This really happened when Reagan was California Governor. The NRA helped him do this.
https://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/the-nra-helped-reagan-ban-open-carry-in-california-via-the-mulford-act/
To be sure, the Mulford Act was all about the Black Panthers. Back then they had a preference for walking around with rifles hanging from their shoulders. The idea was that Whitey had killed Malcom X and MLK, so they had to be in a constant state of readiness.
It was also about fighting back against the police. So the Mulford Act was about putting an end to that-which it did.
It's interesting how framing an issue can change one's view of it. In the 90s, you had former Panthers as part of the Congressional Black Caucus who supported the Brady Bill. Nowadays, the NRA is for open carry.
Which brings us to the latest Democrat gambit. The Paris attacks, have, unfortunately given the GOP a wedge issue-as proved by how quickly they were able to get Dems to sign onto that miserable anti Syrian refugee bill.
But now the Dems are trying to see if they can use the wedge issue their way. Will Americans being, well, terrorized over terrorism-which is the goal of ISIS, that we are again taking the bait on-be able to help the Dems for a change?
It would make sense that if you believe as so many do, that we will suffer another terrorist attack in the US, the question just being when, not if, that you would at the minimum not want these terrorists to be able to get a firearm any more than Reagan wanted the Panthers to have guns.
If it is worth cracking down on the Syrian refugees, though the likeliness is very remote that this is how terrorism is exported to the US-the very framing of 'exporting' is wrong as the most likely next terrorist act via ISIS will be homegrown, no matter where it is-after all what Jihadist is going to sit patiently on a waiting list taht is 18-24 months, then the question is why shouldn't we be as risk adverse elsewhere?
Indeed, I read somewhere this week that conservatives are just more risk adverse than we liberals-we, supposedly are much more willing to risk being the victim of the next Jihadist terrorist.
But if conservatives are so risk adverse how do you explain them wanting absolutely no gun control at all? Will they oppose it even for Jihadists? If I had to bet-I'd say yes.
"Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory."
https://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/the-nra-helped-reagan-ban-open-carry-in-california-via-the-mulford-act/
To be sure, the Mulford Act was all about the Black Panthers. Back then they had a preference for walking around with rifles hanging from their shoulders. The idea was that Whitey had killed Malcom X and MLK, so they had to be in a constant state of readiness.
It was also about fighting back against the police. So the Mulford Act was about putting an end to that-which it did.
It's interesting how framing an issue can change one's view of it. In the 90s, you had former Panthers as part of the Congressional Black Caucus who supported the Brady Bill. Nowadays, the NRA is for open carry.
Which brings us to the latest Democrat gambit. The Paris attacks, have, unfortunately given the GOP a wedge issue-as proved by how quickly they were able to get Dems to sign onto that miserable anti Syrian refugee bill.
But now the Dems are trying to see if they can use the wedge issue their way. Will Americans being, well, terrorized over terrorism-which is the goal of ISIS, that we are again taking the bait on-be able to help the Dems for a change?
It would make sense that if you believe as so many do, that we will suffer another terrorist attack in the US, the question just being when, not if, that you would at the minimum not want these terrorists to be able to get a firearm any more than Reagan wanted the Panthers to have guns.
If it is worth cracking down on the Syrian refugees, though the likeliness is very remote that this is how terrorism is exported to the US-the very framing of 'exporting' is wrong as the most likely next terrorist act via ISIS will be homegrown, no matter where it is-after all what Jihadist is going to sit patiently on a waiting list taht is 18-24 months, then the question is why shouldn't we be as risk adverse elsewhere?
Indeed, I read somewhere this week that conservatives are just more risk adverse than we liberals-we, supposedly are much more willing to risk being the victim of the next Jihadist terrorist.
But if conservatives are so risk adverse how do you explain them wanting absolutely no gun control at all? Will they oppose it even for Jihadists? If I had to bet-I'd say yes.
"Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory."
"The Democratic push seems likely to fall victim to opposition from the National Rifle Association and congressional gun-rights backers, chiefly Republicans, who have smothered firearms curbs for years. If the Republicans who control Congress block votes on the proposal, Democrats hope to profit politically by winning sympathy from angry voters."
"By leaving this terrorist loophole open, Republicans are leaving every community in America vulnerable to attacks by terrorists armed with assault rifles and explosives purchased legally, in broad daylight," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday in a written statement.
"By leaving this terrorist loophole open, Republicans are leaving every community in America vulnerable to attacks by terrorists armed with assault rifles and explosives purchased legally, in broad daylight," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday in a written statement.
Gun dealers are prohibited from selling to 10 categories of people, including many convicted criminals or those with severe mentally illness.
But people appearing on the government's terror watch lists — including those kept off from airlines — are not automatically disqualified from buying weapons from gun dealers. The FBI is notified when a background check for the purchase of firearms or explosives generates a match with the watch list, and agents often use that information to step up surveillance on suspects.
By law, people can try persuading the Justice Department to remove their names from terror lists or can file lawsuits challenging their inclusion. The lists are overwhelmingly composed of foreigners."
Between 2004 and 2014, people on one terror watch list underwent background checks to buy guns 2,233 times and were allowed to make the purchase 91 percent of the time, according to a March report by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative agency of Congress.
NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker noted that there have been numerous instances of innocent people mistakenly added to terror lists. She also accused Democrats of trying to take advantage of heightened public alarm following last week's attacks in Paris, which claimed at least 130 lives and for which the Islamic State, which has also threatened the U.S., has claimed responsibility.
"It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama's failed foreign policy," Baker said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/democrats-terror-list-suspects-gun-sales
Right, I mean only Democrats ever try to exploit fears of terrorism!
Ultimately, it's hard to see Paul Ryan bringing this up as a stand alone bill. However, Harry Reid promises the refugee crackdown bill won't pass the Senate. The Senate Dems will offer up their alternative bill that could have the gun control measure of part of a larger bill.
Maybe they'll try to pass it as part of a quid pro quo,
But people appearing on the government's terror watch lists — including those kept off from airlines — are not automatically disqualified from buying weapons from gun dealers. The FBI is notified when a background check for the purchase of firearms or explosives generates a match with the watch list, and agents often use that information to step up surveillance on suspects.
By law, people can try persuading the Justice Department to remove their names from terror lists or can file lawsuits challenging their inclusion. The lists are overwhelmingly composed of foreigners."
Between 2004 and 2014, people on one terror watch list underwent background checks to buy guns 2,233 times and were allowed to make the purchase 91 percent of the time, according to a March report by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative agency of Congress.
NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker noted that there have been numerous instances of innocent people mistakenly added to terror lists. She also accused Democrats of trying to take advantage of heightened public alarm following last week's attacks in Paris, which claimed at least 130 lives and for which the Islamic State, which has also threatened the U.S., has claimed responsibility.
"It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama's failed foreign policy," Baker said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/democrats-terror-list-suspects-gun-sales
Right, I mean only Democrats ever try to exploit fears of terrorism!
Ultimately, it's hard to see Paul Ryan bringing this up as a stand alone bill. However, Harry Reid promises the refugee crackdown bill won't pass the Senate. The Senate Dems will offer up their alternative bill that could have the gun control measure of part of a larger bill.
Maybe they'll try to pass it as part of a quid pro quo,
Interesting post Mike, thanks.
ReplyDeleteGlad you liked it
ReplyDelete