I totally agree with this. I am bipolar. I also have 2 honorable discharges from different branches of the U.S. military...one being the U.S.M.C during the Gulf war. I have no criminal record...not even a misdemeanor, but if they start refusing me guns it will lead to seizure of guns. This I would not abide.
Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks
- Thread starter Connecticut Yankee
- Start date
- Status
"SFAIK, absent a panic-stricken shrink calling the cops because a Jeffrey Dahmer showed up, there are no records anywhere outside his office. Doctor/patient confidentiality. Same for counselors/psychologists who don't have the M.D."
Art:
Insurance companies who cover counseling/psychiatric services also have records. Isn't is possible they could be compelled to "share?"
Art:
Insurance companies who cover counseling/psychiatric services also have records. Isn't is possible they could be compelled to "share?"
precisionshootist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 186
Contact NRA and urge them NOT to support this bill. The line in the sand must be drawn now. This legislation simply would not have stopped this tragedy from happening. You are talking about Gov. intrusion on every firearms transaction from now on in the hopes of finding the one in 300 million needle in the haystack nutcase that's about to go off. This was not good enough to pass before and it's not needed now. This is an excuse to pass any and all gun legislation possible. IT WILL BE ABUSED. No more gun laws PERIOD.
Rant off
Rant off
Daniel T
Member
People, if you're going to make paranoid rants, please at least address them to the actual issue at hand instead of randomly making something up to rant about.
ALL THIS BILL WOULD DO IS GIVE FUNDING TO STATES TO COMPLETE THE INPUT OF RECORDS INTO NICS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE ALREADY.
That's it. No new classes of prohibited persons, no privacy barriers being removed, none of that.
ALL THIS BILL WOULD DO IS GIVE FUNDING TO STATES TO COMPLETE THE INPUT OF RECORDS INTO NICS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE ALREADY.
That's it. No new classes of prohibited persons, no privacy barriers being removed, none of that.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
That is not exactly true. You have to read it more closely.
Bartholomew Roberts:
Decide for yourself what the future is for this.
David
Bartholomew Roberts:
Decide for yourself what the future is for this.
David
Waitone
Member
Evidently the gun lobby is perceived to be very strong by both parties. If not, we could expect Democrats and a few republicans square dancing in the blood of VT victims. Ain't happening this time around. Democrats are intent on regaining power in '08 and a key part of that is to silence pro-gun forces. Republicans are doing whatever the hell it is republicans do.
So if pro-gun forces are in such a strong position why is the debate over how much of the fleece to shave off. Why are we not using our evidently strong position? In short, how come we are not seeing a full court press to rollback bad, or ineffectual, or unconstitutional law. I may be persuaded changes to the instant check system may be in order. I will be in a better mood to support changes if I see a significant roll back in objectional legislation. Start with the sporting purposes clause, move on to national CCH, then conclude by removing suppressors from the verboten list.
So if pro-gun forces are in such a strong position why is the debate over how much of the fleece to shave off. Why are we not using our evidently strong position? In short, how come we are not seeing a full court press to rollback bad, or ineffectual, or unconstitutional law. I may be persuaded changes to the instant check system may be in order. I will be in a better mood to support changes if I see a significant roll back in objectional legislation. Start with the sporting purposes clause, move on to national CCH, then conclude by removing suppressors from the verboten list.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
Waitone,
The Democrats are waiting for the election. They know that a gun control push now could weaken them with the voters that gave them Congress in 2006. They know if they wait 20months they will be able to do whatever they want. That is why the coordinated, UNIVERSAL backing off the gun control issue. Like the water retreating from the bay before a tsunami.
David
The Democrats are waiting for the election. They know that a gun control push now could weaken them with the voters that gave them Congress in 2006. They know if they wait 20months they will be able to do whatever they want. That is why the coordinated, UNIVERSAL backing off the gun control issue. Like the water retreating from the bay before a tsunami.
David
dave_pro2a
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 447
+1
ProficientRifleman
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 579
Adjudication is the key word here. Anything other than that will compromising again. If the NRA allows or supports anything more than the NICS having access to adjudications (which it is already supposed to do), they will be stabbing us in the back again by compromise.
