NRA e-mail : "The truth about the NICS improvement act"


PDA






Redneck with a 40
June 16, 2007, 02:10 PM
Here it is, I recieved this in my in-box today....interesting.

On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act," by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA's decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).


While the media continues to characterize this bill as a "gun-control" measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and "spinning" the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.

Here are the facts: H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records. Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.

The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible. While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms. H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:

Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
Excluding federal decisions about a person's mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans' family members to be added to a "prohibited" list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)
Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
Ensuring-as a permanent part of federal law-that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.

Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:


Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to any mental institution." Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.
Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a "commitment." Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose "unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct."
In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.

This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system.


If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!


For additional information, please click here: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA e-mail : "The truth about the NICS improvement act"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Autolycus
June 16, 2007, 02:12 PM
Sorry but I will not be renewing my membership. I cant support any more gun control.

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 02:34 PM
I think this bill is OK. Clearly, it is not new gun control, only a clarification of existing law.

Rumble
June 16, 2007, 02:39 PM
Caveat: I recognize that this is a gun control bill, and in principle I object, but after reading it, it seems like its worst offense, besides being gun control, is redundancy.

However, I think the NRA, having lent itself to the the bill's momentum, is being overly optimistic to say "well, if it changes, we'll just pull our support" (with the implication that doing so will make it go away). I am not positive that is a realistic expectation, after how much the "sensible compromise" and "dogs and cats, living together" of this bill has been trumpeted.

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 03:00 PM
This bill doesn't disqualify anyone from firearm ownership that is not already disqualified. It just mandates better data sharing so disqualified people are in the NICS data base.

Do you really want insane people to have firearms?

I realize this won't keep them from buying them off the secondary market.

dasmi
June 16, 2007, 03:01 PM
Do you really want insane people to have firearms?

Nope. But I also don't want the government defining who is or is not sane.

Sage of Seattle
June 16, 2007, 03:14 PM
Nope. But I also don't want the government defining who is or is not sane.

But you have no trouble in having the government defining who is or is not guilty of a crime?

And so for the millionth time (said by myself and many other much better writers than I), that's why a person must be adjudicated mentally ill or mentally incompetent -- it's an adversarial contest for a reason. I don't particularly care much for the gun-control laws already on the books, but if this helps people regain their 2A rights, whereas previous laws did not, than I'm all for it.

However, that brings up a question in my mind: if the laws were already on the books to be able to have one's rights restored, then why did this particular bill put in place a mechanism to have one's rights restored? If the fed's shimmied around the rules by simply not funding the previous laws, why not just mandate funding for the procedures already in place?

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 05:26 PM
Nope. But I also don't want the government defining who is or is not sane.


Under the law, an insane person must be declared insane (and I think involuntarily insitutionalized) by a court, not by some government agency or fiat.

It is no different than the requirement for declaring someone a felon and ineligible to own firearms.

In a perfect world, I think anyone, including ex-convicts who had committed felonies should be allowed to own firearms. After all, if an ex-felon wants a gun, he can just buy it (or steal it) from a private citizen. Plus, if he is still a threat to society he should be kept locked up in the first place.

Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to think we will keep all felons and crazy people locked up for the rest of their lives. So I think this law is not so bad.

denny
June 16, 2007, 05:36 PM
Lone_Gunman stated:

Under the law, an insane person must be declared insane (and I think involuntarily insitutionalized) by a court, not by some government agency or fiat.

It is no different than the requirement for declaring someone a felon and ineligible to own firearms.


Lone_Gunman,

And to think all along I thought the government, specifically, the legislative branches, defined the crime, by which we the Citizenry declared fellow citizens guilty of such crimes while sitting as jurists.

Denny

jselvy
June 16, 2007, 05:44 PM
It is no different than the requirement for declaring someone a felon and ineligible to own firearms.
I honestly don't think that felons should be barred for life either. Our judicial system is supposed to based upon the precept of innocent UNTIL proven guilty and permanently removing a civil right based on what any person might do flies in the face of this. Yes, felons are more likely to re offend but it is not guaranteed. There is some weight to the idea that by putting them outside of society by barring their civil rights it makes it harder for them to assimilate and adopt societal norms. It certainly reduces any reward for doing so.

