Some of the Gungeoneers will be surprised to find that the VPC

[flamin lib]

agrees with them r.e. smart guns.

BTW, Gungeoneer and Gungeon are not meant as derogatory. The term Gungeon was coined when the admins relegated gun discussions to a special forum/group. Seems apt to me. So DUers who post here become Gungeoneers while contributing to threads, including me and SecMo. I mean no disrespect.

Now, about smart guns and the VPC: VPC sees no meaningful decrease in gun violence if smart guns are invented or even mandated. Why is detailed in the following 4 page .pdf. In addition, for reasons you may not agree with, they oppose any tax money being spent on development of smart guns.

Read it here: http://vpc.org/fact_sht/Smart%20Gun%202013.pdf

We should all explore the VPC publications with an open mind, if for no other reason than to understand the opposition and why it functions as it does.

[gejohnston]

1. I knew that for years

Would smart guns entice individuals who otherwise wouldn’t buy a gun to bring a weapon
into their home?
Making smart guns available could increase the chances of selling guns to Americans who
currently do not own them. A March 1997 survey conducted by the National Opinion Research
Center found that, of respondents who were “unlikely to buy a gun in the future,”
35 percent
would “consider buying a handgun that would only fire for the owner of the gun
Packaged
with a strong sales pitch, the technology could penetrate new markets for a gun industry that is
facing long-term declines in household and personal gun ownership, putting more families at risk
from the well-documented hazards that accompany bringing a gun into a previously gun-free
home.

I'm guessing that they don't like smart guns because it could create a larger market?
I don't oppose them in principle, just the mandate. If I could get one that would cost less than a grand and last longer than 2K rounds (oh and the $400 watch that looks like something you would pay five bucks for at a gas station) I would seriously look at it.

[blueridge3210]

2. Interesting article.

And then i get to this:

Firearms are currently exempt from the health and safety laws that apply to every other
consumer product in America, from toasters to teddy bears. Applying those same standards to
guns would be a major step forward in reducing gun death and injury in America.

And I disregard everything else they said. When they put a statement in that is so fundementally wrong I cannot take anything else seriously. While I appreciate an honest look at current "smart gun" technology it seems the VPC just could not resist inserting a blatent falsehood into their narrative.

Oh well, SSDD.

[Eleanors38]

3. God, there are crap toasters. I'll stick with proof marks.

[Eleanors38]

4. Which controller group opposed grandfathering "extended" magazines...

if laws were proposed to limit them?

[blueridge3210]

5. VPC I'm guessing.

I was only responding to the article, not their history. Even then, they had to stick in a obvious falsehood and negate everything else they said.

[flamin lib]

6. Actually that statement is correct. While there many regulations effecting guns,

they are exempt from product safety regulations. Gun makers cannot be sued for producing a defective, unsafe product. Examples would be the Remington 700 safety that caused the gun to fire when the "safety" was disengaged and some models of Glock that have triggers so light that they discharge unintentionally.

Hell, guns ain't safe!

[blueridge3210]

7. Actually, no the statement is not correct.

The only "immunity" afforded firearms manufacturers were from nuisance lawsuits designed to drive them out of business due to criminal misuse of their lawful products. Unless you have citations where manufacturers were granted immunity from liability for a legitimately defective product, of course.

[flamin lib]

8. Actually, yes that is correct.

In 1976, the Consumer Product Safety Act was amended. In part, the amendment reads, "The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall make no ruling or order that restricts the manufacture or sale of firearms, firearms ammunition, or components of firearms ammunition including black powder or gunpowder for firearms."

http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/writers/guide/regulations.cfm


The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bans lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers "for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/02/01/Law-shields-gun-makers-from-lawsuits/UPI-92171359740508/#ixzz337vFp3Ib

[nykym]

9. The amount of lead in a bullet

would trigger a ban on ammunition.
Ball point pens fail because of the amount of lead in the ball at the end of the ink cartridge.