I can't see any compromise on this. Soon, anyone wanting to buy a firearm would be required to get an evaluation from some psychologist. Having the Attorney General look over my medical records (who is no doubt capable of judging a person's mental capacity because of his years of training) seems very big brotherish to me.
All this filing and record keeping will just make it easier to find your house when they finally do want to come for your guns.
All this filing and record keeping will just make it easier to find your house when they finally do want to come for your guns.
I
I think that's a bit far fetched plus nothing in the article that was posted talks about psycho evaluations just adjudications which at the present time are disqualifying factor. Believing or suggesting that NRA will sign off on something like this is just naive. I think we should all take a step back and monitor this carefully. My stance is that if it is only dealing with reporting adjudications then from my perspective this is a no issue. Those are in the current law anyways. If there are some other provisions that expand the criteria rather than enforce a current one, then it is a different story.
I think that's a bit far fetched plus nothing in the article that was posted talks about psycho evaluations just adjudications which at the present time are disqualifying factor. Believing or suggesting that NRA will sign off on something like this is just naive. I think we should all take a step back and monitor this carefully. My stance is that if it is only dealing with reporting adjudications then from my perspective this is a no issue. Those are in the current law anyways. If there are some other provisions that expand the criteria rather than enforce a current one, then it is a different story.
JohnBT
Member
"Show me a copy of this bill. It hasn't been drafted yet."
Well of course we haven't seen the final revisions, that's what they're working on. The bill has been around for years.
From the first post in the thread:
"The legislation, drafted several years ago by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), has twice passed the House, only to die in the Senate."
Well of course we haven't seen the final revisions, that's what they're working on. The bill has been around for years.
From the first post in the thread:
"The legislation, drafted several years ago by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), has twice passed the House, only to die in the Senate."
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Henry Bowman said:
Well, the right you would be giving up in this scenario is the right to purchase a firearm after a court had declared you a danger to yourself or others in a formal hearing where you would have counsel present.
In a healthy and fair system, that isn't a right that I even want to have for myself. The question to me is whether our system is a fair one or a healthy one? Right now, I'd be inclined to say it isn't perfect by a longshot; but it does a fair job of not arbitrarily restricting rights because of unfair use of mental illness.
However, I think there is clearly a huge danger here. The definitions of "adjudicated mentally defective" are defined by federal regulations (not Congressional law) so the definition is one that could change without Congress passing a single law. The powers already established by existing legislation could be abused on a massive scale and updating the database that would enable that abuse to be even more effective is something you have to feel a bit queasy about.
That view seems to take the position that either Cho must be locked up or he must be free with all the same rights as other men. In the area of mental illness, I don't know that having such a stark contrast in choices is good. It means that either people who are marginal and probably not a threat will be locked up out of fear or people who are mentally ill beyond question will be able to obtain a firearm.
From a personal viewpoint, I can see arguments for both sides. From a practical politics angle, opposing this legislation is walking into a political ambush. Our opponents would love nothing better than for us to pressure the NRA into opposing this legislation. It allows them to paint the NRA in the worst possible light in terms that even most gun owners will find indefensible. Finally, it is a risk that we don't need to take. Despite bipartisan backing and support from both the NRA and Brady Campaign and passing the Republican-led House twice, this bill has gone nowhere for five years running now. Clearly the bill has some deep problems. The NRA can safely support this legislation because the probability it will die regardless of what they do. Think about all the nasty anti-NRA articles that can't be written now because of their past support of this bill.
Brett Bellmore
Member
You're Assuming We All Think Nics Was A Good Idea.
oldfart
Member
"I think we should all take a step back and monitor this carefully."
When I was a kid my grandfather would take me to the beach while he would dig clams. The best tides always seemed to be in the mornings and on the weekends too. Invariably, people would come out to walk on the beach after Church, wearing their best Sunday clothes. The kids loved to chase the waves as they'd wash up onto the sand and then retreat only to advance again. No matter how careful they were, sooner or later some little kid would get his or her feet wet in the cold water.
Helping to write gun-control bills is a bit like running at those waves: Sooner or later someone is going to misjudge the tide and their Sunday shoes are going to get ruined. If Wayne, Chris and the rest at Wamples Mill want to take a chance on getting their feet wet I say we divorce them from the rest of the NRA 'cause I prefer dry feet.
