Markell & Democrats Propose New Gun Control Laws
In many places across this country, Republicans are dismantling gun control legislation so that more criminals and terrorists, as well as the mentally ill, can have unlimited and unrestrained access to as many weapons they can buy, so that they can kill as many people as they want.
But in Delaware, Governor Markell, Representative Dennis E. Williams and Representative Valerie Longhurst proposed four new gun control laws in Delaware. One bill closes finally the gun show loophole that allows people to buy guns at gun shows without undergoing a criminal background check. Another bill prohibits carrying guns while intoxicated. Another requires the reporting of information on mentally ill state residents to be sent to the federal instant criminal background check database. And the final bill allowes law enforcments to dispose of seized weapons.
All four bills are common sense legislation that does not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of any law abiding citizen, rather it protects the public at large. But please, conservatives, please defend the rights of drunk mentally ill criminals who want to shoot their guns. I am sure you will sound very sane and reasonable.
“In many places across this country, Republicans are dismantling gun control legislation so that more criminals and terrorists, as well as the mentally ill, can have unlimited and unrestrained access to as many weapons they can buy, so that they can kill as many people as they want.”
Yes. That’s what Republicans across the nation are hoping for.
This is the kind of stupidity that prevents anyone from taking this site seriously.
OTOH, that might not be a bad thing.
And yet, you are still here reading. Amazing that.
Who is Senator Williams? Of the 21 Senators listed on the Delaware.gov website none appear to be named Williams.
“Mentally ill residents” and “mentally ill criminals” are not the same. Which of the two are the subjects of the proposed legislation? Does anyone know? And how is mental illness defined in the legislation?
I gave Dennis E. Williams a promotion. My mistake.
It applies to mentally ill residents. The reference to mentally ill criminals in the last sentence is my hyperbole.
I sure republicans would be willing to support anti gun-control legislation, particularly if the discharge of the weapon was predicated by forcible violence, as evidenced by visible bruises and broken bones received by the firer before the discharge of his weapon; or if the victim using the firearm in self defense did not know the perpetrator, and it could be a proven that the violent was done at random by the person who took the bullet; or if there had never been any social interaction between the two parties, that could possibly sent missed signals, before the discharge of the weapon in self defense had occurred, or if the weapon is accidentally discharged by someone under the legal age…..
🙂
LOL, finally closes the gun show loophole. There is no such thing as the “gun show loophole.” If you buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show, you go through a background check. What they want to do is stop person to person sales which will do nothing to remove weapons from the streets.
Not allowing guns while intoxicated is fine.
The mentally ill part can be a slippery slope if it isn’t defined well. Now before you jump on me, let me explain. This all depends on how they gather the information. If you were sent to the state hospital for a suicide attempt, I can see that. But if they go off of prescriptions, or other past medical records, they could possibly restrict people for the wrong reasons. Aanyone every prescribed any anti-depressant or anxiety drug ever in their past would be barred. That’s around 1/5th of the population.
No one wants crazies running around, I just hope they are responsible with their definition.
They should have an auction to dispose of the weapons. I doubt cops would sell them without a background check, and it would bring in money to the state.
“There is no such thing as the “gun show loophole.” If you buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show, you go through a background check.”
Really? Everybody with a table at a gun show has a dealer’s license? No, of course not; the ATF estimates 25% to 50% do not.
“What they want to do is stop person to person sales…”
Exactly. Because, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale. That’s the case whether the sales take place at gun shows or somewhere else.
In short, the term “gun show loophole” is a euphemism. Sort of like states’ rights.
“…which will do nothing to remove weapons from the streets.”
Bullshit. You have nothing to back up this contention — it’s merely a common element of the Gun Rights Creed. Where common sense prevails, we understand that because individuals who aren’t dealers don’t have to perform background checks, that’s how criminals buy them. Or were you under the illusion that every criminal steals his own?
Can anyone point to a gun show in Delaware?
Do they hold this gun show every year? I remember it being promoted on the radio.
I’m pretty sure they do, Pandora.
To clarify for the Phils out there, I’m strongly in favor of individual gun ownership. But I’m also of the opinion that to actually rein in criminal possession, we need registration laws as strong as our vehicle registration laws. The vast majority of guns in criminal hands come from a small minority of sources. The NRA doesn’t want those sources busted, because they lobby not for gun owners but gun manufacturers, to whom a sale is a sale is a sale.
A quick comment about people with mental illness. There is a big difference in someone who suffers from season depression or depression in general & has never been violent than a person who is schizophrenic or psychotic. I think this could be a slippery slope. I am a antique gun collector but suffer from depression. I have never done a violent act or ever though of it. I hope people like me who are very responsible with guns are not hurt by this new law.
Well said Stormy Fyre.