Jefferson

Brett Bellmore
June 16, 2007, 06:50 PM
Under the law, an insane person must be declared insane (and I think involuntarily insitutionalized) by a court, not by some government agency or fiat.


Add trial by a jury of one's peers, and I might be able to stomach that. But deprivation of civil liberties by judicial fiat stinks, period, whether you call it declared "insane", or declared "guilty".

The truth about this bill is that even with the NRA promising to shield them from our wrath, they were so scared they had to hide who voted for it. And doubtless passed it without the Constitutionally mandated quorum present.

Any time the NRA feels the need to conspire with anti-gun Congressmen to make sure that pro-gun members aren't present when a vote is held, you know damned well we're being betrayed. You just don't DO that if a bill is genuinely defensible.

camacho
June 16, 2007, 06:58 PM
Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.

This is the part that some folks here choose not to understand and jump on the NRA and interpret this bill as a sell out to our gun rights.

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 07:18 PM
Camacho is correct, though NRA bashers won't take the time to listen.

Zundfolge
June 16, 2007, 07:24 PM
If the NRA brought this bill up out of the blue when there was no movement in this direction, then yes, the NRA bashers might have a point.

But the fact is that some form of this bill was going to happen after VT no matter what ... the NRA was able to turn a potentially big negative into something that is mostly positive. Had they taken the "all or nothing" approach so many in this forum seem to prefer, they would have had zero effect on the form this bill would have taken and I can guarantee you when it was all said and done we'd wake up the morning after to something worse than the '94 AWB (and probably a repeal of the good parts of the '86 FOPA).


Yes, I agree any gun law is a violation of the 2A, but some of you all-or-nothings really need to start looking at these 50% filled glasses as half full.

pcosmar
June 16, 2007, 07:27 PM
I find I have some mixed feelings about this.
My first thought is that it adds a high cost (to taxes) to pay for what should already be done.
Next that the NCIS should not exist in the first place, so it is"fixing" what should not be in the first place.
On the plus side it MAY help me and others like me, in suppling restoration of rights to the database. Though since that was already in the law, and is ignored or obfuscated, I have little hope that this will change anything.
My biggest concern is that at some later date the definition of mental defect will be changed. That is another can of nitecrawlers.

walking arsenal
June 16, 2007, 08:06 PM
Do you really want insane people to have firearms?

Nope. But I also don't want the government defining who is or is not sane.

Agreed, look whats they call good and bad now. A communist country is one of our major manufacturing centers.

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 08:08 PM
Nope. But I also don't want the government defining who is or is not sane.


Ok, so what is your alternative plan? How would you keep guns out of the hands of the insane?

If your solution is to institutionalize all of them, how would you pay for it?

ArfinGreebly
June 16, 2007, 08:09 PM
Can of worms.

We have a mental health system derived from techniques and technologies employed by countries whose primary use of them was (and is) political control.

Never forget that.

Watch closely for "obsession with weapons" to become a "syndrome" or "disorder" appearing in a DSM near you.

It's the ultimate end run.

People trust "doctors" (Hippocratic oath and all that), and this trust is all too easily subverted and betrayed.

Psychiatry is in many ways the enforcement arm of socialism.

So keep a watchful eye on anyone who wants the authority and power to abridge rights based on one's "adjudicated mental health" condition.

What was crazy 60 years ago is normal today.

What was normal 60 years ago is scary and frightening and . . . crazy today.

Consider also this: once a "condition of crazy" is all that's needed to deprive you of your rights, one need no longer pursue new legislation to exclude you from self defense; they need only re-define your condition (whatever it is) as the new crazy.

Talk to those who have lived through it in Eastern Europe.

Talk to the former crazies.

And watch your six.

Zundfolge
June 16, 2007, 08:15 PM
Ok, so what is your alternative plan? How would you keep guns out of the hands of the insane?
As long as the sane are armed we can deal with the few insane that are both armed and attempt to do people harm.

NOTHING is going to guarantee that the insane (or criminal) are not going to find some way to arm themselves, so its foolish to disarm the sane and law abiding.



