more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended


PDA






F4GIB
June 18, 2007, 12:41 PM
A "voice vote" is how NRA covered up the tally on the 1986 Class 3 weapon freeze. NRA can always get a SINGLE legislator to demand a roll call vote IF they want to. When NRA doesn't, you know the shaft is in.

Here is another good analysis.

HR 2640 must be STOPPED in the US Senate! It only takes 41 votes to block a bill.

###

Why NRA is nuts to expand background checks
By Corey Graff
Executive Director
Wisconsin Gun Owners
June 13, 2007
<http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/June%2013%202007_Why%20NRA%20is%20nuts%20to%20expand%20background%20checks.cfm>

"I'm very sorry we can't sell you this handgun," the gun dealer tells
you as he snatches what was to be your new hunting revolver from your
hand. "FBI denied your background check. Said something about you being
'mentally defective.' Sorry."

As you leave the gun shop you're confused, infuriated and empty-handed.
You've never committed a crime in your life. You're a hunter education
safety instructor, a father, a life-long sportsmen, a military veteran
and are active in your church. Yet somehow a bureaucrat who knows
nothing about you claims you're a mental case. Finally you remember:
almost two decades ago, your family doctor sent you to see a
"specialist" who prescribed anti-depressants for a temporary bout of
depression you were dealing with after your father passed away. In
hindsight, the pills didn't help much and it all seemed so innocent at
the time.

But that was then and this is now -- when law-abiding gun owners get
entangled in the nets of the NRA's new-and-improved federal gun control
scheme: NICS.

Recently Wisconsin Republican State Senator Alberta Darling (River
Hills) announced she will sponsor a post-Virginia-Tech gun control bill
in the state legislature. Her bill will dump mental health data at the
state level into the federal National Instant Check System (NICS)
database. Darling claims these records will be used to disqualify those
"adjudicated mentally defective" from buying guns.

Darling's bill is a response to federal legislation introduced by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) -- formerly HR 297 which has now morphed into HR
2640, the "National Instant Check System (NICS) Enhancement Act" --
which would expand the scope of point-of-sale background checks to
survey the new influx of mental health records provided by states. The
Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued letters to state attorney
generals requesting they voluntarily supply court-held health record
data to the feds. So far only 23 states comply with those outlandish
demands.

This all came about when it was discovered that Virginia-Tech shooter
Cho Seung-Hui had been known to have had received psychological
treatment in his past and later legally purchased a handgun through NICS
-- a gun he used to kill 33 people. Representatives from both sides of
the aisle in congress "began negotiations" with NRA leadership to ram a
gun control bill into law to "close the loophole."

NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox claimed, "We've been on record for decades
for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's
not only good policy, it's good politics," he said.

Not so fast, Mr. Cox. An honest examination of this multifaceted issue
reveals that an expansion of NICS buys into a dangerous false premise
for all gun owners concerned about their liberty and is not sound policy
or good politics for the Second Amendment community or anyone else.
Here's why gun owners must not only oppose expanding the NICS background
check system, they must fight to repeal it.

NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR DIAGNOSING MENTAL ILLNESS

Since 1952, the American Psychiatry Association (APA) has utilized the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as its
standard for defining, diagnosing and treating mental health disorders.
Since its first printing, the manual has undergone five revisions, the
most recent being the DSM-IV, which was finalized in 1994. Currently a
fifth version is being prepared and is due out by 2012.

Each new version contradicts the previous version; new authors with new
perspectives and agendas write each new release. The standard keeps
changing, shifting, sometimes radically so -- the result is that mental
illness is never clearly or objectively defined. It is a moving target
shaped by political and social pressures.

"Following controversy and protests from gay activists at APA annual
conferences from 1970 to 1973, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in
1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After
talks led by the psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who had been involved in
the DSM-II development committee, a vote by the APA trustees in 1973,
confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, replaced the diagnosis
with a milder category of "sexual orientation disturbance."[1]

In today's politically correct climate, the most recent version of the
DSM-IV contains "no reference to homosexuality."[2]

Which DSM was correct or were both wrong? One can easily see the danger
this contradiction raises if these diagnoses were synced up with a gun
owner database that acts as an automated judge, jury and executioner for
the gun buyer. Such variance also calls into question the credibility of
those who define mental illness. Psychiatrists can't even agree amongst
themselves over a relatively short period of time on how to precisely
define mental illness on any given issue. Thirty years ago no one heard
the term "attention deficit disorder" or "post-traumatic stress
disorder" -- today diagnoses for these new mental illnesses are commonplace.

If NICS is expanded, expect entire groups of Wisconsinites to be denied
their right to purchase a firearm. Legislation like this paints with a
broad brush and will disarm many good people who should be able to buy
handguns. One such group is veterans.

"[NICS Expansion] could have a significant impact on American
servicemen," wrote Gun Owners of America recently, "especially those
returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric
care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress
disorder have been deemed as mentally 'incompetent' and are prohibited
from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances
certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration
turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the
NICS background check system."[3]

In addition to political pressures shaping the subjective nature of the
mental health field, biases influence the outcome of psychiatrists'
opinions, too. "Furthermore the potential of conflict of interest has
also been raised. Roughly 50% of the authors [of DSM] who previously
defined psychiatric disorders have had or have financial relationships
with drug companies." [4]

While good science conducted objectively can yield good psychological
evaluation and diagnosis, bad science fuels bad psychology rampantly and
happens when the entire basis of diagnosis ebbs and flows with the
political flavor of the day. The danger for misapplication here cuts
across the spectrum.

On one side of the spectrum: someone could be diagnosed today as
"mentally defective" who would later be undiagnosed tomorrow based on
which way the political or societal winds blow. In terms of the
psychiatric standards themselves, which DSM was right? Before the
politically correct movement gained steamed or after -- and which DSM
will the NICS system rely upon -- the one that may disarm you, or the
other that may not?

NICS TRUMPS DUE PROCESS

On the other end of the spectrum, there are cases where someone is
guiltless and becomes guilty. For example, there are gun owners sitting
in prison right now who are well familiar with the 1996 Lautenberg Act
-- a federal gun control monster that essentially said that anyone who
had been charged with misdemeanor domestic violence -- this could
include an unsubstantiated allegation that you raised your voice to a
family member who called 911 on you -- would result in your being
disarmed for life.

Like Lautenberg, the expansion of the NICS system involving mental
health determinations for gun purchase disqualifications relies upon the
mere assertion by a psychologist who must rely upon standards that do
not remain constant when they adjudicate you "mentally defective." Once
that diagnosis is made, you will not be able to buy a gun.

This top-down approach establishes a federal system that automatically
red flags based on a shocking amount of highly subjective data (as we
have seen). The result is that you are instantly presumed guilty by the
system without there having been any determination being made in a court
of law to prove that -- a gross injustice and mockery of American
jurisprudence.

Certainly there are disturbed individuals that can be objectively
determined to be incapable of possessing or buying guns; but that should
be determined on a case by case basis, objectively, and by affording the
individual their right to due process in a court of law.

This is why we say that NICS itself is based on a dangerous false
premise that paints with a broad brush, acts in a cold, robotic fashion
that stomps due process. For this reason alone, NICS should be repealed,
not expanded.

Even if NICS could stop a minority of cases that were misdiagnosed, we
would still have a larger issue in which our opponents would be pushing
forward an agenda that strips away from that minority its due process.
The solution is to let the State decide on a case by case basis from the
ground up in a court of law, contingent upon a charge at the local
level. This is good politics, good policy -- consistent with American
liberty and yet still deals with the issue of preventing people with
genuinely severe mental instabilities from buying guns (buying them
illegally remains another matter).

This stands in stark contrast to Mr. Cox's federal NICS gun control
scheme -- a system that imposes itself upon State jurisdiction and
enforces broad standards that infringe due process across the board.How
many rights tantamount to proper jurisprudence are we willing to give up
to continue to feed the belly of this federal leviathan, which will only
further subvert due process for thousands, perhaps millions of gun owners?

NICS IMPROPERLY SUBVERTS JURISDICTIONS

One maxim of good political strategy is that we never allow the enemy to
define the terrain of political battle. So let's back up: Are we gun
owners asking the wrong question in the first place? Why are state
representatives handing over our health record information here at home
in Wisconsin to distant Washington, D.C., bureaucracies -- agencies that
are coming in to steal not only your individual gun rights but the right
of your State to protect you?

