H.R. 297: NICS Improvement Act of 2007...McCarthy at it again!
- Thread starter jpk1md
- Start date
- Status
gyp_c2
Member
well...
...all medical records used to be private...A few years ago, (think Klinton) they came up with an improved privacy rule that pretty much gave the .gov the right to peruse them...
After that, came the Patriot Act, which pretty well gives them the right to do anything they want with anything...
With this little ditty, they will have another way to tie them all together and use them...(for the children)...of course, I'm sure Mr.Gonzales will only do what's appropriate with them. He won't have to ask for permission to do it though...it'll all be available to the .gov and their improved databases when the time comes...
...of course this is all my weirdness showing through, I'm sure one more avenue to keep us all safe, won't be abused...
It's not just the medical records...They are incrementally increasing all the databases and giving themselves access to all of our formerly private information, instantly and with no need for a court order...
Yes, it's probably too late to do anything about it now...rantoff...
...all medical records used to be private...A few years ago, (think Klinton) they came up with an improved privacy rule that pretty much gave the .gov the right to peruse them...
After that, came the Patriot Act, which pretty well gives them the right to do anything they want with anything...
With this little ditty, they will have another way to tie them all together and use them...(for the children)...of course, I'm sure Mr.Gonzales will only do what's appropriate with them. He won't have to ask for permission to do it though...it'll all be available to the .gov and their improved databases when the time comes...
...of course this is all my weirdness showing through, I'm sure one more avenue to keep us all safe, won't be abused...
It's not just the medical records...They are incrementally increasing all the databases and giving themselves access to all of our formerly private information, instantly and with no need for a court order...
Yes, it's probably too late to do anything about it now...rantoff...
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Again, more badly drafted legislation from McCarthy. The bill seems to indicate that they are only looking for court records of people committed to mental institutions or adjudicated mentally defective (Section 102(c)(1)(D)(3))
However, if you look at Section 102(c)(1)(A), it says "shall make electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm" - you could interpret this to mean that anything that helps the state determine whether or not you are a prohibited person must be included. GOA is using the worst case scenario interpretation.
Note that this doesn't mean that you can be disqualified from having a gun for having the flu. Those records wouldn't be pertinent to whether you were a prohibited person and even if they were included in the NICS database, they wouldn't trigger a denial because that is not one of the prohibited criteria.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
Why wouldn't they? If the goal is to deprive as many people the use of arms as possible, that's the interpretation I'd use too.
Future prohibited person could be:
Anyone that has received treatment for substance abuse
Anyone currently prescribed psychotropic medication (antidepressants, etc.)
Anyone currently receiving therapy or counseling
Or whatever other excuse they can sell to the general public.
David
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Won't work; because there are enough GOA F- rated Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee that they can kill any proposed amendment even if several Democrats break ranks. Add to that, there is only one Democrat on the Committee with any kind of pro-gun track record (Boucher).
FieroCDSP
Member
So...A priest and someone else were killed by a guy who was able to purchase a gun because of an information hold-up. This was likely caused by the fact that there is more information needing processed than is actually getting done. So we add MORE information to log and transfer/lose/spindle/mutilate on top of what we already have, and cut the budget, because this system is going to solve a lot of problems??!!? :banghead: Someone vote her out already.
Deavis
Member
Until the USSC determines that NICS is unconstitutional, which they will not, it is constitutional. The plain and simple fact is that we have laws that prevent certain populations of people from owning firearms, which has been held constitutional as well. So to prevent them from purchasing a firearm there must be some system in place to ID them.
Just like your word isn't good enough to withdraw 10k from your bank account (in any normal location that services too many people to know by heart), you have to prove who you are so they can insure that you are allowed to purchase a firearm. This system, when operating properly, does not restrict your right to purchase a weapon if you are not legally disqualified from owning one.
The simple fact is that if you are going to forbid part of the population from exercising their 2nd amendment right (felons, pedophiles, murders, etc...which many of you favor) then you MUST have a system in place to forbid them from purchasing a weapon. There is no getting around that no matter how much you wail and moan. If you want to talk about whether we are right in forbidding those populations to own guns, fine, but as long as you support their disarmament, you must have a NICS-like system in place.
