Wasserman Schultz wants background checks for ammunition buyers

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    How would this work? If it takes 2/3 of the senate or house to repeal an amendment or 2/3 of the state legislatures, where is the support for all these sanctuary cities going to come from? Maybe a bunch of compounds in the hills or something if that's what you were thinking of.

to the hills! under the cover of night and trees..the feds will never find them there!

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

to the hills! under the cover of night and trees..the feds will never find them there!

 

 

 

    For a lot of Americans,  getting up off the couch to grab a beer is a major dilemma.

 

   I really don't see any running for the hills. Walking maybe, but even that's a stretch.

[smilesammich 10,727]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    For a lot of Americans,  getting up off the couch to grab a beer is a major dilemma.

 

   I really don't see any running for the hills. Walking maybe, but even that's a stretch.

[Dashinka 24,767]

34 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    How would this work? If it takes 2/3 of the senate or house to repeal an amendment or 2/3 of the state legislatures, where is the support for all these sanctuary cities going to come from? Maybe a bunch of compounds in the hills or something if that's what you were thinking of.

Actually, I believe it takes 2/3 of the House and (not or) the Senate or 2/3 of the state legislatures only to propose an amendment (the latter through a constitutional convention, and then 3/4 of the state to actually ratify it.  I was joking about the sanctuary city stuff, but it would be something if a 1/4 of the states did not ratify it and they kind of did like what some of the Sanctuary states/cities are doing.  This is all hypothetical of course, I don't think you would ever get either the 2/3 of the House and Senate to even get the proposal in front of the states, and I doubt there are 2/3 of the states willing to sign up.  I believe there is a movement to call a constitutional convention, not sure how many states have signed up yet, but now days, that is the most likely path to getting rid of the 2nd, but I suppose they could do away with some others as well if they wanted. 

 

Btw, I am glad I can put smiles on the faces of the MDLers.

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Steeleballz 7,550]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Actually, I believe it takes 2/3 of the House and (not or) the Senate or 2/3 of the state legislatures only to propose an amendment (the latter through a constitutional convention, and then 3/4 of the state to actually ratify it.  I was joking about the sanctuary city stuff, but it would be something if a 1/4 of the states did not ratify it and they kind of did like what some of the Sanctuary states/cities are doing.  This is all hypothetical of course, I don't think you would ever get either the 2/3 of the House and Senate to even get the proposal in front of the states, and I doubt there are 2/3 of the states willing to sign up.  I believe there is a movement to call a constitutional convention, not sure how many states have signed up yet, but now days, that is the most likely path to getting rid of the 2nd, but I suppose they could do away with some others as well if they wanted. 

 

Btw, I am glad I can put smiles on the faces of the MDLers.

 

 

    As I said earlier, I would never have thought a few years ago that it would be more than hypothetical, but I am not as sure now. Won't be any time soon though, but it will be interesting to see where these young people are at 20 years down the road and if their perspectives have changed or not. I think every one of these mass shooting events only adds to the impetus for change.  

 

  Eventually congress will have to act one way or another. They can't keep punting. Figure out a way to implement some of the more common sense ideas that have already been discussed and maybe it doesn't have to come to anything as drastic as a constitutional change.

[Dashinka 24,767]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    As I said earlier, I would never have thought a few years ago that it would be more than hypothetical, but I am not as sure now. Won't be any time soon though, but it will be interesting to see where these young people are at 20 years down the road and if their perspectives have changed or not. I think every one of these mass shooting events only adds to the impetus for change.  

 

  Eventually congress will have to act one way or another. They can't keep punting. Figure out a way to implement some of the more common sense ideas that have already been discussed and maybe it doesn't have to come to anything as drastic as a constitutional change.

Most people tend to move a little more right as the age, but this is not a hard and fast rule of course.   As to congress acting, not really sure what they can do that hasn't been done already and in many cases is not enforced, but I suppose if it makes people feel good, I am sure they will pass something when the Dems take over again, but whether it is effective will be questionable. 

[TBoneTX 46,060]

None of this debate would now be necessary, had we heeded the call of the sage, wise then-Attorney General Joycelyn Elders in the '90s:  "We need safer guns, and safer bullets!"

