So if they can do background checks on pressure cooker purchasers

[malaise]

after just one horrific attack, why can't they do background checks on guns that kill tens of thousands of people year after every fuggin' year.

[clydefrand]

1. because,

there is no NPCA (NO PRESSURE COOKER ASSOCIATION).

[Mojorabbit]

14. Bingo. nt

[Tippy]

120. My first thought too...

[Ilsa]

61. Cooks of America Unite! Our rights

to own cooking utensils and appliances will not be abridged!

[tumtum]

63. I propose a new Amendment.

“A well regulated Cooking Utensil, being necessary to the security of a good meal, the right of the people to keep and bear Pressure Cookers, shall not be infringed.

All those in favor, raise your hand.

[Jazzgirl]

67. ^^^^^This^^^^

Okay.....I got a great laugh outta that!

[Ilsa]

104. That's it!!! Great! nt

[Mojorabbit]

129. Aye! nt

[valerief]

78. NO NPCA shoveling money to Congress, you mean. nt

[pnwmom]

102. How about because the piece the OP reacted to is SATIRE?

Read the comments in the link you provided. For example:

"I’m glad I am use to your sense of humor or else I may have bought into this story!! TOO FUNNY!! "



http://www.pacovilla.com/bill-requiring-background-checks-for-pressure-cooker-buyers-introduced-in-california-legislature/

[Jackpine Radical]

105. We need CCPC laws.

Concealed Carry of Pressure Cookers.

Is she pregnant…or is she just a suicide bomber?

[tumtum]

109. LOL.

Hey, is that a pressure cooker in your pants, or are you just glad.........................?

[HereSince1628]

2. Because as this week's news demonstrated

the security forces are busy isolating and detaining fawn-loving eco-terrorists and killing 'disease laden' baby cervids.

As we were told, policies are policies, and apparently they must be policed.

[Life Long Dem]

3. Because that was the only crime they had in the states

It's easy today to pick out a bad apple in the bunch. Not that that is a bad thing - easy to find the bad apple.

[Progressive dog]

49. "the security forces"

"eco terrorists" 'disease laden'
Hey, it keeps the security forces not busy spying on you.

[pipoman]

4. They do.

[branford]

5. Really . . . ?

1. There is no Constitutional right to keep and bear pressure cookers, even as a cook for a well-regulated militia.

2. The millions of guns sold through federally licensed gun dealers in fact go through background checks. Privates sale background checks may be a possibility if the vocal advocates for such a regime stop joining it to other measures such as "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits, ensure in good-faith that private checks could never lead to a gun registry, and stop demonizing and stereotyping all legal gun owners, both conservative and liberal, as child killers, deviants and rednecks straight out of Deliverance.

3. The vast majority of guns used in crimes are not legally owned, and background checks, universal or otherwise, will not substantially impact crime rates. To my knowledge, however, there is not a vast and nefarious underground network of illegal pressure cookers.

4. Background checks (or licenses, waiting periods, etc.) for common kitchen supplies is ludicrous, and I do not believe that such checks have actually been instituted.

[malaise]

6. Name one mass slaughter in recent years where the killer's gun was illegal

Go ahead

[branford]

10. Again, really?

In Newton, Adam Lanza did not legally possess his firearms. He killed his own mother and stole her weapons.

Regardless, I find the appeal to emotion (it's for the children . . .) concerning statistically rare mass shootings by those with clear psychological pathologies to be unpersuasive. I assume it's the trial lawyer in me who recognizes that an appeal to emotion generally demonstrates a clear lack of support in both the facts and the law. The majority of both gun crime and death occur with illegally owned firearms, among minority male youth in urban centers, and in connection with the drug trade. Addressing poverty, institutional racial discrimination, the decline of our inner cities and a new approach to the "drug war" will have a far greater effect in reducing gun crime that the culture war you appear to advocate.

[malaise]

11. FFS

Those weapons were not illegal.

[branford]

12. Not illegal?

Adam Lanza most certainly illegally possessed his weapons. He did not own them and they were not loaned or legally given to him. They were stolen after he murdered their owner. His mother legally owned the guns, not Adam. Additionally, Adam was under age 21, and could not legally purchase a gun in Connecticut. Upon his theft, the guns were no longer legal.

And don't try any semantic gymnastics by stating that the guns were legal but his possession was not. Any prosecutor or judge would laugh at the suggestion. Guns are not per se illegal in our country. Improper possession, use and transfer, however, is what the law criminalizes.

