beach a.k.a. the Left Angeles Times, is part of my environment; I saw the article already.  My reaction to it was that here we had a perfect example contrary to the fears of those who would disarm the American people that recognizing the people's right to bear arms would lead to recklessness and what does POTB do?  "Balance" the article with hypotheticals.  Not a big deal (and POTB has done much, much worse) but IMHO a shading in favor of an agenda nonetheless.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #470 on: January 15, 2011, 12:47:14 PM »

Woof,
 Don't feel too bad about that, I've seen the same thing from the "I live in New York" reporters on Fox News do the same thing when it comes to citizens carrying weapons for protection outside their homes. They go a little wobbly on gun rights there.
                 P.C.
Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #471 on: January 20, 2011, 12:23:23 PM »

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/nra-lifetime-member-michael-moore-thinks-youre-a-racist-for-owning-a-gun/

NRA lifetime member Michael Moore thinks you’re a racist for owning a gun


Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #472 on: January 20, 2011, 01:53:02 PM »

Woof,
 We need to stop letting this idiot push our buttons, he is a useless commie hack that when ever he wants some attention crawls out from under the pile of cow sh#t he was born in and pukes this nonsense out on to his equally useless fan base and they lap it up.
F him. tongue
 And I hope everyone appreciates my efforts at being non violent in my rhetoric toward the one individual on this planet I truly hate.
                                 P.C. cool
Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #473 on: January 20, 2011, 01:55:43 PM »

He is a ratings gimmick for MSNBC, just like FOX uses that race baiting scumbag Al Sharpton.
Logged
The Tao
Guest
« Reply #474 on: January 20, 2011, 02:00:02 PM »

Woof,
 We need to stop letting this idiot push our buttons, he is a useless commie hack that when ever he wants some attention crawls out from under the pile of cow sh#t he was born in and pukes this nonsense out on to his equally useless fan base and they lap it up.
F him. tongue
 And I hope everyone appreciates my efforts at being non violent in my rhetoric toward the one individual on this planet I truly hate.
                                 P.C. cool

I have decided to adopt a new political philosophy due to the fact that everytime that I turn around, there is another person in the news that is irritating me; "Self Sufficiency in all things." That way, they can do whatever they want, I'll continue to vote and be responsible, but in the end, it doesn't matter what they do because I'm self reliant.

Guro Crafty nailed it. "He is a ratings gimmick."

Me? I don't even pay attention to them anymore and just surround myself with people and pay attention to the people that I want to emulate. It is the best that I can do without being driven mad by their stupidity.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #475 on: January 20, 2011, 02:01:49 PM »

Woof,
 The media plays people like a fiddle, this is true.
                        P.C.
Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #476 on: January 23, 2011, 12:13:14 PM »

From today's POTH.  Comments?
====================
WITH the Tucson shootings still in the news, there’s a good chance President Obama will discuss gun control in his speech. How he does it could mean progress or stalemate on the issue.

The President’s Speech
 What Should the President Say?
Politicians, journalists and experts in various fields share what issues they would like addressed in the President’s State of the Union speech.

Read More »
.Over the last few weeks, gun-control advocates have focused on banning the type of high-capacity clips that the police say was used by the man accused in the Tucson shootings, Jared Loughner. But even timely efforts to ban particular kinds of weapons face long odds politically, and historically have less success in reducing crime.

To get something done with a skeptical Congress, the president ought to shift the focus from the instruments of violence to the perpetrators by calling for a substantial increase in the number of people who are listed by the F.B.I. as barred from purchasing guns.

This year, the government will conduct about 14 million background checks on prospective firearm buyers. Only about 200,000, or just over 1 percent, will be denied permission to buy.

What’s more, while the F.B.I. database, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, has nearly 6.5 million records of prohibited buyers, two-thirds are simply the names of undocumented immigrants, who as a group constitute just 1 percent of those who were denied a gun.