It seems our state representatives are caving in to the federal bully --
betraying their oath of office openly -- oaths sworn to uphold our State
Constitution, which enumerates our right to keep and bear arms. The
federal government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution and Bill
of Rights and hence are limited by it.

“This bill violates…Mack v USA (95-1503) which states that ‘State
legislatures are not subject to federal direction,’” said Sheriff
Richard Mack, who won that landmark case after he refused to allow the
feds to compel him against his oath to conduct unconstitutional
background checks.

“The real irony here,” said Mack, “is that the NRA actually supported
and helped fund this suit and now clearly supports Schumer and McCarthy
as they violate the ruling the NRA helped pay to obtain in the first
place. HR 2640 directs the states to take action and such laws run afoul
of the separation of powers as set forth in the Tenth Amendment. I quote
again from Mack v USA, ‘But the Constitution protects us from our own
best intentions.’ I pray for the day when Congress and the NRA will
abide by the law of the land as established by our Founders! How do you
know the NRA is wrong on this law? When you notice that its primary
supporters are Schumer and McCarthy.”

Remember, that Supreme Court ruling on NICS remains in force. According
to Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, it
essentially said, "Congress cannot commandeer the resources of a state
to do its anti-gun bidding. This decision breathes new life into the
10th Amendment and our Republican form of government. The court ruled
that the states cannot be compelled to perform background checks on gun
purchasers," he wrote. Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO) concurs.

Knowing that the states cannot be forced to operate the unconstitutional
NICS scheme, the federal agencies that are pushing NICS and its
expansion are using a carrot-and-stick approach to threaten states that
they will withhold federal funding and other federal handouts. Our
state representatives should do their jobs by standing up to the feds,
instead of groveling at their feet.

GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO NICS

Perhaps Chris Cox and NRA leadership need their heads checked, as they
are walking in lockstep with notorious anti-gun Democrats in congress on
this issue. Their PR machine is revving up to sell NICS and its
continued expansion to NRA members packaged as a reasonable way to stop
the insane from buying handguns. [Remember NICS was Wayne LaPierre's idea. It was supposed to block the Brady Bill - which, of course, it didn't. Wayne has too much "political capital" invested in NICS to be able to impartially evaulate it.]

But Cox is divisively out of accord with most gun owners and most other
national and state gun rights organizations in our nation -- and in our
view willfully neglecting the wishes of NRA members who want to
preserve, rather than destroy, the Second Amendment. In our opinion, NRA
leadership's support of NICS is almost certainly out of touch with the
views of NRA members who, upon hearing the truth about this issue, will
see NICS as the proverbial "Emperor with no clothes" that it is --
compelling them to oppose it vehemently.

"Calling NICS a background check is simply a deception: the Brady system
is an elaborate scheme to register gun owners," said Dudley Brown,
Executive Director of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR)
"And it's the foothold the gun-grabbers need to enact even further
restrictions on our Second Amendment rights."Asking permission for a
right -- which is what the Brady Registration Check does -- turns it
into a government-administered privilege. How any 'gun rights group'
could support it, or its expansion, is beyond me," Brown said.[5]

In addition to national gun groups like NAGR and GOA opposing the NICS
mental health expansion, Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) is unified
with other state no compromise gun rights groups in our opposition. "The
NRA will open a can of worms about what mental health is and who gets to
decide who is mentally ill," said Ken Rineer, President of Gun Owners of
Arizona. "In today's 'politically correct' society, do you really want a
single judge deciding your mental competence to own a firearm? What is
mental illness? Is it someone who is depressed and on meds? Our courts
are not friendly to those who wish to own firearms and I would not want
my right to own one left to a single person wearing a black robe!"

New Hampshire gun owners killed a similar piece of legislation to the
one Wisconsin State Senator Alberta Darling intends to foist upon us
Badger State gun owners. "The bill in question was a blanket gun ban for
anyone who had gone to a shrink for any reason," wrote Alan Rice,
Treasurer of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition. "The definition and
diagnosis of mental illness is so subjective."

CONCLUSION

Expanding the National Instant Check System is wrong for gun owners and
dangerous for everyone else. We're the ones who are insane if we think
the subjective field of diagnostic psychiatrics can be trusted to
accurately define or diagnose mental illness in the first place. Once
that dangerous premise is established, linking these spurious diagnoses
with a federalized database scheme that trumps due process will only
lead to more injustice for gun owners while criminals continue to
subvert the system. Indeed, if we expand NICS to subsume all our private
medical records into a state and national gun owner database, we gun
owners aren't just nuts -- we've completely lost our minds.

Corey Graff is the Executive Director of Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO)
(wisconsingunowners.org), a registered Wisconsin lobbyist,
nationally-published author, outdoor writer, photographer and Active
Member of the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA).

OBJECTIONS TO NICS OPPOSITION REFUTED

OBJECTION: Even though criminals and mentally-defective individuals will
avoid NICS to get their guns, since we have the system in place
shouldn't we try to improve it? Shouldn't we try to stop the mentally
ill from buying guns?

RESPONSE: You just answered your own question, tacitly admitting that a
diagnosis of mental illness will not necessarily prevent that individual
from getting around the NICS system, thus conceding the worthlessness of
NICS in the first place. How could a mentally-ill person buying a gun
outside of a background check system use that gun to commit a crime if
they are surrounded at all times by competent citizens with guns who
know how to defend themselves? An armed society is a polite society. Gun
control doesn't prevent crime, it facilitates it. The question you
should be asking is, why have we disarmed our competent citizens to
begin with?

OBJECTION: Without the National Instant Check System, criminals could
legally buy guns. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claims that
since its inception in 1994, NICS has stopped "more than 600,000
criminals and other prohibited people from purchasing firearms from
FFLs."[6]

RESPONSE: "The most comprehensive study of the Brady Act finds the law
has not cut handgun killings.In fact, the law's main result is increased
violence against women... 'We weren't able to see any effect on the
homicide rate,' study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday. 'In
retrospect we would not expect Brady to be effective against violent
crime. Increasingly homicides are committed by career criminals who do
not get their guns in legal ways,' said the Duke University researcher."[7]

OBJECTION: NRA supports NICS and its expansion. If you're opposed to
this 'reasonable' measure, does that mean you want someone diagnosed
with severe schizophrenic disorder to be able to buy a handgun?

RESPONSE: We don't want schizophrenics to buy handguns, and that's not
the issue. We want a localized court of law to make that determination
on a case by case basis through objective analysis and diagnosis -- to
ensure the person's due process is upheld. NRA leadership appears to
have lost their marbles -- standing shoulder to shoulder with anti-gun
Democrats to expand an unconstitutional gun control law they themselves
know by their own arguments can and will be subverted by those
"adjudicated mentally defective" who are intent on committing a crime.

###

If you enjoyed reading about "more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mbt2001
June 18, 2007, 03:32 PM
My $0.02

As if this bill would have stopped the dude at VT. He still would have been angry, aggressive, sucidial and dangerous. He could have just as easy driven his car into some function at the University... YOU CAN'T STOP CRIME. YOU, Government, Linda Brady, John Wayne CANNOT STOP BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING.

Learn the lessons that an event teaches.... Quit acting as if we have the control to stop things. If you REALLY WANT TO STOP BAD CRAP FROM HAPPENING, BUILD A FREAKING TIME MACHINE.

That being said, I will write my senator. I doubt that will help, the sheeple have Baaaahhd. :rolleyes:

Noxx
June 18, 2007, 03:39 PM
As you leave the gun shop you're confused, infuriated and empty-handed.
You've never committed a crime in your life. You're a hunter education
safety instructor, a father, a life-long sportsmen, a military veteran
and are active in your church. Yet somehow a bureaucrat who knows
nothing about you claims you're a mental case. Finally you remember:
almost two decades ago, your family doctor sent you to see a
"specialist" who prescribed anti-depressants for a temporary bout of
depression you were dealing with after your father passed away. In
hindsight, the pills didn't help much and it all seemed so innocent at
the time.

But that was then and this is now -- when law-abiding gun owners get
entangled in the nets of the NRA's new-and-improved federal gun control
scheme: NICS.

Please read the full text of this legislation, this doesn't amount to much better than the scaremongering we see from the other side.

Ratzinger_p38
June 18, 2007, 05:38 PM
Please read the full text of this legislation, this doesn't amount to much better than the scaremongering we see from the other side.

Agreed. But that's what GOA does best. The WI group's statement is so ridiculous and wrong.

Chad
June 18, 2007, 06:41 PM
Something I read earlier today applies...

