Got to pass it to know what is in it…but, shouldn't he already know the answer to that, on a bill that he both voted for cloture and voted for passage?)
Got to pass it to know what is in it…but, shouldn't he already know the answer to that, on a bill that he both voted for cloture and voted for passage?)
I'm back in the office so won't be listening. He'll probably continue his new fued with Rep Teshka. I thought Kendal came off as a **** yesterday with that.Thanks a lot for representing us well folks! Hopefully you made an impression, better than the abortion wacko's anyway?
Do we think Rob Kendal will be talking about this in the morning?
.
That garbage is how it bought enough support to pass. Every loon in the room wants a piece of the money pie or no vote.I got the BS email reply, too. He clearly doesn’t represent me. None of the funding for school safety needed the rest of the garbage in the bill.
That was exactly what was going through my head, too.I wanted to break out Rush Limbaugh’s line: “The military’s job is to kill people and break things!”.
Oh, that's who that was. I wondered why the senator seemed to know who he was.I'm back in the office so won't be listening. He'll probably continue his new fued with Rep Teshka. I thought Kendal came off as a **** yesterday with that.
Any funding from the Fed is a loss as it bribes the state. We need to get out of everything that has Fed funding to be a free state.The hell we aren't. We are a special as any rainbow hair wearing group of whack jobs without as many whack jobs. Oh, we have some but not every one of us.
Senator Young now knows who we are too.Oh, that's who that was. I wondered why the senator seemed to know who he was.
That's pretty much an every day occurrence and what he's good at.I'm back in the office so won't be listening. He'll probably continue his new fued with Rep Teshka. I thought Kendal came off as a **** yesterday with that.
Response from Andrew Kossack:My email follow-up to Andrew Kossack:
Andrew,
Thank you again to Senator Young for his time today, and to you for providing your contact information for follow-up. As a reminder, I asked Senator Young about two, specific concerns I have with the Act:
1. Creating more rigorous background checks for 18 - 20 year olds than are in place for those 21 and older, and,
2. Changing the definition of "prohibited person" with respect to domestic violence from "convicted" to "charged"
On the first concern, I reference the bill, Section 12001(a)(1)(C)(iii)(d), which appears to create a 10-day NICS "proceed" limit when the system initially returns a "hold", which is above the current, 3-day limit:
"(iii) in the case of such a person with re-
spect to whom the system notifies the licensee
in accordance with clause (ii) that cause exists
to further investigate a possibly disqualifying
juvenile record under subsection (d), 10 busi-
ness days (meaning a day on which State of-
fices are open) have elapsed since the licensee
contacted the system, and the system has not
notified the licensee that..."
Similarly, Section 12001(a)(2)(1):
"REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO BACKGROUND
CHECKS FOR PERSONS UNDER AGE 21"
This section includes the juvenile records search that Senator Young mentioned. While I likely have no issue with certain juvenile records being included in a NICS search, why are they limited to those under 21? If the search is proper for a 20 year old, why is it not also proper for a 21 year old?
This section also creates a 10-day NICS "proceed" limit when the system initially returns a "hold", again above the current, 3-day limit.
On the second concern, I think the confusion stems from the response email Senator Young has sent to those inquiring about his support for the bill. Quoting from his response email:
"This legislation also addresses situations in which long-standing dating or intimate partners commit domestic violence against their partner and are charged with a misdemeanor. This bill would ensure that those convicted are unable to purchase or possess a firearm for at least five years, similar to current law treatment for spouses, parents or guardians, and individuals who live together. After five years, if the individual has not committed another violent crime, the individual’s rights are automatically restored. This legislation creates clear guidelines, which are actually narrower than what is currently state law in Indiana, for how judges classify these relationships."
The text of the bill does not appear to reflect charging, but rather only conviction. Is this simply the case of a poorly worded email, or is the Senator's description actually reflected in the bill, with respect to being "charged with a misdemeanor"?
I also add a third concern, regarding Section 12002, that redefines a firearms dealer from "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" to "to predominantly earn a profit", and clarified:
"The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’
means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition
of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary
gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or
liquidating a personal firearms collection..."
This definition is sufficiently vague as potentially to cover many hobbyists. It appears to be an attempt to close the non-existent "gun show loophole", and may greatly - and needlessly - restrict private firearms transfers.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
This is an opportunity to have the bill, and potentially the entire GCA declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate the sale of legally acquired privately owned goods within the boarders of a State regardless of whether the sale of those goods is their registered income or not. There for the regulation of the purchase and sale of used firearms is outside the constructional authority of the federal government.3. This was not an attempt to close the so-called “gun show loophole”, something we recognize is not actually a loophole, as anyone who has ever attended one can attest. This removes a shield that active vendors can currently use to not register as an FFL. Someone could sell tens of thousands of dollars of firearms, parts, and ammunition currently per year, but if they are working a job that is their registered income, they could potentially not register as an FFL. This is not seeking to target hobbyists, but to clarify that if you are an active seller whose business, but not necessarily your livelihood, is selling firearms, you must register as an FFL.
My follow-up to the Senator will be: why? To what end are these measures put in place? What harm does this law intend to address? What will a de facto 10-day waiting period for 18-20 year olds address? What will expansion of the definition of FFL address?This is an opportunity to have the bill, and potentially the entire GCA declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate the sale of legally acquired privately owned goods within the boarders of a State regardless of whether the sale of those goods is their registered income or not. There for the regulation of the purchase and sale of used firearms is outside the constructional authority of the federal government.
Totally agree. My comment is not intended to defend the senator's lousy character, or the fact that he GAVE away something that was not his to give, and for absolutely no reason. I'm just pointing out a way that this series of events could be utilized to make a few corrections.My follow-up to the Senator will be: why? To what end are these measures put in place? What harm does this law intend to address? What will a de facto 10-day waiting period for 18-20 year olds address? What will expansion of the definition of FFL address?
I'm a bit delayed on this particular post.The hell we aren't. We are a special as any rainbow hair wearing group of whack jobs without as many whack jobs. Oh, we have some but not every one of us.
But he didn't even go to bat for us. No giving ground in another direction. Just chipping away and opening the door to abuse. The anti-gunners are is circling their wagons, we need someone to be an advocate for us while playing the political game.Hey, if I'm going to back this bill, I need to give my people something. There's no reason by 15" rifles are on a special list, or any non-machine gun for that matter [I know, INGO, but he's got to sell it]. How about we remove them from that registry which won't take anything away from our joint effort to reduce crime, and I have a way to save face and convince my voters that it was a real compromise.
Of course he was. He is a proper forked tongue politico. He is slimy and worse.I'm a bit delayed on this particular post.
For me, probably the most disappointing part is that he didn't even bring it to the table. Could've said,
But he didn't even go to bat for us. No giving ground in another direction. Just chipping away and opening the door to abuse. The anti-gunners are is circling their wagons, we need someone to be an advocate for us while playing the political game.
Overall, I felt like he was "handling" us, and I really don't care for that.