NICS is not unconstitutional as determined by our judicial branch. If you don't agree, then can you please describe to me a constitutional system that forbids felons like murders, rapists, and pedophiles from exercising their 2nd amendment right?
Even when Sensenbrenner ran the Judicary Committee he allowed anti gun amendments up for a vote by Jackson-Lee and Weiner all the time.
Does Conyers have the authority to stop amendments in comittee by pro gun legislators?
We just offer lots of pro gun amendments to be voted on (to water down the bill) and see if we can't get some to stick.
Does Conyers have the authority to stop amendments in comittee by pro gun legislators?
We just offer lots of pro gun amendments to be voted on (to water down the bill) and see if we can't get some to stick.
alan
Member
LAR-15 writes:
Even when Sensenbrenner ran the Judicary Committee he allowed anti gun amendments up for a vote by Jackson-Lee and Weiner all the time.
Does Conyers have the authority to stop amendments in comittee by pro gun legislators?
----------------------
He might have especially if a majority of the committee are willing to go along with him, or prove unwilling to fight him. Committee Chairpersons are quite powerful.
As for H.R. 297, respecting people as well as things, they are often judged by "the company they keep". Association with Carolyn Mc Carthy could prove sufficient to kill it, notwithstanding such virtues as it might have, assuming that it had any vurtues.
Even when Sensenbrenner ran the Judicary Committee he allowed anti gun amendments up for a vote by Jackson-Lee and Weiner all the time.
Does Conyers have the authority to stop amendments in comittee by pro gun legislators?
----------------------
He might have especially if a majority of the committee are willing to go along with him, or prove unwilling to fight him. Committee Chairpersons are quite powerful.
As for H.R. 297, respecting people as well as things, they are often judged by "the company they keep". Association with Carolyn Mc Carthy could prove sufficient to kill it, notwithstanding such virtues as it might have, assuming that it had any vurtues.
Last edited:
D.S. Ambrose
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2006
- Messages
- 29
Bartholmew Roberts said:
I wonder how this would work with Act 17 (section 302) in Pennsylvania. The Feds declared it irrelevant as far as federal requirements go, but it will still remove one's right to bear arms in the state. For those that don't know, Act 17 in PA gives the police/court/hospital the ability to involuntarily commit someone for 120 hours with no due process. Basically, your wife could call the cops and say you're crazy and you have guns, the police could show up and take you to a hospital where they hold you against your will for up to 5 days without much more than a 2 sentence letter by the doctor saying that you need to be observed for that time period. That's it, your rights are gone in the state, forever...that's the only thing I really don't like about the state.
P.S. Yes, it's more detailed than that, just read through the follwing link for more info if you're inclined http://www.gunownersalliance.com/r-laing.htm. This actually happened to my SO as well (well, mostly), in the same township as Russel a few years later.
So my question is, if I get nailed with Section 302 in Pennsylvania and then move to Virginia, does anyone want to bet that I won't be buying any guns or hanging out with the VCDL? I don't.
Last edited:
alan
Member
D.S. Ambrose:
Act 17 was passed by our grab the money and run overpaid state legislature, under the ageis of former Governor Tom Ridge, who is also former DHS or TSA head, courtesy of G.W. Bush.
Bartholomew Roberts offers in post #28, "GOA is using the worst case scenario interpretation", a brief excerpt from his post.
-------------------
Perhaps they are, however one could also say that they are being coldly realistic.
Act 17 was passed by our grab the money and run overpaid state legislature, under the ageis of former Governor Tom Ridge, who is also former DHS or TSA head, courtesy of G.W. Bush.
Bartholomew Roberts offers in post #28, "GOA is using the worst case scenario interpretation", a brief excerpt from his post.
-------------------
Perhaps they are, however one could also say that they are being coldly realistic.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
LAR-15, as alan pointed out, it is quite easy to allow them to have all the votes on amendments they want when you know in advance how that vote will turn out. I am sure that Conyers would be happy to allow even a pro-gun Republican to offer a poison-pill amendment in Committee. It doesn't cost him anything, in fact he gains trading points for letting it happen and he still knows what the outcome will be because he has the votes to kill it, even with multiple Democrat defections.