In contrast, the entire prohibited-buyer database holds just 2,092 names of drug abusers, and only one of every 5,000 prospective buyers in 2010 was denied for reasons of mental instability.

A big part of the problem is that people who should be on the list, like those diagnosed with severe mental-health problems, are often left off, either because of bureaucratic hurdles or because several states are slow to report them to the federal government. According to a report by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, New Jersey submitted just eight names in 34 months from 2008 to 2010, compared with 60,677 from Texas.

The president should therefore call for several additions to the database: names on the terrorist watch list, military recruits who fail drug tests and patients ordered to undergo mental-health treatment, if their doctor or family requests they be added. He should also demand that reluctant states supply court records on mentally incapacitated residents.

An approach aimed at the person, not the gun, has a real chance of winning bipartisan support.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #477 on: January 23, 2011, 12:26:03 PM »

Meh. I foresee serious problems from this approach.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #478 on: January 23, 2011, 12:46:39 PM »

Question presented:  This will sound good to many people. How to reply?

1) Good idea!  Lets work together on the details!

2) Bad idea because __________________ !  Instead lets:
                        a) keep things the way the are
                        b) here's a better way, specfically , , ,   
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #479 on: January 23, 2011, 12:54:46 PM »

http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

BATFE Letter Re: Mental Disqualification
OPEN LETTER TO THE STATES' ATTORNEYS GENERAL

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Office of the Director
May 9, 2007

 

We at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), like all Americans, were saddened by the tragic events that unfolded at Virginia Tech last month. In the immediate aftermath, many questions arose about whether the person responsible for the shootings was prohibited under Federal law from possessing a firearm, and how the shooter passed the background check required before purchasing the two firearms used on April 16, 2007.

As the Federal agency responsible for enforcing the Federal firearms laws, ATF works every day to prevent the criminal misuse of firearms. We stand ready to assist our State and local partners in better understanding the Federal prohibitors and how we can work together to prevent future tragedies. This letter serves to explain what ATF has done in response to the events at Virginia Tech and to provide information on the nature and scope of the Federal prohibition.

In the initial weeks after the Virginia Tech shootings, ATF took immediate steps to communicate with our State and local law enforcement partners and the licensed firearms community. In particular, ATF joined the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who, along with the United States Attorney General and the Secretary of Education, embarked on a twelve-State effort to meet with State and local leaders, educators, mental health experts, and law enforcement officials to find out what can be learned from the tragedy at Virginia Tech. A summary of lessons learned will be reported back to the President with recommendations about how the Federal Government, working in conjunction with State and local partners, can prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

During the first week of May, ATF used the occasion of the annual FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Users Conference in Portland, Oregon, to reach out to State law enforcement officials to clarify the meaning of the Federal prohibition for those persons adjudicated as a “mental defective” or committed to a mental institution. ATF has also begun the process of clarifying the Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473), the form that is completed whenever a person purchases a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. The new Form 4473 will make it clear, for example, that any person who has been found by a court, board, or other lawful authority to be a danger to self or others is prohibited from purchasing a firearm or ammunition. ATF will also be sending an open letter to all Federal firearms licensees to further instruct on the meaning of the Federal prohibition.

Many States are already taking steps to identify persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms as a result of their mental health history. However, as of April 2007, only 23 States have submitted any mental health information to the NICS system, and only four regularly report such information. ATF and our FBI partners who operate the NICS system are encouraging State authorities to take the necessary actions to ensure that all disqualifying information is provided to prevent the purchase of firearms by those prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law. Accordingly, ATF stands ready to assist any State with questions or concerns they may have with respect to collecting additional information regarding whether a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). Many States are considering how to enhance their collection efforts in the aftermath of Virginia Tech, ATF would like to provide all necessary assistance with those efforts.

Section 922(g)(4) of 18 U.S.C. makes it unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to possess firearms or ammunition. This prohibition covers two classes of persons—those who have either been (1) adjudicated as a mental defective; or (2) committed to a mental institution.