If you were ever at a gun show, you would know that a lot of tables do not sell firearms at all. Books, knives, magazines(clips), and all other types of merchandise. But I know for a fact that if you buy a gun from one of the registered tables, they will phone in the background check, and will not sell it until they get an answer. If you are out of state, you have to get handguns sent to a dealer in your state.
As strong as our vehicle registration laws? I can buy a car from a private owner, and drive it around until I get caught. Doesn’t that sound familiar? There are already laws on the books that just need to be enforced, not more just piled on.
Nevermind, I see your point, this is just like all of the laws to keep regulated prescription drugs off of the street. That is working like a charm.
O,
What are the odds of someone like Stormy shooting himself? I’ll give you a hint. They are 5 times higher than an antique car collector. (,,and by “someone like Stormy” I mean a gun owner.)
Geezer,
Exactly. The NRA is about protecting the profits of an industry in spite of the clear public health risk created by their product.
Here is some “smoking gun” stuff on the NRA for those of you who get off on that.
“I can buy a car from a private owner, and drive it around until I get caught. Doesn’t that sound familiar?”
And if you do get caught — because, say, you had an accident while skating on somebody else’s registration — you’d find your ass in a pretty big sling pretty damn quick. You’d face criminal charges and quite likely a civil case from the previous owner, or rather his insurance company. In short, this sort of thing happens a helluva lot less with vehicles than with guns, all because of strict registration laws.
I realize none of this will change your views. The libertarian fairy tales are too comforting.
“Really? Everybody with a table at a gun show has a dealer’s license?”
The majority don’t, and that’s because quite a few folks at gun shows aren’t there to sell GUNS. They’re selling ammo, memorabilia, reloading supplies, etc. etc.
There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” It does not exist. It’s a made up term by anti-gunners.
As for the bill barring those under the influence from carrying. It’s already illegal to carry while legally intoxicated. Where’s the evidence that Delaware CCDW holders are drinking while carrying or causing any problem at all?
Disinformation is the stock in trade of the pro-gun forces. Their favorite phrase? “Jackbooted stormtroopers”.
They will once again try to use disinformation and intimidation to derail this modest, but reasonable, set of changes.
Knowing the likelihood that few legislators would ever qualify for a ‘Profiles in Courage’ award, they’ll likely succeed…
…unless the vast majority of people who don’t share the NRA’s views make sure their voices are heard.
Which is precisely why people who support the Governor’s package should do it, starting right now. Let your legislators know that you want them to support this package, and let them know that you’ll be watching them, and that if they cave to the NRA, there will be electoral consequences. There are more of us than there are of them.
Mike: Since your reading comprehension skills are on vacation, note that I explained the term is a misnomer — sort of like “death tax” and “partial birth abortion.” The loophole is for private sales, some of which take place at gun shows — not all those selling guns at shows have licenses, either.
I just read Beau Biden’s statement that those who will be designated as “mentally ill” for the purposes of the legislation are those who have been “legally determined” to be mentally ill. I assume, therefore, that these will be people who have been legally determined to be a danger to themselves and others. If so, that removes my concern about that particular piece of proposed legislation.
Right, Geezer.
After all, if the ‘gun show loophole’ had no impact, then the Mikes and Phils of this world would not be leading the charge against it.
Why fight something that won’t do anything? They know damn well it’ll do something, and it’ll do something that should be done, Mike and Phil notwithstanding.
It’s “jack-boot Gestapo thugs”, by the way El Som. And the problem with “modest but reasonable set of changes” is that each of these changes gets your little gun-grabbing feet in the door for expansion of each said change. There has been no problem with gunshow sold firearms in Delaware to date or with permit carrying people under the influence. And DSP wants to destroy a collection of useful and needed firearms instead of selling them in Delaware or elsewhere to help support their (DSP’s) ever-growing cost burden on state and federal taxpayers. Have any of you crying tree-huggers ever owned a firearm?
Delbert, if we owned firearms, they wouldn’t be sitting in an evidence locker… they’d be in a locked gun safe, as I’m sure yours are.
The same argument could go for confiscated drugs, couldn’t it? I mean, we could have the government resell dope for places where medical marijuana is legal. Yes, I can see it now! Delaware makes best of bad deal by reselling murder weapons! Then maybe we could turn a PROFIT on the misery of our citizens. It’s BRILLIANT! BRILLIANT!
A firearm “locked in a gun safe”. That’s like a smoke detector without a battery. And recycled reefer confiscations to legal markets is a great idea. I hadn’t thought of that. They could use the proceeds for interdiction programs.
Well, see, Delbert, I thought your weapons were for sport hunting & participating in a ‘well-regulated Militia’… neither of which would require an AK47 armed and kept next to the connubial couch.
You see how enlightening an exchange of ideas is?