D.S. Ambrose - The way the bill is written, that information probably would be forwarded to NICS and you would be disqualified from buying a firearms though PA would also have an obligation to remove that info from NICS when it was no longer applicable to you. I haven't read the PA provision; but it seems the sticky part would be proving in court that it is no longer (or never was) applicable to you and then making sure the NICS data was updated. I've got to admit I wouldn't care for those odds.
D.S. Ambrose - The way the bill is written, that information probably would be forwarded to NICS and you would be disqualified from buying a firearms though PA would also have an obligation to remove that info from NICS when it was no longer applicable to you. I haven't read the PA provision; but it seems the sticky part would be proving in court that it is no longer (or never was) applicable to you and then making sure the NICS data was updated. I've got to admit I wouldn't care for those odds.
alan
Member
In post #38, Bartholomew Roberts makes mention of a possible problem with incorrect, incomplete, not having been brought up to date state records that strange to note have become engraved in the granite of federal records, where they will cause all manner of trouble till the end of time, or the end of the individual troubled, whichever comes first.
What has happened, I wonder, with all the millions of taxpayer dollars that the feds have thrown at the states, the purpose of which was to help them with the task of updating their records, something that they should have been doing all along. WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO, that even more is required, at least provision for more is made in dear Carolyn's latest, if I browsed correctly.
Seems as if the more one looks at government, at any level one might care to look, the less one sees that merits or encourages any degree of trust, an observation that tends to sadden me, but there it is, big as life and a couple of times as ugly.
By the way, is is NOT a case of Democrats v. Republicans, for neither side has shown itself to be trustworthy.
What has happened, I wonder, with all the millions of taxpayer dollars that the feds have thrown at the states, the purpose of which was to help them with the task of updating their records, something that they should have been doing all along. WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO, that even more is required, at least provision for more is made in dear Carolyn's latest, if I browsed correctly.
Seems as if the more one looks at government, at any level one might care to look, the less one sees that merits or encourages any degree of trust, an observation that tends to sadden me, but there it is, big as life and a couple of times as ugly.
By the way, is is NOT a case of Democrats v. Republicans, for neither side has shown itself to be trustworthy.
Mental Illness
I guess I'm still very uncomfortable with the fact that someone who may have been committed can never own a firearm - ever not matter what - perminantly stripped of their constitutional rights. Many illnesses are treated or perminantly resolved. Someone spends a week in a hospital involuntarily and then from that point decades later, with no indication of illness whatsoever is still banned from buying a gun - no questions asked, no chance for remedy.
I guess I'm still very uncomfortable with the fact that someone who may have been committed can never own a firearm - ever not matter what - perminantly stripped of their constitutional rights. Many illnesses are treated or perminantly resolved. Someone spends a week in a hospital involuntarily and then from that point decades later, with no indication of illness whatsoever is still banned from buying a gun - no questions asked, no chance for remedy.
LAK Supply
Member
Hmmm. . . . after reading some of the posts here it appears that "shall not be infringed" has been turned into "shall not be completely infringed unless we think it should be." I wonder when this change was made; I guess I must have missed it . . . . . . . . 
Another way to think about it:
Guy is young and stupid, pushes himself too hard and ends up suffering a breakdown consequently being committed.
Flash forward 20 years - neary a spot of illness or any mental issues whatsoever - establishes himself in the local business scene and buys 20 acres of property. Low and behold, he cannot hunt his own land even though he's mentally fit, a good citizen, pays his taxes and loves his God, country aqnd family.
This does not seem to be reasonable or constitutional. It's because of the stigma put forth from various institutions and a laziness on the part of law makers to avoid making important distinctions in the various classes of mental illness.
Guy is young and stupid, pushes himself too hard and ends up suffering a breakdown consequently being committed.
Flash forward 20 years - neary a spot of illness or any mental issues whatsoever - establishes himself in the local business scene and buys 20 acres of property. Low and behold, he cannot hunt his own land even though he's mentally fit, a good citizen, pays his taxes and loves his God, country aqnd family.
This does not seem to be reasonable or constitutional. It's because of the stigma put forth from various institutions and a laziness on the part of law makers to avoid making important distinctions in the various classes of mental illness.
alan
Member
roy g biv wrote:
Another way to think about it:
Guy is young and stupid, pushes himself too hard and ends up suffering a breakdown consequently being committed.
