NRA cuts secret deal with the dems to ban buyers

Just another part of the anti's "Final Solution"...

"Like feeling the need a carry a gun while driving to work” Wouldn’t this depend on local conditions and the time of day? Sometimes driving to work armed would be the only sensible thing to do. Not everyone works in the “nice” section of the city.

The form 4473 never leaves the possession of the FFL holder, no copies are made and the ATF never sees it unless a firearm is used in a crime and located, then the ATF contacts the manufacturer or distributor who then tells them whe name of the FFL holder who received said firearm, who in turn supplies them with the name of the buyer.Other than proving that said nutcase lied when he bought said firearm. That info is never entered into any data base.What the NRA is supporting is the reporting of people with serious mental defects being put in the NCIS data base so when the background check is done, they will be identified, and denied their purchase.

look, the law is already on the books that people in catagory A, B, and C cannot own firearms. This simply is a bill to allow recordkeeping to better determine who is in catagory A B and C

To me, there are three possible areas of upset on this issue.

#1 You may disagree with catagory A being denied firearm, but if that is the case, the it is a DIFFERENT law you have a problem with.

#2 This law may create a catagory A+ who will be flagged like a true catagory A, and prevent a legally entitled person from owning a gun. This does worry me, however, it doesn't seem like that is what is going on per my readings. Also, even if a person got flagged wrongly as an A, there still is a manual appeal you can make if you are wrongly flagged...just like if some felon has the same name and birthdate etc etc.

#3 medical information about people in catagory A, B, and C will not be kept safe and confidential. This does worry me some.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt

As long as we keep helping them, politicians will keep passing "necessary" laws. Laws that make it a bit easier for government agencies to do their job of controlling some small portion of the population that is seen as dangerous. It's only in retrospect that we find that most - if not all of us are included in that small portion and that it is up to us to move the Leviathan enough to remove our names from the list.
I guess I'll have to go back to shooting at unimproved ranges since my club requires I be an NRA member.

"f those are actual criteria, that's the scariest thing I've heard all day!"

Those are not the symtoms necessary for the diagnosis of PTSD. Use Google and you can easily turn lists of the symtoms - ALL the symtoms, not just one or two cherry-picked to scare people.


"Anyone actually read a Form 4473 lately? There is already a question about mental illness, in case you didn't notice."

Yes, but the question is really about being adjudicated (judged/court system/etc.), not diagnosed. Big difference.


"Its already against the law for people with mental problems to buy guns."

No it isn't. Read the previous statement about the difference in being adjudicated and diagnosed. It's the difference in being involuntarily committed and going for treatment on your own (whether to an office or a hospital.)

These distinctions are important.

John

Not the symptoms? Someone needs to let US Army Medical Command so that they can change their videos. And they need to brief their docs so they don't go around telling people that. This isn't old stuff either this was within the last six months.

True there are more symptoms, everyone knows that but those ARE two of them according to the military.

Can I assume then, if we're going to categorize things, that those who aren't concerned about H.R.297 are in favor of the Brady Bill and the resultant NICS system?

One is either for or against the Brady Bill and NICS, and those who aren't bothered by or support an improvement of it would have to fall in the first category.

I don't support the NICS system.
I was against the Brady bill in 1993 and I don't support it today.

That's why I don't support H.R.297, and why I don't think the NRA or anyone for gun rights should either.

Count me really freaking glad that I've never decided to get on anti-depressants or similar, and instead have just decided to Suck It Up and deal with it in more traditional fashions.

That said, I'm very, very angry by this - and anyone who's ever paid a dime to the NRA should be, as well. What the hell is wrong with them?! They have effectively selling the entire body of citizens who have served in active combat duty down the river!

Maybe the NRA needs a message sent to them (by the withholding of dues).

Titan6 has hit the issue dead on the head, too: PTSD will soon be used to classify anyone who has the least bit of self-awareness or desire to fight back as mentally unfit to own a firearm - whether they're in the military or not. I've heard of people who weren't in actual combat (stateside duty) who have been able to get classified as having PTSD, as well civilians who've had "traumatic" crime encounters (gas station robbery). It's already getting pretty well out of hand; PTSD is the new ADD/ADHD.

The form 4473 never leaves the possession of the FFL holder, no copies are made and the ATF never sees it unless a firearm is used in a crime and located

Click to expand...

No thats not the way I understand it. The ATF can see the 4473 whenever they inspect an FFL. Also, when the gun shop closes down the 4473 are sent to the ATF.

Stepping aside from all of the foregoing arguments and looking at this bill from another angle. I think that what we really need to watch out for is the addition of little "sensible" riders to it as it moves through the legislative process. The NRA has stated that they will withdraw support of it if there are other attempts to add further measures of control as it moves along. You might want to check on your congressfolks and encourage or steer them along the right path.

Once again I will remind us all that, just a few months ago, someone on THR suggested that anyone wishing to seek mental health support should find a psychologist or counseler in another city, sign on using an assumed name, and pay in cash. The suggestion was almost universally derided as being paranoid and dishonest.

I wasn't laughing then, and I'm not laughing now. I hope never to need mental counseling, but ... life happens, and it's possible. If the situation should arise, I will certainly consider very seriously that suggestion.

I suppose this is why some people, if not many, turn to other ways of dealing with stresses of life, traumatic events, etc. I don't support the NRA, not in a long time. They're as bad as gangsters when it comes to joining a club, have to be made a member.

