Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think what' they're trying to do is fix the record system that would have prevent someone like Cho from buying a gun in the first place. This is nothing different than what the current law is supposed to be doing in the first place.

Many of you are up in arms about this when you really should be thinking how to use it for the benefit of gun owners. Can we fix a broken system and get something else out of it like National reciprocity for CCL in exchange? Or possibly the 1986 ban dropped? Or one of the other useless pieces of legislation nullified?
 
Dingell, it should be noted, referred to agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms as "jack-booted thugs" long before NRA vice chairman Wayne LaPierre used such controversial rhetoric in a fund-raising letter.

Yeah, and what was it he called US after we reacted to his vote? A bunch of "Ayatollahs", IIRC. Got a way with words, if not with principles.:rolleyes:
 
This is simply a baby step towards tightening the noose. "Mental illness" is a vague and broad brush definition that can easily be expanded to selectively or willfully include any individual who has ever been legally prescribed a tranquilizer or sleeping pill, for example. It's too easy for this to get out of hand.

Each alteration is a slight shift toward including more citizens in the net. The definition may not include you this time, but when they need to re-write it to "correct" something, get ready.
 
There's a lot of Chicken Little action going on here and not much analytical thought.

If all the bill does is provide funding to get records into NICS that should already be there, what's the problem? No new standards for mental competence are being set. If you were lying on your 4473 before, I guess it's a problem for you.

While we, and the NRA, need to be vigilant about the language of the bill, I don't see the reason for the hysterics here.
 
So all this bill is doing is to require states to keep the NICS records up-to-date with already existing disqualifying factors? If so, I don't see anything wrong with it. As long as nothing new is added and it only stops people who shouldn't be allowed by current laws to purchase guns anyways, what's the big deal?
 
Everybody seems to be getting their panties in a wad over the possibility that a madman might get his hands on a gun.

So what?

No matter how many carefully worded laws congress passes, regardless of how many local restrictions are in place, in spite of all the metal detectors, door guards, police officers in attendance, it's going to happen anyhow. So instead of helping to grease the shaft, perhaps the NRA should stand up on its hind legs and spit in the eye of McCarthy, Kennedy, Clinton, et al.
Compromise only works when we get something in return and I don't believe scented KY jelly counts.

And JohnBT, I'm still not completely sure McCain ever came all the way back from North Vietnam. My personal opinion is that he's a pretty shakey reed to lean on.
 
Interesting situation to say the least. Two years ago our son (now 18) was diagnosed as bipolar II. He suffers irrational fits of anger and has no business owning a gun. Trust me on this one!! The problem is he refuses to take his medication. It is sad as he is one of the lucky ones that meds will control. It isn’t like the meds make him a zombie. If you didn’t know the situation you would never know that he was taking anything. He just acts normal. But, he has decided that it is “too much of a hassle” to be bothered taking his meds. Now the medical records will show that he is OK as the meds completely control his disorder. Yet, he refuses to take them.

Do we let people like my son have guns that TRULY shouldn’t have them? Do we penalize those like him that take their meds and live completely normal lives? I wish I had an answer for this one.
 
Do we let people like my son have guns that TRULY shouldn’t have them? Do we penalize those like him that take their meds and live completely normal lives? I wish I had an answer for this one.

I have an answer that works for me.

Err on the side of freedom.

David
 
Only1* and oldfart have it correct. Shame on those who openly support strengthening the very apparatus that plans to have you totally disarmed during our lifetime... If the quality of thought does not improve quickly you may as well sell them now and use the money for foodstuffs and home upgrades.
 
You go tell this to the parents of those 32 kids. We all perfectly know that no law can stop a madman, but in this case if the existing law was enforced this could have been prevented.

This has nothing to do about freedom since freedom is not violated. It has to do with enforcing what is already on the books. How come nobody objected before about 11f question on the form if it was about freedom. All of a sudden, denying gun ownership to people like Cho is freedom. Pleaseeee! What about denying pedophiles the right to be teachers in kindergarten? They have freedom too, don't they? If we apply this notion so generous, we might as well just have an anarchy and have serial killers, rapists, and all kind of loonies running wild.

Folks, with all due respect this just does not make sense. Let's not jump the gun here and predict all gloom and doom because NRA is negotiating about enforcing something that at least until this point no one objected against.
 
Sounds like this bill is just making it less likely for gunnies to have bad press. Nice that we avoid bad press - but just what are we getting in return? If you've got a CC permit (in most states), this law don't mean a darned thing to you.
I want something more than just the slight comfort that a registered lunatic won't be able to by a gun from an FFL, especially from the NRA. What freedoms does this bestow on us? None that I can see.
Will they drop the pistol-purchasing age to 18? Abolish the BATFE? End the 'sporting use'/import requirements? Kill the ban on post-86 MGs? Make suppressors easier to buy, with no NFA garbage associated with 'em? Revoke NFA-34? Have tax deductions for ammo costs?
 
camacho
You go tell this to the parents of those 32 kids. We all perfectly know that no law can stop a madman, but in this case if the existing law was enforced this could have been prevented.

Not likely, if he wanted to do this he still would have done it. He could have used a bomb. He could have stolen a gun. He could have used an ax.
There was nobody to stop him.
 
You go tell this to the parents of those 32 kids. We all perfectly know that no law can stop a madman, but in this case if the existing law was enforced this could have been prevented.

No, it could not have.

David
 
It's sad how many people are under the impression that Cho would not have been able to get a gun, had the NICS just caught the court orders, issues, etc...

