Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

House passes VT gun bill

Discussion in 'Legal' started by HUMONGO, Jun 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HUMONGO

    HUMONGO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    Behind enemy lines in Bodymore, Murderland

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

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    Yuck.

    Why is the NRA supporting this?

    Do I have to withdraw my membership to get their attention?
     
  3. HUMONGO

    HUMONGO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    Behind enemy lines in Bodymore, Murderland
    I think the bill may actually be a good thing. First, it sets the precident of enforcing current laws. More importantly, it offers reprieve for those wrongly denied.
     
  4. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    So we need new laws in order to enforce the ones we already have?!?

    I'd rather get rid of the witch trial than add a way for a witch to apply for repreive.
     
  5. helpless

    helpless Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    770
    Have to CONTROL those guns.
     
  6. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    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
     
  7. GTSteve03

    GTSteve03 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,192
    Location:
    Cumming, GA
    I'm curious who that third group might include, and whether the NRA gets to decide who gets in.

    I guess I should send more money to Paul than the NRA since at least he's willing to fight gun control.
     
  8. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    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
     
  9. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Doctors cannot be bullied into adjudicating a patient as mentally defective. They do not have such power. Only a judge can do that.
     
  10. Oana

    Oana Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    197
    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?
     
  11. outerlimit

    outerlimit Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,375
    This surprises anyone that the NRA is for it?


    Next they'll be endorsing Rudy McRomney.
     
  12. 44Brent

    44Brent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  13. HUMONGO

    HUMONGO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    Behind enemy lines in Bodymore, Murderland
    +1
     
  14. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    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)?
     
  15. MrPeter

    MrPeter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    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.
     
  16. PILMAN

    PILMAN Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,054
    Location:
    Florida Panhandle
    If someone is bipolar I, are they affected by this bill?
     
  17. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    The judge presiding over the hearing in relation to whatever whacky thing one might have done to land themselves in a courtroom.
     
  18. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Not unless they do something that brings them to the attention of the court.
     
  19. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    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?
     
  20. Noxx

    Noxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Location:
    SoCal
    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.
     
  21. Geno
    • Contributing Member

    Geno Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,276
    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.
     
  22. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    5,503
    Location:
    Deep in the valley
    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.
     
  23. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    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
     
  24. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    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".

    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)

    I really get nervous when people start deciding "who is fit" enough to excercise their rights.
     
  25. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page