Aguila, I doubt there's much to worry about there. As restrictions broaden support narrows. As support narrows restrictions become increasingly unpopular and unlikely. The high numbers of people on psych meds of all sorts along with family members and friends of those medicated narrows support of restrictions. Think of your average soccer mom finding out "they say my baby can't do WHAT?!?"

Something to be grateful for when people cry "over-medication."

Here's a link to the DSM criteria for PTSD (that is, official diagnostic criteria for MD and PhD mental health folks). Read them if you want and come to your own conclusions. Remember that all criteria must be met.

http://www.mental-health-today.com/ptsd/dsm.htm

I know the NRA gets bad press for a lot of things (esp by JFPO and VCDL) when their long term plans aren't understood (or publicized, and for good reason) by many gun owners when they are in the long run the best preservation of the RKBA we have.

This bill doesn't expand the definition of who cannot purchase firearms, it merely provides $$$ to help ensure the records are correct and up to date.

Here is a link to the military requirements for PTSD. Nothing about needing to meet all of them to be diagnosed in there....

https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/9203-1/fm/22-51/22-51_f.htm

It's like all these questions at the doctor like
"Do you wear a seat belt?"
"Do you have a dog and what kind"
All these questions are there to help the insurance to charge you more!
Don't answer them!

The antis will use anything against you, so don't help them!

Titan6, I thought this was pretty funny (not the paper as a whole, just a couple of small points). In reference to Table 6-1 which is the DSM criteria (a table referenced throughout Chapter 6) this is what is written:

Editor's Note: Coprighted material has been omitted becuase it is not essential to understanding of this publication.

Click to expand...

Diagnostic criteria not essential for understanding of the diagnosis? Also, they misspelled copyrighted.

Editor's Note: I can't spell. Why am I the editor?

Click to expand...

Also, the paper references the 1987 DSM III-R (third edition, revised) while the current version is the 2000 DSM IV-TR (fourth ed, text revision).

+1 To everyone who understands this "compromise" is nothing more than window dressing re-affirmation of EXISTING law.

Anyone who actually bothers to READ the law, the disqualifier is being adjudicated mentally incompetent or requiring involuntary commitment in a court of law. If your state has weak criteria for commitment, or has damaged the due process protections in some way, you need to take it up there. And you'll have better luck as local government is on average more responsive anyway.

It shows just how much the NRA has Congress eating out of their hands. When the "compromise" is just a little re-stating of existing laws, and little funding to be sure they're enforced, and a whole bunch of truly onerous gun bans averted, it seems to me that the "other side" did all the compromising.

If anything, the only concession the NRA made was to shut up about all the truly bad legislation they got killed in this deal, assault weapon bans, "feature bans", capacity/magazine bans, and handgun bans. This way the anti politicians can claim they made the NRA "come to the table", and not look quite as ineffectual as they really are.

All this talk of PTSD and seeing a shrink is imagination. Read the bill.

mlandman, you're right. Unfortunately, all of mental health becomes the issue when people run with their fears and paranoias and apply it to this bill and their support of the NRA.

The "tin foil hat" extremists are, IMHO, a greater danger to the 2nd amendment than the Brady bunch.

The "no controls, no restrictions, no exceptions," crowd alienates the public at large, and makes all of us look like dangerous nutjobs. And there are a helluva lot more of "the public at large" that vote than there are of us.:banghead:

We don't need to have COURT ADJUDICATED nutjobs running around legally buying guns! Wake up, people!

I don't recall the country collapsing in gun-driven chaos prior to the Brady Bill and NCIS.

It could be that the greatest danger to the 2nd is gun-rights "proponents" willing to accept any compromise in order not to stir the pot.

When did the Brady bill become acceptable?

Anyone who actually bothers to READ the law, the disqualifier is being adjudicated mentally incompetent or requiring involuntary commitment in a court of law.

Click to expand...

Amen brother! I wish people really read this stuff rather than crying out loud that the sky is falling. This thing about seeking mental help in another city with assumed name, etc is just plain crazy folks! It is about adjudication in a COURT, not just seeing a doctor for feeling lonely, or for any other reason for that matter.

This has been the law anyways and strangely, a heated discussion of this kind did not exist. Now all of a sudden because of the NRA involvement, or for whatever reason enforcing the law about mental adjudications is the end of the world. Go figure!

What did you guys expect the NRA to do?! Declare that the enforcement of this law is bad, and that people like Cho should be able to legally buy firearms?! Act like that will discredit RKBA as whole. Than we can kiss our gun rights goodbye. Then we can scream "no compromise, no compromise" as loud as we can but it will do us no good. (BTW, I do not believe this bill is a compromise to the RKBA).

Okay, I’ve read through this post, but I need a few points clarified before my mind is put at ease.

1. This bill is only about enforcing existing legislation concerning people involuntarily committed or deemed, for lack of better word, crazy, in a court of law.
2. There is no part of this bill that would compel private practices and HMO’s to release their patient’s mental health records.

I’m very much a levelheaded sane individual, however, I have been diagnosed with depression and am currently taken an anti-depressant; which is where my concern about this bill stems from.

On a matter of principle I'm oposed to this bill, however, I dont think it's enough to offset the good acomplished by the NRA.

I am not an expert on the subject; however, I am doing my undergrad work in psychology. The majority of people who suffer from mental illness are not inherently dangerous. In most circumstances I think someone suffering from depression or PTSD is capable of safe firearms handling and lawful self-defense. If someone is deemed dangerous in a court of law, I can understand the concern. However a veteran who is suffering from PTSD/depression/anxiety still has every right to own and use firearms.

-Josh