Consider also this: once a "condition of crazy" is all that's needed to deprive you of your rights, one need no longer pursue new legislation to exclude you from self defense; they need only re-define your condition (whatever it is) as the new crazy.
Before this law existed a "condition of crazy" was ALREADY all that was needed to deprive you of your rights, and you had no guarantee that you could ever get them back. THIS bill requires EVERY state to give you the opportunity to get your rights back.

In addition, it was only a matter of time before the fed.gov would start charging you for the NICS check (law makers are trying to pull that crap here in CO). This law forbids the Fed.Gov from doing so (and may prevent states from doing it too ... not sure about that though).

Watch closely for "obsession with weapons" to become a "syndrome" or "disorder" appearing in a DSM near you.
Honestly I believe this bill will make that harder to get away with. But again, nothing would have stopped the antis from pulling that before this bill.


Too many people are acting like because this bill had NRA input and support that its 100% their idea, but again THIS LAW WAS GOING TO BE WRITTEN AND WRITTEN NOW. The question is, would it have been written by Schumer, Feinstein, McCarthy, Kennedy and the other gun grabbers? Jesus, imagine what they could have put in it without the NRA standing over their shoulder. :uhoh:

precisionshootist
June 16, 2007, 08:18 PM
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to think we will keep all felons and crazy people locked up for the rest of their lives. So I think this law is not so bad.


Concerning felons: Some might be suprised at how easy it is for an otherwise law abiding person to be charged and convicted of a felony. Read the active thread on the guy that video taped a traffic stop and has been charged with "wiretapping" which is a felony. If the DA wants to make it stick he's toast. I could go on and on with other examples so be careful when you state "felon" and make it sound like they are all rapist and murderers. Former detective Mark Fermon, from the OJ trial fame is now a convicted felon because of a trumped up perjury charge. The 2nd amendment has no qualifications based on felony convictions.

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 08:20 PM
Arfin, I agree there certainly is a slippery slope to adjudicating someone mentally defective, and that it is possible that this could be abused in the future.

But the law that actually required mentally defective people to be banned from gun ownership (via NICS) is now 13 yrs old, and I don't think there has been widespread abuse of it so far. I am not saying there won't be in the future, just that so far it doesnt seem to have happened. All the new law will do is centralize records so a NICS check won't miss those people. Plus, this new law does actually give people who have been listed as mentally defective a venue to appeal and get off the list, and I believe that determination will be made by the state, and not federal government. Haveing a way to get off a government list is actually a good thing.

NOTHING is going to guarantee that the insane (or criminal) are not going to find some way to arm themselves, so its foolish to disarm the sane and law abiding.


I agree with you philosophically, but pratically speaking you will have a hard time convincing 250 million Americans accustomed to suckling at the teat of the federal government of that. Its a slippery slope, though, without doubt.

jselvy
June 16, 2007, 08:24 PM
I think that this might just be the first volley.
As I said in another thread this is an advance along a second front.
Doctors due to the nature of the profession are easily influenced by professional organizations like the AMA. The AMA is already anti-gun and would not need much prompting to add a new "disorder" to the soft science of psychology.
The reason why I oppose this legislation is due to these facts.

Jefferson

Zundfolge
June 16, 2007, 08:34 PM
I agree that the end game of some antis is to use the medical profession to do an end run around RKBA, but thats one reason I support this bill.

Most of you guys keep reading past this bit:
Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
I don't think many of you realize how HUGE this is, this forces state and federal government to give you the opportunity to get your rights back if they take them away. Currently all the evils people are afraid of coming to pass because of this bill were ALREADY POSSIBLE, but before this we had no redress if we got caught up in the system.


Now another area the NRA (and the rest of the RKBA movement) need to go is to the doctors ... sure the AMA is anti-gun, but if there are enough pro-gun doctors out there then either the AMA drops the anti gun crap or the doctors drop the AMA and poof ... it has no more power.

Those of you that oppose this bill because you oppose any government interference in our gun rights, you're buying into a false dilemma fallacy of logic here. The choice wasn't between this bill and doing nothing, it was between this bill and another NICS Improvement Act that would have likely done significant damage to RKBA.


