House passes landmark gun background check bill.
By on Jun 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
House passes landmark gun background check bill.
“The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help. The bill, which was passed on a voice vote, would improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to stop gun purchases by people, including criminals and those adjudicated as mentally ill, who are prohibited from possessing firearms.” Statements from Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and more are HERE.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s about damn time.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pmI wanna know how the NRA is fighting this one. They are, aren’t they?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:38 pmUh, try reading it again… the NRA is *helping* the bill.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:49 pmactually, i predict that waxman’s strongly worded suggestion that doan resign, will, just like gonzo’s failed no-confidence vote, merely strengthen bush’s resolve to keep her… otoh, in big picture terms and, given the other crises that are biting bush around the ankles, lurita is most definitely expendable… however, i just can’t see bush allowing it to look like he’s acceding to waxman’s request…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
June 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI guess now we see whether conservatives are actually serious about fighting terrrrrrrerrrrrrrrrism, or whether it’s just a bumper sticker slogan used to justify wetting their pants every time a brown person walks past them.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pmboy, sounds tough–”stop purchases by…criminals and mentally ill.”
great, so we’re all in agreement that accused criminals and the mentally ill should not have guns, now…officially…
way to go Democrats, there’s a bill with teeth!
(BTW, if the NRA is supporting your bill…here’s an idea, MAKE IT TOUGHER!)
June 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pmI will veto this bill. Democrats don’t want our troops to have the tools they need to shoot at terror!
June 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pmIf the NRA is helping to pass this bill, this bill is not worth passing. Remember this is the same NRA that opposed banning the sale of cop killer bullets (Teflon coated). The NRA’s position has always been to oppose any bill that limits the sale of guns or ammunition because they feel it is a violation of the 5th amendment.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:10 pmAmerican terroism has been going on for along time via gangs. Until we cordoned off entire streets in high crime neighborhoods we’ll never get a hold on guns. Home-grown terrorism will become our biggest threat in this century.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmthe NRA is *helping* the bill.
Comment by Dale
They are doing the holes in the paper sheets with gunshots.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm==
June 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pm“If the NRA is helping to pass this bill, this bill is not worth passing.”
That’s not a smart way to approach policy. Either it’s a good bill on its merits, or it’s not.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pmWell here is the problem. You that like gun control hate the Constitution, Liberty and freedom. Hitler did all of the same things and placed all of the weapons into the hands of the Gestapo and then Army.
George Washington said, “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples’ Liberty’s Teeth.”
So you all agree that particular people should not have the full rights granted by the Constitution? If you pay your debt to society all of your rights should be returned. If you are ill in your mind or body you cannot protect your home like all others?
Think about everything happening and then consider the fact that our “Liberty Teeth” may be the key to freeing us from a dictatorship!
Follow the logic here: Ill people don’t need guns> Depressed people don’t need guns> Freed criminals don’t need guns> Gays don’t need guns> Women don’t need guns> Youths don’t need guns> Teenagers don’t need guns> Citizens don’t need guns.
Many US soldiers have mental disorders and are handed machine guns.
Hypocrites!
June 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pmSo you all agree that particular people should not have the full rights granted by the Constitution?
freedomrings
Good point! Now let’s see to it that all enjoy these, including gays, nonwhites, the poor, etc. I’m not much on the whole gun crap as it always seems a weird male insecurity thing but I did have some interest in your thoughts about my last post relative to the toxins offshore and within the Delaware Bay. Thanks
June 13th, 2007 at 7:35 pmGood point! Now let’s see to it that all enjoy these, including gays, nonwhites, the poor, etc. I’m not much on the whole gun crap as it always seems a weird male insecurity thing but I did have some interest in your thoughts about my last post relative to the toxins offshore and within the Delaware Bay. Thanks
Comment by dbadass — June 13, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
Well my wife happens to be a better shot than me and we have no intentions of seeing the 2nd Amendment being regulated into oblivion by a government that appears to have the cart before the horse. If you are ever treated for depression (if divorced or a loved one dies) you lose the full protection of the Constitution if this bill manages to go all the way.
Anyway, check back at that other thread since I responded there to the VX question you had. Constitutional issues should never arise since our civil liberties should never be questioned or compromised. Thousands of our soldiers are currently taking anti-depressants while operating weapons of war. Now bring that full circle and they should lose their weapons too or they might kill somebody?
