House passes VT gun bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

HUMONGO

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
131
Location
Behind enemy lines in Bodymore, Murderland
WASHINGTON - The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help.

The bill, which was passed on a voice vote, would improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to stop gun purchases by people, including criminals and those adjudicated as mentally defective, who are prohibited from possessing firearms.

Seung-Hui Cho, who in April killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech before taking his own life, had been ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying two guns he used in the rampage. But the state of Virginia had never forwarded this information to the national background check system.

If it moves through the Senate and is signed into law by the president, the bill would be the most important gun control act since Congress banned some assault weapons in 1994, the last year Democrats controlled the House. In 1996, Congress added people convicted of domestic violence to the list of those banned from purchasing firearms.

The bill was the outcome of weeks of negotiations between Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the most senior member of the House and a strong supporter of gun rights, and the NRA, and in turn, with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a leading gun-control advocate.

"This is good policy that will save lives," McCarthy said.

The NRA insisted that it was not a "gun control" bill because it does not disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm.

The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them."

Under a gun control act that passed in 1968, the year Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, illegal drug users, those adjudicated as mentally disabled, and illegal aliens.

The legislation approved Wednesday would require states to automate and share disqualifying records with the FBI's NICS database. The bill also provides $250 million a year over the next three years to help states meet those goals and imposes penalties, including cuts in federal grants under an anti-crime law, to those states that fail to meet benchmarks for automating their systems and supplying information to the NICS.

The NRA did win some concessions in negotiating the final product.

It would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.

"It was necessary to make some accommodations to address the concerns of gun owners," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., adding that he would be closely monitoring the provision on restoring gun rights to veterans judged to have mental disabilities.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group supported the legislation, noting that the Virginia Tech shootings "tragically demonstrated the gaps in the system that allowed a dangerous person to be armed."

He said he hoped Congress and the gun lobby would go a step further and extend background checks to all gun sales, not just those licenses dealers covered by current law.

The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. He described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the 2nd Amendment.

McCarthy, in an emotional speech, said that "this has been a long, long journey for me." She ran for Congress on a gun control agenda after her husband was gunned down on a Long Island commuter train in 1993.


At least it sets guidelines for spending the money on NICS and appealing denials.
 
Yuck.

Why is the NRA supporting this?

Do I have to withdraw my membership to get their attention?
 
I think the bill may actually be a good thing. First, it sets the precident of enforcing current laws

So we need new laws in order to enforce the ones we already have?!?

More importantly, it offers reprieve for those wrongly denied.

I'd rather get rid of the witch trial than add a way for a witch to apply for repreive.
 
I think this bill is not so bad, in and of itself. Who wants "people who are a danger to themselves or others" to have access to boomsticks?

I don't read this as a gun control bill; I see it as an information availability bill.

TC
 
The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them."
I'm curious who that third group might include, and whether the NRA gets to decide who gets in.

The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. He described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the 2nd Amendment.
I guess I should send more money to Paul than the NRA since at least he's willing to fight gun control.
 
Hark to my words.
We will come to regret this in the years to come.
It is but one short step to requiring a mental health check up as a requirement for a purchase. Doctors are more easily bullied than private citizens. For further information please research the AMA's opinion on gun control.

Jefferson
 
Under a gun control act that passed in 1968, the year Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, illegal drug users, those adjudicated as mentally disabled, and illegal aliens.

Doctors cannot be bullied into adjudicating a patient as mentally defective. They do not have such power. Only a judge can do that.
 
Wow. I only just realized that this bill was actually in the House, and now it's passed. :fire: If the Brady Center, Chuck Schumer and the NRA agree on something, my first reaction isn't to say, "It's OK, the NRA is for it," but..."What on earth is wrong with the NRA?!" It sounds rather OK on its face, but then you get to the sticky situation of what constitutes "mental illness". Why is the NRA even supporting this - why not let it/help it die?

And can we clone Ron Paul?
 
I think this bill is not so bad, in and of itself. Who wants "people who are a danger to themselves or others" to have access to boomsticks?

This is thinking that serves as the entire basis for "gun control". As a matter of fact, there is no form of "gun control" that keeps criminals from obtaining weapons and this will not do one bit of good in stopping future massacres. However, it will expose further "loopholes" which will need to be closed (for the good of the children, of course).

This was the final straw that led me to deciding not to renew my NRA membership. The other was NRA's continuous attempts to derail Parker vs. D.C. There has to be a point when people have to wake up and realize that the NRA is a strong proponent of "gun control". The only difference between the NRA and the Brady Campaign is that the NRA wants slightly less "gun control". Individuals for both organizations make a nice living lobbying to convince legislators about the level of "gun control" that should be implemented. I've paid membership fees to the NRA for years and they've played me for a sucker.
 