I too would love to see every gun law passed since 1776 repealed (I'm an absolutist that believes the 2A protects my right to own any weapon, all the way up to a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and all the accoutrement if I could afford it). But we have to be realistic here. We're not going to get our way overnight in one fell swoop (if ever), until we can get them out of office, we have to either work with those in government that oppose our rights or kill them. I for one, don't look forward to another civil war.

czbegenner
June 16, 2007, 08:37 PM
Guys i have a situation like this:I got a job in 1998 working for a telemarking
com.I took out this add from the news paper.I had to take a drug test to get
the job.About a month latter the F.B.I. Came and arested everone and took us to jail:charge Theft,and contempt to commit theff:I bonded out the next day,did not hear from no one about 8 months,Then the F.B.I. Came to my door and told me"Let's take a ride" We went to there office,after a hour they
came to me and told me that based on what they got from me(tapes) They see no need to hold me at fought for working there i was only making $5:15 an hour,also i never got anyone to so call donate any money.So they told me
"Have a nice life" Now this is still on my record as an arest,but i never went to court,and never saw a judge,so this is not a fellon,but When i go for a job
they tell me i can't get hired,When i apply for a hand gun it always get delayed.About two weeks,then i am allowed to pick it up.But when you look at the N.C.I.C IT says No charge,I asked the FBI what can they do about this
They told me nothing,so this is why i feel this bill is somewhat a good thing.
My life has been messed up because of this situation.I lost one Law-enforcement job because of this,So if someone has not been found guillty and is on N.c.i.c. i fell they need to be cleared off.

camacho
June 16, 2007, 08:38 PM
But the law that actually required mentally defective people to be banned from gun ownership (via NICS) is now 13 yrs old, and I don't think there has been widespread abuse of it so far.

Absolutely, and neither has been an outcry (that I know of) from the gun community about this specific clause of the law. All of sudden, now it became the most important thing and something that we should not enforce at all cost. I just don't get it.


Psychiatry is in many ways the enforcement arm of socialism.
Now, ArfinGreebly, with all due respect this is a little overboard. It sounds like something Tom Cruise would say.

Talk to those who have lived through it in Eastern Europe. I am one of those, and I have heard of "enemy of people" who were branded as crazy. However, I know several folks (including one close relative) who had mental illness and were helped by the psychiatry professionals and lived productive lives.

Redneck with a 40
June 16, 2007, 09:31 PM
Regarding the comment about ex-con's should be able to own firearms. I disagree 100% with this view. In my view, ex-con's lack the moral judgement and responsibility to own firearms. Recidivism runs about 60%, alot of ex-con's end up re-offending. Some ex-con's don't have much respect for human life, enter a firearm = bad deal. Even if its a non-violent offense, such as simple theft, they've already proven to society that they don't respect authority and have zero moral compass. There should be NO firearms for these people. Granted, they can steal them, or buy them off of the street, but they are committing a felony to obtain the weapon in the first place.

I also dis-agree with the "all or nothing philosophy". We can either settle for this bill, which the NRA had a heavy hand in drafting, keeping the scope of the bill where it should be, or we can let McCarthy and Schumer run roughshod and pass something much worse and draconian. This bill doesn't really bother me that much. One way or the other, congress was going to do something after the VT shootings, at least the NRA is minimizing the potential damage.

I believe the "I'm not renewing my membership with the NRA crowd", does more damage than good. How does sticking your head in the sand advance our cause? If we do this, then the anti-gun crowd will have a field day. Sometimes, you have to work with your enemies. Maybe the NRA will gain some positive PR out of this, the perception that "maybe those NRA people aren't a bunch of right wing gun nut extremist's". This may give the NRA a more positive image to the general public, not a bad thing.

Chad
June 16, 2007, 09:48 PM
Well Redneck...
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with what you say, I am very grateful that you stated your positions and opinions without insulting or belittling any other posters in the thread.

You may think that's an unusual thing to be grateful for, but the atmosphere around here has gotten kind of ugly lately with some folks berating other folks who return it in kind.

So, odd or not, thanks.