[flamin lib]

10. And this has exactly what to do with the exemption of gun makers from

the Health and Safety Act and from litigation for unsafe producrs?

FYI some gun ranges are being closed because of lead contamination. No link, don't bother asking for one.

[gejohnston]

13. they are not

They are civilly liable if the gun is defective as in if you are at the range and the revolver's cylinder isn't aligned with the barrel or it goes off if you when you put the safety on. What is banned, is someone suing, say Ruger, if someone gets a Ruger pistol illegally and commits a crime with it.
That said, Ruger could be liable, like Kahr Arms a few years ago, could be held liable if the crime gun was obtained due to poor security at the Ruger plant. In Kahr's case, it was a prohibited person working on the factory floor who managed to smuggle the gun out.

A LGS in my area refuses to carry anything by NAA because they got sued by a guy that didn't read the instructions to place the hammer in one of the notches between chambers or rest it on an empty chamber. Because of this, the LGS got stuck with the hospital bill.

[nykym]

14. not unture

Firearms are exempt from federal health and safety requirements, unlike virtually all other
products—from toys to jumbo jets.

Link: www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Firearms.pdf


and they mention the Remington 700

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. "Gun makers cannot be sued for producing a defective, unsafe product."

Are the links in post #16 not showing up? Remington has been sued many times.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Do the lawsuits mentioned in post #16 not exist in your universe?

Because the sure do in the one I'm posting from...

[petronius]

21. Jumbo jets (aircraft) are also exempt from the CPSA

but such term {consumer product} does not include—

(A) any article which is not customarily produced or distributed for sale to, or use or consumption by, or enjoyment of, a consumer,

(B) tobacco and tobacco products,

(C) motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment (as defined by section 30102 (a)(6) and (7) of title 49),

(D) pesticides (as defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.]),

(E) any article which, if sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, would be subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 4181] (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by section 4182 or 4221, or any other provision of such Code), or any component of any such article,

(F) aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances (as defined in section 40102 (a) of title 49),

(G) boats which could be subjected to safety regulation under chapter 43 of title 46; vessels, and appurtenances to vessels (other than such boats), which could be subjected to safety regulation under title 52 of the Revised Statutes or other marine safety statutes administered by the department in which the Coast Guard is operating; and equipment (including associated equipment, as defined in section 2101 (1) of title 46) to the extent that a risk of injury associated with the use of such equipment on boats or vessels could be eliminated or reduced by actions taken under any statute referred to in this subparagraph,

(H) drugs, devices, or cosmetics (as such terms are defined in sections 201(g), (h), and (i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 321 (g), (h), and (i)]), or

(I) food. The term “food”, as used in this subparagraph means all “food”, as defined in section 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 321 (f)], including poultry and poultry products (as defined in sections 4(e) and (f) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act [21 U.S.C. 453 (e) and (f)]), meat, meat food products (as defined in section 1(j) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act [21 U.S.C. 601 (j)]), and eggs and egg products (as defined in section 4 of the Egg Products Inspection Act [21 U.S.C. 1033]).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2052

It's entry E up there that covers firearms.

It seems to me that the claim is disingenuous at best: firearms, and a bunch of other things, are excluded from the CPSA. That does not mean they are unregulated or not subject to safety standard, nor do the manufacturers have a blanket immunity from lawsuits...