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
-President Lyndon Johnson

TrybalRage
June 18, 2007, 06:48 PM
Monday, June 18, 2007

The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The
House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun
control law in over a decade."

It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been
lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.

This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
"No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me."

But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys'
list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).

Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has
come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
passes [to impose additional gun control]."

Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.

The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman's terms, the
problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA's
legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in
addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE
interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please
go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.)

So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
military veterans from ever owning a gun again.

In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of
military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
(PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
them from buying or owning guns.

For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number
of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.

Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
-- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get
their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.

The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
this.)

How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
to himself or others?

And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law
which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who
are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not
repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your
name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to
be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
"generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
procedure created in 1986!

But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were --
even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and
yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.

Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a
"diagnosis."
Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
shouldn't)?

Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
their rights restored!

Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.

Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a
drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
"adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term
referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
of insanity.

Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law...
especially when it comes to banning guns?

After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
(See footnotes below.)

So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're
a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble,
and so
are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
could also apply to these kids.

Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with
Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and
thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's
determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.

You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
that has become the new standard for banning guns.

But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!

So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
(dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
"substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk.

Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or
a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's
been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a
LIFETIME gun ban.

This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch
list" (S. 1237).

While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected
terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is
headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head
right now.

NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
Section 3 of the bill.

Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated
as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL
AUTHORITY"
(like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't
have to
be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include
"any danger" at all.
How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

FOOTNOTES:

(1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).

(2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).

(3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).

Hypnogator
June 18, 2007, 07:24 PM
The Sky Is Falling!
The Sky is Falling!

Film at Eleven. :rolleyes:

alan
June 18, 2007, 07:49 PM
The following appears to be written in plain English rather than "legalese", the reading of which is sometimes problematic. H.R. 2640 can be read at thomas.loc.gov. Interested parties might also read S.1237, also at thomas.loc.gov, which appears worse. Judge for yourselves, but do not forget to contact your U.S. Senators.

McCarthy Bill Moves To The Senate
-- "Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in
years

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

ACTION:

1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640)
which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats.
Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners,
but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen.
Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two
have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!!

2. Please use the contact information below -- and the pre-written
letter -- to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this
alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we
remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce
crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of
law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia
Tech is to REPEAL the "gun free zones" which leave law-abiding
victims defenseless.


Monday, June 18, 2007

The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The
House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun
control law in over a decade."

It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been
lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.

This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
"No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me."

But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys'
list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).

Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has
come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
passes [to impose additional gun control]."

Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.

The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman's terms, the
problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA's
legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in
addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE
interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please
go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.)

So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
military veterans from ever owning a gun again.

In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of
military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
(PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
them from buying or owning guns.

For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number
of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.

Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
-- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get
their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.

The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
this.)

How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
to himself or others?

And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law
which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who
are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not
repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your
name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to
be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
"generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
procedure created in 1986!

But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were --
even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and
yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.

Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a
"diagnosis."
Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
shouldn't)?

Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
their rights restored!

Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.

Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a
drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
"adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term
referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
of insanity.

Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law...
especially when it comes to banning guns?

After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
(See footnotes below.)

So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're
a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble,
and so
are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
could also apply to these kids.

Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with
Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and
thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's
determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.

You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
that has become the new standard for banning guns.

But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!

So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
(dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
"substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk.

Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or
a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's
been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a
LIFETIME gun ban.

This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch
list" (S. 1237).

While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected
terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is
headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head
right now.

NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
Section 3 of the bill.

Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated
as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL
AUTHORITY"
(like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't
have to
be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include
"any danger" at all.
How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

FOOTNOTES:

(1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).

(2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).

(3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators
the pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support the
so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR 2640), which was snuck
through the House last week.

This bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years. For the
first time in American history, this bill would impose a lifetime gun
ban on battle-scarred veterans and troubled teens -- based solely on
the diagnosis of a psychologist (as opposed to a finding by a court).

You can read more about the problems with this bill by going to the
website of Gun Owners of America at
http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm.

Gun owners OPPOSE this legislation, and I hope you will join the
handful of Senators that have placed "holds" on this bill and
object
to any Unanimous Consent agreement.

Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos
from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another
shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law
has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they
recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or
in England!

If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
consider this:

"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
permanently removed from that system."

Sincerely,

.45&TKD
June 18, 2007, 08:01 PM
My AZ Senators already called and written to. Thanks.

Chad
June 18, 2007, 08:04 PM
Done and done!

Weren't folks saying a while back that the democrats weren't going to do anything about gun control because they were afraid of it?

Seems like they got over their fear.

gc70
June 18, 2007, 08:20 PM
For me, the surprising revelation about HR 2640 is how many people prefer to be fed an opinion rather than going to the source and developing their own.

xd9fan
June 18, 2007, 08:37 PM
The GOP is not listening to us on Illegal Immigration.......will they listen to us on this??
losing faith

tecrsq
June 18, 2007, 09:26 PM
I got the same email from G.O.A. then promptly and tactfully rewrote the letter to my Politicians.

Emails sent and I also forwarded it to all in my contacts list.

F4GIB
June 18, 2007, 10:11 PM
Here's the key for those of you who love this bill.

Brett Bellmore posted:
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.

Voice votes in the Congress are always taken to provide "cover" from voter retaliation. In this case, cover for those who follow the NRA line.

Al Norris
June 18, 2007, 10:13 PM
The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
others.
FUD.

§ 101(c)(1)(c) does not say that at all:
(c) STANDARD ADJUDICATIONS, COMMITMENTS, FOR DETERMINATIONS RELATED MENTAL AND TO HEALTH.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if—

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.
This requires more than some "microscopic" risk.
And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law
which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who
are barred from purchasing firearms.
More FUD.

§ 105 explicitly does away the § 925(c) requirements for relief of disability for this particular disability and gives that power to the States. Bypasses Schumer altogether.

Further, § 105 authorizes the States to use a board, commission, the Courts... Whatever the States decide to use. It won't necessarily cost anything. That would be entirely up to the individual States.

And that's just 2 areas that the GOA is sooo wrong. I could go on and on. But what's the use? Some of you have simply bought into the GOA's paranoia and are spreading FUD.

F4GIB
June 18, 2007, 10:21 PM
No "adjudication" required. Just someone's untested opinion.

The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
others.

:cuss:

camacho
June 18, 2007, 10:21 PM
Nothing new from the GOA. The same old the "sky is falling" and the "NRA is really an anti-gun organization" rhetoric:barf: They must be really hurting for members.

JohnBT
June 18, 2007, 10:43 PM
"Please understand that GOA's legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill,"

How many? Two or three it appears.

John

JohnBT
June 18, 2007, 10:46 PM
"Each new version contradicts the previous version"

Nonsense. Changes have been made to the DSM over the years, but each new version does not contradict the previous one.


"Voice votes in the Congress are always taken to provide "cover" from voter retaliation."

Do you actually believe what you've written? Try googling voice votes. You'll find articles like this one on hospice care. Exactly who was afraid of voter retaliation on the issue of hospice care?

"CONGRESS VOTES HIGHER PAYMENTS FOR HOSPICE CARE - New York Times. The measure was passed by voice vote of the Senate without debate. Last year Congress approved legislation to provide Medicare reimbursement for hospice ..."

John

.45&TKD
June 18, 2007, 10:47 PM
Nothing new from the GOA. The same old the "sky is falling" and the "NRA is really an anti-gun organization" rhetoric

If NRA (with its larger membership) was as uncompromising as GOA we would be better off. This last house bill would never have gotten through without the NRA's help.

Matt King
June 18, 2007, 11:02 PM
If NRA (with its larger membership) was as uncompromising as GOA we would be better off. This last house bill would never have gotten through without the NRA's help.

No, if the NRA acted like GOA we would all be living under H.R.10/22 type legislation. The NRA has a relatively small membership( Only four million) yet they wield enormous political clout. The reason? They are willing to compromise when necessary. After the VT shootings, there were going to be gun control bills passed, it was just a measure of severity. The NRA worked hard and agreed on a comprise. If the NRA had taken GOA's no compromise approach, we would be looking at another ban on all high cap magazines.

Matt King
June 18, 2007, 11:03 PM
Double post. Some computer error, sorry.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 18, 2007, 11:06 PM
This is either the gun industry scaring us into buying massive numbers of arms before the hammer drops, or Congress looking to become that oligarchy they've always wanted to be. In either case, it's working and I'm buying arms. It's no longer a whim thing or a use of discretionary cash. It's now in the budget. If taxes go up, I'll downsize so that the arms budget won't suffer.

