Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Gun bills aplenty at Legislature

February 23, 2013

MARSHALL — One changes the statutes of lawful firearms possession and violent crimes. One modifies the judicial process for restoring firearms eligibility to violent felons....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(17)

rangeral

Feb-23-13 8:42 AM

Why would we restore gun ownership rights to those convicted of a violent felony? Which inner city DFL legislator came up with that one?

4 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Canntt

Feb-23-13 9:37 AM

there already is an appeal process in place to have ones's ability to "legally" purchase/possess a firearm, very likely this is what they are looking at changing, pure speculation on my part by the way...

9 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-23-13 12:33 PM

A lot of felonies aren't violent in nature...for example the 21 y.o. that burns off some internet tunes illegally, is convicted of a felony, pays their debt to society....should by all means be civilly restored.

If you think about it, would you want someone deemed too dangerous to have guns out wandering around unsupervised?

It's not the law abiding citizen with a life long history of legal compliance that's likely to start shooting up HyVee. A criminal / mental deficient with no regard for the law or consequences in general is the one we need to look out for.

Note none of the proposed legislation deals with the latter two...

10 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-23-13 12:50 PM

"Note none of the proposed legislation deals with the latter two.."

The current system detects and flags those prohibited from purchasing firearms. This is a state duplication of a federal requirement.

Can we really afford duplications of service? All commercial sales of firearms are bound by federal law. I see no legitimate gain for state pursuit of the same information.

These bills face some strong yet simple opposition: A lot of people will simply resent their firearms being tracked, taxed or taken.

And those people vote.

7 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Feb-24-13 7:01 PM

The guy from Newtown killed his mother and stole her guns. He might have been deemed too dangerous, but it wouldn't have mattered. Did he have felonies? Would that have mattered? No. His mother was another gun zealot who didn't need those weapons.

14 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Feb-25-13 9:44 AM

He also had severe mental issues that weren't being dealt with. He had a whole family that wouldn't deal with his problems.

How many people do you enable by not speaking up and taking action? Drugs, alcohol? How many?

3 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Feb-25-13 1:18 PM

To Al's first post, the bill is to make it so that violent felons can't get the right to own guns back.

And in this case I have to agree with Prodigal; this needs to be addressed by federal law. As long as some idiot can still mail-order a gun in Georgia there are going to be people simply obtaining guns in other states where the laws are crafted by the NRA.

15 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Feb-25-13 3:23 PM

Need is not a determining factor. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Requiring people to establish a case for need infringes. You cannot prevent attempts to commit murder. You can be a whole lot more responsible about providing sufficient response. While the gun grabbers are yakking away about registration and background checks many school districts are formulating plans to provide armed response to incidents. Will there be shootouts in school hallways? Likely not. Assailants will avoid schools where armed security is present.

4 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mcgrady

Feb-25-13 5:06 PM

common, could you give us your definition of a gun zealot? And are the guns you own just guns or would they fall under that "weapons" category?

4 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-25-13 6:35 PM

"As long as some idiot can still mail-order a gun in Georgia there are going to be people simply obtaining guns in other states where the laws are crafted by the NRA."~SELyonCo

Other than a pre-1898 produced Flintlock, what firearm could be legally shipped from another state to a non-FFL resident in MN?

We have many black powder musket rampages?

There are misconceptions about the laws and regs we already have. More will just muddy the water.

NRA crafted laws....as apposed to anti-gun lobbied legislation?

I wish I could commend your objectivity.

8 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Feb-26-13 7:08 PM

I wish I could commend prod's objectivity. You are exactly right, we have no "black powder musket" rampages. Your lack of knowledge regarding muzzleloaders aside, you have just supported the position of limiting the guns that should fall under the right to bear arms. I don't recall the last muzzleloader rampage, but the last rampage with an ar style weapon is pretty recent.

13 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Feb-27-13 10:45 AM

Enforce the laws already on the books.

3 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Feb-27-13 11:45 AM

“Enforce the laws already on the books.”

So rangeral favors increasing ATF staff and funding since they’re responsible for enforcing current gun laws. I agree! Over time ATF funding has been cut to $1.4 million with a staff of 2500 agents – fewer than what existed 40 years ago. Of the 115,000 gun dealers in 2009, the ATF’s inspected approx. 11,000. Lobbying by the NRA and pro-gun groups has decimated the ATF leading to irresponsible gun practices. Due to a lack of a computerized database and national registry, the ATF is forced to trace gun transactions by hand, back to the original store that sold the gun. Since 2005, 113,642 guns are missing from gun dealers because they are not required by law to keep records of their inventory. Thanks to the NRA, anti-regulatory legislation has provided criminals and the mentally ill easier access to guns by obstructing effective regulation and capable enforcement.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-27-13 2:21 PM

@h75~ More than 72,600 firearms purchase applications were denied on the basis of a background check in 2010. 62 of those, 22 for falsifying info on the 4473, 40 for being prohibited persons applying, were legally considered. Giving false info on the form 4473 is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. Department of Justice pursued 44 of those 72,600 denials.

That indicates a priority issue, not a funding issue.

6 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-27-13 2:29 PM

"Lobbying by the NRA and pro-gun groups has decimated the ATF leading to irresponsible gun practices."~h75

Not entirely true h75. Funding has been cut for a number of reasons and restrictions placed for rampant abuses of constitutional rights.

For example, the CDC lost study funding when they owned they were using slanted junk science to support an anti gun position, and the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA)was enacted due to activities so egregious the BATF by all rights should have been disbanded.

I'll give you a 3 / 10 for use of vitriol. The rest is more copy & paste Brady rhetoric.

5 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KaptainKrunch

Feb-27-13 3:01 PM

So common it's the style of the weapon thats the problem. Would you feel better if the kook at Sandy Hook had used a AK instead of an AR? How bout a HK or a SKS. What if he had used a firearm thats a full word like Mossberg instead of just initials. It is the intent thats the problem not the firearm. The bombing in Oklahoma City didn't involve a firearm just a few hundred pounds of ANFO a simple timer and detonator and a rented truck, yet thankfully one can still purchase fertilizer. Or do you want to ban that also? How did you ever make it out of basic training? The navy I believe also uses the M16.

3 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-28-13 8:52 PM

The gun control's house of cards took a hit yesterday. A State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the new gun ban law is constitutional.

New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued. This, I believe, will be act one of a two or three act play. Then curtains on the gun control business.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web