More complete background checks

[jhjimbo]

The Govt will pay States to get them to enter all pertinent information into NICS.

[jhjimbo]

Dem and Republican support, NRA losing support on this issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/25/new-gun-laws-may-win-approval-in-congress.html

[99explorer]

I'm for it!
I hope the NRA's support for this bill will improve its image and reverse its shrinking influence in our elections.

[FirstBubba]

Virginia is as strong a "Blue" state as California and New York.
That Gillespie lost is not a big shocker.
Heck, Trump didn't even win Virginia!

The NRA praised "Dubya" when he passed the "NICS Improvement Act" in 2007.
Dubya even delegated $1.5 billion in the bill to fund the improvements.
When the dust settled, the NRA went to work in D.C., lobbying to stop the funding to the various departments, thereby strangling the "Improvement Act"!
Less than one fourth of the originally designated funding has been allocated over the last ten years, thanks to the efforts of the NRA and the intended improvements have never been implemented.

LBJ was disappointed with the GCA '68 he signed into law.
He wanted Federal gun owner registration and a national gun owner license.
He basically said without the Federal registration and the license, the GCA '68 was worthless.

The GCA '68, Form 4473 and NICS are all invasions of gun owning Americans privacy and unConstitutional.

[FirstBubba]

Dem and Republican support, NRA losing support on this issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/25/new-gun-laws-may-win-approval-in-congress.html

Cornyn is a RINO and will sell his constituents down the river to keep from losing his seat.
He's a "go along to get along" spineless schmuck.

[FirstBubba]

Dem and Republican support, NRA losing support on this issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/25/new-gun-laws-may-win-approval-in-congress.html

R Blumenthal (D-CT) says he's delighted with this bill and knows it will lead to more "compromises" down the road!
THAT'S the b.s. that scares me!
Give a bleeding heart liberal a silly millimeter and they want the whole 9 yards!

[99explorer]

In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court,
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." - D.C. v. Heller (2008)

[FirstBubba]

https://verbellum.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/4473-one-form-to-fool-them-all/

[FirstBubba]

Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the (SCOTUS) judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so…”

[99explorer]

https://verbellum.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/4473-one-form-to-fool-them-all/

A highly opinionated article by an unknown author telling us what we like to hear.
He probably has similar views on the laws requiring seat belts.

[99explorer]

Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the (SCOTUS) judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so…”

Jefferson's views on judicial review were unrealistic, and have long since been relegated to a jurisprudential Siberia.

[99explorer]

Jefferson's view of judges:

[FirstBubba]

http://www.survivalnewsonline.com/index.php/2010/11/the-case-for-repealing-federal-gun-control/

[FirstBubba]

https://freedomoutpost.com/all-federal-gun-laws-are-unconstitutional/<br>
"...there is a little known fact about the Constitution:<br>
“It is one of enumerated powers only. When “We the people” ordained and established the Constitution, we created the Federal government. It is our creature. We are the creator. It is the creature. It is not our master.”<br>
“The Constitution is so short,” she continued, because all of the powers enumerated to the Federal government are listed in it. “Depending on how you count, we delegated only 21 powers to the Federal government.” Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-16 are those powers.<br>
Huldah then courageously pointed out that all laws made by Congress, any restrictions imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, any restrictions made by executive order, and all Supreme Court decisions that restrict firearms are unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because there is no authority to do so.

[99explorer]

http://www.survivalnewsonline.com/index.php/2010/11/the-case-for-repealing-federal-gun-control/

This is a very scholarly and well-written letter, but sprinkled with legal opinions having no basis in law.
It fails to recognize that SCOTUS is the sole interpreter of the Constitution.
In every constitutional case that comes before the Supreme Court, there are constitutional scholars on both side of the issue presenting lengthy scholarly briefs citing precedent for their positions, in addition to dozens of "friend of the court" briefs submitted by interested parties.
The Court then issues its opinion as to what the founding fathers intended when they chose certain words .
After that, it is no longer up for grabs what the meaning of the words are.
Yet here we have a scholar declaring that prohibitions against the possession of firearms by felons are unconstitutional, based on HIS interpretation of the words.
My barber has a better understanding of the law than that.