The shame of it all is that I probably won't live long enough through confiscation to get to use them all. The wife and kids might, though!

Woody


"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

gc70
June 18, 2007, 11:31 PM
Voice votes in the Congress are always taken to provide "cover" from voter retaliation.

Really?

6/12/2007 - H.R. 2637 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=H6251&position=all) (Child Labor Protection Act of 2007) - voice vote.
6/12/2007 - H.R. 2358 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=H6248&position=all) (Native American $1 Coin Program) - voice vote.
6/12/2007 - S. passed H.R. 57 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S7572&position=all) (repealing sections of 5/26/1936 Act re: Virgin Islands) - unanimous consent.
6/13/2007 - S. Res. 234 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S7676&position=all) (National Huntington's Disease Awareness Day) - unanimous consent.

.45&TKD
June 18, 2007, 11:37 PM
After the VT shootings, there were going to be gun control bills passed, it was just a measure of severity.

The democrats all thought that gun control was a loser going into an election cycle. That's why no one wanted to be on record for voting for this. If the NRA had not negotiated, there would not have been any gun control bill because of VT. Even the polls were on our side.

The pro-gun owners that believed the above quote got suckered. Unfortunately, every time you get suckered, we all lose.

billwiese
June 18, 2007, 11:47 PM
The NRA is getting tremendous political capital out of this.

No real change, except no crazies not having guns purchased at FFLs. And there are methods included for restoration of status - something that was a problem before with PTSD vets, etc.

In addition, on-the-fence legislators in tight districts can claim they voted for gun safety using this bill as a refuge in case some other antigun bills come up.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled NRA bashing by political nincompoops who haven't taken a 9th-grade civics/politics class, and to the GOA who needs to raise funds by bashing the NRA and who can't name a single accomplishment in their history.



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

camacho
June 18, 2007, 11:49 PM
No, if the NRA acted like GOA we would all be living under H.R.10/22 type legislation. Absolutely, I will even add that if it is up to those guys (GOA), the RKBA as we know it will vanish within few years.

tmajors
June 19, 2007, 12:22 AM
who has been diagnosed with ADD and thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult.

I was reading this to my wife and she says "how bad would it be that an ADD kid had a gun? He'd be like um what am I doing with this?"

Don't Tread On Me
June 19, 2007, 01:52 AM
The NRA hates our veterans.


Bet those with lifetime memberships feel good now.

RealGun
June 19, 2007, 08:36 AM
GOA who needs to raise funds by bashing the NRA and who can't name a single accomplishment in their history - billweise

Name an NRA accomplishment. How does a lobbyist measure accomplishments? If it is by passage or defeat of bills, GOA and NRA would both have a claim wherever they agree on a bill.

Just a reminder to those who think this bill is innocuous, Congress has no jurisdiction. They are blackmailing States into complying, relying on the power they acquired with the income tax amendment. NICS is no way in charge here. The tail is wagging the dog. There may need to be a way of coordinating State action, but it should be constitutional and above board, not a house of cards.

JohnBT
June 19, 2007, 11:49 AM
"that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis"

Would someone at GOA PLEASE proofread and edit this poor guy's writing.

Possible options:

-that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnose

-psychiatric or psychological diagnosis

-psychiatrist's or psychologist's diagnosis

heck, -psychiatrists' or psychologists' diagnoses

IOW, WTH is a psychiatrist diagnosis? I know he's trying to say a diagnosis by a psychiatrist, etc., but it's just horrible English. AND, being an M.D. a psychiatrist can diagnose a patient's broken leg, migraine or common cold and then write a prescription. They're medical doctors after all.

Thanks, now I feel better.

John

Matt King
June 19, 2007, 12:19 PM
The democrats all thought that gun control was a loser going into an election cycle. That's why no one wanted to be on record for voting for this. If the NRA had not negotiated, there would not have been any gun control bill because of VT. Even the polls were on our side.

The pro-gun owners that believed the above quote got suckered. Unfortunately, every time you get suckered, we all lose.

No, after the VT tech shootings, there was going to be some type of gun control legislation passed. The difference between the NRA's approach to combating gun control, and GOA's; is that GOA stands outside capitol hill chanting "Hitler was for gun control", while the NRA actually works with our legislators to help strengthen the pro-gun agenda. Trust me, if the NRA had acted like GOA this time, we would be looking at something a lot worse than what we are now.


The NRA hates our veterans.

How is that?

RealGun
June 19, 2007, 12:23 PM
Psychologist - analyze and address behavior

Psychiatrist - analyze and address systemic causes of behavior. The end of the referral chain, short of a surgeon performing a lobotomy.

It seems to me appropriate to consider either qualified to determine if one is "a danger to himself and others". My concern would be to what level of risk. Is anyone ever absolutely benign? Is liability defined?

ConstitutionCowboy
June 19, 2007, 12:35 PM
John, there is nothing contextually or grammatically wrong with the snippet you pointed out. "Diagnosis" is the identification of a disease, what has been determined to be the cause of as problem, the name of the disease or disorder. It's not the process used to find the disease. That is "to diagnose".

What you've cut out to pick apart is out of context and it makes perfect sense when taken in its entire context.

While I disagree that anything that has not been adjudicated can be used to keep anyone from their arms or acquiring arms, there is nothing wrong with the way the sentence is written.

Woody

HiroProX
June 19, 2007, 12:49 PM
Makes one wish the NRA would apply their "no net loss" idea on sportsman access to the RKBA.

If this goes on we're gonna be compromised right out of our rights, because each compromise is sooo "reasonable".

Tim James
June 19, 2007, 01:01 PM
For me, the surprising revelation about HR 2640 is how many people prefer to be fed an opinion rather than going to the source and developing their own.Actually, I find that it really frees up a lot of time in my day if I feed on others' trusted opinions, utilize racial and gender stereotypes, and ignore opposing viewpoints to my ideas!

F4GIB
June 19, 2007, 01:02 PM
JohnBt posted:
AND, being an M.D. a psychiatrist can diagnose a patient's broken leg, migraine or common cold and then write a prescription. They're medical doctors after all.

And a proctologist [rectum specalist] can diagnose and treat schizophrenia too! Knowledge is not a prerequisite to "playing doctor" outside your field.

A gynocologist [vagina specialist] can diagnose and treat brain chemistry disorders (what psychiatrists think causes insanity) too.

Doesn't that make you feel secure about NRA's "deal?"

ForeignDude
June 19, 2007, 01:14 PM
There's a lot of fog in the air, and I think it's hard to know what's what. For my part, I'm going with GOA on this one. I give you four reasons.

First, I'm a psychologist by training (although I am not a practicing clinician). However, I know the research behind psychiatric diagnoses in DSM and the consensus process whereby syndromes are defined and included in, or excluded from, DSM. As an example: passive-aggressive personality disorder was removed from DSM-IV, although it had been a psychiatric diagnosis for years (DSM-I through DSM-III-R). Similarly, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder until "gay liberation" activists managed to get the designation removed in the 1970's.

In other words, old syndromes may be dropped and new ones defined. Therein lies the danger. Consider the possibility that in some future iteration of DSM, a new syndrome might be defined: "incipient aggressive personality disorder". The symptoms of this disorder may include: (1) unreasonable fear of crime or assault; (2) a strong desire to accumulate firearms in quantities greater than those needed for sport; (3) a stated willingness to utilize firearms for means other than sport (e.g., "self-defense", etc.); (4) dreams or nightmares linked to use of firearms (e.g., dreams of using a handgun to shoot another human being). The possibility is not so remote. Even now, it would not be difficult to diagnose us on this board as suffering from one or another anxiety disorder based on our careful study of crime, our decision to carry a gun, attendance at tactical defense schools, discussions of tactical scenarios, etc.

The second reason I'm going with GOA on this one is that I dare not trust Schumer or McCarthy (or Dingell, for that matter) on an issue so central to the core of our Republic.

Third, I'm going with GOA on this one based on a simple cost-benefit analysis. To wit, what if this bill expands into a monstrosity that renders half the population ineligible to even hold a gun? What do we stand to lose (if we're wrong)?

Finally (and this ain't easy for me to admit publicly like this), I have grappled with unipolar depression for decades. Only recently have I brought it under control, and only with the aid of medication. So, there is a deep measure of concern that motivates my decision: if this bill goes through and expands beyond its alleged purpose, my gun rights will be going under the bus very early in the game.

