56
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 06:23 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
Under the executive order, the state, which purchases an estimated $70 million in firearms and related equipment annually, will refuse to do business with gun manufacturers and retailers that lack policies that deny guns to people with a history of mental illness or domestic abuse, the New York Times first reported. Retailers that wish to keep the state's business will be required to "prevent, detect and screen for the transfer of firearms to straw purchasers or firearm traffickers."

The article is a bit vague on what policies are being pushed.

What other than the standard federal background check would retailers be expected to do here?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 06:25 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Take a look at Neptune blues post immediately after yours.

The article is kind of vague about what policies are being pushed.


MontereyJack wrote:
What do you have to compete with that.

I really can't comment on a policy unless I know what that policy actually is.

It does seem like a way is opening up for conservative states to prevent funding for abortions nationwide however.


MontereyJack wrote:
Looks like your Soup Nazi (emphasis on the Nazi) edict is just so much bluter.

Let's see if you get any new gun laws.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 06:57 pm
@oralloy,
just got a gun executive order. works pretty much the same.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 07:13 pm
@MontereyJack,
So far it isn't clear that this supposed executive order will do anything at all.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 07:15 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I really can't comment on a policy unless I know what that policy actually is.


Do some homework, just like I did.

oralloy wrote:
It does seem like a way is opening up for conservative states to prevent funding for abortions nationwide however.


I don't know why you keep bringing up abortion in a gun control thread. But since you did, there's this:

Federal Court Says North Dakota Can’t Force Doctors to Promote the “Abortion Reversal” Myth
A rare victory for the First Amendment rights of abortion providers.
By MARK JOSEPH STERN

SEPT 10, 20192:54 PM

North Dakota doctors will not be compelled to lie to their patients thanks to a federal court decision on Tuesday that blocked the state’s “abortion reversal” law.

In 2019, five states—North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Arkansas—passed laws forcing physicians to tell patients that a medical abortion could be reversed. South Dakota, Idaho, and Utah also have such laws on the books; Arizona enacted an “abortion reversal” law in 2015 but repealed the measure after the state could not find a single credible expert to defend it in court. These laws obligate doctors to state that a patient can maintain her pregnancy if she changes her mind after beginning a medical abortion. That process involves two drugs, mifepristone (which halts the pregnancy) and misoprostol (which expels it from the uterus). Under the “abortion reversal” theory, a patient who has taken mifepristone but not misoprostol can counteract its effects with progesterone.

The problem with this theory is that it is totally unproven. As U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland wrote on Tuesday, there is “no real, serious debate within the medical profession”; rather, the overwhelming majority of medical experts believe that “abortion reversal” is “experimental,” “dangerous,” and “unsupported by scientific evidence.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has explained that the treatment is “not based on science” and does not “not meet clinical standards.” Similarly, the American Medical Association has described “abortion reversal” as “a claim wholly unsupported by the best, most reliable scientific evidence.” The AMA even joined the lawsuit against the North Dakota law, declaring that it forced doctors to “contraven[e] their ethical and legal obligations as medical providers.”

Even though experts agree that “abortion reversal” is untested and dangerous, anti-abortion advocates have urged states to compel doctors to tell their patients about it. Laws like North Dakota’s trace back to Abortion Pill Rescue, a program of the anti-abortion group Heartbeat International. An advisor for APR, Dr. George Delgado, has claimed that women who take progesterone after ingesting mifepristone may still carry their pregnancies to term. His studies did not meet basic clinic standards: They had no control group, a small sample size, and no supervision by an institutional review board or an ethical review committee. These flaws did not prevent states from passing laws that forced doctors to effectively endorse Delgado’s assertions.

The Supreme Court has upheld disclosure laws that require abortion providers to provide patients with factual information about the procedure to obtain their “informed consent.” But Hovland found that North Dakota’s law “goes far beyond” the typical “informed consent statute,” triggering grave free speech concerns. The statute compels doctors not to state the truth, but to “expres[s] ideological beliefs essentially designed to make it more difficult for women to choose an abortion.”

Hovland drew the line at compulsory lies that encourage dangerous and “unproven medical treatments.”

“A law which mandates that physicians become mouthpieces for a false, misleading, and controversial ‘abortion reversal’ message would not survive any level of constitutional scrutiny,” Hovland concluded. And the North Dakota statute does just that, requiring providers “to enunciate the State’s viewpoint” on a theory “that is devoid of credible scientific evidence.” The law therefore “violates a physician’s First Amendment protection against compelled speech.”