I also note that you did not address my point that suburban mass shooting represent a statistically insignificant percentage of gun deaths in our country, and although individually tragic, should not set the standard to deprive many millions of lawful gun owners of their constitutional rights.

[Logical]

22. People under 21 can use guns. Just not purchase them. Wow. n-t

[branford]

30. Correct, mostly . . .

Read my entire comment! The age issue was only a partial component of the CT gun possession laws and Adam's breach thereof.

Adam could in fact legally have used and temporarily possessed the weapons, if and only, his mother voluntarily loaned him the weapons. She apparently did so on a number of occasions when they went to the gun range to practice together.

However, Adam did not legally possess the guns used in the massacre. On that day, he killed his mother and STOLE the guns. Even if Adam was freely and legally permitted use his mother's guns on all other days, as soon as he took the weapons upon his mother's murder, they became illegal.

[Logical]

55. And WHAT LAW would of stopped Adam from doing what he did? Make up any law you want that would....

have stopped it.

[Duckhunter935]

62. they are afraid to say it

only complete confiscation will work and that is their final goal

[branford]

66. Damn that pesky Bill of Rights . . .

[Hoyt]

118. What well regulated militia are you in? And Minutemen, Michigan Militia don't count.

[branford]

119. Really . . . the militia argument . . .

Let's, just of the sake of argument, just forget about the Supreme Court rulings that rendered that reasoning plain nonsense.

I'm an able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 who is no part of the National Guard. I'm in the militia, how about you?

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Hoyt]

122. I know, the right wingers say that phrase doesn't count. Besides, you ain't well regulated.

As to Supreme Court, I think Justice Stevens' dissent is much closer to truth. Even the right wingers on Court allow for a lot of regulation, particularly outside gun lovers' homes.

BTW - you gonna turn your guns in at age 45?

[branford]

123. I don't own any guns, nor have a desire to do so.

I feel perfectly safe here in the Big Apple, but I don't seek to impose my choices on others. Sort of the same way I feel about abortion . . .

Feel free to read my other numerous postings in this read wherein I discuss my background and reasoning in great detail.

You can also rely on SCOTUS dissents all you want, but when it comes to interpreting the law, they're not worth the paper they are written on. In fact, dissents (and looooong winded decisions) are a very recent historical phenomenon in the federal appellate courts.

[Hoyt]

79. Maybe, but Loughner, Holmes, Stawicki, Zimmerman, etc., were legal.

[malaise]

116. And so were the guns used by most of the mass slaughter killers

Then we hear about mental problems or lone wolf or some shite

[branford]

121. No, you will not.

You will not generally hear me discuss the statistically very rare (yet highly emotional) mass killings, lone wolves, mental problems, redneck gun culture, or any other diversions or emotional appeals cited by those who would seek to curtain gun rights in any discussion on how to reduce deaths by gun violence.

The simple fact is that most guns deaths occur among poor minorities in inner cities connected with the drug trade and gangs. It's certainly not as sensational as the Adam Lanzas or George Zimmermans, but that is the area you need to address if you meaningfully want to meaningfully reduce gun deaths (apart from the substantial reductions in all crimes, including those with guns, in recent decades.

I would happy to discuss improving our schools and infrastructure, after-school programs, job training, new approaches to the "drug war," and institutional discrimination.

[Duckhunter935]

15. he was not in legal

possession of them. Same as most gang members. Those weapons were stolen.

[Logical]

20. Stole? LOL. Like I steal my brothers guns when I use them? Now you just look silly. n-t

[tumtum]

24. Did you kill your brother to use them in a crime?

That's the point the poster was getting across.

Who looks silly now?

[Duckhunter935]

27. did you have permision

or did you just shoot and kill him first? Yes STOLEN.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

36. Lanza had permission to use those guns.

(As evidenced by his many trips to the gun range)

He just overstepped his authority.

[Duckhunter935]

40. yes for those times

did he have permission this time before or after he killed his mother?

I doubt as every other time they were at the range and this time they were at home and not planning on going to the range.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

48. You can't grant someone permission 100 times and charge them with theft on the 101st time.

At least not in a family situation. The permission is implied. The guns were there, at least in some part, to provide a hobby both mom and kid could be involved in together. Mom encouraged their use as a family activity. Mom taught him how to shoot.




Besides, he inherited the guns when he shot his mother.

[branford]

64. Do you really believe what you wrote?

Let me preface my comment by stating I'm a civil trial attorney, who has experience in estate litigation.

1. Permission is not "implied," particularly to tightly regulated and admittedly dangerous items such as firearms. I would not be surprised if a defense attorney was sanctioned for even making such an argument.