Be safe, and practice often!

Art Eatman
June 19, 2007, 02:29 PM
"It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers."

No. Not true. It does not expand; it merely funds a presently-inefficient system. The inefficiencies of the present records-keeping have allowed violent felons and court-adjudicated mental-problem people to get past the NICS.

And that's the "why" of the NRA cooperation. Without the NRA's efforts, the bill could well have wound up as the GOA would have us believe. And the GOA could not do anything about that, due to little or no influence or credibility with Congress. The GOA does have value in being able to get people to contact their legislators, but little beyond that.

Art

Rumble
June 19, 2007, 02:34 PM
Okay, so here's my question: isn't it already possible to add a diagnosis to the DSM, such as the "incipient aggressive personality disorder," and then have people adjudicated mentally defective anyway? It's a scary scenario; but it was possible before HR2640 as well, was it not?

What about this bill has enhanced that possibility? Is it that now states are being encouraged to submit their own records, which may have different standards?

That the bill was sponsored by notable anti-gun politicians, and the fact that I doubt the NRA can stop this train is sufficient reason to be worried, but I don't see what this actual bill does to enhance the danger that we all end up being diagnosed with some mental defect simply because we like weapons.


Edit. Okay, wait. I see something I've been misreading, and that may be the crux of the GOA's issues: there's nowhere in here saying that a finding of disability + danger to self and others must be issued by a court. Technically, it appears that a medical professional's findings of mental disability will be considered sufficient if they also include a finding of danger to self and others. Is that true? Or is "danger to self and others" already something only a court can declare?

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 02:36 PM
Art,
The systems inefficiency was its only saving grace.

Jefferson

tmajors
June 19, 2007, 02:40 PM
It's actually a fairly short bill to sift through. Not bad at all, unlike that 1000page novel of an immigration bill.

Sage of Seattle
June 19, 2007, 02:41 PM
The systems inefficiency was its only saving grace.

Oh? And that same inefficiency which prevented people from gaining back their rights is a saving grace, how?

Noxx
June 19, 2007, 02:53 PM
there's nowhere in here saying that a finding of disability + danger to self and others must be issued by a court.

Yes there is, that's the very definition of the word "adjudicated", the legal process by which a judge reviews evidence by opposing parties and reaches a binding decision.

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 02:55 PM
The new additions still won't allow those who have lost their rights get them back if Schumer defunds it like he did with the last one. The state courts may be the first stop but the BATFE still has to change the database. If he has done it once he'll do it again. But they won't touch the new reporting requirements, so we'll end up with more reporting and still no hope in hell of ever getting your rights restored.

Jefferson

RealGun
June 19, 2007, 02:58 PM
it merely funds a presently-inefficient system. - Art

I believe it's true that legislation does not include actual appropriations. HR2640 would not "fund" in any true sense. I think in this case the bill is actually "forcing" States to comply if they want all other State appropriations from big daddy purse strings. REAL ID Act, same thing. Submittals to NICS rely upon the fed paying States to cover the expenses, as opposed to "an unfunded mandate".

Rumble
June 19, 2007, 03:00 PM
Yes there is, that's the very definition of the word "adjudicated", the legal process by which a judge reviews evidence by opposing parties and reaches a binding decision.

That's a good point; however, they appear to distinguish adjudications, determinations, and commitments as separate entities in the text of the bill. I assumed that a "determination" was not necessarily a court-issued finding.

This may be wrong (certainly not my first time being wrong); it may also be meaningless, since the 4473 only covers adjudications and commitments, not determinations, in which case, I stand corrected.

ancient_philosophy
June 19, 2007, 03:03 PM
the original post is an utter lie

NOBODY who sought mental help///was-is on pills, will be denied a gun


this ONLY affects those, at COURT LEVEL, are AJUDICATED (ie JUDGE) mentally ill , etc.


nobody who was 'depressed' etc at an early age is anyone subject to denial of a gun.

Knucklehead2
June 19, 2007, 03:05 PM
Oh? And that same inefficiency which prevented people from gaining back their rights is a saving grace, how?

This bill does nothing for the people denied by NICS unless it is for mental reasons. How many of the over 600,000 denied are for mental reasons, how many of those will have the finances to restore their rights?

Sage of Seattle
June 19, 2007, 03:05 PM
The new additions still won't allow those who have lost their rights get them back if Schumer defunds it like he did with the last one.

Okay. I'm still kinda on the fence about this particular bill, but a question which I brought up before in a different but related thread is to all of those who support this bill: why then didn't the NRA push to have mandated funding for restoration of rights or a repeal of this Schumer amendment or whatever it was that de facto defunded the original bill, which had provisions already to have one's rights restored?

Sage of Seattle
June 19, 2007, 03:11 PM
This bill does nothing for the people denied by NICS unless it is for mental reasons. How many of the over 600,000 denied are for mental reasons, how many of those will have the finances to restore their rights?

Well, according to the numbers being used, 90,000 vets with PSTD were summarily added to the rolls of prohibited persons; I'm sure there are another ten thousand or so with other legitimate reasons for no longer being prohibited due to mental health reasons. I'm not saying that EVERY ONE of the people who have been denied are there by mistake or what have you, but I'm sure those people who are, would be grateful for the opportunity to get their rights back. I know that in Washington state, one can have their 2A rights restored on a state level already as is the case in many states. My argument for this bill would be that it allows the state to amend the federal prohibition list -- as it should be.

As it stands, the state puts you on the list and the feds don't ever take you off.

RealGun
June 19, 2007, 03:16 PM
Yes there is, that's the very definition of the word "adjudicated", the legal process by which a judge reviews evidence by opposing parties and reaches a binding decision.

A prosecuting attorney would never argue the meaning of the word "adjudicated'.:rolleyes:

I would feel better if it was explicit, say "legally adjudicated". I don't think that is necessarily redundant, considering how other laws have been abused.

Rumble
June 19, 2007, 03:25 PM
A prosecuting attorney would never argue the meaning of the word "adjudicated'.

I would feel better if it was explicit, say "legally adjudicated". I don't think that is necessarily redundant, considering how other laws have been abused.


I went rooting around my library's resources for definitions of all this stuff (I have some time on my hands at the reference desk). "Adjudicated mentally defective" is defined in 27 CFR 478.11 as:

"Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(b) The term shall include—

(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b."

I wonder what "other lawful authority" is. There is some room for argument.

ancient_philosophy
June 19, 2007, 03:29 PM
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!:scrutiny:


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.

BBQJOE
June 19, 2007, 03:35 PM
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the certifiably mentally incompetent or completely unstable should be walking around with guns, But I don't believe I ever saw it written in the 2A that a person had a right to bear arms only if he was of sound mind.

JohnBT
June 19, 2007, 04:06 PM
"As an example: passive-aggressive personality disorder was removed from DSM-IV, although it had been a psychiatric diagnosis for years (DSM-I through DSM-III-R)."
_______________

Please refer to DSM-IV:

301.9 - Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

"...for disorders of personality functioning that do not meet the critera for any specific Personality Disorder." ... "This category can also be used when the clinician judges that a specific Personality Disorder that is not included in the Classification is appropriate. Examples include depressive personality disorder and PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE personality disorder."

So, while it got downgraded and doesn't have its own big number in the book, it didn't completely disappear.

John

JohnBT
June 19, 2007, 04:09 PM
I don't believe I saw anything in the 2nd Amendment that said 4-year-olds can't go into a gun store and buy a gun on the way to school either.

John

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 04:11 PM
Constitutional amendments apply to citizens. Minors are not citizens that's why they get a special body of laws and preferential sentencing. Now knock it off with the kiddy gun remarks.

Jefferson

rdhood
June 19, 2007, 04:26 PM
the original post is an utter lie

NOBODY who sought mental help///was-is on pills, will be denied a gun


this ONLY affects those, at COURT LEVEL, are AJUDICATED (ie JUDGE) mentally ill , etc.


nobody who was 'depressed' etc at an early age is anyone subject to denial of a gun.

For now.

This is a "game" of inches, where gun owners are the only folks giving up anything...ever.

If they want to streamline the NICS process, how about bringing a NICS denial appeal to a close within..... say... a MONTH. I know for a fact that the only responsibility (time wise) that NICS has to the citizen during an appeal is to send a fingerprint card to them in less than 5 business days after their appeal. After that, they can and do take all the time that they want, and they tell you that in the letter. It literally takes months and months to appeal a denial. What part of "shall not be infringed" is not being understood here?