[blueridge3210]

20. I stand by my original statement.

From your link:

In total, an estimated 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws are on the books. Some of these laws cover individual buyers; some govern what can be made and sold. Others regulate how and under what terms and conditions firearms and ammunition can be distributed throughout the country. Firearms and ammunition, while exempt from the CPSA, are subject to the same product-liability laws as other products. As such, the firearms and ammunition industry is dedicated to the manufacturing of quality, safe products for use by responsible, law-abiding citizens

The VPC article clearly intended to convey a message that there were no regulations or oversight regarding the manufacture of firearms and ammunition. Clearly this is untrue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Not true- Remington has been sued many times over defective rifles

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39554936

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-lawsuit-is-latest-claim-against-remington/

http://helenair.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/class-action-lawsuit-filed-in-montana-against-remington-arms/article_6211a22e-ce36-11e2-b81b-0019bb2963f4.html

Class-action lawsuit filed in Montana against Remington Arms

June 06, 2013 12:00 am • By EVE BYRON Independent Record

A class-action lawsuit was filed Tuesday in federal court in Montana against gun manufacturer Remington Arms Company, claiming that it knew since the 1940s that its Model 700 rifle had a faulty mechanism that allowed the gun to discharge without a trigger pull, but failed to notify the public of the defect.

This lawsuit, filed by Richard Ramler on behalf of Eric Huleatt and Allen Bowker, is different than previous lawsuits filed in the state because it’s not focusing on allegations that the plaintiffs were seriously injured or killed by their gun’s misfiring.

Instead, Ramler writes that Remington knew the Model 700 rifles were defective, yet the company failed to warn people who purchased the weapon, failed to remedy the situation and required gun owners to pay a fee for both shipping and a replacement trigger once they notified Remington of the defect...

You do your cause no favors by spreading untruths...

[nykym]

19. Yes I agree Remington has been sued

many times for the design defects in the 700.
From your last link in #16
Remington knew the Model 700 rifles were defective, yet the company failed to warn people who purchased the weapon, failed to remedy the situation and required gun owners to pay a fee for both shipping and a replacement trigger once they notified Remington of the defect.

The gun maker “put profit over the health and safety of the public,

A typical move by corporations - Cost benefit analysis

The CPSIA provides regulation for manufacturers in producing consumer products.
Gun Manufacturers are exempt for the most part.

Why does a ballpoint pen fail CPSIA standers for lead while bullets are not even tested.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FFgQC1hZnpoC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=are+bullets+exempt+from+consumer+protection+act&source=bl&ots=eQmXp72XS9&sig=Y7lV8txMBj0f85FnzaoqGLJDufg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n3eHU5iLG4W_sQTwzYKwDA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=are%20bullets%20exempt%20from%20consumer%20protection%20act&f=false
Sorry not time to do a short URL.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. ..thus demonstrating that flamin lib was wrong when they said:

Gun makers cannot be sued for producing a defective, unsafe product.

and you were wrong when you defend them.

[nykym]

24. if you read my post

I did not defend anyone.
Bullets would fail CPSIA standards for lead content read the law.

[Jenoch]

12. You are correct, you and secmo are starting threads in the gungeon,

that makes both of you gungeoneers.

[flamin lib]

15. And I wear it with pride! nt

[oneshooter]

23. Maybe so. SecMo not so much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172142257#post6

Star Member SecularMotion (4,807 posts)
6. I have no interest in your "discussions"

[flamin lib]

25. I can't speak for SecMo but for me there are discussions I start but refuse to participate in.

Why submit myself to abuse, name calling and any manner of logical fallacy.

That is what gungeoneers want from SecMo, exposure to a pileon , endless red herrings, straw men and general nastiness.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. "...endless red herrings, straw men and general nastiness."

But enough about the articles SecMo posts...

[Straw Man]

27. That's rich.

In what sense do you consider that you are "starting discussions" if you refuse to participate in them? I think "issuing proclamations" might be the more apt designation.

[blueridge3210]

28. It appears to be envy.

SecMo is a group host where there is little traffic, due in part to the immediate banning of anyone not in tune with the "group think". His ubiquitous postings here appear to be a flailing attempt to define the debate in this group since the GCRA group is a barren wasteland.

[sarisataka]

31. Why submit myself to abuse, name calling and any manner of logical fallacy...

Like Gun fuckers who demand the right to carry nukes everywhere...

That kind of talk?