2. His mother teaching him how to shoot or encouraging the hobby is interesting, but legally irrelevant. Adam could still only use her firearms with her express permission.

3. Upon Adam's murder of his mother, permission, express or implied(?), was immediately revoked.

4. Adam did not inherit the guns. I generously assume you are joking. However, to the extent others may be confused, I dare you to try to argue in court that you could kill a decedent and then make a claim to items in their estate. Recall the old joke of the child who killed his parents and then sought leniency because he was an orphan . . .

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. Lol. I'm a retired state Supreme Court Justice

(Anyone can be anything on the Internet)

Your number one point tells me you ain't much of an attorney if you think a family member can't have implied permission to use an item in the family home (tightly controlled or not). And a defense attorney would be sanctioned for making that defense? Get out of town. Your slip is showing - big time.Lol.


Yes, my inherited quip was meant as humor. Your great legal mind was just too dense with legal knowledge (that's sarcasm btw) to detect it.

Now now, just because he shot his mother in the head, that doesn't mean he is guilty of murder and precluded from his mother's estate. Innocent until proven guilty and all that (even a junior Melvin Beli would know that!). Guilty or innocent! I say!

Your convoluted logic says no murderer is EVER in legal possession of a firearm the second he pulls his popgun from his pants with the intent to commit murder. He's now a felon! Nice and legal, eh?

[branford]

75. Oh boy . . .

You must have been one hell of jurist, may I ask what State and county? I graduated from Fordham Law, and was admitted to the Bars of NY and NJ in 1996. I practice civil litigation in and around NYC, primarily corporate litigation and insurance coverage matters.

Yes, a murderer certainly can be in legal possession of a firearm, and I never claimed otherwise. However, if said murderer killed the owner in order to gain possession, his possession would definitely not be legal. Lanza would, of course, be innocent until proven guilty of the murder. The murder issue would obviously need to be adjudicated prior to or concurrently with the possession charge. Similarly, at least in NY, the Surrogate's Court would need to determine if Lanza was culpable in the death of his mother prior to determining his eligibility to be a beneficiary of the estate.

I also generalized the implied permission argument. Permission, express or implied, has to be for an intended purpose. Do you really believe, or would argue in court, that at any time, including the day of the massacre, that Lanza's mother legally granted him entirely unrestricted use of the weapons, no less permission to use them in the commission of a criminal act? I even doubt whether it would be legal, and therefore permissible, for her to grant such permission. Purely for the sake of argument, exhibit A would be the locked gun cabinet in her bedroom. I also do not recall any story where Adam was seen possessing, no less using, the guns in place or manner other than a safe area such as a gun range and while supervised by his mother.

Would you really argue in good-faith in any court of law that Adam Lanza had implied permission from his mother to use the guns outside of her supervision in the commission of a criminal act, even after her death, and that therefore Adam legally possessed said firearms? If so, wow . . .

[Hassin Bin Sober]

98. That's splitting hairs to the nth degree, "counselor"

Is it your position that all children who take pappy's legally held guns to school don't count as crimes committed with legally owned firearms because the child did not have the express written consent to commit a school massacre with said firearm?

Laughable at best.

Impersonating an attorney is a crime in many states.

Was THIS a case of illegally obtained fire arms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Middle_School_shooting

[branford]

103. Did you actually read any of my posts . . .

You are free to discount my professional credentials, but the law and facts are immutable. My continued good standing in the Bar is not conditioned on agreement with you. Besides, my legal "advice" on a internet board is worth exactly the price you paid. I reveal my profession as means for other to evaluate my arguments and understand my perspective.

As to splitting hairs, the law is complicated, illegality under a statute can sometimes come down to the placement of a comma, and attorneys are paid good money for these skills. My ability to split hair pays the rent.

Unless a parent gave his or her child a gun for the express and intended purpose of bringing it to school, a very unlikely proposition (unless they have a hunting or skeet club or something similar), that child will in fact be in unlawful possession of said firearm, and could, at the discretion of the relevant prosecutor, face various criminal charges. The parent might also face criminal liability for granting such permission or if they were criminally negligent in allowing the child access.

If that same child then commits a massacre, he or she could be charged with multiple counts of murder as well as illegal possession of a firearm. The latter charge, however, would pale in comparison to the murder allegations.