NICS is a joke, and it is the tool of the left to delay and deny 2nd amendment rights. Helping it in ANY way except to speed it up (and this bill doesn't do it) is a mistake.

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 04:38 PM
Please consider this bill in light of the article in this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=283678

And tell me again that this isn't the opening volley of the next assault on our freedoms

Jefferson

Meathook
June 19, 2007, 04:41 PM
I oppose this bill for a couple of reasons.

There is too much ambiguity in this bill and no clear path for people to get their names removed form the NICS check list without significant legal costs.

Most of this is covered by current laws and there is no need for the additional expense to tax payers. 250,000,000 is about a dollar for every person in the country. For something that will do nothing to prevent someone from committing another VT. Let's start a database so "crazy" people can't buy gasoline or use kitchen knives. Better yet lets take away their rights to free speech or their right to vote or fair trial.

Hows this for off the wall thinking: If these people aren't cured or rehabilitated and are still a danger to themselves or others why are they on the street at all.

The NRA in bed with McCarthy is about as bad as George Bush with Ted Kennedy on the immigration bill. Frankly it all disgusts me. :barf:

.45&TKD
June 19, 2007, 05:37 PM
"It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers."

No. Not true. It does not expand; it merely funds a presently-inefficient system. The inefficiencies of the present records-keeping have allowed violent felons and court-adjudicated mental-problem people to get past the NICS.

And that's the "why" of the NRA cooperation. Without the NRA's efforts, the bill could well have wound up as the GOA would have us believe. And the GOA could not do anything about that, due to little or no influence or credibility with Congress. The GOA does have value in being able to get people to contact their legislators, but little beyond that.

Art

I'm sorry Art, but increasing funding for a system is expanding that system.

These "violent felons and court-adjudicated mental-problem people" will get weapons illegally anyway, no matter how efficient NICS gets.

And, why can't the NRA regularly encourage people to contact their legislators the way that GOA does?

Brett Bellmore
June 19, 2007, 06:47 PM
My objection to this bill derives primarilly from the way it was passed: Good bills don't have to be passed that way. Good bills are enacted openly, with members recording their votes, because they don't fear the public knowing who voted for them.

It was their judgement, and the judgement of the NRA, that this wouldn't have gotten past the House if they'd scheduled the vote in advance, and done a roll call vote. That says worlds about what kind of bill THEY think it is.

.45&TKD
June 19, 2007, 06:50 PM
Bret,

Well said.

illspirit
June 19, 2007, 07:34 PM
Hmm.. Seeing as 90K vets' V.A. records were added by executive fiat, might this bill encourage more records to be added like that? Including military spouses and children? Or what about government employees like ,say, law enforcement, who sometimes undergo psychological pre-screening or later counseling for job-related stress? If vets can be added to NICS for seeking help with PTSD or whatever, might a State's records of a cop visiting a department shrink for depression/PTSD/etc.. after a deadly force situation be added?

And what happens if we end up with some sort of socialist health care system? Would visits to a state-funded psychiatrist be dumped into NICS like the V.A. records were? Yes, it's not a "adjudication" in the literal sense, but if the BATFE and the Clinton administration felt that a V.A. doctor is a "lawful authority" with or without a court martial, might a state-run doctor's opinion be treated the same?

Maybe this is just a tinfoil-induced slippery slope argument, but how much further can they nudge us towards the slope before we go sliding down it?

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 07:37 PM
Wouldn't have stopped cho anyway he wasn't legally adjudicated, he was just ordered to counseling.

Jefferson

Al Norris
June 19, 2007, 08:09 PM
Art, we are whistling to the wind... In the dark!

First, how a person is involuntarily committed, varies from state to state. In Idaho, I can only be involuntarily committed by a court. A hearing must be held. Therefore, in Idaho, you must be adjudicated in order to be committed. Your State may not be this strict... So get on it and change your laws!

Second, The BATF has nothing whatsoever to do with who gets placed on the NICS database. That's the job of the FBI. This bill says in no uncertain or ambiguous terms that should your State remove the disability, then the FBI will remove your name from the NICS database. Further, it will be as if it was never there to begin with. That's all in section 105.

Third, since this is all done by State action, there is absolutely nothing to defund - Eat your heart out, Chuckie!

madmike
June 19, 2007, 08:27 PM
And there are methods included for restoration of status

"They might violate your rights for a while, but don't worry, you can petition to get them back."

Schumer, on top of gun control, was pushing for government price controls on name-brand breakfast cereal a few years back--it was "too expensive" for the typical consumer, who apparently isn't smart enough to buy generic or use oatmeal. Therefore, they must be protected by the government.

He's a Nazi (Nationalist + Socialist) clown, and anything he supports should be opposed by anyone with any decency. End of discussion. If he comes out tomorrow and supports abolishing the IRS, I'm going to double check the language of the bill and look for the fine print where it will undoubtedly say, "All Americans will be paid by the State according to their needs."

Ditto for McCarthy.

If you compromise with refuse, you get smeared.

And good to see that NRA bashing is unacceptable. GOA bashing, of course, is perfectly okay. After all, they don't matter. They're loons who believe in a Second Amendment as written and won't "compromise."

What kind of fool supports THAT?

After all, NFA, GCA 68, the full auto ban, the 94 AWB, Brady, the CA ban, aren't all THAT bad, are they?

Hey, we got FOPA. So it was a compromise and fair, right?

Besides, some gun control is inevitable. Now, here's what you do: pick the kind that hurts least and use lots of lube. Don't worry, in a few years you'll learn to accept it. Fighting it will be TOO HARD! Besides, you might lose, so why not bend over and take it without a fight?:fire::cuss::banghead:

.45&TKD
June 19, 2007, 08:38 PM
This bill says in no uncertain or ambiguous terms that should your State remove the disability, then the FBI will remove your name from the NICS database. Further, it will be as if it was never there to begin with.

Is this the same FBI (or was it BATFE) that got caught keeping NICS gun records for 6 months or longer, that were supposed to be deleted/destroyed in 24-48 hours, in violation of existing law? (Has that ever been corrected? If so, do you trust that it actually was corrected?)

My point is these alphabet organizations don't even obey these laws, so why give them more information, that you know they will only abuse at some later date?

gc70
June 19, 2007, 09:17 PM
Minors are not citizens that's why they get a special body of laws and preferential sentencing.Minors receive special judicial treatment because they are not adults. As to minors not being citizens, read about "birthright citizenship (http://www.google.com/search?q=birthright+citizenship&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-17,GGGL:en)."

Bartholomew Roberts
June 19, 2007, 10:06 PM
Is this the same FBI (or was it BATFE) that got caught keeping NICS gun records for 6 months or longer, that were supposed to be deleted/destroyed in 24-48 hours, in violation of existing law? (Has that ever been corrected? If so, do you trust that it actually was corrected?)

The law required that the records be destroyed; but didn't specify a time limit. The Clinton Administration took the position that 18 months was sufficient time. Gun rights groups took the position that it should be immediately. After comment on rule making, the FBI settled on 6 months and successfully defended that policy against lawsuits by NRA and other gun rights groups.

When Ashcroft took over DoJ in 2000, he changed the policy to 24 hours. In 2002, after Republicans gained back the Senate and House, they wrote the 24 hour period into law.

My point is these alphabet organizations don't even obey these laws, so why give them more information, that you know they will only abuse at some later date?

It seems to me that many gun owners don't understand existing gun laws all that well - which isn't suprising given the complexity and lack of logic of many of them; but it leads to a lot of confusion over proposed legislation as well.

Noxx
June 19, 2007, 10:07 PM
And good to see that NRA bashing is unacceptable. GOA bashing, of course, is perfectly okay. After all, they don't matter. They're loons who believe in a Second Amendment as written and won't "compromise."

My problem with the GOA isn't their unwillingness to compromise, but their willingness to outright lie to their own supporters in an attempt to whip up sentiment. I thought that was the purview of the Fed.

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 10:09 PM
t seems to me that many gun owners don't understand existing gun laws all that well - which isn't suprising given the complexity and lack of logic of many of them; but it leads to a lot of confusion over proposed legislation as well.
Funny really considering that the only valid federal firearm law is exactly one sentence long.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.emphasis added

Jefferson

JohnBT
June 19, 2007, 10:20 PM
"Shall Not"

Illegal aliens? Five-year-olds? Felons? Crack addicts? Speed freaks?

Everybody gets a free pass?