Kentak
June 16, 2007, 09:56 PM
There are no NEW restrictions in this act. Is this true? If true, why are we beating up the NRA for supporting it?

How often have I heard pro RKBA people say, "We should better enforce the gun laws on the books rather than enact new ones."

K

pcosmar
June 16, 2007, 10:07 PM
I think it may be the $125,000,000.00 price tag, and something about the mental health database.

Zundfolge
June 16, 2007, 10:11 PM
Regarding the comment about ex-con's should be able to own firearms. I disagree 100% with this view. In my view, ex-con's lack the moral judgement and responsibility to own firearms.
I disagree with that because too many "crimes" on the books that shouldn't be crimes (the example of videotaping the police in the course of their duties being a felony is a good example).

Like all gun control laws, all that laws forbidding former criminals from possessing guns does is disarm the honest former criminals ... the bad guys will pack heat regardless.

I guess I have a problem with the blanket statement that anyone convicted of a crime (in particular a felony) is obviously someone that can't be trusted to own a firearm.

In addition to the example I sited above, I've used this as an example before.

I own a carbine kit for my Steyr M40:
http://www.funkypurse.com/gallery/scopemount_on_carbine.jpg

If I assemble the parts that make up that carbine in the wrong order, I have committed the felony of "Unlicensed Manufacture of a Short Barreled Rifle".

So you're telling me that if I go to the range and Agent Schmuckatelli witnesses me screw up and put the stock on the frame before I remove the pistol barrel and put the 16" barrel on it that I've demonstrated such a great lack of judgment and morality that I deserve to have my second amendment rights completely eliminated for the rest of my life?

Lord I hope you never run afoul of some sort of Malum Prohibitum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum) law and find yourself without RKBA.


I don't like the idea of stripping people of their constitutional rights for any reason, but I'm willing to concede the felon thing as long as non violent and reformed felons have some sort of legal recourse ... some way to have their rights restored (and one that doesn't cost a kings ransom and take 30 years).

I believe the "I'm not renewing my membership with the NRA crowd", does more damage than good.
On that point, you and I agree 100%

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 10:32 PM
Doctors due to the nature of the profession are easily influenced by professional organizations like the AMA. The AMA is already anti-gun and would not need much prompting to add a new "disorder" to the soft science of psychology.

I am a doctor, but not a member of the AMA. I withdrew my membership when they classified gun injuries as a public health problem, and wrote the president of the AMA a nice letter explaining.

I agree that doctors are often manipulated, and don't doubt that someone could contrive a gun-related psychiatric disorder. But the law is very specific. The person has to be adjudicated mentally defective, a threat to himself or others, and/or be involuntarily committed to a hospital. Personality disorders and neuroses do not rise to that degree of mental defect. So I think if I was ever diagnosed with, say, 1911 obsessive disorder, it would not rise to the severity level needed to bar me from gun ownership. Neither would phobias or neuroses.

pcosmar
June 16, 2007, 10:32 PM
Redneck with a 40 said.
Regarding the comment about ex-con's should be able to own firearms. I disagree 100% with this view. In my view, ex-con's lack the moral judgement and responsibility to own firearms. Recidivism runs about 60%, alot of ex-con's end up re-offending. Some ex-con's don't have much respect for human life, enter a firearm = bad deal.alot of ex-con's end up re-offending. Some ex-con's don't have much respect for human life, enter a firearm = bad deal.
"Recidivism runs about 60%," When I got out it was 80%. That still means that 20 to 40% go on to live lawful and hopefully productive lives.
"Some" and "alot" is very different than all.
I am not criminally intent, but I would like to own a firearm for several reasons.
I am one of those % that have stayed out.

Zundfolge
June 16, 2007, 10:39 PM
I am a doctor, but not a member of the AMA. I withdrew my membership when they classified gun injuries as a public health problem, and wrote the president of the AMA a nice letter explaining.
The more strident the AMA gets with their anti gun position the more doctors are going to follow your lead ... and more important than the memberships lost will be the membership dues lost.

I think the NRA should put together some sort of outreach to pro-gun doctors and get them to turn the AMA in the right direction (or destroy it outright).

