Crenshaw continued, “At its heart what we are talking about is the ability to confiscate weapons where there is evidence that violence is about to be committed. It’s that simple, and this isn’t that controversial.”

Of course it is not controversial! At least in his mind! Typical "red flag" BS approach to disarming the public.

When did the USA start punishing people before they did anything wrong?

I truly hate the idea of people harming other people, no matter how they choose to do it.

How is that BS different from any of the "red flag" laws in effect. Some asshole calls the police and says he/she was threatened by J. Smith who has a gun. Police run out and confiscate the gun (s)

Maybe I am missing something, but this seems to be just one more attempt by so-called supporters of the 2A.

I gotta say, it would be nice if someone actually had an idea that, had it been in place, would have prevented any of the events where some wack job shot up a night club, school etc.

By chance any correlation with the decrease in funding for mental health? Decline in personal responsibility?

They now say that the Odessa shooter failed a background check due to a mental health a hold on his report. He then bought his gun at a gun show from a private sale.

""I gotta say, it would be nice if someone actually had an idea that, had it been in place, would have prevented any of the events where some wack job shot up a night club, school etc. ""

There already is, more than an idea, it's the law. A felony under Federal law.

When someone fails the check, knowing they can't pass, why don't the Fed's follow up those people? The dealer would have had the information on the guy.
That could have prevented this particular problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...y-gun-fear-not-feds/

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
When someone fails the check, knowing they can't pass, why don't the Fed's follow up those people?

Well, they do. It just isn't instant. It actually takes about three months to get assigned to a field office. From there, some get prosecuted in state court by TFOs, and some get prosecuted in federal court by SAs.

Over half do not get prosecuted due to a false negative. And those problems get fixed in the system, and that person is cleared.

The numbers in that article are horseshit. I don't know what kind of filter or spin that the "author" is using but I work 2-3 a month that lead to prosecution. I'm betting the article has a direct spin to it that do not count local prosecutions by local LE at the behest of ATF in state court.

quote:

Well, they do

quote:

Yesterday on Fox News, Ted Cruz went after the Obama administration because “in 2010, 48,000 felons & fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns, [the Obama administration] prosecuted only 44 of them.” He touted a 2013 bill he co-sponsored that, among many other gun-related provisions, would have created a task force and allocated $50 million over five years to prosecute more people who try to buy guns and are rejected during the background check.

States do a somewhat better job. But in reality, very few actually get prospected for lying on a 4473.

In two cases here, a "Denied" came back weeks later after the firearm was transferred. All the state did was request it be returned to the dealer.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:

quote:

Well, they do

quote:

Yesterday on Fox News, Ted Cruz went after the Obama administration because “in 2010, 48,000 felons & fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns, [the Obama administration] prosecuted only 44 of them.” He touted a 2013 bill he co-sponsored that, among many other gun-related provisions, would have created a task force and allocated $50 million over five years to prosecute more people who try to buy guns and are rejected during the background check.

States do a somewhat better job. But in reality, very few actually get prospected for lying on a 4473.

In two cases here, a "Denied" came back weeks later after the firearm was transferred. All the state did was request it be returned to the dealer.

What were the circumstances and evidence? Just because they asked for the guns back, and declined prosecution, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

I've had cases like that in the past. Guy was a felon from 1989. His felony was for child support. No record since. He was told at the time he pled guilty, that his felony would drop off in 20 years. He purchased a gun in 2018. After interviewing, I took the gun back to the dealer and worked out a deal for him to get part of his money back.

Just because that goes on, doesn't mean the guy is a turd, nor does it fit the requirements for prosecution.

Law enforcement has to use just a little common sense in these cases. (I know common sense doesn't go anywhere with guns) There is no way in hell a jury would convict for such a case, and rightfully so.

And while we're on the topic, I know the numbers are horseshit, because the field office has way more of these than "12" in federal court in 2018.

quote:

this Fox News Poll includes interviews with 1,008 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide who spoke with live interviewers on both landlines and cellphones.

These kind of network polls in 2016 were all wrong, including Fox

I don't buy the statistical "science" of 1000 people in phone surveys representing millions and millions of voters.