Of course, when the 2nd was written it didn't include everybody in the country, but you gloss right over that, don't you?

John

Brett Bellmore
June 19, 2007, 10:20 PM
Seeing as 90K vets' V.A. records were added by executive fiat

A question we might ask Bush: If records can be added by executive fiat, why can't they be subtracted by executive fiat?

JohnBT
June 19, 2007, 10:23 PM
See if the GOA can get him on the phone.

;)

JohnBT
June 19, 2007, 10:32 PM
"Most of this is covered by current laws "

Well, no it isn't. Only 22 states currently report the names of individuals who have been adjudicated mentally ill. The rest don't. Some of the 22 states don't report complete info or much of anything at all. That's why they're increasing the funding for entering the info.

Almost half of the mental health related info in NICS is from... Virginia.

The law is there, but the system to enforce it isn't, even after 40 years.

John

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 10:35 PM
Illegal aliens? Five-year-olds? Felons? Crack addicts? Speed freaks?

If that is what it takes for me to keep my rights then yes every last one of them. The people have changed over the years but the sentiment and the law remain the same.

Jefferson

Cosmoline
June 19, 2007, 10:41 PM
While there's no standard for what mentally ill is, there is a standard for what "adjudicated mentally defective" means. Going to the shrink isn't sufficient, there has to be a court determination that you're bonkers.

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 10:45 PM
Almost half of the mental health related info in NICS is from... Virginia.

Exactly so this wouldn't have stopped Cho at all as his State already was in compliance.

Jefferson

.45&TKD
June 19, 2007, 11:01 PM
It seems to me that many gun owners don't understand existing gun laws all that well - which isn't suprising given the complexity and lack of logic of many of them; but it leads to a lot of confusion over proposed legislation as well.

Bart, I appreciate your clarification on what I half remembered. Though, even with your clarification, it was still an abuse by the alphabets.

But I hope you're not suggesting that our opposition to this latest legislation is due to some misunderstanding on our part. The concerns posted by people opposed to this legislation are legitimate concerns that should have been debated in the House prior to a vote.

gc70
June 19, 2007, 11:17 PM
Exactly so this wouldn't have stopped Cho at all as his State already was in compliance.So? The purpose of the legislation is not to produce results, but to give the perception of Congress vigorously taking action. In fact, the less effective this type of legislation proves to be, the more opportunity Congress has to create the perception of action in the future.

Meathook
June 19, 2007, 11:18 PM
"Most of this is covered by current laws "

Well, no it isn't. Only 22 states currently report the names of individuals who have been adjudicated mentally ill. The rest don't. Some of the 22 states don't report complete info or much of anything at all. That's why they're increasing the funding for entering the info.

Almost half of the mental health related info in NICS is from... Virginia.

The law is there, but the system to enforce it isn't, even after 40 years.

John

My point exactly the law is there and they don't enforce it. So lets take the typical government stance and throw money at it. It still will make no difference and we will be out another 250 million.

If you want to trust the government to do whats "best" for you then go right ahead. As for me they have proven they can not handle a little responsibility why would I give them more.

Read this press release from the Illinois State Rifle Association and then tell me what you think about how information is handled by those in power. :fire::fire::fire:
http://www.isra.org/

We are from the government we are here to help.

madmike
June 19, 2007, 11:54 PM
Of course, when the 2nd was written it didn't include everybody in the country, but you gloss right over that, don't you?

Blacks and Indians were added by law and Amendment. Argument fails of its merits.

Rumble
June 20, 2007, 12:06 AM
While there's no standard for what mentally ill is, there is a standard for what "adjudicated mentally defective" means. Going to the shrink isn't sufficient, there has to be a court determination that you're bonkers.

Fortunately, this is true. Under this proposed legislation, state records can only include those individuals who meet the definition of "adjudicated mentally defective" as pertains to 922(g)(4). This is good--some states have lower standards to be barred the possession of arms for mental defect.

.45&TKD
June 20, 2007, 01:28 AM
Read this press release from the Illinois State Rifle Association and then tell me what you think about how information is handled by those in power.
http://www.isra.org/

I read it.

God help the good people of Illinois!

JohnBT
June 20, 2007, 08:20 AM
"Of course, when the 2nd was written it didn't include everybody in the country, but you gloss right over that, don't you?" - me

"Blacks and Indians were added by law and Amendment. Argument fails of its merits." - you

Fails? You admit it didn't cover everyone and took "law and Amendment" to add some of those left out. I'd say my statement was a factual response to the assertion that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd to include everyone.
_____________

Quote:
Illegal aliens? Five-year-olds? Felons? Crack addicts? Speed freaks? - me

"If that is what it takes for me to keep my rights then yes every last one of them." - you#2

Good luck pushing your agenda at the local, state or national level. Meanwhile, there's real work to be done.

John

madmike
June 20, 2007, 08:46 AM
It included everyone considered human at the time, even those not eligible to vote (non-landowners). This means they considered it a universal right.

Actually, free blacks and Indians could own weapons, IIRC. Only slaves could not. But only white male landowners could vote. They would be in loco parentis of any slaves, so it was as close to a universal statement as one could get at the time.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 20, 2007, 09:26 AM
It included everyone considered human at the time, even those not eligible to vote (non-landowners).

It didn't include those the community had determined via a court to be mentally ill - even in the 1700s.

JohnBT
June 20, 2007, 12:29 PM
The Militia Act provides a good look at the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Pay close attention to the words "free" "able-bodied" "white" "male" "citizen" & the age limits.

Now I'm off to find something similar by James Madison, father of the 2nd Amendment. Could be a delay, both phones are ringing.

John
_________
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

madmike
June 20, 2007, 12:44 PM
JohnBT: Don't waste your time.

It required those people to be armed. It didn't prohibit anyone else. That came along later, mostly postbellum.

Bartholomew is correct.

I'm done with this thread.

JohnBT
June 20, 2007, 01:11 PM
I've been reading some sites and ran across this one:

___________________________________
www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

Second Session
February 1982
_________________________________

"James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate..."

The 2nd Amendment passed by a VOICE VOTE. :uhoh: ;)

JohnBT
June 20, 2007, 11:27 PM
It didn't prohibit anyone else. That came along later, mostly postbellum.

Bartholomew is correct.
__________________________________

Let's see, you say he's correct, but continue to assert that it didn't prohibit anyone else.

Yet Bartholomew said "It didn't include those the community had determined via a court to be mentally ill - even in the 1700s."

I'd say you really are through with this thread.

John

TheOtherOne
June 21, 2007, 12:24 AM
FUD.

§ 101(c)(1)(c) does not say that at all:
...
This requires more than some "microscopic" risk.
...
More FUD.

§ 105 explicitly does away the § 925(c) requirements for relief of disability for this particular disability and gives that power to the States. Bypasses Schumer altogether.

Further, § 105 authorizes the States to use a board, commission, the Courts... Whatever the States decide to use. It won't necessarily cost anything. That would be entirely up to the individual States.

And that's just 2 areas that the GOA is sooo wrong. I could go on and on. But what's the use? Some of you have simply bought into the GOA's paranoia and are spreading FUD.The fact remains that it expands NICS and NICS is gun control is gun control is gun control.

Al Norris
June 21, 2007, 09:16 AM
The fact remains that it expands NICS and NICS is gun control is gun control is gun control.
So then, the fact that the law already says what this bill intends to help fund the States to do, expands it? On the contrary, it merely sets up a vehicle whereby the mandate is funded. That is not an expansion, merely a housekeeping detail.

Please explain how narrowing the definition of a mental disability is an expansion. This is a restriction on what records may be transmitted and entered on the NICS database.

Since it also prohibits another Clinton style order to submit unauthorized records to NICS by a Federal Agency, how is this an expansion? Again, this is a further restriction.

Please also explain how bypassing § 925(c) by giving that power back to the States is an expansion? When was the last time that the Feds have given back an authority they "stole" from the States?

The devil is always in the details. Can you give us all the specifics of those details? Where's the Beef?

jselvy
June 21, 2007, 09:28 AM
Considering the implications of the situation described in this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=283879

I am greatly concerned about this bill.

Jefferson

RealGun
June 21, 2007, 10:07 AM
Well, how about this? Lautenburg comes along and says NICS may not remove a person's name...no such thing as "all better now". This is the guy that says if ever under a court restraining order re spousal abuse, valid or not, your gun owning days are over, period.

Those who want to say this bill doesn't really change anything would haver to first accept that the whole concept of NICS was illegitimate in the first place.

