Am i missing something? Background checks already include checks for crimes and mental illness. I'd be happy to know what another law, that criminals won't obey, will do to help the matter. I mean murder is already illegal, but apparently people break the law.
@1, RTFA:
Among the proposals for the 2015 legislative session:

• Criminal penalties for adults who fail to safely store guns, if the firearms are obtained by children who shoot themselves or others.
• New gun-violence protection orders to remove guns from persons showing signs of dangerous mental illness.
• Adding certain violent misdemeanors — such as domestic violence — to the list of crimes barring persons from purchasing guns.
• More funding for mental-health services.
• Policies to address health risks from lead at firing ranges.
• Alerting domestic-violence victims when guns previously removed by police are returned to offenders.
Anyone who knew Yancy Noll knows that Dinh Bowman's "road rage" self defense is a crock of shit. I hope you rot in prison forever, fucker.
@2 that first one is really important. Yeah, guns are a right, but they are also a huge responsibility, especially around children. Society tends to take a "haven't they suffered enough?" attitude when it comes to kids getting hurt or killed by guns due to parental negligence. This is wrong. They need to face harsh criminal penalties.
Again all that shit is already illegal. more importantly consider the following; i'm a crimial, i'll be committing a crime, so i'm already breaking the law, i'm not going to stop and think, "there's this other law that i might be breaking, can't do that," i'd just go on ignoring the law.

Here's another idea, have the SPD actually do there jobs and enforce existing laws.
Roosevelt is not Ravenna. Not sure why various media insist otherwise.
@5 no, parents who leave out guns that their children find and use to hurt or kill themselves usually get off scot free. That Marysville cop who left a loaded pistol out in the car with his kids while he shopped in a convenience store? No criminal penalty over his dead child. That's just one example, but it's unfortunately typical of how those incidents are handled: negligent parent, kid finds gun, dead kid, no charges. That needs to change. Apparently gun owning parents can't be trusted to keep their own children safe, so society needs to enforce it.
@7 I suggest that you read this. Whether to charge the parent is up to the prosecutor. So again, why bother with more laws that won't be enforced?…

Erm, a prosecutor might be a bit more likely to charge, once there's a law on the books pertaining specifically to cases of this type?
I'm shocked! 2nd Amendment hating paranoids are still 2nd Amendment hating paanoids? Who could possibly have predicted this?
It appears that the guy with the "service" cat was the pepper spray-er, not the pepper spray-ee. You might want to change your blurb.


You can't read, can you?
Churches should be the ones banned within 1000 feet of schools and playgrounds. Dan's Denny's comparison is apt.

After all, how many kids have been molested in a pot shop?
Dumbshit @10, do you know what "paranoid" means?
@10: People who support universal background checks are paranoid? Excuse me, but you guys think that the federal government is going to try and confiscate everyone's guns by force. I'd love to hear what you think is wrong with the proposed laws.
-Criminal penalties for people who are negligent enough to let their kids get a hold of a gun and shoot someone? Maybe that will encourage gun owners to properly practice basic gun safety. And how the hell is that going to negatively impact law-abiding citizens who own guns? OH NO, THEY'LL HAVE TO KEEP THEIR GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF YOUNG CHILDREN, THUS PREVENTING THE YOUNG CHILDREN FROM ACCIDENTALLY SHOOTING THEMSELVES. THE HORROR.
-Taking guns away from people with signs of severe mental illness? If a mental health professional determines that someone is mentally unstable, don't let the afflicted near a gun. If they recover, give them back; no harm, no foul. If I want to own a gun in Illinois, I need to go to a court and be certified as suitably stable, due to having been briefly institutionalized; that's the way it should be.
-Some violent misdemeanors DQ you from gun ownership? Well, it would be weird if we let a perennial wife-beater own a gun but not a guy who shoplifted a computer from a store. The issue isn't the felonious conduct, but rather the element of violence.

So please tell me what in the proposed bill goes against the 2nd Amendment or is otherwise unjust. Or are YOU the paranoid one?

Well, i can speak for the safety of churches for the vast majority of kids. That's a matter of simple statistics. A certain number of kids go to church regularly, and tiny number (though any at all is regrettable) are victimized in those churches.

Still waiting for your shining paragon of virtue to take on gay activists abusing kids "tomorrow". Or never. Hello? Savage? Helllooo? No? Those perverts are your buddies so they're off limits?

And you, I bet, could speak authoritatively about pot. And many other drugs. But I'll play. I bet the number of kids molested in bars or at adult bookstores (do those still exist?) or any other pkace kids aren't allowed is pretty small too. Can think why that might be...
@14 How about next time you want to go vote, use free speech, or don't want some soldiers quartered in your house consider how you're signing your rights away.

