How to do gun control.......

Drivers license, REAL-ID, not good enough to get a gun.

Have to go in person with Passport and Birth Certificate to register to get a gun.

If your name isn't an exact match on ALL your I.D. (maiden name, middle name, initial) you can't get a gun.

Federal government keeps a National Gun Registry - every state must send the personal data of every gun owner.

Government purges permitted gun owners list regularly due to its large error rate.  

If you are purged in error you have to go back, in person, with all your I.D. and register again.

That ought to keep gun ownership under control...

Oh, wait, the rules above are not for guns, they are for VOTING registration.   My bad.   Carry on.  Nothing to see here.

Dave

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Drivers license, REAL-ID, not good enough to get a gun.

Have to go in person with Passport and Birth Certificate to register to get a gun.

If your name isn't an exact match on ALL your I.D. (maiden name, middle name, initial) you can't get a gun.

Federal government keeps a National Gun Registry - every state must send the personal data of every gun owner.

Government purges permitted gun owners list regularly due to its large error rate.  

If you are purged in error you have to go back, in person, with all your I.D. and register again.

That ought to keep gun ownership under control...

Oh, wait, the rules above are not for guns, they are for VOTING registration.   My bad.   Carry on.  Nothing to see here.

Dave

Hmm, well, according to gun rights advocates, gun control means "using both hands". That said...

The only real fraud in voter fraud is the idea of voter fraud happening in the first place. 

BUT, we now have the cons on SCOTUS, who have obviously drank the Kool Aid from Faux News about voter fraud being real, are about to strike down  mail-in-voting if it arrives after the post mark of the election day. So much for ballots cast by members of the military that get delayed because of distance, or those of elderly or disabled voters whose ballots are similarly delayed because of infirmities, unforeseen weather conditions, transportation delays, etc etc...

Then there's the Trump and his GOP push to eliminate mail-in voting entirely even though Trump voted by mail-in voting yesterday:   

"Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump said in Memphis on Monday, The Washington Post reported. “I call it mail-in cheating, and we’ve got to do something about it all.”

"President Trump, an outspoken critic of voting by mail who called it “mail-in cheating” on Monday, voted by mail ahead of a special election in Florida on Tuesday."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5797902-trump-votes-mail-florida/

Finally, there's the BS "SAVE ACT" which Trump has openly stated the reason for it is to win the midterms for the GOP. Here's what's in it:

https://apnews.com/article/save-act-documents-requirements-citizenship-voting-congress-dfb43bcdd0255d3665da588a60286b4e

Note the following in the above article:

"While military ID cards are listed as qualifying documents under the act, they will not suffice on their own. The bill says a military ID must be accompanied by a military “record of service” that indicates the person’s birthplace was in the U.S."
"A DD214, the current standard-issue certificate of release or discharge for all military service branches, does not currently fulfill that requirement."

"For most provisions, the SAVE Act contains no phase-in period that would give voters and local election offices time to adjust. If passed by Congress and signed by Trump, its documentary proof-of-citizenship mandate would apply immediately, meaning it would be in place for this year’s midterm elections."

"That could lead to a rush to obtain documents by those who want to register or need to reregister. A 2025 University of Maryland study estimates that 21.3 million Americans who are eligible to vote do not have or have easy access to documents to prove their citizenship, including nearly 10% of Democrats, 7% of Republicans and 14% of people unaffiliated with either major party."

"A passport would most effectively meet the requirement, but only about half of American adults have one, according to the State Department, and the SAVE Act requires the passport to be current. An expired one does not count."

"A birth certificate may be a quicker and cheaper choice for most people, but there are twists.

"The SAVE Act requires a certified birth certificate issued by a state, local government or tribal government. What does not appear to qualify is the certificate signed by the doctor that many new parents are given in the hospital when their child is born. It provides information similar to a certified birth certificate, but would not meet the letter of the federal legislation."

"People whose birth certificates don’t match their current IDs — mostly women who changed their names when they married — would likely need additional documentation to register to vote under the bill. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found about 80% of women in opposite-sex marriages in the U.S. take their husband’s last name."

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

BUT, we now have the cons on SCOTUS, who have obviously drank the Kool Aid from Faux News about voter fraud being real, are about to strike down  mail-in-voting if it arrives after the post mark of the election day. So much for ballots cast by members of the military that get delayed because of distance, or those of elderly or disabled voters whose ballots are similarly delayed because of infirmities, unforeseen weather conditions, transportation delays, etc etc...

I love Colorado’s 100% “mail-out then mail in or drop off” voting system.  I post my love for our tried and true system every election year.   The whole nation should model its elections after our efficient system.   You'll have to invest in some drop boxes, but California can add a few cents to the gasoline tax.   You all will never notice.  

We must return the ballot by Election Day, or the vote does not count.   No exceptions.    (Except for overseas military, who get 8 extra days in accordance with federal statutes).   There has to be some deadline.   Why can’t you lazy ass voters in California get your ballots in on time?   I loathe states like yours who delay election results because you allow ballots postmarked by Election Day, and because you are bureaucratically unable to count votes on time.

Your speculation about the Court screwing military voters is baseless.   Active duty military are protected by more than one federal military voting statute duly passed by Congress.   This red herring is good fodder for the outrage machine though. 

On the other hand, I have no idea if the Court will require the lazy regular citizens of California (and other “postmark” states) to vote on time, but I hope they do!  Get Gavin to buy some drop boxes!   Aren’t you the fifth largest economy in the world!

Originally Posted by James Brown

I love Colorado’s 100% “mail-out then mail in or drop off” voting system.  I post my love for our tried and true system every election year.   The whole nation should model its elections after our efficient system.   You'll have to invest in some drop boxes, but California can add a few cents to the gasoline tax.   You all will never notice.  

We must return the ballot by Election Day, or the vote does not count.   No exceptions.    (Except for overseas military, who get 8 extra days in accordance with federal statutes).   There has to be some deadline.   Why can’t you lazy ass voters in California get your ballots in on time?   I loathe states like yours who delay election results because you allow ballots postmarked by Election Day, and because you are bureaucratically unable to count votes on time.

Your speculation about the Court screwing military voters is baseless.   Active duty military are protected by more than one federal military voting statute duly passed by Congress.   This red herring is good fodder for the outrage machine though. 

On the other hand, I have no idea if the Court will require the lazy regular citizens of California (and other “postmark” states) to vote on time, but I hope they do!  Get Gavin to buy some drop boxes!   Aren’t you the fifth largest economy in the world!

California has had drop off boxes for years, dude.
And it's not CA that's prompting all this fuss in the case before SCOTUS:

"The Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to overturn a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by, and then received within five business days of, Election Day."

"Mississippi passed the law at the center of the case in 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic."

"At Monday’s oral argument, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the justices that states have broad power over elections. Laws like Mississippi’s, he argued, are consistent with federal election laws because voters make their final choices by Election Day."

"But the lawyers and justices sparred over the significance of departures from that tradition during the Civil War, when some Union states allowed soldiers to vote from the battlefields. Clement insisted that proxy voting was the most analogous to today’s absentee ballots. Five states, he said, still required ballots to be submitted and received in a soldier’s home state by Election Day. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the justices who was most sympathetic to Mississippi, responded that two states had allowed officers to collect and mail-in ballots for soldiers."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/court-appears-ready-to-overturn-state-law-allowing-for-late-arriving-mail-in-ballots/

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

California has had drop off boxes for years, dude.
And it's not CA that's prompting all this fuss in the case before SCOTUS:

"The Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to overturn a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by, and then received within five business days of, Election Day."

"Mississippi passed the law at the center of the case in 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic."

"At Monday’s oral argument, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the justices that states have broad power over elections. Laws like Mississippi’s, he argued, are consistent with federal election laws because voters make their final choices by Election Day."

"But the lawyers and justices sparred over the significance of departures from that tradition during the Civil War, when some Union states allowed soldiers to vote from the battlefields. Clement insisted that proxy voting was the most analogous to today’s absentee ballots. Five states, he said, still required ballots to be submitted and received in a soldier’s home state by Election Day. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the justices who was most sympathetic to Mississippi, responded that two states had allowed officers to collect and mail-in ballots for soldiers."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/court-appears-ready-to-overturn-state-law-allowing-for-late-arriving-mail-in-ballots/

I’m just giving you a hard time, of course. California-baiting is one of my favorite sports, here in the beautiful state of Colorado.   along with skiing, hiking, fly fishing, and amateur astronomy, of course.  😀

thanks for using a link to the Scotus blog.   I’ll read that and get back to you. Frankly, I don’t even know and can’t imagine what the constitutional issue is in this case. I hate delayed voting, because it inconveniences me. That said I can’t imagine why it would be unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by James Brown

I’m just giving you a hard time, of course. California-baiting is one of my favorite sports, here in the beautiful state of Colorado.   along with skiing, hiking, fly fishing, and amateur astronomy, of course.  😀

thanks for using a link to the Scotus blog.   I’ll read that and get back to you. Frankly, I don’t even know and can’t imagine what the constitutional issue is in this case. I hate delayed voting, because it inconveniences me. That said I can’t imagine why it would be unconstitutional?

Thanks again for linking that excellent article from the Scotus blog. I see that it is not a constitutional issue at all. This is the more routine “interpretation of the scope of a federal statute“ issue. The statute is pretty clear that all states must observe a specified federal election day. The Court must interpret what that means in the modern era. KJB is quoted as saying precisely this in the article.  whatever the court decides will not affect the equally valid federal statues giving overseas military extra time to vote.  

In my opinion, no one will be disenfranchised, no matter how this decision goes. It is not too much of a problem for a state like mine to require mailed ballots to be received by election day. As a practical matter, nobody mails them anyway, we all use drop boxes , which I gather is also commonplace in California. 🤔💪

So, this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation. The context of the case makes it quite suitable for outrage on the right and the left. That is the Holy Grail of issues I guess, something to be outraged about that doesn’t actually matter much.  Do you personally care which side wins this one?  I do not, although I sure long for the good old time when election results were reported the evening of election day.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Thanks again for linking that excellent article from the Scotus blog. I see that it is not a constitutional issue at all. This is the more routine “interpretation of the scope of a federal statute“ issue. The statute is pretty clear that all states must observe a specified federal election day. The Court must interpret what that means in the modern era. KJB is quoted as saying precisely this in the article.  whatever the court decides will not affect the equally valid federal statues giving overseas military extra time to vote.  

In my opinion, no one will be disenfranchised, no matter how this decision goes. It is not too much of a problem for a state like mine to require mailed ballots to be received by election day. As a practical matter, nobody mails them anyway, we all use drop boxes , which I gather is also commonplace in California. 🤔💪

So, this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation. The context of the case makes it quite suitable for outrage on the right and the left. That is the Holy Grail of issues I guess, something to be outraged about that doesn’t actually matter much.  Do you personally care which side wins this one?  I do not, although I sure long for the good old time when election results were reported the evening of election day.

"In my opinion, no one will be disenfranchised, no matter how this decision goes."

"So, this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation."

If that was the true, then you wouldn't have Trump and the GOP pushing so hard for SCOTUS to overturn the case, which they will do. 
Afterall, the GOP, in particular, has always been a staunch advocate of states-rights and against any intrusive effort by the federal government to be deemed superior, especially in matters of electing officials to office. Thus, it seems evident the latter is the real motivation driving this case and not some sort of clamor for clarification of a "minor case of federal statutory interpretation." Otherwise, they wouldn't be pushing so hard on this one...

Originally Posted by James Brown

So, this is a relatively minor case of federal statutory interpretation. 

For the mail-in issue, yes, perhaps.

What about the ID issue?   Millions will be disenfranchised.  

For instance, Married women who took their husbands name so that their name on current documents doesn't match birth certificate.   

Driver's license or Real ID not sufficient ID. Folks without a birth certificate...  

Millions of Americans don't have a passport.  

This bill has been  written to disenfranchise a large number of voters who are  statistically much more likely to be Democrat voters.  The poor, people of colour and women.  

