> With the exception of those who renounced their US citizenship,
> the list looks just fine to me.
Another satisfied customer! :-)
(Why not those who renounced, if illegal aliens are already on the list?)
FWIW, I'm not a member of the NRA, but I believe that the official line of the NRA (as opposed to your earlier snipe; but you're in good company, most US newspapers say the same thing without checking into it ...) is that they are okay with most of this too. Here's a letter from the NRA's chief lobbyist on the NRA's web site (you have to read to the bottom) that, while complaining about some problems with the current system, points out that:
>>> It is my sincere hope that together we can finally
>>> develop an efficient "instant check" system that will
>>> deliver its promise to the people--a promise supported
>>> by the NRA in congressional testimony for nearly 15 years.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=34
So it looks like you agree with the NRA; maybe you should join?
> I particularly like the domestic violence category.
From what I've heard/read, the people who are against this one claim that there's a lot of women who, in the middle of an un-friendly divorce proceeding, get a restraining order against their soon-to-be-ex specifically in order to trigger (ahem) this part of it: it's revenge -- the restraining order is automatic, and the guns get taken away. There's no threat, but the guy loses his guns, often never getting them back. The running joke is that these guys wish a similar law was around to get her Beanie Babbies taken away. On the one hand, it is (and probably should be!) easy to get a restraining order against someone; on the other hand, it's been abused quite a bit. But sure, a conviction is okay with me.
> The point is, as always, enforcement.
... and this is different from other laws in exactly what way?
> As I understand, some states or even dealerships simply do
> not enforce these prohibitions.
Well ... if your 'understanding' about this is the same as your understanding about the NRA ...
There are no states not in compliance with the federal law. There are some states who choose to _go beyond_ the federal regulations. You can find out a list of them and what they do on something they call the Internet, using something they call a search engine :-)
The current federal law does have some loopholes, the biggest being that the laws about transferring firearms only apply to licensed dealers; I'm not sure why this was ever the case, but I note that many states regulate ALL transfers (not just those by a dealer) and those that don't are typically from the former Confederacy ... Virginia, North Carolina, Florida to name a few. I understand this loophole (the popularized "Gun Show Loophole" but really it applies to any private transfer) is on its way out ... my guess is that it's probably some special-interest issue.
> I also understand that the so-called "congress" is about to
> pass if it has not already passed that exempt gun manufacturers
> from any product liability
> - an exemption that no other industry enjoys see
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2918291.stm
I think your characterization of "any product liability" is pretty misleading; the article actually says:
>>> The legislation seeks to prevent victims of handgun violence
>>> from suing gun makers for not adding safety features to
>>> guns and for making their distribution too easy.
... which has been tried several times and has never been successful (probably for good reason). It doesn't exempt them from all product liability suits, just these ones. Other industries enjoy limited protection from these kinds of suits. It's actually kind of an interesting idea, almost like a form of precedent for the civil arena: If you left your loaded handgun in a place where your 9 year old could find it and he shoots his best friend because you haven't taught him anything about gun safety, you can't sue Glock because they didn't provide a "safety device" -- if I'm for anything, I'm for enforcing existing laws that make it illegal to allow access to guns by children in those cases; local DAs almost never press that charge.
You're probably in favor of the suit against McDonalds for the hot coffee, eh?
> The point I making is not against gun ownership but against
> people who see guns as the "American icon" .
OK, but what you originally said was:
>>> As I understand, the NRA and assorted gun crazies are opposed
>>> to even the most sensible means of weapon ownership regulation
>>> and limiting the access to weapons by the violent and otherwise
>>> dangerous elements of the society.
Which isn't true at all.
/jordan