Its so very strange to hear that people must have background checks to exercise their rights, but checking that someone is legally allowed to vote is too much. What a fucking joke.

Also, have you ever seen a background check form? Already asks about mental illness, domestic violence, and other violent crimes. There were 80k instances of people lying on the forms, which is illegal, and 0 prosecutions. Again, maybe existing laws should be enforced ?
@15 They do still exist!

I was recently driving across the country and spent a night in Lincoln, NE. Our hotel was right next to Doctor John's Lingerie & Novelties:
I highly recommend the Motel 6. It was clean, quiet, and cheap and run by a very nice proprietor. Unfortunately I didn't make it into Dr. John's but the few customers I saw exiting seemed satisfied.
@16: Liar liar. Of those 80,000 instances nationwide in 2010, there were 44 prosecutions, not 0. And not all of those 80k constitute a crime! Providing inaccurate information will get your application rejected, but it's only a felony if it's deliberately done. (source)
As far as enforcing additional laws goes, wouldn't universal background checks be exactly that? I mean, we have laws saying that people with XYZ criminal record can't legally own guns, but there's a loophole that prevents the laws from being enforced when the seller isn't a federally-licensed dealer.
We actually DO "[check] that someone is legally allowed to vote". What do you think they do with voter registration forms? Just rubber-stamp them? No, they verify that the applicant is eligible to vote. Requiring photo ID also at the voter booth would be like making a gun owner pass a background check every time he gets his pistol out of his gun safe.

And seriously? Your first sentence? Do you REALLY think other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights don't have reasonable restrictions on them? In order of Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
I. Speech can be restricted if it incites violence, is slanderous, involves the theft of trade secrets, causes a breach of the peace, or similar. Classic "fire"-in-a-crowded-moviehouse stuff.
II. The right to keep and bear arms is contingent on not having a record of violent crime or severe mental illness. Cry me a river.
III. Soldiers can be quartered in private property during wartime so long as it's authorized by the legislature.
IV. Searches can be conducted without warrants if there is probable cause or if there is a credible and immediate threat to public safety.
V. You can be compelled to testify against yourself if the testimony consists of documents or other already-extant information rather than simple speech. The Miranda warning can also be skipped if there is an imminent threat to public safety.
VI. The right to a public trial is not absolute, for example where issues of national security are involved or where excess publicity is disruptive to the proceedings. The right to confront one's accuser in court doesn't apply if the witness was killed or otherwise incapacitated to prevent them from testifying, or if the witness gave a "dying declaration" regarding the circumstances of his own death.
VII. Actually pretty much without exception, due to the brevity and straightforwardness of the text.
VIII. Excessive bail or fines are subjective; there is no hard-and-fast guarantee.
IX. Again, too brief and straightforward, not to mention abstract, to have any exceptions.
X. The federal government has a lot of leeway in making issues part of its jurisdiction. There's a lot of judicial precedent, for example, supporting the federal power to regulate the production or sale of commodities within a state based on the rationale that it affects interstate markets of the commodities.
Rights are not absolute and unlimited.
So sorry that 44 / 80000 isn't exactly 0, but its pretty close. So you're ok with voter ID? doesn't that make you a racist since that disenfranchises minorities?

And again, murder is illegal. Tell me again why we need more laws? If its the job of the police to prevent the law from being broken and to punish offenders. Still sounds like you should take this up with the police and not pass more laws that won't be enforced.

But again, please tell me how additional restrictions, which are enforced through existing background checks are the answer. Keep in mind that Jared Lee Loughner passed a background check.

"but there's a loophole that prevents the laws from being enforced when the seller isn't a federally-licensed dealer."

Apparently you don't read the papers, that loophole was closed in washington's last election. So... who's going to be breaking the law here. oh that's right, people that already have no respect of hte law.

And here, regulate my speech you fucking dumbass
@3: Noll may have been the 2nd coming of Ghandi, but you don't know what precisely transpired between him and Bowman.

people change behind the wheel. whatever transpired, short of Noll brandishing a gun, self-defense with a firearm was not justified.

mmmm inverted Venomlash is here today time to bust out the Chex mix. (I hate popcorn)
@19: Kek, you can't seem to read.
I expressed DISAPPROVAL of voter ID laws. It's pretty clear from what I wrote.
Yes, murder IS illegal. Are you saying we should just ban murder and leave it at that? No, we also establish laws against stuff that's likely to lead to murder. If someone is being stalked and harassed by some miscreant, we don't wait for him to be assaulted; rather, we ban the offender from going within a certain distance of the victim. We don't just ban robbery; we also ban conspiracy to commit robbery. The point is that "we already ban this, why ban stuff related to it?" is an extremely dumb argument only advanced by people with no clue how the legal system or civilized society in general works.