Each of these terms is defined by Federal regulation at 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 as follows:
ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE

   1. A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
         1. Is a danger to himself or to others; or
         2. Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
   2. The term shall include—
         1. A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
         2. Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION

This term means a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term also includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, and commitments for other reasons such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a mental institution.

ATF has historically interpreted these provisions as constituting two distinct prohibitions. Each prohibition represents a separate disqualification. For example, a “commitment” means a formal commitment, not a voluntary stay. Excluded are stays for observation only. Nor does the term include a stay in a mental institution that never involved any form of adjudication by a lawful authority. However, a stay that began as a voluntary stay may be subsequently transformed into a disqualifying stay if a court, board, or other lawful authority makes a determination that the person is a danger to self or others. Moreover, a voluntary stay that is by itself not disabling could be later converted into a formal commitment and therefore be disabling.

For purposes of a Federal firearms disability, ATF interprets “adjudicated mental defective” to include anyone adjudicated to be a “danger to him or herself,” “a danger to others,” or lacking “the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs.” For purposes of Federal law, “danger” means any danger, not simply “imminent” or “substantial” danger as is often required to sustain an involuntary commitment under State law. Thus, for example, adjudication that a person was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others would result in Federal firearms disability, whether the court-ordered treatment was on an inpatient or outpatient basis. This is because the adjudication itself (a finding of danger due to mental illness) is sufficient to trigger the disability.

It should be emphasized that whatever adjudication procedure a State employs, the Constitution requires certain guarantees of due process. In order for a particular commitment order to qualify as a prohibiting commitment, ATF historically has required that traditional protections of due process be present, including adequate notice, an opportunity to respond, and a right to counsel. Such protections are important because whether a person has been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, the firearms disability is permanent.

We recognize that the procedures that result in a person being prohibited vary widely under State law and we encourage each of you to work closely with ATF to determine whether your statutory or regulatory mental health commitment or adjudication procedures under a particular set of facts might result in a determination that qualifies as a Federal prohibition.

We appreciate the interest that Federal, State, and local law enforcement and other stakeholders have in improving the enforcement of our nation’s firearms laws, and ATF stands ready to assist the States in improving their efforts to ensure information on disqualified persons is collected and provided to the NICS system. Questions or concerns about any of these issues may be directed to your local ATF field office.
Signed By Michael J. Sullivan
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #480 on: January 23, 2011, 01:13:22 PM »

The president should therefore call for several additions to the database: names on the terrorist watch list,

**The terrorist watch list is arbitrary, a useful tool, but the potential for abuse is there. The 2nd. is a core constitutional right, this suggestion is a deprivation of due process.


 military recruits who fail drug tests and patients ordered to undergo mental-health treatment, if their doctor or family requests they be added.

**Someone pees hot for weed at 18. Do we prevent him/her from ever owning a gun for the rest of his/her life? As far as those ordered by a court for psych treatment, that's already covered under the current statute.


 He should also demand that reluctant states supply court records on mentally incapacitated residents.

**If there has been a legal action placing someone into psych treatment, then the records should already be accessible.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #481 on: January 23, 2011, 01:31:22 PM »

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2011/01/schumers-ploy.html

Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Schumer's Ploy

This was inevitable...

When investigators discovered that Arizona gunman Jared Lee Loughner had been rejected by the Army (because of admitted drug use), it was just a matter of time before some politician connected the dots: Hey, let's require military recruiters to report anyone with a history of drug abuse to other federal agencies!

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), come on down. Earlier this week, Mr. Schumer proposed that federal officials who learn of an individual's illegal drug use must report that information to the FBI. The admission would then go into a federal database, and be used to deny the individual the right to purchase a gun.

From FoxNews.com:

Noting that the alleged shooter in the Tucson massacre had admitted to military recruiters that he had used drugs on several occasions, Schumer said he is proposing to the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that the military be required to to notify federal officials about such admissions. He said such a process does not require new legislation.

