H.R. 2640 passed in House by voice vote, unrecorded


PDA






alan
June 13, 2007, 10:52 PM
Strikes me that this is a hellish poor way to treat important legislation, which I assume that this was. I would go so far as to describe House action as DESPICABLE, COWARDLY AND OR LACKING IN INTEGRITY, but that's just the way it strikes me.

The thing will now go to The Senate. Will that body follow the antics of The House, that is an unrecorded voice vote? Who knows. Perhaps readers might wish to contact their Senators, before the fact, and their House members after the fact, or after their display of wanton cowardice, or however you might describe it.

Of course, perhaps it's me that off base, however I do believe that if an elected offical, having voted one way or the other on some particular proposal is not proud enough of their vote to have it listed next to their name, that they might well have a whole lot to be ashamed of, including the way they voted.

If you enjoyed reading about "H.R. 2640 passed in House by voice vote, unrecorded" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ctdonath
June 13, 2007, 11:56 PM
FYI: H.R. 2640: To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes

SWMAN
June 14, 2007, 07:47 AM
Well, some antigun Congressman aren't happy with this bill. They belive it hasn't gone far enough.

U.S. House of Representatives - June 13, 2007

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I will vote for this. I was a co-sponsor of this. And certainly Mrs. McCarthy deserves credit for bringing it to the floor.

But I do have concerns as the chairman does. That this needs to be very tightly regulated because it is quite liable to allow thousands of people who should not have access to guns to be able to do so by dropping their mental health treatment.

There are 190,000 veterans who because of their experience in combat have had serious mental illness problems. But it appears that if they drop the treatment that they have been in, they can become eligible to purchase guns. Again much of this is going to be in the regulation and the good judgment of states to make it work properly.

It is not a gun control measure as Mrs. McCarthy stated. It does nothing about the fact that we have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation and tens of thousands of people dying of by those guns, the vast majority are innocent victims every year. More so than in any civilized nation.

It doesn't address issues with regard to the Second Amendment where the Supreme Court has made it clear there is really not a right for individuals to own guns but rather for states to have well regulated militias. These are issues that need to be addressed at some point by our country.

But this bill hopefully will address the very egregious situation where a person, a court had determined to be mentally deranged was allowed access to firearms that he never should have gotten. There are other problems in other states that could have allowed such a thing to happen. Hopefully this bill will clean up this record keeping system with the sufficient resources made available.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this Congress ought not be allowing people to buy assault weapons, 50 caliber sniper rifles, and weapons that clearly are used for military purposes not for purposes of recreational hunting.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will pass unanimously and at this point it should. Thank you.

gopguy
June 14, 2007, 09:01 AM
I am not happy with it. Any reform of the NICS check should include repeal of the Lautenberg Amendment. The loss of civil liberties without due process or conviction in court is repulsive.

DKSuddeth
June 14, 2007, 09:13 AM
Did anyone jump on this idiot for this remark?

It doesn't address issues with regard to the Second Amendment where the Supreme Court has made it clear there is really not a right for individuals to own guns but rather for states to have well regulated militias.

Outlaw Man
June 14, 2007, 09:55 AM
There was a lone voice of reason. As usual, nobody in the House listened to him.

The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul of Texas. He described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-13-house-guns_N.htm

NeveraVictimAgain
June 14, 2007, 10:31 AM
What bothers me is that the media keep saying this will stop "the mentally ill" - not the incompetent - from buying guns. As has been asked before, will this stop anyone who's being treated for anything, like depression or anxiety?

xd9fan
June 14, 2007, 10:35 AM
There was a lone voice of reason. As usual, nobody in the House listened to him.


Just more "common sense compromise" from your GOP.

Mannix
June 14, 2007, 10:39 AM
As has been asked before, will this stop anyone who's being treated for anything, like depression or anxiety?

No, it would only affect those who are found to be a danger to themselves and others in court and forced into treatment.

Still don't like it...

Chad
June 14, 2007, 10:44 AM
Did anyone jump on this idiot for this remark?

It doesn't address issues with regard to the Second Amendment where the Supreme Court has made it clear there is really not a right for individuals to own guns but rather for states to have well regulated militias.

That is certainly a moronic, BS statement.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia should get a whole lot of calls, letters and emails reminding him of the error in his comment.
If there are enough it won't really matter if they are from constituents or not.

NeveraVictimAgain
June 14, 2007, 11:04 AM
I thought it had been clearly established that the 2A clearly means the INDIVIDUAL right to own "arms". I can't believe they're still arguing that! Just look at the other writings of the Founding Fathers ! :cuss:

Chad
June 14, 2007, 11:10 AM
I thought it had been clearly established that the 2A clearly means the INDIVIDUAL right to own "arms". I can't believe they're still arguing that! Just look at the other writings of the Founding Fathers !
Some folks should be locked up with history books for a while.

The official pronouncement from the heavens...er, rather from the Supreme Court, has not yet been forthcoming.
But nobody that has any familiarity with the writings of the period has any doubt of the meaning of the 2nd.

kludge
June 14, 2007, 02:31 PM
NeveraVictimAgain:

What bothers me is that the media keep saying this will stop "the mentally ill" - not the incompetent - from buying guns. As has been asked before, will this stop anyone who's being treated for anything, like depression or anxiety?


So people with depression or anxiety should not be allowed to defend themselves?

There is no due process here. Adjudication at least help prevent (limit?) abusive use of power.

A few years fom now, in the aftermath of the next massacre, McCarthy and the NRA will wonder why this law didn't stop the crazed gun(wo)man.

Paper doesn't stop bullets.

Chad
June 14, 2007, 03:28 PM
Rep. Moran cleverly requires zip+4 to access his contact by email, so he can ignore any email outside of his district.

Anyone wishing to call or write him regarding his 2nd Amendment comment can use the following info:
Washington, DC
2239 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4376
Fax: (202) 225-0017
Alexandria Office
333 N. Fairfax St.
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 971-4700
Fax: (703) 922-9436
Reston Office
1900 Campus Commons Dr. Suite 100
Reston, VA 20191
Phone: (703) 971-4700
Fax: (703) 922-9436
Tues. & Thurs. 10:00AM-1:00PM

ctdonath
June 14, 2007, 09:06 PM
As has been asked before, will this stop anyone who's being treated for anything, like depression or anxiety?No. It only addresses those who have been adjudicated (i.e.: a judge has reviewed an issue specific to a particular person, and rendered a narrow & specific judgment upon that person) subject to involuntary treatment. Voluntary treatment not involving a court does not impact NICS.

Of course:
- few people (probably me included) understand this law and its effects, so they will avoid treatment to ensure they do not lose their rights
- the next version of this law WILL include voluntary treatment, right after someone being treated voluntarily for depression exits stage left and takes a roomful of people with them.

NeveraVictimAgain
June 16, 2007, 11:02 AM
CT- Thanks for your erudite and possibly prophetic answer.

What I'm hearing is that this doesn't change the requirement for having been adjudicated incompetent before you lose your 2A rights.

Thanks again.

If you enjoyed reading about "H.R. 2640 passed in House by voice vote, unrecorded" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!