As to the Frontier Middle School shooting that you reference, yes, Barry Loukaitis did not legally obtain or possess the firearms he used in the commission of his crimes. However, I'm not surprised that the prosecutor apparently did seek and charge as it was very minor compared to the other numerous allegations, and would complicate an already lengthy and emotionally charged trial, particularly since it would necessitate the involvement of Barry's father, the owner of the guns, and require proof of additional elements not needed for a murder and kidnapping conviction.

A hypothetical - If Adam Lanza was caught on the school grounds and subdued before anyone was injured, do you not think that he would have faced an illegal possession of a firearm charge, even if he did not kill his mother?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

106. Illegal possesion is not the same as theft.

Your first post in this sub-thread was Lanza "stole" (your word) those firearms.

I'm surprised a great legal mind is so sloppy with their language. Not to mention your ridiculous assertion a defense attorney would be sanctioned.

Not buying it.

[branford]

112. Oy . . .

First, read my Post #85 in reply to another poster (Post #81) about sanctions.

You are correct that illegal possession of a firearm is certainly not the same as theft of a firearm. However, one can both be guilty of theft of a firearm AND illegal possession of said firearm. Lanza would appear to easily fall within this scenario, although the murder and attempted murder charges would predominate in the event he had lived.

Let's take our discussion outside the realm of the gun control debate and lower the tension of our discussion for a few moments. Instead of guns, let's look at a more common circumstance - jewelry. In my sadly common hypothetical, an estranged and troubled teenage son takes some of his mother's jewelry and tries to sell it to a local fence for some quick cash. The fence is an undercover cop, and the teenager is arrested. He could, once again at the discretion of the prosecutor, be charged with both the theft of the jewelry as well as illegal possession of stolen goods (and quite likely, other charges related to the attempted sale and disposition of the goods). What appears to be a simple unlawful act, often results in quite a long litany of different criminal charges. It is one of the primary reasons that prosecutors have such incredible leverage to force plea bargains on poor defendants with overworked public defenders with limited resources.

We clearly see both the Lanza matter and the gun control debate very differently. I'm also rapidly tiring of the unnecessarily overheated rhetoric and personal attacks, particularly as our side-discussion has gone far afield from the pressure cooker OP. I get that enough at work from opposing counsel and their clients. I come hear to relax.

Have a good day.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

113. Yeah, you come here to relax.....

"Just show us where he touched you on this stuffed pressure cooker . . ."

Like a 6 year old pulls the wings off insects.

[branford]

115. Really . . . really ???

For heaven's sake, now I'm lying about why I post on DU. You've got to be kidding. I enjoy a debate . . . to point. I also see you fail to address the legal arguments in my post.

More importantly, have you read all the jokes and satire resulting from the OP about pressure cookers? Yes, I commented on a friendly and silly set of postings that referenced a picture from Law and Order: SVU, a program dealing with adult themes. I'm sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities. You can stop clutching your pearls and relax.

Clearly, I must be an unrepentant animal, sociopath and sadist. Why else would I have such deviant and evil thoughts about gun rights, pressure cookers and the Constitution. Maybe it's best if you just ignored me.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

81. I agree that the a-defense-attorney-might-be-sanctioned is over the top. Strange position.

[branford]

85. My statement might have been a little strong . . .

AnotherMcIntosh, although I'm new, I believe that I read that you too are an attorney? Your thoughts, even in disagreement, would be most welcome.

Do you practice in federal district court very often? I generally prefer State Court here in NYC; the Southern and Eastern Districts of NY are not for the faint of heart with anything approaching a weak case. Sanctions flow far too readily, and I believe that with their overcrowded dockets, no federal judge here would tolerate, no less permit, the argument that someone such as Lanza had implied permission to use the guns the way he did. However, as I'm never surprised what even I can get away with in State court, the sanction comment might have been unnecessarily provocative. However, I firmly stand by my other substantive legal points.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

93. I'm retired.

[branford]

96. No, you're lucky and I'm envious :)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

97. I'm still a few years away from sitting in a rocking chair.

I'm pursuing one complicated RICO case involving fraud and extortion. Then log onto DU for a break from time to time.

Take care.

[branford]

99. A RICO case doesn't seem like much of a retirement . . .

but it certainly does not sound boring. Good luck and best regards.

[malaise]

117. Good post

[malaise]

51. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Just laugh

[Duckhunter935]

56. can you answer my questions in post 19 please?

[Logical]

57. And what law, (make any law you want up) would have stopped Adam from taking those guns? n-t

[Jenoch]

72. A person possessing a gun might do so illegally, but that does not mean the gun itself is illegal.

The only illegal gun that I'm aware of is one with the serial number obliterated.