[snip]

Schumer said if military recruiters or other officials report admissions of drug use to a national database, those individuals could be denied a gun.

After Jared Loughner was interviewed by the military, he was rejected from the Army because of excessive drug use. Now by law, by law that's on the books, she should not have been allowed to buy a gun," Schumer told NBC.

"But the law doesn't require the military to notify the FBI about that and in this case they didn't. So I--this morning--I'm writing the administration and urging that be done and the military notify the FBI when someone is rejected from the military for excessive drug use and that be added to the FBI database."

Obviously, Schumer's "proposal" is little more than a thinly-veiled effort to restrict Second Amendment rights. But unfortunately, his suggestion may gain traction, given the fallout from the Tucson tragedy and the administration's own feelings on gun control. We can hear the arguments now: This is a reasonable proposal; it won't require any new laws and it might prevent a similar massacre in the future.

But even a cursory examination reveals that the Schumer suggestion is a horribly bad idea, on multiple levels. First, it places a undue burden on military recruiters, who talk to literally dozens of potential recruits during any given week. We're reasonably sure that Senator Schumer has no idea (read: doesn't care) how much work--and paperwork--is involved in processing a single person into the U.S. military.

Now, on top of all that effort, Schumer wants armed forces recruiters--who often work in a "one-deep" office, miles from the nearest military installation--to screen all of their contacts for illegal drug use and report it to the FBI. Memo to Mr. Schumer: in 21st Century America, most of the young men and women who express an interest in military service are ultimately rejected, for a variety of reasons. So, the recruiter must wade through his list of rejects, looking for individuals whose drug use might make them a future, crazed gunman.

Readers will also note that Senator Schumer didn't bother to define the level of illegal drug use that should be reported to the FBI. Why is that an issue? Because the U.S. military, thank God, has standards that are much tougher than society as a whole. By regulation, the armed services routinely reject applicants who fail a urinalysis test, or admit to the recreational use of marijuana (or other drugs) on more than 15 occasions. That's the way it should be. We don't want stoners (or drunks) handling classified information, or maintaining multi-billion dollar weapons systems.

But that doesn't necessarily mean those same individuals should be denied the right to own a gun. In many cases, that rejection by the military is a wake-up call, convincing young people to give up the weed or the booze and become responsible adults. Those individuals, with no arrest record or convictions on file, should not be penalized for what they told a military recruiter years ago. Under current laws, persons in that category are still eligible for gun ownership, and we see no reason to change.

Besides, the type of drug use in Lougher's case was not a clear predictor of his future rampage. We're guessing the marijuana didn't help, but no one can make the case that Lougher was pushed over the edge because of his drug use. Indeed, the type of activity that Lougher told the Army about is a misdemeanor offense in much of the country.

Ask yourself this question: Do we really need to create a national database of young people who have admitted to marijuana use, and send the FBI to pay them a visit--on the very remote chance they might buy a gun and go off the deep end? Personally, I'd rather see the FBI devote its resources to more important tasks, such as tracking down the thousands of individuals from terrorist havens who enter this country each year. That group poses a far greater menace than military rejects who admit to past recreational drug use and may choose to buy a gun some day.

Schumer's proposal creates civil liberties issues as well. Requiring military recruiters to report applicant's admitted drug use could be construed as a form of illegal domestic surveillance. There's also the matter of where the reporting might end. At some point, most recruits fill out a SF-86, which provides background information for their security clearance. Would Mr. Schumer like the military to hand over those as well? Compared to recruiter interview forms, the SF-86 is a veritable goldmine of information on past residences, associations and travels.

And while we're on that topic, what about notes from the Defense Investigative Service agents who interview the family and friends of those applying for a clearance? Did we mention that some of the claims made in those interviews are unsubstantiated? Now, imagine all that information making its way into a national database, accessible to legions of bureaucrats and available for all sorts of purposes. Gee, whatever happened to that supposed right to privacy that the left keeps harping about?