There is a Total Gun Ban Bill floating around out there by Dennis Kucinich. These individuals want the general public to be pacified to break any possible general uprisings and to legislate something that they can. They can’t fix pollution so instead they appear to fix the Constitution.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:00 pmgreat, so we’re all in agreement that accused criminals and the mentally ill should not have guns, now…officially…
If we can strip the mentally ill of their right to bear arms, perhaps we can strip their right to avoid “cruel and unusual punishment” (as defined by a bunch of SCOTUS liberals) and execute people like Andrea Yates as they deserve.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:12 pmIt is a fact that there are more than 280 million firearms in circulation in the United States and of that 280 million, 93 million are handguns and an estimated 1.5 to 2 million firearms are manufacted and imported to this country. While there has been a drop in violent crimes, there has been an increase in crimes where there is the use of a handgun.
Until Congress decides to address the fact that this country is overrun with firearms, any laws that are passed are basically bullshit. This current Congress and previous ones do not want to seriously address this issue. To do so would look as if they are attacking or undermining the Second Amendment. Their lack of action and/or vision has created a situation where there are enough guns in this country for every man, woman and child to possess a gun.
With the holes that you have in the system at the state-level alone, this bill is meaningless. Unless you are creating some type of database to track any person that has been reported as or treated as mentally ill, how will you know? In the Virginia Tech tragedy, there were so many people passing the buck on who should have done what, there is no one to lay the blame on a mentally ill young man being able to purchase handguns.
I’m looking at the passage of this bill as a joke, just as every other so-called gun control law is a joke. These laws are created to pacify the sheep, but how many people are complaining about the fact that our government is refusing to tackle the true issue of the number of firearms in circulation in this country.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:42 pmThese laws are created to pacify the sheep, but how many people are complaining about the fact that our government is refusing to tackle the true issue of the number of firearms in circulation in this country.
Comment by maddison66 — June 13, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (is something folks get arrested for now even though no standing army should exist), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (individuals can never be denied any arms and there should be no limit as handguns, assault rifles and fully automatic machine guns are all ARMS).
For those that don’t like the 2nd Amendment allow me to suggest moving to England since they managed to ban all guns (except police, criminals and terrorists) and they have also banned all knives too. Don’t forget that their cops are crack shots and can hit an electrician in the head at 100 yards even though he was unarmed! England has also banned the “battle ax†so you don’t have to worry about that. Please remember that Tony Blair packs a 9 though.
Even though we are supposed to have militias the government replaced those with national guard but they are not guarding the nation of the USA but are instead positioned in Iraq with a great deal of our equipment. The United States government found it necessary to secure military from Mexico and mercenaries after Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. So Posse Comitatus has been obliterated along with the local militias.
Today criminals and mentally ill people will have their 2nd Amendment right “infringed†in complete opposition to the word and spirit of the US Constitution. Next you will debate about the criminals and your need for safety all the while forgetting that once an individual’s debt to society is paid they should by all rights return to a normal life even though that seldom happens.
According to the bill a depression diagnosis is enough to class someone as mentally ill and thusly prohibiting that person from practicing their 2nd Amendment rights. That in and of itself is depressing though there are times that some citizens seek mental health council if there are deaths or divorces and the like in your family.
If you were asked to give up your freedom of speech because someone didn’t like what you said you would never do it. Should the 2nd Amendment be regulated into oblivion, than the 1st Amendment will not be far behind. These Amendments work together to by supporting each other. The most important one is the 2nd Amendment!
I read in the news that a man killed 5 people by running them down in a car. Why don’t they simply ban all of the cars at this point since they cause many more deaths than guns in the USA during any given year? I would never claim that guns are not dangerous but then cars are statistically much more dangerous but talk of banning your car is insane on my part even though there is no “Right to Drive†in the nation but people routinely want to regulate and ultimately eliminate our 2nd Amendment never to be infringed right to bear arms!
Hypocrisy is the destroyer of liberty!
June 13th, 2007 at 11:48 pmRemember this is the same NRA that opposed banning the sale of cop killer bullets (Teflon coated).
Comment by Eric the Blu
The biggest problem that Liberals have, understanding gun control issues, is that it is very much aimed at deterring a potentially totalitarian government.
You might be grateful for that, in a year or so, if and when Cheney has the next election suspended.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pmComment #18, I don’t recall writing anything about my opposition (supposed or otherwise) to the Second Amendment. My commentary was specifically aimed at the number of firearms currently in circulation in the United States and the lack of will by our government to address that issue.
I understand the Second Amendment perfectly, and based on the number of times you’ve made reference to it on this particular subject, you have an understanding of it as well.
There is a distinct difference between banning and management. Individuals like yourself scream and howl about banning, but have absolutely nothing to say about management.
