House voted to reverse Obama background check rule

[Revmitchell]

The Republican-controlled House voted 235-180 on Thursday to scrap a measure submitted by the Obama administration to prohibit some Social Security recipients from owning firearms.

The National Rifle Association framed the measure as a “last minute, back door gun grab” by President Obama and applauded the House vote. “Today’s vote was the first step in revoking this unconstitutional action,” said Chris Cox, the NRA’s head lobbyist, in a statement.

If passed, the measure would have banned Social Security recipients who lacked the mental capacity to manage their own finances from owning firearms. Also, their names would have been added to a list of prohibited buyers in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

http://www.guns.com/2017/02/02/house-reverses-obama-background-check-rule/

 

[carpro]

Denying people their constitutional rights is what the left is all about.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Denying people their constitutional rights is what the left is all about.

The Constitution does not say you cannot have a background check.

 

[Don]

The Constitution does not say you cannot have a background check.

Isn't there a difference between a background check and not being able to write checks?

 

[Revmitchell]

Isn't there a difference between a background check and not being able to write checks?

Did you mean for this post to be in this thread?

 

[carpro]

The Constitution does not say you cannot have a background check.

Try to stay on topic.

 

[carpro]

Did you mean for this post to be in this thread?

I believe so, but the title doesn't seem to fit the article. No mention of background checks in the OP. CTB obviously only read the title.

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe so, but the title doesn't seem to fit the article. No mention of background checks in the OP. CTB obviously only read the title.

Oh I see, I missed that because I have him on ignore.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I was responding to Carpro.

I think the 2nd amendment does not mean there can be no checks. If there are no checks then a person just released from a mental institution, or a mentally unstable person can obtain firearms. They would be much more of a threat than refugees.

 

[carpro]

I was responding to Carpro.

I think the 2nd amendment does not mean there can be no checks. If there are no checks then a person just released from a mental institution, or a mentally unstable person can obtain firearms. They would be much more of a threat than refugees.

Try reading the article. Then maybe you can stay on topic.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Try reading the article. Then maybe you can stay on topic.

Well, old buddy, I had read the article. There is only one proviso about mental anything and this is they cannot manage their finances. [See clip from article below.] That means a brilliant, crazy person or a person who can handle their finances.could get a firearm. Just because a person is mentally ill does not mean they cannot handle their own finances. I guess the NRA simply wants to be sure the person is mentally aware enough to pay the gun shop or person for their purchase.

From the article:

If passed, the measure would have banned Social Security recipients who lacked the mental capacity to manage their own finances from owning firearms. Also, their names would have been added to a list of prohibited buyers in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

 

[carpro]

Well, old buddy, I had read the article.

Good for you. Now tell us who said anything about background checks being constitutional?

The article, and the legislation, was clearly about taking away someone's second amendment right without due process.

Are you admitting you just threw a straw man out there like any old troll would do?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Where is background checks mentioned?

Do you believe there should be background checks?

 

[carpro]

Do you believe there should be background checks?

There already are . It's the law. I don't have a problem with it.

As someone else alluded to, not being able to write checks is not grounds for taking away anyone's constitutional rights.