I think this bill is not so bad, in and of itself. Who wants "people who are a danger to themselves or others" to have access to boomsticks?

Do you really think those in power will not abuse this? To the Brady-types EVERYONE with a gun are people that "are a danger to themselves or to others". Who gets to decide who is "dangerous"? Congress? The local police chief? An anonymous tipster?

This bill is VERY dangerous. Who do we call to kill it in the Senate (the NRA seems to be asleep)?
 
I don't know... When I read this I don't feel offended. We have been preaching for a long time now to let law-abiding citizens keep whatever they want, and keep the guns away from criminals. Isn't that just what this bill is doing?

It wouldnt make much sense if we first let everyone have a machine gun and THEN prevent the loonies from getting them. We have to put the restriction in place BEFORE we allow everything that should be allowed to us non-criminals and non-crazies.

Don't forget that for every 1 person who isn't nuts and deserves to be able to protect themselves, there are (insert large number here, i dont know the statistic exactly) more people who really ARE unfit to own a gun. If you've never met any, trust me, they are definately out there. Cho is just one extreme example. When you say that the NICS check doesn't work because we don't turn crazy people away, this is a step to fix that. It's not an end all solution, and I can see how it could be seen as anti-gun, but I believe that is a step that COULD be in the right direction, if the left foot steps correctly next time.
 
The NRA needs to fight for the right of the mentally ill to own firearms. What better way is there for a paranoid person to feel safe than to let him have as many guns and as much ammunition as he wants?
 
This doesn't introduce any new qualifying factors for exclusion, just insists that the state go about notifying the Fed if you've been found incompetent at a state level.

I always wonder about the Feds motives, but I'm not crawling into my bomb shelter over this one just yet.
 
I have said before, and I will repeat it yet once more...this will do nothing! Evil is not mental defect. Evil is just that...evil and willful disregard for society.
 
I'm ALWAYS disturbed when something is based on a nebulous a concept as "mental health" (can we say "thought crime"?). So people may be punished/infringed when they haven't actually committed any crimes?

This is BIG trouble.
 
Let me caveat my lack of concern by saying that I believe there exist protocols for the medical profession to recommend to a judge that a person is mentally incompetent and/or a danger to themselves or others, and for said judge to so adjudicate. Correct me, please, if that's wrong.

Robert, do you really want the mentally ill to have firearms, or did I miss the (what I hope was) sarcasm?

TC
 
I don't know... When I read this I don't feel offended. We have been preaching for a long time now to let law-abiding citizens keep whatever they want, and keep the guns away from criminals. Isn't that just what this bill is doing?

So why do they need to pass a law that enforces the same thing as existing laws? This reminds me a lot of the immigration bill that says "give us amnesty and then we will really, truly enforce the laws already on the books".

It wouldnt make much sense if we first let everyone have a machine gun and THEN prevent the loonies from getting them. We have to put the restriction in place BEFORE we allow everything that should be allowed to us non-criminals and non-crazies.

This really, really depends on who gets to decide what is "mentally ill". It appears that in the origninal bill this was undefined - leaving a huge opportunity to gun-haters to define anyone they didn't like as "mentally ill". More recent revisions appear to have a judge do the deciding, which is presently the case so why pass a new law stating the same thing as the old law...unless they wish to actually do something else (aka just like the immigration bill)

Don't forget that for every 1 person who isn't nuts and deserves to be able to protect themselves, there are (insert large number here, i dont know the statistic exactly) more people who really ARE unfit to own a gun. If you've never met any, trust me, they are definately out there. Cho is just one extreme example. When you say that the NICS check doesn't work because we don't turn crazy people away, this is a step to fix that. It's not an end all solution, and I can see how it could be seen as anti-gun, but I believe that is a step that COULD be in the right direction, if the left foot steps correctly next time.

I really get nervous when people start deciding "who is fit" enough to excercise their rights.
 
How long do you think it will take before they realize that the percentage of "legally adjudicated" is VERY low in relation to the actual numbers of those who could be classed as "mentally ill?" How long after that will we see yet a new law to "close the loophole?" This new (hypothetical) law would then require a "Mental Health Checkup" as a prerequisite to a purchase and again I say Doctors are more easily bullied than ordinary citizens. The desire to own a firearm for self-defense could easily be classified as Paranoia if you cannot cite a specific threat, and reacting out of fear if you can.

Jefferson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top