[upaloopa]

29. We don't need more guns smart or otherwise.

I am not in favor of gun grabbing. Rather I think that gun owners should work with those trying to reduce gun violence.
I agree people have a right to protect themselves. I concede to concealed carry and the presence of guns in the home and vehicles.
I think businesses have a right to restrict the carrying of guns on their property.
I think governments have a right to restrict the carrying of guns on public property.
I think there are valid reasons to restrict the ownership of certain guns and related items.
I think a compromise can be had as long as we throw out the extremes on both sides.
Extreme on gun owners side is open carry everywhere, no regulations, no registration, stand your ground etc.
Extreme on the other side is banning of all guns.
We need to come together and eliminate the influence of the gun lobby in our government. We need to let democracy work again in this area.
I feel we had a good workable gun policy in previous years before it became a right wing cause.
I am for returning to those policies.
Gunners need to respect the wishes of a society that wants to reduce gun violence and the presence of more guns in their lives. Society needs to respect the fact that some citizens have a legal right to own guns.
BUT! If as is the case now, gunners demand that only their point of view should become the status quo, I am in favor of making pariahs of them.

[flamin lib]

30. I'm sorry, you are far too reasonable to post here . . . . nt

[sarisataka]

32. Nice words...

I am not in favor of gun grabbing. Rather I think that gun owners should work with those trying to reduce gun violence.

Good, many of us try but get lumped in and judged with the most extreme examples of gun owners

I agree people have a right to protect themselves. I concede to concealed carry and the presence of guns in the home and vehicles.

Thank you- not all accept that a person should protect themselves

I think businesses have a right to restrict the carrying of guns on their property.

Absolutely

I think governments have a right to restrict the carrying of guns on public property.

In similar measure and degree other rights are limited, yes. Unfortunately some government bodies try to define it so guns are never allowed on public property; and even highly restricted in private. This is as much a violation as a law that would require three people gathering to converse needing a permit.

I think there are valid reasons to restrict the ownership of certain guns and related items.

Agreed. We likely differ as to what guns and items, but there is no blanket right to own every possible weapon.

I think a compromise can be had as long as we throw out the extremes on both sides.

Yes, the gulf seems wide because the extremes monopolize the monologues (discussions are few and far between)

If as is the case now, gunners demand that only their point of view should become the status quo, I am in favor of making pariahs of them.

This attitude, as seen here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/12626583 , is what will prevent the discussion, compromise, and most importantly, effective gun control from becoming reality. Despite talking of coming together and throwing out extremes, you are considering all gun owners to be extremes, hence you never find the moderate majority. Slowly those of the edge of that group move toward the extreme pro-gun side because they see no benefit in rapport. No matter what their stance is or how much they abhor gun violence, they are classed the same as rabid right-wing gun nuts and mass murderers.

[upaloopa]

33. If gunners would show a willingness to

compromise then they all won't be lumped together. I don't see that. What I see is a stalling tactic over and over. I'm waiting to hear a public statement in the media that an effort is forth coming.

[gejohnston]

34. honest question

How do you define effective, and why wasn't California's laws effective in this case?

[blueridge3210]

35. If persons on the pro-control side

would not repeatedly lump responsible, law-abiding gun owners in with criminals and irresponsible gun owners, perhaps gun owners would be more willing to compromise. When the starting position of the pro-control side is to treat all gun owners like the worst elements of society all proposals are viewed with suspicion. When laws that require registration are followed by laws that make a formerly legal weapon unlawful to own and the registration list is used as a tool for confiscation the worst fears of law-abiding gun owners are realized.

[upaloopa]

36. The treatment of lumping all together

is a tactic to get to where we can't get through compromise. If society will turn on gun owners as it did on smokers that will motivate gun owners to move off the dime. So far they aren't willing to do that thus the lumping together.

[blueridge3210]

37. Good luck with that.

I've got no reason to move if I'm treated like a criminal from the start.