If it's any consolation, the Schumer proposal is still a ways from becoming a legal requirement. But don't discount that possibility, since it can be implemented without new legislation. Stroke of the pen, law of the land, as the Clintonistas used to say.
***
ADDENDUM: Hard-core libertarians and the folks at NORML should not interpret this as an endorsement of legalizing drugs. Far from it. We still support the "zero tolerance" policy of the U.S. military and wish the same standard could be applied to military recruits. Unfortunately, the armed services have elected to tolerate certain levels of recreational drug use among prospective enlistees, due to the widespread use of marijuana among those in the primary recruiting cohort (18-25 year-olds).
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #482 on: January 26, 2011, 11:28:16 AM »

It is POTB so caveat lector.  That said, not a pretty set of facts.  What implications?
======================================================

20 arrested in gun smuggling case
Federal authorities indict the men on charges of buying hundreds of weapons in Arizona and conspiring to sell them to drug cartels in Mexico.
 
A cache of weapons are seized in a federal sting. According to the indictment, legal gun dealers sold serveral weapons to a single buyer, often in one day. (Matt York, AP / January 24, 2011)

 


By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times
January 25, 2011, 8:48 p.m.


In a case aimed at stemming the flow of U.S. weapons to the Mexican drug war, federal authorities indicted 20 men Tuesday on charges of buying an estimated 700 weapons in Arizona and conspiring to transfer them across the border, chiefly to the Sinaloa drug cartel.

The arrests, carried out by at least 100 federal agents, began early Tuesday, the latest crackdown targeting an international trafficking network that authorities say has seen as many as 60,000 weapons seized in Mexico and traced to U.S. sources.

"The massive size of this operation sadly exemplifies the magnitude of the problem: Mexican drug lords go shopping for war weapons in Arizona," Dennis Burke, U.S. attorney in Arizona, said in a statement.

Officials at the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said the case demonstrates the need to include long-barreled weapons in the requirement for gun sellers to report multiple weapon sales to a single buyer. The proposal has been opposed by the National Rifle Assn. and many gun owners as an inappropriate reach of federal authority.

Gun advocates say many of the weapons in the hands of Mexican drug traffickers were acquired from weapons stocks officially supplied by the U.S. government to Mexico and other Latin American countries.

The case involves the relatively common use of "straw purchasers," legal residents of the state who buy the weapons from licensed gun dealers and certify that they are for their own use, but end up selling the guns to the drug cartels.

None of those charged in the indictments are licensed gun dealers. But the indictments identify a number of Arizona dealers that legally supplied large quantities of weapons to individual buyers, often in a single day.

One of the defendants, Uriel Patino, for example, purchased 26 AK-47 rifles from Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale, Ariz., on March 26; 10 more on June 2 from the same outlet; 16 on July 8; and 12 on Aug. 5 — in addition to purchasing a number of other weapons.

In all these cases, according to the indictment, Patino signed a federal form certifying that he was not buying the weapons for someone else, a requirement that is prominently featured on Lone Wolf's website.

But on Aug. 8, federal agents found all 12 of the AK-47s purchased Aug. 5 concealed in a stove and a television in what was an apparent attempt to smuggle them into Mexico through the border crossing at Lukeville, Ariz.

A few months earlier, on Feb. 20, law enforcement agents intercepted an Isuzu Rodeo on the Tohono O'odham Nation territory in southeastern Arizona that was loaded with 37 AK-47s purchased by Patino between Jan. 15 and Feb. 13.

The federal firearms bureau announced in December that it was proposing to require an estimated 8,500 gun dealers along the southwestern U.S. border to provide notice of multiple rifle sales, but gun advocates have said it is an attempt to blame lawful gun dealers for border enforcement problems and the violence in Mexico.

"This is just a shallow excuse to engage in a sweeping firearms registration scheme," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive and executive vice president, wrote on the organization's website.

