Saturday, February 22, 2014

GOAL Post 2014-7 is posted


Since I'm away from home, I don't have easy enough access to the email account I receive it in, and the netbook sucks for editing the thing into readability, not to mention the preferred Cluemeter format. So if you are interested, click the link and read about which five gun-related bills are left. 

I believe Fair Usage would allow me to quote two paragraphs from the GOAL Post:
A little drama is underway in Connecticut right now regarding newly-banned “assault weapons.”  Under the new law, sales or transfers are banned, but individuals who already own such firearms are grandfathered and allowed to keep them — PROVIDED they register them with the state.  The registration date passed with very limited compliance, so the Hartford Courant, Connecticut’s newspaper of record, opined that the state has a crisis on its hands that can only be met with confiscation of the firearms in question.  And they suggest “Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.  (The editorial closes with, “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.”  And what about those, including elected officials, who choose to disobey the Constitution?)

I’ve already heard from gun owners who have no problem with background checks, and who characterize linkage between background checks and gun confiscation as irresponsible scare-mongering.  I myself am not particularly concerned about background checks… in and of themselves.  I’ve held the highest security clearances, hold concealed carry licenses from five states…   I’ve even offered legislators ways to conduct background checks WITH NO RECORD KEEPING (they rejected it, as I knew they would).  It’s about what ELSE might be done with the records created, especially with federally mandated dealers’ records.
If Joe or GOAL feel other wise I will remove the quote.

No comments: