Alphecca

I don't know about "likely to use the firearm in a manner that would cause unreasonable risk of physical injury," but I think at least some straw buys should be pretty easy to identify.

Some months ago I had a new Private in training who was arrested by the ATF for straw buying for her gang banger BF. She apparently walked into the gun store with a list of guns, and wouldn't have known a Raven 25 from a 25mm Bushmaster cannon. Shop owner called the sheriff as part of the NICS check, and they then let the whole thing go through (the sheriff apparently knew who she and her BF were) and they ended up busting her for the straw buy and the BF for felon in possession.

The couple skipped bail, and are currently wanted for that, along with armed robbery in both North and South Carolina.

Where do recruiters find these people?

The filibuster is not constitutionally guaranteed. It is only a Senate procedural rule and can be changed by the Senate. I really fail to see the advantages of allowing a minority to block Senate business so that a supermajority is required to pass legislation rather than the (constitionally guaranteed) majority.

One error in the story: Krieger is a REPUBLICAN and chair of several key committees in the GOP controlled house.

In addition to what Ken pointed out...

The Republicns aren't talking about ending the filibuster completely, just allowing a stright up-or-down vote in judicial nominations cases.

Dude, you are either seriously uninformed or trying to spin the issue. There is room for debate on the issue, but that requires an honest statement of facts. Isn't this the sort of tactic the VPC and HCI resort to?

All Right, already, I've removed the offending term I used. It's not a constitutional guarantee but I DO think it would be stupid to scrap it. The Democrats might one day be back in power and it would be a needed tool for Republicans (as it was during Clinton's terms). In addition, most folks in this country like the Senate to be deliberative and slow moving and yes, even obstructionist. It prevents sudden policy swings that could cause unrest in the nation. If some of the reasons Democrats give for not allowing certain judicial nominees to come to a vote sound hollow and ridiculous, so do some of the reasons given by Republicans. I like the checks-and-balances.

Like I said, there's room for legitimate debate.

But posting about how the Republicans want to trash the Constitution for all time with the NUCLEAR OPTION isn't legitimate debate; it's peddling BS. You (and I) know that this is illegitimate when it's Josh Sugarman and Sarah Brady talking about how the NRA supports the sale to children of full-auto assault weapons specifically designed to kill police officers; it's just as illegitimate in any other case.

PS- The filibuster isn't part of checks-and-balances, either: it does nothing to reign-in or limit either the judicial branch or the executive branch. All it does is to insure that a proposed act has at least some support from the opposition party when both parties have close to equal representation (when one party has over 60 seats to start with it's a dead letter). It is also dreadfully prone to abuse and has been limited before in similar ways without the collapse of representational democracy occurring.