Tom Mangan, spokesman for the firearms bureau in Phoenix, said officials are hopeful the regulation will go through.

"It's not prohibiting; it's not infringing upon a purchaser's right to buy guns," he said.

kim.murphy@latimes.com
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #483 on: January 26, 2011, 12:10:13 PM »

Well, there are already federal laws that cover straw purchases and the export of weapons and it appears the BATFE is working those cases. Perhaps Mexico should secure it's border.....
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #484 on: January 26, 2011, 12:25:35 PM »

Notably missing in the State of the Union was any new attack on gun ownership.  Still the questions posed in this thread are important.  Pro-gun people should address the issue of making it more difficult for the known mentally disturbed to buy and carry.  GM points out that those with court ordered psych treatments are already covered.  There are gaps though if this Tucson nutcase could walk in and load up considering what everyone around him knew.  I don't know the answer regarding privacy of mental records or the civil commitment process which is nearly impossible before a threat becomes reality, but fewer mass shootings would be good politics for gun ownership.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4142


« Reply #485 on: January 26, 2011, 12:58:15 PM »

Psychiatric illness is a tough thing to determine.

It is often particularly tough to determine who is a threat and who isn't.

Probably one out of three people in the US are or have been on some psyschiatric med at some point in their lives.

OFten psychiatrists do no more than ask someone if they are a danger to their self or someone else.

If they don't see obvious psychotic behavior or thinking they then simply rely on the person's saying yes or no.

This Az guy's case is somewhat extreme with multiple people expressing concerns, the school, many witnesses, even the police were notified.
In retrospect it seems more might have been done but by whom?  Az apparantly does allow for someone to be hopitalized against their will without obvious/overt  suicidal/homicidal intent.

In most states this person could not without consent have even been committed.

Should we force medicate people who are deemed psychotic?

The very vast majority ofr mentally ill, including psychotics are no "danger" to others except perhaps in screwing up not only their lives but those of family members.

Personally I favor just accepting the fact that there are occasionally nuts who will find a way to get guns and who will shoot people.

I prefer this vs a police state for anyone with a mental illness.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #486 on: January 26, 2011, 05:13:00 PM »

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70C6JQ20110113

Jan 13 (Reuters Legal) - As evidence mounts that Jared Lee Loughner exhibited disturbing behavior months before the rampage in Tucson, it's increasingly clear that Arizona authorities could legally have detained him for psychiatric evaluation and treatment -- and potentially have been able to avert the tragedy. But officials in other states might not have had that power, a review of state laws on involuntary commitment suggests.

Arizona has one of the least restrictive laws when it comes to detaining apparently mentally ill people against their will. Under the state's broad involuntary-commitment statute, the government can mandate in-patient treatment for anyone determined to be "persistently or acutely disabled." That could include a broad range of seemingly troubled individuals. By comparison, many other states limit involuntary commitment only to people shown to be a danger to themselves or others, or who are found to be completely unable to take care of themselves.

Under Nevada's involuntary-commitment law, for example, prior to confining someone the state must demonstrate that the person "is mentally ill and, because of that illness, is likely to harm himself or others if allowed his liberty." In Connecticut, someone can be committed only if he or she has "psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or herself or others or gravely disabled" -- and "gravely disabled" has usually been interpreted to mean that the person is unable on his own to obtain adequate food, shelter and clothing. Under those standards, some mental-health law experts say it might have been hard to make a case for committing Loughner.

"I've never read about him threatening anyone or brandishing a gun," said Jonathan Stanley, a board member of Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit organization that lobbies for the treatment of severe mental illnesses. "He was pretty creepy, and that's not grounds for commitment in the strict states."

ARIZONA GOES FARTHER

Arizona also goes farther than many other states in defining who may initiate involuntary-commitment proceedings. In Arizona, virtually anyone who had suspected that Loughner had mental problems and needed help could have filed an application to a state-licensed healthcare agency for a court-ordered evaluation. Some states require that the application be initiated by someone close to the troubled person, among other discrete categories.