I certainly see nothing wrong with monitoring this bill but I see nothing good coming from helping write it. If we're going to talk about messages sent and received, we need to pay some attention to the messages received by the NRA membership. After all, they (we) are the ones picking up the tab. And if by some fluke the bill should be signed into law we'd have a much bigger problem than we do now.
When I was a kid my grandfather would take me to the beach while he would dig clams. The best tides always seemed to be in the mornings and on the weekends too. Invariably, people would come out to walk on the beach after Church, wearing their best Sunday clothes. The kids loved to chase the waves as they'd wash up onto the sand and then retreat only to advance again. No matter how careful they were, sooner or later some little kid would get his or her feet wet in the cold water.
Helping to write gun-control bills is a bit like running at those waves: Sooner or later someone is going to misjudge the tide and their Sunday shoes are going to get ruined. If Wayne, Chris and the rest at Wamples Mill want to take a chance on getting their feet wet I say we divorce them from the rest of the NRA 'cause I prefer dry feet.
I certainly see nothing wrong with monitoring this bill but I see nothing good coming from helping write it. If we're going to talk about messages sent and received, we need to pay some attention to the messages received by the NRA membership. After all, they (we) are the ones picking up the tab. And if by some fluke the bill should be signed into law we'd have a much bigger problem than we do now.
Oohrah
Member
Nothing said of the slick way they used domestic violence charges
that mostly no firearms are:banghead: involved to losing ownership, lifetime. Sometimes
falsely accussed can lead to the loss of gun rights. If in law enforce-
ment, you lose your job and rights. If mental evaluation to purchase
is law, probably the begining of the end. Would consider a data bank
for convicted mental health people, but not a proof of stability for ownership.
No matter what law could be passed, a determined nut will find a way
by gun, knife, ball bat, or bomb. Once again the responsible gun owner
will pay the price with one more law to finalized the elimination of firearms
if they can.
that mostly no firearms are:banghead: involved to losing ownership, lifetime. Sometimes
falsely accussed can lead to the loss of gun rights. If in law enforce-
ment, you lose your job and rights. If mental evaluation to purchase
is law, probably the begining of the end. Would consider a data bank
for convicted mental health people, but not a proof of stability for ownership.
No matter what law could be passed, a determined nut will find a way
by gun, knife, ball bat, or bomb. Once again the responsible gun owner
will pay the price with one more law to finalized the elimination of firearms
if they can.
Cellar Dweller
Member
NICS, by just about everyone's admission, doesn't work. Somehow, by throwing more money at the problem, it'll be fixed. Problems:
1. this isn't "free" money, it has to come from somewhere...higher fees for background checks? Ammo tax?
2. if you think private party sales WON'T be made illegal (only criminals would want to bypass the new and improved NICS, what are you trying to hide?), you must also believe the solution to any government-defined problem is more money. Probably not in this bill, but it will pass eventually.
3. When the fully-funded NICS fails to prevent some future incident, even MORE restrictions will be called for, like adding new definitions to "mental illness."
Sounds like the definition of insanity, all right.
Oh, the "compromise" is that you get to keep your guns for a while. NRA 4tehwin1!!!1!!!
1. this isn't "free" money, it has to come from somewhere...higher fees for background checks? Ammo tax?
2. if you think private party sales WON'T be made illegal (only criminals would want to bypass the new and improved NICS, what are you trying to hide?), you must also believe the solution to any government-defined problem is more money. Probably not in this bill, but it will pass eventually.
3. When the fully-funded NICS fails to prevent some future incident, even MORE restrictions will be called for, like adding new definitions to "mental illness."
Sounds like the definition of insanity, all right.
Oh, the "compromise" is that you get to keep your guns for a while. NRA 4tehwin1!!!1!!!
JohnBT
Member
"Think about all the nasty anti-NRA articles that can't be written now because of their past support of this bill."
Do you mean in the newspapers or on THR?
John
Do you mean in the newspapers or on THR?
John
Bingo, very well said. Could not agree more with that. Try to explain the regular Joe that preventing a person like Cho from legally getting guns is bad idea. This will go very well with the general population. I can already see the headlines in the media. If this does not turn off vast majority of the electorate I do not know what.
This is indeed an issue of "practical politics", and whether you like it or not the NRA is the best we have when it comes to playing the political game.
- Status