Hovland acknowledged that the government has broad leeway to require doctors to provide “objectively truthful and nonmisleading information before obtaining a patient’s informed consent to an abortion.” For instance, some states require doctors to describe the fetus and the show its image on an ultrasound. But Hovland drew the line at compulsory lies that encourage dangerous and “unproven medical treatments.” Even under relaxed constitutional scrutiny, he wrote, North Dakota’s compulsion of “misleading and inaccurate” speech cannot survive First Amendment review.

Tuesday’s decision is the latest legal skirmish over abortion-related speech, an issue upon which the Supreme Court is notoriously inconsistent. In 2018’s NIFLA v. Becerra, the court’s conservatives ruled that states cannot compel unlicensed “crisis pregnancy centers” to disclose their lack of a license. But they also held that states can force doctors to read a script designed to counsel patients against abortions. Anti-abortion judges have seized upon this distinction to uphold extreme measures that direct doctors to serve as a mouthpiece for the state’s anti-abortion message. “Abortion reversal” laws, however, go a step farther, requiring doctors to favorably describe an unsafe, pseudoscientific treatment. As Hovland noted, it is hard to see how the First Amendment could possibly tolerate such compelled speech. The state is not furthering informed consent; it is ordering doctors advocate quackery.

North Dakota will likely appeal Tuesday’s decision to the conservative 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which does not always adhere to precedent where abortion is concerned. If the 8th Circuit—or, down the road, the Supreme Court—upholds the law, it will turn abortion clinics into First Amendment–free zones. And it would mark the height of hypocrisy for the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution grants “crisis pregnancy centers” the right to mislead patients but does not grant doctors the right to tell the truth.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 07:25 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
Do some homework, just like I did.

I'm not inclined to go on wild goose chases. If someone posts details about what New Jersey is doing, I'll comment on them.


neptuneblue wrote:
I don't know why you keep bringing up abortion in a gun control thread.

The first time I brought it up to illustrate how wrong you were about taxes.

This latest time I brought it up because this New Jersey thing can easily be used by conservative states to undermine abortions nationwide.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 10:34 pm
I'm hoping someone will tell McConnell how our government actually works.

Quote:
The bill is sent to the President for review.

A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.

If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.")

If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law.


McConnell: White House preparing gun-violence proposal
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 09/10/19 03:01 PM EDT 840

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday that the White House is preparing a proposal to respond to the “horrendous” shootings last month and that he will withhold judgment on how to proceed until he sees President Trump’s plan.

“We had a briefing at lunch from Eric Ueland from down at the White House. They are working on coming up with a proposal that the president will sign. Until that happens, all of this is theatrics,” McConnell said after the Senate GOP lunch, which White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland attended.

“These horrendous shootings, in my opinion, deserve a response. I hope we can get something that can actually become the law of the United States of America,” McConnell later added.

Some Republicans say there is now more GOP support for expanding background checks along the lines of the proposal sponsored in 2013 by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), which would have required background checks for all firearms sales on the internet and at gun shows.

McConnell, however, was careful not to get out ahead of Trump.

Asked if there is more support for background checks, McConnell said, “I can’t handicap the outcome.”

“We’re waiting for something we know if it passed would actually become law and until the White House gives us some indication of what the president is willing to sign, we’re waiting to see what it looks like,” he said.

Asked whether he personally thought it reasonable to mandate background checks for all commercial gun sales, McConnell replied, “I’m going to wait and assess the proposal that actually could become law.”

“At that point I’ll be happy to explain my vote one way or the other,” he said.

McConnell said Republicans “are engaged here with a level of seriousness that I see as completely nonexistent on the other side,” referring to Democrats.

McConnell hit Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for calling on Republicans Monday to take up a House-passed gun control measure.

The GOP leader dismissed their call as a political “stunt” because Trump has already said he will veto it.

“For months, what I have said consistently is let’s see if we can actually make a law here. And making a law when you have divided government is challenging,” he said. “My members know the very simple fact that to make a law you have to have a presidential signature."