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

Technically don't we only have the right to bear arms?

 

Perhaps it was a typo and this whole time they meant "bare arms". We have the right to wear tank tops.

 

EDIT:

 

In all seriousness I don't see why anyone would mind background checks for all firearms in all situations and all ammunition. The "responsible gun owners" should have nothing to fear from the background checks. If it is really just for protection/hunting even if it delays purchasing equipment can't you just plan ahead a bit? Doesn't seem like it would impact the safe gun using crowd much.

There is no problem that I can see for a BG check to buy ammo, except that it will then preclude internet sales (perhaps) which are usually the cheapest way to buy.  Wal Mart and other similar stores would probably stop selling because they don’t want the added hassle (more time spent by a sales person to complete the transaction).  So I see the price of ammo going up. (Still not saying it’s not a good idea).

 

But... would it make a difference?  We already have BG checks to buy guns.  And if you saw my post in another thread showing an ATF Form 4, you’d see all the questions that are asked on it as well as on the form to buy a gun.  The BG check takes minutes to complete, and is often disregarded in many states if one has a CCW permit (because you already DID the BG check to get the permit).  Honestly, I don’t see anything changing if a BG check is required to buy ammo except lowered availability and higher prices.  Even if Wal Mart were to keep selling ammo, I could still walk in, show my CCW and walk right out with the ammo.  Or, if no CCW, ask for the ammo, wait like 3-5 minutes for the BG check to be done, then walk out with the ammo.  

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

There is no problem that I can see for a BG check to buy ammo, except that it will then preclude internet sales (perhaps) which are usually the cheapest way to buy.  Wal Mart and other similar stores would probably stop selling because they don’t want the added hassle (more time spent by a sales person to complete the transaction).  So I see the price of ammo going up. (Still not saying it’s not a good idea).

 

But... would it make a difference?  We already have BG checks to buy guns.  And if you saw my post in another thread showing an ATF Form 4, you’d see all the questions that are asked on it as well as on the form to buy a gun.  The BG check takes minutes to complete, and is often disregarded in many states if one has a CCW permit (because you already DID the BG check to get the permit).  Honestly, I don’t see anything changing if a BG check is required to buy ammo except lowered availability and higher prices.  Even if Wal Mart were to keep selling ammo, I could still walk in, show my CCW and walk right out with the ammo.  Or, if no CCW, ask for the ammo, wait like 3-5 minutes for the BG check to be done, then walk out with the ammo.  

That is probably the case. An extra layer of security that utilizes the same systems doesn't really add more security. If it's just two avenues to the same BG check, what's the point?

 

To me it just seems like the BG check isn't working. In medicine we have to consider the sensitivity/specificity of a test to determine whether it is useful for picking up disease. It doesn't seem like our current BG check system is doing the job of picking up humans with "the disease" (red flags for future violence).

 

I think the process needs to be set up in a way to identify mental health red flags more effectively. How far we would want to take that would be up for debate but most shooters don't go from "perfectly normal" to "snap" with absolutely nothing in between. We need to be able to ID those cases sooner.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

That is probably the case. An extra layer of security that utilizes the same systems doesn't really add more security. If it's just two avenues to the same BG check, what's the point?

 

To me it just seems like the BG check isn't working. In medicine we have to consider the sensitivity/specificity of a test to determine whether it is useful for picking up disease. It doesn't seem like our current BG check system is doing the job of picking up humans with "the disease" (red flags for future violence).

 

I think the process needs to be set up in a way to identify mental health red flags more effectively. How far we would want to take that would be up for debate but most shooters don't go from "perfectly normal" to "snap" with absolutely nothing in between. We need to be able to ID those cases sooner.

The system works the way it was designed, I think.  The same way it works for doctors prescribing drugs.  At the point of transfer (from doctor to pharmacist to patient), the doctor believes what he is giving is in the patient’s best interest.  And that the patient isn’t going to abuse the meds in any way.

 

It’s the same with a gun purchase.  At the time of buying, the buyer has nothing on their NCIS check to indicate that they are a felon.  So the gun is transferred.

