Democratic leaders in the Vermont Senate are preparing legislation calling for expanded background checks for gun purchases and state prosecution of what are now federal gun crimes, including being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
“I do not believe that background checks alone are the only solution; it is not always going to prevent gun violence. But there will be times when it will be effective,” said Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, D-Windsor.
Senate Majority Leader Philip Baruth, D-Chittenden, said part of the bill would target firearms sales over the Internet by requiring a buyer to “physically appear” at a federally licensed gun dealer, where staff will run the person’s name through an FBI database to make sure the buyer doesn’t have criminal convictions or a court finding of mental illness that would bar the purchase.
“It’s not designed to take guns away from anyone,” Baruth said. “But it says guns are serious things. If you want a gun you need a background check.”
Vermont gun shops have used the federal background check system since the late 1990s, but the system is porous, with Internet and gun show sales frequently happening without the checks, gun restriction advocates maintain.
The national group Everytown for Gun Safety this past week released an analysis of new FBI data showing that the federal background check system is working in Vermont, blocking more than 3,000 gun sales to prohibited purchasers since 1998. These blocked sales include 279 gun sales to drug offenders, 356 to people convicted of domestic violence or subject to protection orders, and 983 sales to convicted felons, the group said.
"state prosecution of what are now federal gun crimes, including being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm." Oh this is a big no no right? I mean Arizona was slapped down when they tried to prosecute immigration crimes that are federal offenses didn't they? States are not allowed to prosecute federal offenses.ReplyDelete
From the article:ReplyDelete
If you want a gun you need a background check.
These control freak assholes want to require a background check for merely wanting a gun? I want that petty tyrannical little freak fed to hungry feral hogs--must I submit to a background check for harboring that desire?
I want that petty tyrannical little freak fed to hungry feral hogs--must I submit to a background check for harboring that desire?Delete
Come to think of it, no one should have a problem with what I have in mind. By transforming him into swine shit, implementation of my proposal would exponentially improve him.
More purposeful misunderstanding of simple English. That's part of your strict honesty, right Kurt?Delete
The "simple English" Baruth spouted advocates requiring a background check for wanting a gun. If he meant something else--a possibility, mind you, that I entertained in my first comment on this subject, in which I asked if that was his meaning--it is incumbent upon him to state his position accurately and unambiguously.Delete
My strict honesty remains intact, obviously.
You're full of it, Kurt. You use the ambiguousity against people when convenient to your agenda. It's fucking dishonest to pretend you don't understand something when you acutally do.Delete
Someone sounds a little fussy. What's wrong, Mikeb, upset that Bloomberg hasn't been declared Emperor of the Universe yet?Delete
Once again, you extend your impressive record of never, ever successfully challenging my integrity. ;-)
Came across this little bump in the road for this bill. It appears a major law enforcement organization has gotten the impression that someone wasn't being, as they put it, "factual". There is another word for that as I recall.ReplyDelete
"A highly controversial background check bill is in peril in Vermont after an influential association of police chiefs criticized the legislation as unnecessary and off target.
“We said we weren’t going to support S.31, period,” Timothy Bombardier, Barre City’s chief of police, told Vermont Watchdog on Tuesday.
Bombardier, representing the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police at a Feb. 10 public hearing, testified that arguments presented to the group in support of S.31 did “not have a factual basis.”
“Members of the Chiefs Association were contacted by Gun Sense Vermont, and statistics were thrown out. When we examined these statistics, they do not have a factual basis. … No one could answer the questions of what a bill like S.31 would actually do to domestic violence deaths in Vermont,” he said at the hearing."
So it appears that state level offices of this very well funded group cant even set up a power point presentation dealing with how legislation would affect their state. Is this just laziness? Or disdain for state level legislation?
Lies from the "gun control" advocates? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.Delete
That's sarcasm, before Mikeb gets excited about finally catching me in a lie.