Loughner's behavior had caused serious concern among students and faculty at Pima Community College where he was a student. Police documents released on Wednesday show that some even feared for their safety, according to reports in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. A professor requested that a campus-security officer be on guard outside one of Loughner's classes. One student told school officials she was scared Loughner had a knife after he made disturbing comments in a poetry class such as, "why don't we just strap bombs to babies."

The area of involuntary-commitment law highlights a tension within any democracy: balancing the rights of the individual against public-safety concerns. A landmark 1979 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Addington v. Texas, made it harder for the government to commit people against their will, requiring officials to justify any such detention with "clear and convincing" evidence. Earlier, the standard had been a "preponderance of the evidence," which is used in most civil cases.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #487 on: January 26, 2011, 09:06:52 PM »

I think everyone might agree with this CCP statement: "I prefer this vs a police state for anyone with a mental illness".

In my mind there has to be something in between.

GM's Reuters post makes the point that Arizona more than most states could have attempted civil commitment on this shooter.  Prior to the shooting I'm not sure anyone knew commitment was necessary.  He was an adult somewhat in the care of his parents, he made an attempt at college, sort of had friends. Yet he did have school, friends, family and police all notice a serious level of anti-social incoherence setting in.

CCP wrote: "Probably one out of three people in the US are or have been on some psychiatric med at some point in their lives."

Probably about right from things I have also read.  Yet there are ways to categorize the type, severity and risk level further I think to where we are talking about a much smaller number of people.

I know someone close to me who suffers from schizophrenia.  I would say no risk posed to others on or off the meds in this case, but I would also be okay with his/her loss of gun purchase rights in the battle with mental illness in exchange for having others with high risk face limits that might prevent one of these tragedies.  Also I am very familiar with person(s) suffering from Bipolar/Manic Depression and Munchausen by Proxy (harm your baby to bring attention or importance to yourself).  If anyone has ever threatened or attempted suicide or murder/suicide I would think that a lifetime restriction on firearms would be reasonable, not a violation of anyone's 2nd amendment rights or necessarily lead to a police state against the liberties of people with mental illness. To the contrary, having some level of safety and protection is IMO part of a system of how we can continue gun ownership and carry rights, and how we can avoid institutionalizing the functioning mentally ill among us against their will.

If you need to wear contacts to read the eye chart, that gets on your license for any future law enforcement encounter to discover.  If your doctor knows you are one medication away from potentially dangerous psychopathic behavior, why can't that be tracked in a somewhat confidential way.

I guess I am saying if there is no way to mark someone and limit their arms purchases after they have had school, friends, family and police all notice he/she has checked out from reality, then I would like to be spared the big ordeal after each shooting of wondering what made them do it, were there  any signs, and how could this have been prevented. 

It is a risky world, defend yourself?  Tell that to the 9 year old.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #488 on: January 26, 2011, 09:40:42 PM »

There is no absolute safety, no matter what policy is implemented. As with other policies, it's a matter of balancing individual freedoms with public safety.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #489 on: January 27, 2011, 12:22:13 AM »

Woof,
 The gun ban crowd has any number of strategies for infringing on gun rights, from out right bans to incremental restrictions that remove more and more citizens from the group that can own guns. It's already illegal for a confirmed nut to buy or own a gun. If we start going down the road of widening that then it won't be long before anyone that takes a sleeping pill or ever took a sleeping pill or tells a doctor he doesn't sleep well, won't be able to buy or own a gun. This is a can of worms that the gun banners can't wait to open AND NONE OF IT WILL PREVENT A NUT FROM KILLING SOMEONE.
                  P.C.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 12:24:46 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4142


« Reply #490 on: January 27, 2011, 02:51:25 PM »

Doug noted on another thread the conspicuous absence of any mention of guns by Obama in the SOTU address.  He is right in calling his address just a bunch of "head fakes".