1) the Feds have no legitimate constitutional jurisdiction. It's all based upon precedents which abuse the Constitution and avoid amendments to it.

2) They will use ones Social Security number. The SS Act specifies that the number may not be used for identification purposes. Where did that change?

See how it goes? That's just a sample.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 21, 2007, 10:57 AM
Considering the implications of the situation described in this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=283879

There are no implications to that thread. The police officer in question didn't understand the existing law on involuntary commitment and firearms.

Those who want to say this bill doesn't really change anything would haver to first accept that the whole concept of NICS was legitimate in the first place.

How do you figure? Also since this bill shifts the determination for relief to the states, wouldn't it actually bring hope to people who were unjustly denied rights under the Lautenberg bill instead of leaving them in limbo forever?

ConstitutionCowboy
June 21, 2007, 11:13 AM
Without the NFA, without Brady, without all the state infringements; with violent criminals executed or incarcerated, the insane institutionalized, guardianship of the immature, and with - dare I say - secure borders; there'd BE no limbo for anyone to be in in the first place.

Let us not forget that.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

RealGun
June 21, 2007, 11:32 AM
How do you figure? Also since this bill shifts the determination for relief to the states, wouldn't it actually bring hope to people who were unjustly denied rights under the Lautenberg bill instead of leaving them in limbo forever? - Bartholomew Roberts

First, I meant to write that NICS was "illegitimate" and have edited my post.

How can States make the determination, if NICS actually acts as the supreme power, refusing to remove the record? This is not NICS acting on behalf of the States. This is or will be federal power in all its glory. Remove the income tax and state appropriations, and it's all talk, absolutely no jurisdiction.

I believe there needs to be a mechanism of coordinating States, but there is too much truth in the statement that the Constitution "is just a goddamned piece of paper". They have been making it up as they go along for generations, and the Courts support most of it, since a strict constructionist would find reality very inconvenient, and real justice in need of a constitutional amendment. The law is a joke, when the COTUS reads plainly enough but is ruled to mean something else more convenient.

Kelly J
June 21, 2007, 01:42 PM
http://www.gunowners.org/ne0702.htm

JohnBT
June 21, 2007, 04:52 PM
"...but also to any diagnosis by a federal-(or state)-sanctioned psychologist or psychiatrist..." - GOA

Any disorder? Like 315.1 - Mathematics Disorder. "Mathematical ability...is substantially below that expected given the person's chronological age, measured intelligence and age-appropriate education." - DSM-IV

Any disorder? GOA is drinking the kool-aid.

307.0 - Stuttering.

307.6 - Enuresis (that's bedwetting folks, not due a general medical condition)

:banghead:

John

JohnBT
June 21, 2007, 05:01 PM
305.90 - Caffeine Intoxication

A. Recent consumption of 250 mg - 2-3 cups, and five or more from:

B. restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, diuresis, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, rambling thought and speech, and 3 more I'm tired of typing.

John

Aw, heck, one more => 292.0 - Nicotine Withdrawal

JohnBT
June 21, 2007, 05:03 PM
If the GOA, you, me, or anybody else wants to fight a bill successfully they're going to have make perfect sense and not rant and rave like the GOA has been recently.

John

ArfinGreebly
June 22, 2007, 07:44 PM
For reasons expounded elsewhere, I don't trust the psych community. You may assure me all you like, but I have made my own observations. I actually believe its no longer possible for them to win back my trust.

For reasons too well known to mention I have an abiding distrust of politicians.

When the two of them work together on anything, as when a law is written which further reinforces the "authority" of the first group, I contemplate these events with a measure of dread.

Every law that limits gun ownership is yet another precedent, yet another instance of "see? it's really okay" infringement.

There was a time when anyone disembarking on America's soil was simply expected to be armed. People walking the street were assumed to be armed. Every home was assumed to be an armed camp. People traveling the roads and highways were even instructed to be armed.

Villains were armed. Crazy people were armed. Healthy people were armed. Sick people were armed. Farmers were armed. Coachmen were armed. Bankers and lawyers were armed. And among this lot, the common man (and often woman) was also armed.

A certain amount of "predictable chaos" is one of the consequences of a completely armed populace. It comes with the territory.

Freedom and liberty have a certain amount of chaos as part of their makeup.

The only way to remove chaos is to assert total control.

One of the fundamental vectors of politicians is control. Anything they write into law will have this as a component.

Such control ought to be mitigated by the judicial branch. As long as the judicial branch can be counted on to err on the side of liberty, such legislation can be kept in check.

I'm not at all sure that the current trends in a) legislation, b) law enforcement, and c) judicial restraint, bode well for liberty.

I am very apprehensive about this bill and the dominoes it will fell.

I am not reassured by what I have read here so far.

Maybe I have "mistrust of lying politicians" disorder.

Or is that a syndrome?

- - - - -

P.S.

There is this story (http://noisyroom.net/blog/?p=20242), which references this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56311), in case this has not already been made part of the discussion.

.45&TKD
June 22, 2007, 08:30 PM
ArfinGreebly, Well said.

JohnBT
June 23, 2007, 01:07 PM
"There was a time when anyone disembarking on America's soil was simply expected to be armed."

Hogwash. You telling me indentured servants and slaves were expected to be armed?

John

ArfinGreebly
June 23, 2007, 03:12 PM
Humans, John, just humans.

While I'm sure there have been times when "anyone" included only free white male protestant landowning folks, the point was that "armed" was the default.

Incrementally, "unarmed" has become the default.

The object of the exercise, from our side, is to restore "armed" as the defaut.

Even for former felons.

JohnBT
June 23, 2007, 09:18 PM
Are we talking about the words that were typed on the page in the post or what you think should have been typed?

Anyone means anyone. There were gun control laws in colonial America. There were numerous gun control laws passed around the time of the Civil War. NY state passed the Sullivan Laws in 1911. I could go on and on. When exactly was "anyone disembarking on America's soil was simply expected to be armed."

IOW, you aren't making any sense. You need facts.

John

illspirit
June 23, 2007, 10:26 PM
It does look as if the GOA has a point here. Section 101(c) (1) (C), Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Determinations Related to Mental Health, reads:

No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if-- the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

Drop the "No" at the beginning, flip that bold "without" around, and any department or agency may provide mental health determinations "based solely on a medical finding" if whoever is doing the medical evaluation finds the patient is a danger to self/others or lacks mental capacity to manage their own affairs. Note that is doesn't say "court ordered medical finding," just plain old "medical finding." Or, in other words, it really is broad enough to allow doctors to do this without the court, no?

And with no clear definition of "danger" or "capacity," couldn't an anti-gun doctor play fast and loose with the terms?

JohnBT
June 23, 2007, 11:21 PM
Drop the no and turn the without around? What does the sentence say then? I can't make it out.

Why are you rewriting the bill?

John

Bartholomew Roberts
June 23, 2007, 11:25 PM
And with no clear definition of "danger" or "capacity," couldn't an anti-gun doctor play fast and loose with the terms?

The doctor doesn't get to make that determination on his own though. It is still up to a judge.

I'd also point out that RIGHT NOW, the VA is adding people to the prohibited persons list on NICS who have NOT been found to be a danger to themselves or others. They are adding people simply based on a mental illness disability - H.R. 2640 corrects this by requiring the removal of their name from NICS (without any further action on their part) and helps prevent further abuse by establishing a state-administered process (can't be defunded by Congress) to appeal and review these determinations, even if a finding was made.

illspirit
June 24, 2007, 02:42 AM
Sorry JohnBT, I was just talking in circles, not trying to rewrite the bill. :o

My point was that if instead of reading it in the negative to see what it explicitly forbids, reading it in the affirmative made it seem vague. Looks like I was wrong though anyway.

The doctor doesn't get to make that determination on his own though. It is still up to a judge.

I'd also point out that RIGHT NOW, the VA is adding people to the prohibited persons list on NICS who have NOT been found to be a danger to themselves or others. They are adding people simply based on a mental illness disability - H.R. 2640 corrects this by requiring the removal of their name from NICS (without any further action on their part) and helps prevent further abuse by establishing a state-administered process (can't be defunded by Congress) to appeal and review these determinations, even if a finding was made.

Ah, so basically the bit quoted in my last post is actually disallowing the V.A. (and other doctors) from arbitrarily adding people like that then? I thought it was allowing the doctor who made the medical finding to also determine the danger to self/others without a judge. D'oh.

If you enjoyed reading about "more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!