[sigmasix]

65. lol so you're fine with no backround checks

It's funny- in excuse #2 you claim backround checks might happen if there are no other attempts to regulate guns, then in excuse #3 you claim that backround checks would make no difference. I realize that the NRA talking points are blatantly anti-intellectual and filled with cognitive dissonance, but couldnt you have waited until your next post to contradict your own NRA-approved talking points?
So does backround checks prevent irresponsible people from owning a gun? yes or no?
Be careful though, this is a request for truth, not opinion disguised as truth. The law is pretty clear on this; emotionally unstable individuals and previous lawbreakers are not allowed to own guns and the backround checks that ought to be universal are designed to stop these types of individuals from a legal pathway to gun ownership. Only an idiot would suggest that a law will prevent law breakers from illegal activity. An even bigger idiot would suggest that we ought not have laws if they don't stop 100% of the law breakers from breaking the law.
The idea is to make LEGAL gun ownership out of the reach of dangerous people. No one with a shred of decency would support the wholesale deregulation of guns in America and renuncification of backround checks.
Why do Teabaggers want violent felons and conspiracy theory mongers armed with whole arsenals? These aren't the kind of people that are wanting to change the world for the better- they are the kind of people that are eagerly awaiting a cataclysmic disaster that can be used as an excuse to use the pistols and assualt weapons they love so much on real human beings--preferrably those with a permanent tan or that voted for president "blackenstien".
OK- so you've indicated that you have bought the NRA's notion that backround checks don't work. Is there a logic that explains a different mechanism for preventing the insane and criminal deviants from legally arming themselves? Let me guess-- support for "voluntary self regulation" schemes are the only ones that really work.
.
It was only a movie, but Forest's mother was a wise woman when she said "stupid is as stupid does"- when will gundamentalist teabaggers figure this out?

[Duckhunter935]

68. Lot of word salad there

I am sure you will not find any of us that are against background checks. We just want a system that actually works and the details will get a little dicey. Background check between family members every time weapon was loaned? Adam may have been stopped if this was true. All mental health records must be included in the database, no exceptions. All drug prescriptions must also be included for this to work better. Lend a friend a hunting rifle at the lodge, background check required. And of course all of this must be fully funded.

[branford]

71. Mental health is also a very difficult issue

I would only be willing to curtail a constitutional right under our current framework, wherein one needs to have been involuntarily confined to protect himself or other, subject to appeal, before losing the ability to own a firearm. I will not support letting a bureaucrat determine what constitutional rights I many enjoy (or even how large a soda I may imbibe). For instance, if I had views that conflicted with the local political machine, would that render me "dangerous" or mentally ill according to the "approved" local authority? I would no sooner support such a system that I now support our current "terrorist watch lists" that you might not know your own, have no way to get off, are not subject to reasonable and expeditious judicial review, and contain numerous and ludicrous errors.

I additionally do not want anyone at risk fearing that seeking help for a condition unrelated to violence or suicide would forever bar them from exercising a right. If your anorexic at age 16, successfully seek treatment, would you be barred from owning a firearm at age 35?

I support universal background checks in the abstract. However, as you correctly observe, the Devil is always in the details.

[ileus]

7. They do.

[JHB]

8. Who's doing background checks on pressure cookers?

'Cause that would be an entirely different story than last week's pressure-cooker-related news.

[Duckhunter935]

17. no one

the OP is lying to try and make a point and failing miserably.

[uppityperson]

9. Where and who is doing background checks on pressure cooker purchases?

[KansDem]

13. Yeah, but then they throw their hands up and start finger-pointing...

...when 19 attackers from the mideast fly airliners into our tallest buildings.

(15 from a country who are friends and business partners to the sitting president)

[branford]

18. We obviously need background checks on all Arabs and Muslims (/sarcasm!)

[spanone]

16. k&r....america is nuts for gunzzz

[malaise]

21. And if you wanted proof

Just check how quickly they gathered here as if I had spread honey for flies

[tumtum]

45. You got the exact reaction you were hoping for.

You're not fooling anyone.

[spanone]

47. bwahahahahaaa....gunners are so predictable

[Duckhunter935]

52. and logical unlike gun grabbers

[tumtum]

53. bwahahahahaaa....anti-gunners are so predictable

[spanone]

90. ahhh, those longing to kill something just make life wonderful

[tumtum]

91. ahhh, those hanging unsubstantiated labels just make life wonderful.

[Duckhunter935]

92. Who wants to kill something

I guess paper and steel targets are a something. Do not know if you can kill them however.