Well of course here it comes.  I think obvious it will be known as the  *"Gifford" bill*. The Democarts simply cannot resist an opportunity to jump in and claim they are fixing every single minute ill with mankind with more regulation, more tax, more control.

****White House to Push Gun Control
Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.
 
Evan Vucci / AP
Arizona Congressmen Jeff Flake (left) and Raul Grijalva sit next to the empty seat of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on Capitol Hill before President Obama's recent State of the Union address.
At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”

                         
                The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month. He’s also expected to use Arizona as a starting point, but make the case that America’s gun laws have been too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks.

As the White House prepares its strategy, several gun-policy groups are saying they were burned by the lack of any mention of guns in the president’s highest-profile speech of the year. “President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence—which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group. No group said it had been consulted by the White House regarding legislative suggestions.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has stayed largely silent following the Arizona shootings. Asked about a specialized White House effort on guns, a spokesman for the powerful gun lobby declined to comment.****
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #491 on: January 27, 2011, 03:49:54 PM »

Good. This will not pass, and continue to alienate blue dog dems.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #492 on: January 31, 2011, 11:14:31 PM »

Woof,
 Is it just me or would this guy make a great first dictator of the United States?

 www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41358714/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

                     P.C.
Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #493 on: January 31, 2011, 11:17:30 PM »

Did they purchase salt and soft drinks in AZ as well?   shocked
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #494 on: February 01, 2011, 02:48:15 AM »

Woof,
 Isn't this one arrogant piece of crap elitist politician? And the fact that he keeps an (R) by his name, almost pushes me to the point of chewing off my little toe. What a complete tool. I honestly don't understand how anyone Left, Right, or plays with their own feces could ever bring themselves to cast a vote for someone so completely devoid of respect for the fellow citizenry in other states to govern themselves. If I lived in AZ I would go to New York and take a dump on this guy's throne.
             P.C.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2011, 03:01:47 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #495 on: February 01, 2011, 05:11:38 AM »

Were I a NYC resident, I'd be more concerned about things like the clearance of snow from the streets.....
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #496 on: February 01, 2011, 05:30:04 AM »

Woof,
 No kidding, and if I was paying taxes in NY I would be wondering if he was wasting my tax dollars doing this stuff, I mean just the waste of time involved would make me angry. I bet the ATF doesn't like him under cutting them either. I think this is a fairly clear case of someone abusing the power of their office to promote a personal agenda. How would New Yorkers feel if the governor of AZ set up stings in NY to catch the dealers and drug users that buy the drugs that are smuggled into AZ?
                                 P.C.
Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12071


« Reply #497 on: February 01, 2011, 01:57:32 PM »

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/02/us_attorneys_sl.php

US Attorneys slap down Bloomberg
Posted by David Hardy · 8 February 2007 03:39 PM

VCDL has the report.The Exec Office of US Attorneys informs the mayor that they will not prosecute any of the dealers he targeted, and warns that his engaging in "stings" without law enforcement authorization could jeopardize real operations and expose him and the city to liability.

The latter is pretty apparent. The dealers would have the defense that they didn't realize that the gun was going to the person who didn't sign the forms, but the buyers have no such defense -- they knew exactly that that was the plan. So there's no doubt that the buyers broke the Gun Control Act, and that those who set them to it were liable as aiders and abettors, not to mention on a conspiracy theory. I'd assume that Bloomberg and company (1) figured it was worth it for the publicity and (2) figured that the laws don't apply to the rich and powerful. They may just have been right on both.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #498 on: February 01, 2011, 06:02:56 PM »

Woof,
 I still think the AZ Gov. should go to New York and do stings on businesses and individals that hire illegal aliens of the grounds that what they are doing in New York impacts the safety and security of AZ. tongue
                 P.C.
Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31491


« Reply #499 on: February 02, 2011, 01:23:44 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=OQnU1t7UzgM
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 32 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!