Mumwaldee
June 16, 2007, 10:58 PM
Criminals have either paid their debt to society when they are released...or they shouldn't be released. All their rights as a citizen should be re-instated.

The "mentally ill" who have never broken the law should be able to defend themselves. Denial/registration/confiscation.

I am bi-polar and I have firearms. Don't be the first one through the door.

ken grant
June 16, 2007, 11:15 PM
There is not now or will ever be a law that will keep a BAD PERSON from getting a weapon if they want one.:banghead:
Laws only keep GOOD PEOPLE from getting weapons.

gc70
June 16, 2007, 11:43 PM
Here is a word-for-word comparison (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/81221_drqqb/HR297-2640.pdf]HR297-2640.pdf) of McCarthy's original HR 297 versus the NRA-supported HR 2640 as passed by the House. Verbiage deleted from HR 297 is struck through and shown in red. Verbiage added by HR 2640 is underlined.

From what I see, the Democrats got a feel-good piece of legislation so that they can claim they did something about gun control after VT and the NRA got a few small, but positive advances in the process.

While I would prefer to see wholesale abolishment of gun control laws, that will not happen soon. In the meantime, I like anything that leads to fewer restrictions rather than more restrictions.

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 11:46 PM
I am bi-polar and I have firearms.

Having any number of mental disorders does not disqualify you from gun ownership, even with the new law. Only if you have been deemed mentally defective by a court, a danger to yourself or others, or involuntarily commited would you be affected.

Brett Bellmore
June 17, 2007, 07:21 AM
In my view, ex-con's lack the moral judgement and responsibility to own firearms. Recidivism runs about 60%, alot of ex-con's end up re-offending.

The problem with this is that prohibiting ex-cons from having guns, and actually KEEPING THEM from having guns, are two completely different things. Making it illegal for ex-cons to own guns doesn't stop the ones who decide to re-offend from being armed, it just requires the existance of a whole system of two classes of citizenship, where we have to go crawling to the government for permission to exercise our Constitutional right to own guns. That's a heavy price to pay for a law that doesn't actually accomplish much in practice.

JohnL2
June 17, 2007, 08:23 AM
Having any number of mental disorders does not disqualify you from gun ownership, even with the new law. Only if you have been deemed mentally defective by a court, a danger to yourself or others, or involuntarily commited would you be affected.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. I think it is okay. Crazies and criminals are going to get guns anyway they can if they really want it. This is just a safeguard from them getting it legitimately.

Guntalk
June 17, 2007, 11:39 AM
For doctors, and friends of doctors who can recommend this group.

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

http://www.claremont.org/projects/projectid.12/project_detail.asp

TrybalRage
June 17, 2007, 01:32 PM
But the fact is that some form of this bill was going to happen after VT no matter what ...

Not necessarily true. If they could have passed it without the support of the NRA they would have in a heartbeat.

Redneck with a 40
June 17, 2007, 02:16 PM
"But the fact is that some form of this bill was going to happen after VT no matter what ..."

My response....Had they passed the bill without the support of the NRA, it would have been much more draconian, than what we are currently facing. Since the NRA was able to negotiate the substance of the bill, this is a good thing in my book.

Molon Labe
June 17, 2007, 02:31 PM
Watch closely for "obsession with weapons" to become a "syndrome" or "disorder" appearing in a DSM near you.

It's the ultimate end run.
Yep.

Freedom and security are mutually exclusive. Take your pick. For me, I would much rather live in a "dangerous" society, where felons and "mental defectives" are free to keep and bear arms, than a "safe" society, where the police power of the state decides who - and who can't - exercise their inalienable rights.

I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery. - Thomas Jefferson

Brett Bellmore
June 17, 2007, 03:17 PM
"But the fact is that some form of this bill was going to happen after VT no matter what ..."

My response....Had they passed the bill without the support of the NRA, it would have been much more draconian, than what we are currently facing. Since the NRA was able to negotiate the substance of the bill, this is a good thing in my book.

If they had to resort to a suprise voice vote to get this sucker passed even WITH the NRA promising to run interference for anybody who got in trouble for casting the vote, I seriously doubt anything would have passed without NRA support.