Your commentary concerning the banning of cars is inane. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Driving is a priviledge that is granted by the state and individuals drive at the will of the state. Firearms, the ownership/possession are a right as described by the Second Amendment, therefore it is my opinion that you are comparing apples to oranges. Rights and priviledges are two different things.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:05 am#19 Remember this is the same NRA that opposed banning the sale of cop killer bullets (Teflon coated).
Comment by Eric the Blu
The biggest problem that Liberals have, understanding gun control issues, is that it is very much aimed at deterring a potentially totalitarian government.
Comment by JPV — June 13, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
How comes then that every day your governmetn is more totalitarian is using his right to bear arms? The sorry excuse “we want the right to bear arms to deter any evil government” is laughable. No matter what misdeed makes your government, people keeps polite and thinks that a letter to a senator can change anything. Some wackos exceed by large this behavior, like the ones bombing clinics because they perform abortions, but they are just wackos. It’s a simple justification for the people wanting to have a weapon for other reasons.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:28 amComment #18, I don’t recall writing anything about my opposition (supposed or otherwise) to the Second Amendment. My commentary was specifically aimed at the number of firearms currently in circulation in the United States and the lack of will by our government to address that issue.
Your open call for governmental regulation is anti-2nd Amendment and their fore Anti-Constitutional. The number of guns can be in the billions since reducing their numbers by legislation would in fact be open infringement of the 2nd Amendment!
I understand the Second Amendment perfectly, and based on the number of times you’ve made reference to it on this particular subject, you have an understanding of it as well.
There is a distinct difference between banning and management. Individuals like yourself scream and howl about banning, but have absolutely nothing to say about management.
I would venture to speculate that the undertone in the above statement is that your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is better than mine since you said that your understanding is of all things, “perfect!†If that was the case you would then bump into the phrase, “shall not be infringed.†It must be the word “infringed†that is problematic for you to comprehend? See the Merriam-Webster official definition here…
You go on to say that, “Individuals like yourself scream and howl about banning, but have absolutely nothing to say about management.†First we are typing here so there is no screaming or howling for that matter. The phrase used in the 2nd Amendment is, “shall not be infringed†and happens to be the absolute final say prohibiting ALL infringing regulations.
Your commentary concerning the banning of cars is inane. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Driving is a priviledge that is granted by the state and individuals drive at the will of the state. Firearms, the ownership/possession are a right as described by the Second Amendment, therefore it is my opinion that you are comparing apples to oranges. Rights and priviledges are two different things.
Here is in fact what I stated, “I read in the news that a man killed 5 people by running them down in a car. Why don’t they simply ban all of the cars at this point since they cause many more deaths than guns in the USA during any given year? I would never claim that guns are not dangerous but then cars are statistically much more dangerous but talk of banning your car is insane on my part even though there is no “Right to Drive†in the nation but people routinely want to regulate and ultimately eliminate our 2nd Amendment never to be infringed right to bear arms!â€
I mentioned that cars are in fact deadly instruments regardless of intent. I mentioned that more people die from car related activities than gun related activities in the US during any given time period. Both cars and guns are currently under regulation in the USA and still more people die in auto accidents than in shootings in the USA in any given time period. I agree that guns are in fact dangerous but pointed out the truth that in the USA autos are more dangerous and deadly than guns!
I mentioned your probable reaction to my statement that “Cars should be banned!†I postulated that you might say that my auto banning suggestion would be “INSANE†and instead you decided to use the word “INANE†please do some original thinking here. I said that there is no, “Right to Drive†but in order to reduce the fatality rate from driving accidents cars would have to be “banned†since the current regulation cannot eliminate the fatality rate. You don’t call for a mass ban on autos to save lives but instead demand regulation of a NON INFRINGABLE 2nd AMENDMENT CONSTUTITIONAL RIGHT.
So, when I declare that you are a hypocrite based on what you wrote I am being sincere! If we ban cars we would eliminate massive debt, save lives, promote conservation, improve public safety, and reduce energy consumption. Once we start excluding people from their constitutional rights like it or not that is in fact infringement. I mentioned cars since they are the perfect deadly instrument of comparison and we don’t ban them even though there is no protection afforded to cars in the entire US Constitution. Naturally I know that driving is a privilege maddison66 since I stated, “there is no “Right to Drive†in the nation.â€
There is however a US Constitutional right to bear arms afforded to the people in the 2nd Amendment that shall never be infringed. It would be in fact, Constitutional to ban all autos or even regulate them into obscurity based on your logic since “people like me†consider cars to be deadly and wasteful. The same logic applied to the 2nd Amendment would in fact infringe on the same since the language used is “shall not be infringed.â€
Hypocrisy is the destroyer of liberty!
Comment by maddison66 — June 14, 2007 @ 9:05 am
June 14th, 2007 at 11:12 am