Flash forward 20 years - neary a spot of illness or any mental issues whatsoever - establishes himself in the local business scene and buys 20 acres of property. Low and behold, he cannot hunt his own land even though he's mentally fit, a good citizen, pays his taxes and loves his God, country aqnd family.
This does not seem to be reasonable or constitutional. It's because of the stigma put forth from various institutions and a laziness on the part of law makers to avoid making important distinctions in the various classes of mental illness.
-------------------
Has it been, in any way at all demonstrated, that the relevant or referenced "lawmakers" are intelligent, competent or sane enough to make the above mentioned distinctions? As an example of their INCOMPETENCE, take a look at some of the laws that they do enact.
Another way to think about it:
Guy is young and stupid, pushes himself too hard and ends up suffering a breakdown consequently being committed.
Flash forward 20 years - neary a spot of illness or any mental issues whatsoever - establishes himself in the local business scene and buys 20 acres of property. Low and behold, he cannot hunt his own land even though he's mentally fit, a good citizen, pays his taxes and loves his God, country aqnd family.
This does not seem to be reasonable or constitutional. It's because of the stigma put forth from various institutions and a laziness on the part of law makers to avoid making important distinctions in the various classes of mental illness.
-------------------
Has it been, in any way at all demonstrated, that the relevant or referenced "lawmakers" are intelligent, competent or sane enough to make the above mentioned distinctions? As an example of their INCOMPETENCE, take a look at some of the laws that they do enact.
This is like giving the gun grabbers a blank check. They could make it so if your blood pressure is higher than 110/70 you can't have a gun because you're 'hot blooded' or 'too stressed.' What if you were ever on Zoloft or Prozac when a kid? Now you're a mental defective. Give them an inch and they'll take a few miles.
"It's just another dollar in the bank of permissiveness." - Frank Burns, MASH
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
No, it doesn't give them new power to prohibit people. It just says that they can demand anything that will help them determine whether you are prohibited. They can't stop you from owning a firearm if you don't fit into the category; but they could gather a lot of private personal data if they abused that clause.
alan
Member
Bartholomew Roberts writes in response to an earlier post:
No, it doesn't give them new power to prohibit people. It just says that they can demand anything that will help them determine whether you are prohibited. They can't stop you from owning a firearm if you don't fit into the category; but they could gather a lot of private personal data if they abused that clause.
---------------------------
Bart:
Given the past performances of our anti gun friends, and respecting your closing observation, are you inferring that there would not be the abuse you mention?
No, it doesn't give them new power to prohibit people. It just says that they can demand anything that will help them determine whether you are prohibited. They can't stop you from owning a firearm if you don't fit into the category; but they could gather a lot of private personal data if they abused that clause.
---------------------------
Bart:
Given the past performances of our anti gun friends, and respecting your closing observation, are you inferring that there would not be the abuse you mention?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I can't say what they would or wouldn't do. I was just pointing out that the bill doesn't allow them to add new prohibited categories.
Lucky
Member
Why doesn't the NRA oppose it???????????
http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/WGO_Winter 2007 Newsletter.pdf
http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/WGO_Winter 2007 Newsletter.pdf
Dr. Dickie
Member
Historically, I would think that what they would do is first get this in there, then start to lower the standards necessary to be described as having a mental illness.
After all, doesn't just about everyone that is engaged in combat suffer from mental stress! Well, isn't mental stress really just a lesser form of mental illness? I mean come on. I think we can exclude anyone with prior military service right off the bat.
Look at what has happened with ADD. People read about these growing epidemics of certain things, and often the reason they are growing is they are changing the definition to include more and more people. Why? To get more funding to study the problem.
Once they have access to your records to "see" if there is anything that might disqualify you, what it takes to disqualify you can change.
"Mmmm, doctor here notes that patient seems to be suffering from stress. Could me a mental problem, denied!"
Master Blaster
Member
This is what will have the states lobbing to kill this bill. They are requiring that the state computerize its records back to 1977. many states have paper records prior to 1990. They dont have the staffing in their Bureau of identification to go back and computerize these records.
We need to have our representatives tack on a reopening of the machine gun registry provision. Or perhaps a clause recognizing the second amendment as an individual right, which included the right to own military style semi automatic weapons, and a prohibition on their ban or regulation.
- Status