Gun control is politically radioactive, the Democrats are scared to touch it until they've put at least one more election behind them, and secured their majority. They'd never have taken a chance on this without the NRA's support.

gc70
June 17, 2007, 04:01 PM
If they had to resort to a suprise voice vote to get this sucker passedI have seen this type of allegation in several threads, but I don't know where it comes from. There have been NO news reports of Republicans complaining that there was any sort of trickery involving the vote for this bill.

Voice votes (http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/voting_house.htm) are used when the vast majority of representatives agree with a motion (in this case to pass HR2640).

A single representative can request a record vote (http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/rollcall_vote.htm) (rollcall) on a voice vote.

The Congressional Record (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=H6347&position=all) (H6347, paragraphs 1115-1118, June 13, 2007) does not show that there was a request for a record vote.

Brett Bellmore
June 17, 2007, 07:21 PM
Voice votes are used when the vast majority of representatives agree with a motion (in this case to pass HR2640).

I took civics in High school. I also have watched enough CSPAN to know that what I was taught was an idealized description of how we're supposed to THINK the system works, not how it actually works. A while back, a bad injury laid me up in bed for a month, and I watched easilly a hundred hours of CSPAN. I never once saw a quorum call go to completion. Not one stinking time.

Voice votes are used when it has been arranged that only people supporting a motion will be present, and it is necessary to conceal the resulting absense of a quorum. That's real life civics. That's the way the system really works.

And while a single Representative can request a roll call vote, under the circumstances where voice votes normally occur, his chances of getting one are indistinguishable from zero.

I will bet real money that, if you could document the location of every member of the House at the time that voice vote was held, you'd find over half of them were somewhere else. And you'd find that our best allies were among the absent.

There have been NO news reports of Republicans complaining that there was any sort of trickery involving the vote for this bill.

Well, yeah: Calling a suprise voice vote when over half the members are somewhere else is not, by the depraved standards of today's Congress, considered "trickery". It's SOP. Doesn't mean that it doesn't stink, it just means anything goes in Congress today.

gc70
June 17, 2007, 08:05 PM
And while a single Representative can request a roll call vote, under the circumstances where voice votes normally occur, his chances of getting one are indistinguishable from zero.

You are aware that a request for a rollcall vote would be recorded in the Congressional Record. And no such request was made for HR 2640.

JohnBT
June 17, 2007, 09:33 PM
"If they could have passed it without the support of the NRA they would have in a heartbeat."

It wouldn't have been in a heartbeat, it would have taken a lot of work and lots of time to guide it through. But being in the majority, the Democrats could have guided it through because the bill looks good to the voters - all the voters back home in their Repub and Dem districts.

Like the man said, very little has changed. It's been against the law for persons who have been involuntarily committed to own firearms since 1968. The database isn't about medical records, it's about legal records of committments, etc. They don't even need to know why you were committed, just that you were. The records are submitted by the courts, not the medical system.

John

Brett Bellmore
June 17, 2007, 09:44 PM
You are aware that a request for a rollcall vote would be recorded in the Congressional Record. And no such request was made for HR 2640.

I'm aware that the Congressional Record is frequently a work of fiction.:rolleyes: But I don't recall ever claiming anybody had made such a request. Merely that it would certainly have been futile.

gc70
June 17, 2007, 10:36 PM
I'm aware that the Congressional Record is frequently a work of fiction.:rolleyes:Well, there you go.

Cork
June 17, 2007, 10:50 PM
Here in MS it only takes a few hours to have your lawyer take a request to a judge and have someone in your family declared a threat to themselves and/or others following a sucide attempt or serious threat. Normally occurs to force a depressed adult addict/drunk into treatment while they are in hospital so they cannot sign themselves out the next day. Not sure if this meets the legal definition to be blocked 'forever' from buying a firearm? Within a few months of drying out and seeking support with AA etc these same people often lead normal lives.
I am still having trouble with the VA judge ordering 'out patient' treatment for Cho without any conviction (giving him a record) or having him on weekly probation officer monitoring. I think this is was a weak legal action and still struggle understanding if Cho per the letter of the law was prohibted from buying a firearm.
Took the NRA sticker off my truck yesterday!
Cork

Brett Bellmore
June 18, 2007, 07:21 AM
Well, there you go.