The R's see November as a win-at-any-cost election. They are doing what they can to tilt the result their way.  AT.  ANY.  COST.  They are way past giving any fucks about legality.  It is illegal to put troops/ICE/cops near polling stations on an election day.  But they will be there in selected, closely contested districts.  Just like it is illegal to drag a hispanic woman from her home without a judicial warrant or use a 5-year old kid to lure people out of a house.  But they do it anyway with complete immunity.  

James are you prepared to predict that if this SAVE act passes into law the mid-terms will be a fairly contested election with every US citizen  who wants to vote allowed vote?   

SAVE disenfranchisement of millions

  Dave

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

For the mail-in issue, yes, perhaps.

What about the ID issue?   Millions will be disenfranchised.  

For instance, Married women who took their husbands name so that their name on current documents doesn't match birth certificate.   

Driver's license or Real ID not sufficient ID. Folks without a birth certificate...  

Millions of Americans don't have a passport.  

This bill has been  written to disenfranchise a large number of voters who are  statistically much more likely to be Democrat voters.  The poor, people of colour and women.  

The R's see November as a win-at-any-cost election. They are doing what they can to tilt the result their way.  AT.  ANY.  COST.  They are way past giving any fucks about legality.  It is illegal to put troops/ICE/cops near polling stations on an election day.  But they will be there in selected, closely contested districts.  Just like it is illegal to drag a hispanic woman from her home without a judicial warrant or use a 5-year old kid to lure people out of a house.  But they do it anyway with complete immunity.  

James are you prepared to predict that if this SAVE act passes into law the mid-terms will be a fairly contested election with every US citizen  who wants to vote allowed vote?   

SAVE disenfranchisement of millions

  Dave

Hi Dave:  Great question. I think the SAVE act as currently passed through the House is ridiculous. It would indeed disenfranchise millions. My wife has a passport, but if she did not, she would have to get certified copies of her birth certificate and marriage license to match her registered voting name to her US citizenship,and that is an undue burden. So I agree with you, assuming the SAVE act, as passed by the House were  to become law.

Where we differ is that I know the SAVE act passed by the House has 0% chance of becoming an enforceable law.

The SAVE act as it is presently drafted will never pass the Senate, and it will be eviscerated by the Supreme Court if it did pass. As currently drafted it is a ridiculously unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.  Mark my words, any final SAVE act that passes out of the Senate will require only a drivers license, a state issued ID card, a military ID, a student ID, or some other readily available identification card to register and vote.  

You have probably read that 80% of the US favors some ID requirement to register for voting. What the citizens are saying is that people who want to vote need to demonstrate in a relatively typical fashion that they are who they say they are. In Colorado well over 95% of voters register at the drivers license bureau, when we apply for or renew our drivers license.

We do, of course, have to prove our identity when we first get a drivers license, and that is not an undue burden on anyone. Those who have no drivers license, no state issued ID card, and no  other papers of any sort will be burdened, but that is a vanishing small number, and each state can figure out a way for them to prove their identity if they still want to vote.

I imagine you require some sort of identification in Canada if you want to vote?   Most countries do have some sort of ID requirement. So, personally, I am in favor of some minimal identification requirement in order to register to vote, usually a drivers license. On the other hand, I  think it would be ridiculous and unconstitutional to require a married woman to prove that she is a citizen back to birth if she has changed her name. Same deal with other people who changed their names for any number of legal reasons.  

bottom line, the SAVE act as it is currently drafted is a ridiculous and unconstitutional burden on our guaranteed right to vote, and it will never become law.  I expect some watered down, relatively simple and non-invasive voter ID law to pass eventually, and Trump, as is his style,  will claim victory and move onto the next ginned up crisis.  Jim

stupid iPhone double post…

Fun fact, I read today that more Democrats have passports the Republicans. Since the passport is the only “easy” way to comply with the House version of the SAVE Act, it could disenfranchise more Republicans than Democrats. Not that it will ever pass as currently drafted, and it will not survive the constitutional challenge, if it did pass as currently drafted.