[branford]

95. Don't forget those psychopathic, bloodthirsty Olympic shooters

[branford]

54. You posted a comment and are surprised by replies?

You choose to post a provocative comment concerning gun rights on an internet message board and are surprised that you received, gasp . . ., many replies, some serious, some sarcastic or funny, ranging from agreement to outrage???

Not only was your belief that background checks are now run on the purchase of pressure cookers clearly incorrect, you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as barely worthy of notice; not exactly a liberal virtue. Such is your right in our great country, but good luck trying to convince others of the wisdom of your beliefs, no less substantially changing federal or state laws. Your hyperbole and derision (and incorrect facts) will simply empower the Wayne LaPierre's of this world, rather than working constructively with the likes of Joe Manchin.

And, no, I'm not and never have been a member of the NRA.

[malaise]

58. LOL

[Duckhunter935]

19. who is doing background checks on pressure cookers?

do they use the instant check database? Is there a waiting period? Are there age limits? Do people lose there right to purchase or own if the are a convicted criminal or deemed mentally ill?

Please answer these questions?

[Duckhunter935]

43. hello, anyone there...............

crickets..........

[malaise]

50. Who knows the specifics - plans are in the works for background checks on pressure cookier buyers

http://www.pacovilla.com/bill-requiring-background-checks-for-pressure-cooker-buyers-introduced-in-california-legislature/

Whether you purchase most stuff off the shelf or online they are keeping tabs on you and checking you out.

Check for yourselves, there are lots of petitions demanding background checks on purchasers of pressure cookers.

[tumtum]

59. California? 'Nuff said.

[Duckhunter935]

60. see a lot of this ugliness

"background checks on Muslims, when purchasing pressure cookers." for those many petitions.

and one lawmaker in California introduced a bill that will go nowhere.

[Duckhunter935]

69. I thought you did.

You brought it up and stated that fact.

[chowder66]

88. Satire

Bill Requiring Background Checks For Pressure Cooker Buyers Introduced In California Legislature

Apr 16th, 2013 | By Howie Katz | Category: Katz Litterbox, Satire, Uncategorized

[Duckhunter935]

94. Thanks, I should have caught that

[chowder66]

108. My pleasure. eom

[branford]

23. A question?

Are background checks required for all pressure cookers, or just assault pressure cookers or the more dangerous professional, high-capacity pressure cookers?

[Duckhunter935]

29. Just the scary looking black pressure cookers

and the capacity needs to be limited to 1 pint or less.

[MineralMan]

25. What background checks on pressure cooker buyers?

I've not heard of any such thing. If fact, it's about canning season here in Minnesota, and the local Mills Fleet Farm stores have pressure cookers in their current ads.

Nobody's doing background checks.

[Fumesucker]

26. Technically there was no "purchase"

Someone in fact expressed an inappropriate interest in pressure cookers and knapsacks, entirely understandable that they must be investigated by a SWAT team.

"Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do." -A Fleischer

[Jenoch]

73. There was no SWAT team involved in that incident.

[Fumesucker]

131. Ooops.. Got it confused with the one about the baby deer being liquidated by a SWAT team

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. I went to a garage sale the other week.

They had a pressure cooker for sale. Right there, out in the open where even the children could see it.

Apparently there is a garage sale loophole where anyone can just walk-up and buy a pressure cooker without first having to transfer it through a federally licensed pressure cooker dealer or even have a waiting period.

They even had books on how to use a pressure cooker. Can you imagine! It's this culture of pressure cooking that will surely be the end of us all.

[Duckhunter935]

33. We need to close that loophole

I am quite sure you do not need a background check at cookware shows either.

[branford]

37. But . . . but . . . the children . . .

[Fumesucker]

44. It's worse than that, there are plastic microwave pressure cookers I've seen at garage sales

Couldn't even be found with a metal detector.

[Duckhunter935]

46. next thing that will happen

is printing them out on a 3D printer. We are DOOMED, DOOMED I say.

[Jenoch]

74. Last winter I bought a

6 liter pressure cooker at a flea market without a background check. Of course this was in Arizona, so I could conceal and carry the pressure cooker without having to get a concealed carry pressure cooker permit.

[branford]

77. I tend to prefer pressure cooker open carry.

[msanthrope]

31. Can you name the person subjected to this? nt

[dem in texas]

32. You are watching too much Fox News

There's was no background check. Her husbands ex-employer reported suspicious searches found on his computer to the local police. The local police visited the man. The wife who is a right wing blogger gave out incorrect information about this matter. The information she gave out is what Fox and others who are too lazy to get to the real facts reported. Get informed before you make half-assed claims.