[petronius]

43. My observation is that people apply the 'lumping together' strategy when

they prefer to deal with caricatures rather than individuals - when they want to argue against a strawman hypothetical opponent rather than actual words on the screen from an actual single interlocutor. As long as 'gun nut' (or any of the more hostile epithets) is kept artfully vague, then any sort of pro-RKBA statement can be treated as coming from that stereotype. Too many DUers have a habit of viewing any statement less extreme than "Gunz are teh SUCK!!!" through the filter of an imaginary 'gunzer' rather than engaging with the actual content of the post.

In practice, as a general rule, I find that any post containing any derivative of "you people", "those people", that group", or people like you is 95% certain to be worthless. (By the same token, the opener "So you're saying..." has a 95% chance of being followed by complete bullshit.)

[sarisataka]

38. What is this compromise?

I am curious. I see demands and threats which are not compromise.

Gun owners have been willing to give UBC freely but it never comes up without many other add ons that kill support.

[upaloopa]

39. Well you just pointed out the problem

It has to be on your terms that isn't compromise
It just occurred to me the huge lack of trust

[blueridge3210]

40. Just occurred to you? Really?

When some want to equate all gun owners with the actions of the most deranged and statements are made that "all gun owners have the blood of dead children on their hands" after the latest tragedy, the huge lack of trust is a surprise?

[sarisataka]

41. Bingo

On the lack of trust.
Many times gun owners have been told "Trust us. Just a few common sense restrictions for a start."
When that trust was given it was betrayed. Further restrictions get imposed until the restrictions become effective bans.

But I will go back to the concept of compromise. You said it must be on my terms. Asking for a UBC proposal without AWB, magazine limits, one gun a month purchases, etc is not a refusal to compromise, it is an offer. The rest can be still considered individually.
Saying a law must include all of those and" We'll let you keep the guns you own, except those now prohibited" is not a compromise. It is a demand. Likely followed by " This is a good start"
At that point even traditional hunting only gun owners become distrustful wondering what's next.

[upaloopa]

42. Well there has to be pain on both sides

Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I look back when I was a kid. I went hunting with my dad. I did not own the shot gun I used he did. He loaded his own shells and loaded for others. He made me clean what we brought home to get me used to it. I never did and am a vegetarian now. I bought a colt Frontier Scout .22 when I was 18. I could not take it with me to Fort Knox when I was drafted so I sold it. No background check. I felt then that gun restriction laws were "feel good" laws.
I used many types of weapons in Vietnam from colt 1911 automatic to 50 cal machine guns. I bought a Ruger Single Six when I had 20 acres in the lower Sierra Nevada. I was not in the argument of gun control until the right wing turned up the heat.
Now we have the pendulum moving too far toward no holds barred gun ownership in this country.
It needs to move toward the other way.

[sarisataka]

44. Compromise is nobody is really happy

neither will get all that they want, which is probably for the best.

I went in the reverse of you. Uncles hunted but I never went with them and only rarely saw the guns, usually when they were cleaning them after coming home. Mostly I was anti gun with the thought that nothing good comes of them.
Over the years as I learned more of my fellow humans, I saw that while not exactly good, guns do have some valid uses. I am still against trophy hunting and using guns to "make a statement". The OC radicals are assholes of the highest degree in my book. The military taught me much about guns and shooting has remained an enjoyable hobby.
One thing that really was driven in is the respect that a dangerous item must have at all times. I fully support safe storage laws. I understand the desire to not inflict further anguish on people who have been traumatized by an negligent shooting but if the laws are not enforced they might as well not be there. By holding people accountable, maybe the next person will take due care and a life will be saved.

I agree about the pendulum swing. That the right has so successfully co-opted the issue is disturbing. No right is without restriction and with every right comes responsibility. What should be a middle of the road matter that concerns everyone equally, bullets don't ask about politics, has been perverted into a with-us-or-against-us issue that is detrimental to everyone.

[Jenoch]

45. "No holds barred gun ownership".