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 04:26 am
@neptuneblue,
It sort of sounds like McConnell is about to block passage of any new gun laws.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 09:39 am
@oralloy,
Gee, what a surprise.ote that sucj
ker out next chance you get. Improve the country.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 09:40 am
@MontereyJack,
No new gun laws for you. Enjoy watching all the massacres.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 09:42 am
@oralloy,
You really do get off on all the killing, don't you?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 09:51 am
@MontereyJack,
No. I'm just fighting to prevent you from violating people's civil liberties for fun.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 10:04 am
@oralloy,
And we're fighting to prevent your sidebrfrom murderously violating civil rights for fun
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 10:06 am
@MontereyJack,
That is incorrect. Your attempts to violate people's civil liberties are not designed to save any lives. You only want to violate people's civil liberties for your own enjoyment.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd stop trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun and actually work with gun rights advocates to try to save lives.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 11:23 am
@oralloy,
Yeah i noticed that your notion of working with the gunnies meant giving you everything on your wish list in return for meaningless token concessions that wont solve the problem. Nice smoke and mirror on your part. Stop mufderously violating civil rights for fun.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 02:02 pm
@MontereyJack,
If you think that gun control is a meaningless token that won't solve the problem, then it shouldn't bother you that you aren't getting any more gun control.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Sep, 2019 07:02 am
Opinion in New York Times
A Strong Bipartisan Path to Tackle Gun Violence
Quote:
A red flag law will reduce bloodshed and respect the rights of gun owners.

By Marco Rubio
Mr. Rubio is a Republican senator from Florida.

Sept. 12, 2019

After a string of mass shootings this summer, Americans are demanding a response to curtail the violence. If we are looking to deliver a solution that reduces bloodshed and respects the rights of responsible gun owners, the only realistic action must be bipartisan.

This is why the recent focus on red-flag proposals from our Senate colleagues and the president are welcome. The most effective step Congress can take right now to prevent tragedies like those in Parkland, Fla.; Newtown, Conn.; and Dayton, Ohio, is to enact red-flag laws, which give law enforcement the ability to restrict gun access for unstable, potentially violent people, without infringing on other Americans’ rights.

That’s why, on the first day of this Congress, I reintroduced bipartisan legislation with Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine; Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Angus King, independent of Maine.

We can see the consensus around red-flag legislation developing in real time. I commend Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who have publicly voiced support for enacting a law that would provide financial incentives to states to adopt red-flag laws. Our bill does exactly that.

It’s no secret that you need a bipartisan coalition to pass legislation in the Senate, and we’ve already done the legwork. We can build off our proposal in order to put a law in place that can actually stop the next attack.

Red-flag laws empower law enforcement or family members to use the judicial system to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. In Florida, when a concerned family member contacts the police about a person determined to be a threat to himself or others, the police can petition a judge to have his guns taken away for two weeks. After an additional hearing, the risk protection order can be extended for up to a year.

The laws do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. In order for a state to be eligible for funding under our proposal, it would be required to enact strong due process protections and include a felony penalty for false reporting.

Red and blue states alike across the country are enacting red-flag laws, and a recent study showed these laws may be playing a role in preventing mass shootings. As of last month, state judges had signed off on over 2,400 risk protections orders in Florida since March 2018, undoubtedly pre-empting violence.

Far too often, we learn after a tragedy that the perpetrator displayed concerning and often repeated signs of deeply troubling behavior, including clear statements indicating their intent to cause harm to others. In the case of the Parkland shooting suspect, the police received at least 45 calls about him, and a woman close to him even communicated to the F.B.I. that she feared he would become a school shooter, listing specific examples of disturbing conduct — including holding a gun to the head of family members.

Despite these troubling indicators, the suspect was not prevented from owning or obtaining firearms because he had never been charged with a crime. Red-flag laws provide communities with a tool to prevent future tragedies.

I have spoken to families and other community members who have been hurt by senseless acts of violence. As we discuss ways to prevent attacks and keep our schools and communities safe, red-flag laws are consistently mentioned.

Bipartisan consensus is growing that this type of law would be a part of the solution, and we have the blueprint needed to put them in place. It’s time to act.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 12 Sep, 2019 07:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I'd be willing to support red flag laws so long as progressives first stopped trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun, and paid compensation to their victims.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Sep, 2019 08:32 am
@oralloy,
No. Giving you more guns with fewer controls, which was what your "compromise" would do, damned sure won't solve the problem.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 12 Sep, 2019 08:53 am
@MontereyJack,
Whatever. No new gun laws. Enjoy helplessly watching the massacres.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 05:33:36