 

But a week, a month, or a year later, said drug taker and gun buyer could flip out.  The doctor has no way of knowing that the patient abuses diet pills to get high.  The NCIS system has no way of knowing the buyer beats his wife and kids (because he’s never been reported).  No one can see future events (job loss, bill collectors) that may drive either person above to abuse drugs or guns.

 

The current system is doing a pretty good job of keeping criminal from buying guns legally, and that’s all it can ever do, I am afraid.

[bcking 3,157]

20 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

The system works the way it was designed, I think.  The same way it works for doctors prescribing drugs.  At the point of transfer (from doctor to pharmacist to patient), the doctor believes what he is giving is in the patient’s best interest.  And that the patient isn’t going to abuse the meds in any way.

 

It’s the same with a gun purchase.  At the time of buying, the buyer has nothing on their NCIS check to indicate that they are a felon.  So the gun is transferred.

 

But a week, a month, or a year later, said drug taker and gun buyer could flip out.  The doctor has no way of knowing that the patient abuses diet pills to get high.  The NCIS system has no way of knowing the buyer beats his wife and kids (because he’s never been reported).  No one can see future events (job loss, bill collectors) that may drive either person above to abuse drugs or guns.

 

The current system is doing a pretty good job of keeping criminal from buying guns legally, and that’s all it can ever do, I am afraid.

An interesting analogy. A couple of things -

 

1. For drugs of high risk if abuse, a physician should be individually evaluating their patients for the need of that drug, and their risk. That includes a social/mental health evaluation. We feel much more comfortable when people have a support network etc... I know many pain medicine doctors who wouldn't prescribe narcotics in people who have mental health/social red flags.

 

Compare that to our current system for guns that is pretty much just focused on criminal history. 

 

2. A doctor doesn't prescribe a drug and then never see the patient again. For high risk meds you give small amounts (a month at a time) and they keep coming back.

 

Once someone buys a gun, there is no repeat check up unless they want to buy another. Perhaps a BG check on ammo could help because that is something that needs to be continually purchased as you use the gun?

[Sonea 138]

Yes, its the internet sales that is the issue. Background check laws end internet sales for the most part, other than the possibility of sending to an FFL.

 

For most shooters its probably not the end of the world and is good business for local shops. If you like older / rarer firearms it cuts you off though as many aren't carried in stores.

 

I'll mention we live in a state that just implemented them and there is a bit of a workaround. If you have an FFL03 and COE it exempts you from the law. I'm working on the latter part of it so I can be exempt. Until then we have upped our reloading amounts.

[Dashinka 24,767]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

An interesting analogy. A couple of things -

 

1. For drugs of high risk if abuse, a physician should be individually evaluating their patients for the need of that drug, and their risk. That includes a social/mental health evaluation. We feel much more comfortable when people have a support network etc... I know many pain medicine doctors who wouldn't prescribe narcotics in people who have mental health/social red flags.

 

Compare that to our current system for guns that is pretty much just focused on criminal history. 

 

2. A doctor doesn't prescribe a drug and then never see the patient again. For high risk meds you give small amounts (a month at a time) and they keep coming back.

 

Once someone buys a gun, there is no repeat check up unless they want to buy another. Perhaps a BG check on ammo could help because that is something that needs to be continually purchased as you use the gun?

Sorry, I have to disagree a little.  When I had my surgery at a big University hospital, , I was saw the surgeon about six hours later, he gave me a script for painkillers (T3's I believe) and I never saw the surgeon again.  I did see my internist again of course, but the script came from the surgeon.  I actually never used the meds, so it doesn't really matter, but it just wasn't my experience.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Sorry, I have to disagree a little.  When I had my surgery at a big University hospital, , I was saw the surgeon about six hours later, he gave me a script for painkillers (T3's I believe) and I never saw the surgeon again.  I did see my internist again of course, but the script came from the surgeon.  I actually never used the meds, so it doesn't really matter, but it just wasn't my experience.

A post op script would be for a set numbers with no refills.

 

If not - that's an issue for the surgeon.

[Dashinka 24,767]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

A post op script would be for a set numbers with no refills.

 

If not - that's an issue for the surgeon.

You are correct, I seem to remember that it was a single fill, but from what I have heard, one time using can cause problems for someone that is susceptible.  Like I said, I never filled it as the pain was bearable, but I didn’t have a follow up with the surgeon.