The fact is criminals, are criminals!!!! If he hadn't been able to get a gun at the gun shop it is BEYOND NAIVE to believe that he wouldn't have just gone and got a gun illegally.

Criminals DO NOT follow the law.
NO amount of NICS revisions is going to stop criminals from getting guns.
NO amount of additional gun control would stop criminals from getting guns.
Increased "gun control" laws will ONLY infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.
 
Here in the hinterlands, the LOCAL pro-gun lobbyist ALWAYS asks this question. For twenty years he's been bringing home the bacon because he takes the position that nothing is free. Does NRA know how to "demand" a quid pro quo?
but just what are we getting in return?
 
No, it could not have.

Nobody knows that. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe less people would have died. The bottom line is that Cho should not have been able to legally purchase firearms and it is in the best interest for all of us that the system for legal ownership is not stained. Let's not give more ammo for the anti crowd to badmouth and assault us.

As to perfect crime stopper we all agree that carrying on campus is the best thing.
 
Recall that Christians have been called "mentaly ill" by the Elite just as "patriots" have been called "terrorists" by the same filthy Elite - who just so happen to pretty much own or gov't apparatus. Nothing good will come from this THEY WANT YOU FULLY DISARMED. PERIOD. THEY WILL SEE TO IT AND THEY HOPE THAT YOU "BITE" ON THE INCREMENTALISM THAT THEY FOIST UPON US - GOD KNOWS THE NRA DOES... :rolleyes:
 
Guys read my earlier post (page 2). Am I the kind of person they are looking to prevent from owning guns? What kind of records are they now going to put in the system? Random mental health records? Wouldnt that break privacy laws? I dont want people reading that thing. I know I dont meet the current def, but what about this 'new' definition of 'nutjob'.

PLease guys, someone explain all of this to me.
 
I wish people could or would read the important part: "supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases."

"...mental illness adjudications..." That's people who have been in court, where medical professionals have been involved, and the people were found to be dangers to the public. That ties in with "...other run-ins with the law..."

Nothing to do with one's voluntarily seeking counselling or even psychiatric treatment willingly undergone.

The problems with records keeping was a large part of our objections to the original Brady Bill and the NICS check. (At that time, West Virginia's criminal records were said to be less than 50% complete. Other states were below 70%.) Dingell's effort is to try to clean up the records keeping process.

And Lord knows it needs cleaning up...

Art
 
@Art Eatman

Im sorry to be so bothersome, but I would not be in that category would I? Every thing I ever did was volentary. (And the Social Security board turned me down saying I was not even close to being bad enough to need SSI).

I just want to be sure from someone who knows NICS and knows what they are talking about - not just tin foil hat types.
 
Thank you, Art Eatman, for injecting a bit of reality into the paranoid awfulizations that seem to be the norm in this thread.

I, for one, applaud any efforts to make firearms unavailable legally to those who represent an unreasonable risk to society by (1) having been convicted of a felony, or (2) having been ajudicated mentally incompetent.

We seriously need to set a national standard on the recording and filing of felony convictions and mental competency hearings.
 
I, for one, applaud any efforts to make firearms unavailable legally to those who represent an unreasonable risk to society by (1) having been convicted of a felony, or (2) having been ajudicated mentally incompetent.

Amen! I do not think is much to ask but some folks think that this is somehow a bad thing.
 
Voluntarily seekeing professional help for one's mental problems is a wise thing to do. 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.

Federal prohibitions speak to court-adjudicated designations of dangerous persons from mental illness, not to mental health patients in general.

A generalization: Mental health patients have more rights nowadays than in the past. Representation by legal counsel wasn't always part of the deal, forty or fifty years back. The system was nowhere near as open. Little by little, legislatures have improved the laws insofar as one's rights and how the system operates. That doesn't mean perfect, of course, but the improvement has been steady.

Art
 
"This has nothing to do about freedom since freedom is not violated. It has to do with enforcing what is already on the books."

But that's where the problem is: Most (if not all) of the laws already on the books violate our freedom by "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms. Just because we've become familiar with our fetters doesn't make them flowers.
Now, before everyone jumps up and accuses me of being an anarchist, I know we'll never get those unconstitutional laws repealed but helping congress add more "stuff" to them is just another step down the road to perdition. The NRA always comes up with the old saw about how much worse a law will be if they don't influence the writing of it. How do we know that since they've always had their fingers in the pot - all the way back to NFA-34! Just once I'd like to see them come out and say "No" to the latest pile of excrement to run out from under the Democratic seats in Congress.
That's not likely though, is it? The officers and staff seem to have taken their winning(?) tactics from the French, who believe that 'losing' and 'surrender' are not the same. This "eight hundred pound gorilla" starts every discussion by asking for "compromise." Well, my dictionary has several definitions for that word. Definitions 1, 2 and 3 all deal with concessions by both sides on an issue, which wouldn't be bad if we could get it. The fourth definition reads; "4. a) exposure, as of one's reputation, to danger, suspicion or disrepute b) a weakening, as of one's principles...". It further defines "compromising" thus; "to weaken or give up (one's principle, ideals, etc) for reasons of expediency..."
Others may see it differently, but I believe the NRA has given lip service to the first three definitions while surepticiously embracing the fourth. I have occasionally suggested the NRA leadership is more intent on passing gun control laws than not, further suggesting that if all such laws were suddenly declared unconstitutional most of our revered 'leaders' would be out of a job. As much as I would like to think otherwise it's beginning to look as if I'm right. What would the ILA do if the SCOTUS tossed all those laws?
NRA ILA - 1-800-392-8683. Either do something or unplug your keyboard!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top