[malaise]

34. Huh?

We deliberately don't have Fox. Try again.

[Duckhunter935]

35. or incomplete or wrong stories

on this internet thing.

[KittyWampus]

38. The story you are reacting to was largely bogus. And it was written up by a rightwing

"journalist".

[RKP5637]

82. Interesting ... didn't know that ... thx. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

39. can you please answer

my questions in post 19?

[Duckhunter935]

42. crickets.......................

[branford]

41. I think we need to limit possession of pressure cookers to well-regulated restaurants!

[BainsBane]

76. Because the gun lobby and their lackeys value corporate profits

over human life. The gun industry makes a fortunate from selling weapons to felons, and they plan to keep it that way. Those who back them simply don't give a damn who dies.

[branford]

83. Firearm manufacturers sell to federally licensed dealers and government entities, not individuals.

But you already knew that. You've already made it quite clear that anyone who supports any form of gun rights, no less has the audacity to own, and heaven forbid, legally carry, a gun, is a soulless NRA shill who delights in the death of children. If you truly believe anything even approaching such a ridiculous stereotype, you have my pity.

I'm a suburban born and raised attorney who lives and practices law in NYC (my practice has nothing to do with guns or lobbying). My politics are most decidedly liberal and I've been a loyal and active Democrat since I first volunteered for Dukakis (I even still have some bumper stickers . . .). I do not own a gun, and have no desire to do so. I'm lucky to live and work in very safe neighborhoods, and reside in a high-rise building overlooking the United Nations with fortress-like security. I have never belonged to the NRA, do not read their literature and have never attended any of their classes. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the circumstances of many greatly differ from my own, and I would not deny them rights that I many choose not to exercise. If this makes me a shill for the gun lobby, so be it.

I support gun rights because I believe that individuals have the right to own and employ the proper tools for defense of themselves, their loved ones and their security against an oppressive government. Our Founding Fathers shared these beliefs, and in their wisdom included such notions in the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

A gun is tool, a very effective and potentially lethal tool. What other modern instrument can equalize a small woman and multiple, large armed men who would seek to do her harm on a quiet street in the dead of night. The oft attributed quote of Sam Colt bares particular relevance, "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

I am most surprised that my liberal brethren seek to interpret the Amendment into nothing, while ignoring the consequences. It was my understanding that progressives believed in the broadest interpretation of the Constitution to ensure the maximum liberty the law can allow. For instance, I support strongly abortion rights despite fact that neither abortion, nor privacy, are mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Supreme Court determined, quite literally and correctly, that "emanations" and "penumbras" from the document justified these new-found privacy interests. Liberals rely and approve of similar arguments that have expanded other rights such as free speech and press, due process, equal protection (particularly LGBT rights), assembly, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. How can one then honestly and in good-faith argue that only one Amendment deserves a constricted interpretation. That way lies madness, as some liberal jurists such as Lawrence Tribe now acknowledge. If the government can eviscerate the Second Amendment, everything else is up for grabs.

Severely restricting or eliminating our constitutional gun rights, the obvious goal of many at DU, would be akin to shedding our liberty for a perceived sense of security. A slippery slope, indeed. Permit me leave for one last quote by Ben Franklin, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." This axiom is as true for the recent anti-terror security measures that many here abhor as it is for gun rights.

Reducing gun crime is a laudable goal with many areas for constitutional and reasonable comprise. Demonization and caricature will accomplish nothing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. Do you own, or have you ever owned, a pressure cooker?

[tumtum]

87. Ok, this is how it went down,

You bought a pressure cooker from a private seller, bypassing the background check, then you purchased a back pack, those two items are enough to land you a 20 year sentence lady.
Come on, admit it, you were up to no good.
If you come clean, we'll talk to the DA and recommend leniency for you.

[branford]

89. L&O:SVU - Just show us where he touched you on this stuffed pressure cooker . . .

[malaise]

125. I have a beautiful pressure cooker

which was a gift from my youngest sister about thirty years ago - we never use it to pressure anything but it's a wonderful pot. I treasure it even more since she died in 2005.

[NoOneMan]

86. Pressure cookers are a very important part of manufacturing the drug psilocybin

This substance is both very important for humans and very dangerous to capitalism and established civilization.


Looks like they will be killing 2 birds with 1 stone

[sarisataka]

100. What if...

i have the gun inside the pressure cooker? Does one BGC count for both?