Can you give examples? I have only seen more restrictions on buying guns.

Sure, D.C. and Chicago had their restrictive laws shot down by the courts, but it used to be easier to buy guns in California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. It used to be the law that anyone over 21 in Minnesota could walk into a gun store and walk out with a handgun with no back ground check. Now, a permit to purchase is required which entails a background check done by local law enforcement, not just a NICS check.

So, I ask again for examples of how gun ownership is easier now than it was in the past.

[upaloopa]

46. Red states are making laws to remove power

from local government to pass gun control laws for one.

[Jenoch]

47. I'm in a blue state and that is the law here.

Gun laws need to be uniform in a state to allow for free movement of its citizens.

By the way, that's not much of an answer to your strong statement about 'no holds barred' for gun ownership. You got anything else to support your claim?

[upaloopa]

48. Ok now I am feeling like I am talking to

gunner talking points. This is the shit that pisses me off! bye!
I don't need an education by you!

[blueridge3210]

49. How is it a talking point?

You make a claim for "no holds barred gun ownership", someone points out that there are many restrictions on who may own weapons, what kind and where they can be carried and asks for supporting evidence. Not a talking point; it's called discussion or a debate.

[Jenoch]

50. He made a ridiculous claim and could not back it up.

Of course it is more difficult purchase guns now than it to be. I am too young to remember, but my father says he bought guns out of catalogs and he received them via USPS. Of course, nationwide background checks came because of Brady and it's a good thing.

[upaloopa]

51. Look recognize you have an opinion based

on the paradigm you look through. The same is true about me. Respect that!
Stop trying to convince me through your questions and shit that your opinion is more valid than mine!

[blueridge3210]

53. Dude, it's a DISCUSSION board.

You're free to have your own opinion, but once you voice it on a discussion board expect to have your precepts and assumptions questioned. When you fall back on the "gunner talking points" meme, you have effectively conceded the argument to the opposing party. When you make a broad brushed statement like "no holds barred gun ownership" when there are numerous restrictions on the ownership of firearms, someone is going to challenge you to back that statement up.

[upaloopa]

54. Stop trying to educate me ok?

I don't need it!

[blueridge3210]

55. I would beg to differ.

The education never stops until you do.

[oneshooter]

56. You are right, you don't need anymore education, you have your blinders on and don't need to see

anything else. A closed mind can not be opened with out the light of knowledge shining in.

[Duckhunter935]

52. amazing, asked a simple question

and you refuse to answer. Several have pointed out some facts and all you can do now is just leave and say "Gunner taking points". Sometimes facts are just facts. You might be part of the problem as over the years firearms regulations have been steadily increased and in only a couple of states they have been loosened but you say unlimited gun ownership? I am sorry but that is just plain false.

Federal Register Notice—Publication Pending
- NICS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RIN 1110-AA27

Regulations
- Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide Index (pdf)
- National Instant Criminal Background Check System Regulations (pdf)
- Firearm Appeal Certificate
- NICS Amendments, Federal Register, July 23, 2004
- Brady Implementation (pdf)
- Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of New System of Records (Proposed Rule)
- Exemption of System of Records Under the Privacy Act
- Temporary Rule: Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence (ATF) (Proposed Rule)
- Proposed rulemaking cross-referenced to Temporary Rule

Related Sites
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) | ATF Forms

Statutes
- Brady Law (P.L. 103-159, Title I; 107 Stat. 1536)
- 1968 Gun Control Act, as amended by Brady Law (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44)
- Prohibited categories (18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1)-(9) and (n))
- Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9))

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act[3] prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1]

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

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

[HALO141]

57. Just curious... When, exactly, did the "right wing turn up the heat?"

And in what way has the gun industry become less regulated over the past two or three decades??? If you're really trying to say that the carrying of firearms has become more common then I'd agree with you but the movement of firearms through the distribution channel certainly has not been less regulated.