Gun regulations that both parties can agree on.

[flamin lib]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/pew-gun-study

Why can't any of this get past into law? Oh, I forgot, the NRA. Seems they have veto power over 85% of voters.

[whatthehey]

1. No, you didn't forget the NRA, you forgot intrastate commerce

and how constitutionally it cannot be federally regulated.

[flamin lib]

2. That may not be the dumbest thing ever said on the topic but by golly it's up there 'mongst t'em.

Nothing about background checks, mental health reporting, assault weapons bans or registration has anything to do with intrastate or interstate commerce.

If there is some contorted linkage to the commerce clause I'd like to see it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. Background checks & more mental health restrictions stand an excellent chance at state level

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Not in every state, obviously, but in quite a few of them. We just enacted a universal background check law here in Oregon (and this isn't nearly as "blue" a state as many think...particularly not on gun issues). Universal background checks are probably the most "doable" reform from a political standpoint, at least at the state level.

An expansion of disqualifying mental health conditions would have to be approached with care (to avoid stigmatization), but could be a significant step in preventing mass shootings. Mass shootings aren't enormous contributors to homicide totals, but a number of them seem to have had legal sales to persons who would have been flagged in a more comprehensive system. To me, those are very preventable crimes, as such persons may well not be as determined as ordinary street criminals to arm themselves. The latter need weapons for their "careers," and every indication is that legal retail sales aren't how they usually arm themselves. Retail is how several mass shooters have gotten their weapons, though.