I suppose that was supposed to somehow express doubt about my statement, without the tedious necessity of actually making any argument. :rolleyes:

Of course it's a work of fiction, they routinely add speaches that were never made, and alter remarks after the fact that didn't quite come across the way they wanted. The only question is to what extent the Congressional Record is a work of fiction. Given other Congressional practices whose existance is scarcely contraversial, such as "enrolling" versions of bills which are different from what was voted on, you want to bet that the fiction stops with a little polishing of remarks?

JohnBT
June 18, 2007, 07:54 AM
"Not sure if this meets the legal definition to be blocked 'forever' from buying a firearm?"

No, it doesn't. In Virginia that's called a temporary dentention order and allows for up to 72 hours of inpatient evaluation. Then there's a hearing - it's the judge's decision at the hearing that matters. In Cho's case someone decided that since he had not been committed to inpatient treatment he didn't need to be on the list.

Once again, FWIW, Virginia is one of only 22 states that has been submitting involuntary committment info to NICS. Nearly half of that info in the system is from Virginia. The bill provides funding for ALL the states to enter their data. Remember, it's legal data - the adjudication - not medical data.

You can put the NRA sticker back on your truck now. ;)

John

ArfinGreebly
June 18, 2007, 02:57 PM
Psychiatry is in many ways the enforcement arm of socialism.
Now, ArfinGreebly, with all due respect this is a little overboard. It sounds like something Tom Cruise would say.
Never met Tom Cruise. He doesn't speak for me. I don't know what sources he uses for his information.

I DO however, know where I got mine.

Ten years of volunteer field work in countries where socialism is the prevailing form of government.

I know that it rubs some people the wrong way when I assert that psychiatry is the wrong answer, and that it too often serves as a political tool. I could refer you to the works of a psychiatrist who is, himself, highly critical of his own field. Thomas Szasz is Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center. I first heard of his work in the mid '70s, right around the time I was in Europe.

I wouldn't have paid any attention, except that we kept having to hit cleanup behind them and mop up their messes. Naturally, this caused them some embarrassment, and we would be slandered and reviled. Prior to this rather bizarre turn of events, I had always assumed that the "Mental Health" community and the group I worked with were on the same side. After all, we wanted the same thing, right?

What we have then is my several years of in-your-face experience in counseling, education and rehab, punctuated by strife with the purveyors of psychobabble and psycho-meds, versus contrary anecdotal data of perceived benefit by people who know people who have been helped . . .

So if I sound a little skeptical, a little bitter, and somewhat intolerant when it comes to psych-related topics, please understand that this comes only from experience, not any kind of academic study.

You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions and keep whatever counsel you deem proper.

When I was younger I trusted them. Now I do not. I have seen too much.

(By the way, any "profession" that would willingly -- nay, enthusiastically -- participate in projects like MK-ULTRA is worthy of as much skepticism as I can muster.)

My bottom line: I am very leery of handing any amount of authority over my individual rights -- especially RKBA -- to practitioners of a profession whose human rights track record stinks as theirs does.

And if that's "a little overboard" I can live with that. Even if it DOES sound like something Tom Cruise would say. Hey, if I can sound enough like him, can I have some of his money? I'm not greedy, a couple of million would be fine.

JohnBT
June 18, 2007, 04:11 PM
"By the way, any "profession" that would willingly -- nay, enthusiastically -- participate in projects like MK-ULTRA is worthy of as much skepticism as I can muster"

Professions don't participate in anything. Their leaders might support something, but it's usually individuals that make the decision to participate. Sort of like the AMA making statements that the individual doctors don't support OR a doctor doing something the AMA doesn't support. Again, it's the actions of individuals, not professions.

It's like blaming all car mechanics because one ripped you off.

And yes, I've been around the mental health profession for more than 3 decades, although I've spent most of the time with the patients.

John

Art Eatman
June 18, 2007, 05:11 PM
This horse is still dead. How many pages did we use up, last time? Same comments from some of the same folks.

Enuf.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA e-mail : "The truth about the NICS improvement act"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!