[pnwmom]

101. The story you got this from is SATIRE.

Read the comments in the link you provided. For example:

"I’m glad I am use to your sense of humor or else I may have bought into this story!! TOO FUNNY!! "



http://www.pacovilla.com/bill-requiring-background-checks-for-pressure-cooker-buyers-introduced-in-california-legislature/

[spin]

107. We could have universal background checks today had the gun control groups ...

and Senator Dianne Feinstein not decided to overreach and push for another assault weapons ban.

The idea of universal background checks was popular even with NRA members.

Lee Leffingwell says polls show 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks before all gun buys

Joining calls for criminal background checks prior to every U.S. gun purchase, Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell said the idea is widely popular.

Ninety percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support universal background checks, Leffingwell said, the Austin American-Statesman reported in a news article posted online the day he spoke, March 28, 2013.

***snip***.
PolitiFact identified two other 2013 polls of gun owners. A Pew Research Center poll taken of 1,502 adults from Jan. 9-13, 2013, found 85 percent of some 529 polled gun owners in favor of making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks — nearly identical to the Luntz poll. The gun-owner results had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted of 1,110 adults from Jan. 11-15, 2013, showed that 85 percent of respondents living in a household with an NRA member supported universal background checks.

More recently, according to the results of a national January 2013 poll presented in the March 21, 2013, New England Journal of Medicine, 84 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA members supported requiring a universal background-check system for all gun sales. The poll was conducted by GfK Knowledge Networks for researchers led by Colleen L. Barry, an associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=3401575

In my opinion if the gun control advocates had not pushed for the new Assault Weapons Ban, legislation requiring a background check for all firearm sales would have sailed through the Senate and even passed in the Republican controlled House. Throwing in a ban on assault weapons doomed what could have been a significant improvement to our gun control laws.

I doubt if we will see any effort to pass gun control legislation in the next year at the Federal level. The midterm elections are approaching and politicians are hesitant to pass controversial legislation in an election year. The estimated 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation are a significant voting block. Of course, another tragic shooting might change the equation.

[branford]

110. It's simply a matter of trust.

Many of the gun control proponents have historically, and repeatedly, sought restrictions on gun ownership, both handguns and rifles, far in excess of universal background checks. I support universal checks, and even I do not believe people like Senators Feinstein and Schumer when they state that they would agree to the "compromise" of background checks, and leave it at that. Wars are rarely won in one battle. Erode some rights here, compromise there, claim the culture is now different, cite a push poll, and then demand more severe restrictions in a few years. The "slippery slope" is not just something you find at water parks.

Some might call me paranoid, a "gun humper" or an NRA shill. It's not true, but I don't mind.

If you don't believe that this is how its done, just look at the abortion debate. We're losing! First was late-term abortion, then, of course, you need safer, cleaner, hospital level clinics, then greater state oversight to prevent more "Gosnells," questionably interpret some polls about support for abortion and seek to restrict it to only 20 weeks, and so on and so forth. Clinics are closing rapidly, and poor women are losing access in many states, all this while Roe v. Wade was decided in living memory.

[spin]

124. It would be nice if we could just agree that honest and sane American citizens ...

have a constitutional right to own firearms.

Then both the gun control and the gun rights groups could sit down at a table and figure out the best ways to try to insure that only honest and sane citizens are allowed to own guns. We could also agree on ways to insure that gun owners have adequate safety training.

This is unlikely to ever happen because the gun control advocates feel the solution to gun violence is always to ban something.

The truly sad part is all the effort to pass the Assault Weapons Ban caused the sale of all firearms to skyrocket and led to gun owners stocking up on ammunition.

It was also obvious from the beginning that the Assault Weapons Ban had absolutely no chance to pass in Congress and that the sale of firearms would increase because of all the publicity over the ban.

[branford]

127. We agree.

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

However, guns are a cultural issue, just as much as a criminal or political matter. It's similar to abortion, the death penalty and other hot button issues. Gun are only different in that party lines do not always determine where one stands on the matter. People are very personally invested, sides have been chosen, and your adversaries have been de-humanized.

I do not hold out much hope for any reasonable comprise.

[spin]

130. It's unfortunate, but you are probably right. (n/t)

[Dr. Strange]

111. Only cops should have pressure cookers.

And maybe Emeril.

[Nite Owl]

126. Maybe everyone

should go to Google or Amazon and do a search!
It would drive them crazy!

[branford]

128. Or you could end-up on a terror watch list.

No thanks. Flying is more than sufficiently time-consuming and difficult.

I admit, however, some overload at the NSA and FBI would certainly engender a sense of schadenfreude.