The reason Loughner passed a background check is because Arizona, along with other states, does a really shitty job of contributing to the national databases like they're obligated to. There was quite the paper trail on his mental illness, but because he hadn't been declared incompetent by a court and because Arizona's reporting has been piss-poor. Remember Seung Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter? He passed a background check, despite having been ordered into a psychiatric facility, because Virginia didn't report the records in accordance with the law. If you were serious about enforcing current laws on the matter, you'd care about this particular law.

The loophole exists in 49 other states, including my home of Illinois. Though where I live, the bigger offender is Indiana. They hold gun shows right near the border, and people come through, buy guns in bulk without any background check or regulatory oversight, and then drive into Chicago to sell them in illegal straw purchases to gangbangers, fueling violence in the inner city. (I know, closing the background check loophole won't directly prevent the straw purchases, but it provides a paper trail that will allow LEOs to nab the gun runners themselves, cutting off the supply.)

Your speech is already regulated. Don't believe me? Phone in a bomb threat to the local police, or to the Secret Service, and see what you get.

I know you're new here. I'm going to let you know that you won't do well against me. I am strong in the art of Google-Fu, I check my facts, and I don't make claims that I'm not ready to defend. I can split a hair like nobody's business and I'll happily spend half an hour researching an issue just so I can have a decently educated opinion on it. I am living proof validating the stereotype that Jews love to argue.
"Your speech is already regulated. Don't believe me? Phone in a bomb threat to the local police, or to the Secret Service, and see what you get'

Tell that to Aldon Smith, i believe he only got a slap on the wrist for his bomb threat directly to a TSA official.

And since Illinois has such great gun control laws, explain the violence in Chicago. Or better yet California. Both have the strictest gun control around.

Glad to know there's some unemployed assholes in seattle that have nothing better to do than google check comments in the slog
" Requiring photo ID also at the voter booth would be like making a gun owner pass a background check every time he gets his pistol out of his gun safe."

So what you're saying is that if voter ID passes we should have gun control. Sounds good to me, lets have voter ID
@20, Road rage aside, I don't believe anyone could have managed to throw a water bottle and then a wine bottle from one car, into another car, whether moving or stopped, and successfully hit the driver of the second car in the head both times. And I further can't believe that the defendant would have thrown away the one piece of evidence that would have supported his road rage story. So it sounds like bullshit to me even without having known Yancy Noll.
@8 then we change the law to limit prosecutorial discretion.
@23: I ALREADY explained why Chicago's gun control laws haven't been that effective at keeping guns out of criminals' hands. It's because the gun show loophole makes obtaining a firearm from out-of-state (particularly Indiana) very easy and nearly impossible to trace.
Arguing with you isn't much fun if you don't even read what I write. I mean seriously, that's two comments in a row where you've said stuff in response to what I posted that makes no sense.

As for Aldon Smith, he was detained but then later charges were dropped. That happens plenty with non-celebrities too; they get searched, they get salty, they say something dumb, and then they get detained and maybe they get charged, maybe they don't. Doesn't mean that the speech isn't regulated as disruptive and threatening. You might as well say that theft isn't regulated against because Jameis Winston didn't face criminal charges for shoplifting those crab legs.

To clarify, I am employed and living in Chicagoland. I just happen to work mornings, which means by the time you drag your ass to the computer, I've already put in seven hours slinging freight.
@24: No, you fool. What I am saying is:

voter ID laws : right to representation :: gratuitously restrictive gun control laws unlike any that have been seriously proposed : right to keep and bear arms

I'm not going to be held accountable for your stupidity. If you can't read, well, that's your problem.
@21: Perhaps you can be...persuaded.
@10, 15:

@25: oh, it's bullshit, but not because "Yancy would never do that". it's just plain old-fashioned bullshit.

10 years max., though.
@6, I agree it's Roosevelt. I'd like to know why Slog uses the same picture of Interbay. The Roosevelt camp is really organized, dry and nice. Lots of people in the neighborhood have organized food drives. I think it's offensive to continue to show a picture of two tents in the rain.
One commuter to another commuter: "How long does your commute home on the bus usually take?"

Answer: "Depends"
Instead of trudging to an inconveniently located restroom, operators told investigators they relieve themselves in the bellows of “accordion” buses. Drivers may fill Starbucks cups or carry screw top bottles for that purpose.

So you mean the smell of urine in the accordion section of the bus wasn't necessarily from some inebriate bus rider but might have been from the bus drivers. Sure am glad they cut back on the cleaning budget when they were cutting back on bathroom breaks.
@29 LOL not a chance. Oh and I hated the popcorn song when it first came out, when was that back in the 70s.

Styrofoam food the only thing worse is that nasty Cheetos crap.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.