Leading spokesman for gun lobby used to be a lawyer:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/de-supreme-court/1162355.html
Protecting the right to tote while tuned.
“And if you do get caught — because, say, you had an accident while skating on somebody else’s registration — you’d find your ass in a pretty big sling pretty damn quick. You’d face criminal charges and quite likely a civil case from the previous owner…”
Just like if you got caught with any weapon during a felony?
I guess you don’t pay attention to all of the illegal immigrants in DE with PA tags…Registration FTW!!!
“I’m strongly in favor of individual gun ownership. But I’m also of the opinion that to actually rein in criminal possession, we need registration laws as strong as our vehicle registration laws.”
It’s rare, but I find myself in agreement with this, and am favor of even more stringent requirements for a concealed carry permit.
“As for the bill barring those under the influence from carrying. It’s already illegal to carry while legally intoxicated.”
This is the only initiative of the four I find troublesome. As I read it, the key element of the proposed law only requires possession while intoxicated. From the article:
“Make it a crime for people under the influence of alcohol or drugs to have a weapon outside their home.”
Scenario: Some poor miscreant engages in a day of legal hunting, or even shooting at an indoor range with his buddies (potential future partners in crime). Afterward, they decide to stop to dine and have a glass or two of fine wine. They become intoxicated and, being the responsible law-abiding gentlemen they are, call their significant others to come get them. One miscreant, not wanting to leave his legally registered weapon in his vehicle overnight, secures it in the trunk of his lovely wife’s car. On the way home, they get back-ended at a traffic light by some douchebag (probably some uninsured liberal) talking on a cell phone. While investigating the crash, a well-intentioned State Trooper sees the weapon in the trunk. Since it is registered to the miscreant, he is technically in violation of this ill-conceived law by having the weapon “outside his home”.
Did I misread that one? Is so, never mind. If not, this one requires some serious thought.
Regarding the “mentally ill” issue: It’s already illegal (Federal law… It’s on the questionnaire required to legally purchase a firearm) )for anyone who has been determined to have had a mental illness to purchase a firearm. I see no harm in making this information more readily accessible to other law enforcement agencies.
You could just go ahead and outlaw weapons outright. Do you believe that would solve the problem? Google “prohibition” and “war on drugs” if you believe so. As far as the concealed weapon license, how many of the thugs that “patrol” the streets of Wilmington have a permit to carry?
I believe we need to deal with the human side of the equation rather than enact more laws that probably will be ignored by those referred to above. Just my 2 cents!
“I believe we need to deal with the human side of the equation rather than enact more laws that probably will be ignored by those referred to above.”
Think you could further articulate your point (should there be one)?
“Just my 2 cents!”
Stand by, Sparky. Based on what you wrote, you have some change coming back, or may even be entitled to a full refund.
Phil: You once again missed the point. Try to understand something: People with nothing to lose cannot be constrained by civil lawsuits, or by criminal statutes for that matter. It’s therefore necessary, if we’re to make any headway on this issue, to squeeze those with something to lose — gun sellers who don’t care to whom they sell. Stop being deliberately obtuse. I’m well aware of the libertarian strategy on this, and most, issues — it’s too hard and it can’t be perfect, therefore it’s not worth doing. The vast majority of thinking people reject that. Go back to reading your Heinlein or Rand or whoever’s little fantasy world you like to spend your time in, and leave solving problems to the grown-ups.
I’ve been a gun owner for 40 years. I have always supported sensible gun control laws. I have never belonged to the NRA and would never give a dime to such a despicable organization. That the new gun laws are reasonable and needed in the wake of the Arizona shooting is a no brainer. Of course anyone who would join the NRA lacks brains.I urge other sensible gun owners who support this legislation to comment in this blog.
Miscreant:
“I believe we need to deal with the human side of the equation rather than enact more laws that probably will be ignored by those referred to above.”
Think you could further articulate your point (should there be one)?
I believe too much attention is given to control of the tools of miscreants ( no ref. to you intended). Like the misbehaving child who isn’t corrected by his parents, perhaps because they find his behavior “cute,” we seem to give little thought to the perps of crimes using weaponry. We would rather pass laws that further limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. While we do this, criminals continue to prey upon those whom they will. You can ban firearms completely but I guarantee that those who want weapons and would use them against you because they want what you have, will find a way to get what they feel they need. Hope this helps.
“Just my 2 cents!”
Stand by, Sparky. Based on what you wrote, you have some change coming back, or may even be entitled to a full refund.
Sorry you didn’t understand or agree with it, you may forward any refunds to me if it makes you feel better. Have a nice evening.
It is interesting to me that the unifying theme across all of these posts is that Republicans are pretty scared. Guns, the economy, taxes, Egypt… whatever the topic is, it is a sure bet that Republicans are going to lead with a catalogue of fears.
Very telling.