TCB in TN
Member
If you are such a danger to society that you should no long have your rights then you should be incarcerated or institutionalized. NO more gun control laws.
House passes VT gun bill
- Thread starter HUMONGO
- Start date
- Status
DomMega
Member
Freedom is not without danger. Sorry if you find that cold and callous, but there is no amount of freedom that can be sacrificed that will guarantee safety.
Oh, it takes a lot for me to find something cold and callous my friend. You're just stating an opinion which is fine, thats what we do around here, especially in this particular forum and I understand the point you're trying to make. But you're basically saying that its ok to knowingly allow someone who has had evidence of destructive behavior against themselves and others to lawfully have an instrument of death which I think is something that can only be owned by a lawful SANE person, which they are not. In the grand scheme of things it will just make all those anti-gun paranoid people more upset and more angry with us legal folk who try to tell them how stupid gun control is, which is something I still believe whole heartedly. We just have to keep the symbolism of it all legit and not compromise it in any way. And thats what we would be doing if we were to ever go along with something like this. The judge is the one who would have to declare you mentally deficient.
What if someone who is by all definitions a "nut" and is a danger to themselves and everyone else gets a hold of a car, a baseball bat, a knife, a bag of fertilizer and can of heating oil, or a voter registration card? Where are the fact-based (as opposed to emotion-based) priorities? Where does it end?
I think we're just splitting hairs here with this one. People get drunk and drive and kill people every day of the week. And if they do it enough they go to jail and are removed from society. People that have been declared mentally deficient have already been removed from society at some point in most cases. I just see this entire thing as more watching out for us and ensuring our rights to be able to carry and be able to protect our families. Imagine if some other guy who was a nut job had the same right and just went nuts one day because he was mad, started shooting up everyone in a grocery store and had attained his weapons legally. People would have a field day with that one and they'd put pressure on the people who made it possible to defend ourselves. No thanks.
Oh, it takes a lot for me to find something cold and callous my friend. You're just stating an opinion which is fine, thats what we do around here, especially in this particular forum and I understand the point you're trying to make. But you're basically saying that its ok to knowingly allow someone who has had evidence of destructive behavior against themselves and others to lawfully have an instrument of death which I think is something that can only be owned by a lawful SANE person, which they are not. In the grand scheme of things it will just make all those anti-gun paranoid people more upset and more angry with us legal folk who try to tell them how stupid gun control is, which is something I still believe whole heartedly. We just have to keep the symbolism of it all legit and not compromise it in any way. And thats what we would be doing if we were to ever go along with something like this. The judge is the one who would have to declare you mentally deficient.
What if someone who is by all definitions a "nut" and is a danger to themselves and everyone else gets a hold of a car, a baseball bat, a knife, a bag of fertilizer and can of heating oil, or a voter registration card? Where are the fact-based (as opposed to emotion-based) priorities? Where does it end?
I think we're just splitting hairs here with this one. People get drunk and drive and kill people every day of the week. And if they do it enough they go to jail and are removed from society. People that have been declared mentally deficient have already been removed from society at some point in most cases. I just see this entire thing as more watching out for us and ensuring our rights to be able to carry and be able to protect our families. Imagine if some other guy who was a nut job had the same right and just went nuts one day because he was mad, started shooting up everyone in a grocery store and had attained his weapons legally. People would have a field day with that one and they'd put pressure on the people who made it possible to defend ourselves. No thanks.
Brett Bellmore
Member
This is a bad bill. How do I know this?
They don't pass good bills secretly by voice vote. GOOD bills they're proud of, they WANT their names on them.
This isn't one of those cases where the NRA's usual "Something was going to pass, we helped write it to minimize the damage." rational applies. Nothing was going to pass without the NRA's active support, and even with that support they were so scared of voter backlash they felt the need to keep us from knowing who actually voted for it. Backlash from US, folks; They're coming to understand that the NRA doesn't really represent gun owners anymore, that the NRA's support for a bill doesn't mean it won't piss us off.
With this step, the NRA has officially made the transition from fighting against gun control, to fighting for it. To thinking moderate INCREASES in gun control are desirable. I've stomached a lot from the NRA over the years, but I think this is the time for me to cut my life membership card up, and mail it in.
They don't pass good bills secretly by voice vote. GOOD bills they're proud of, they WANT their names on them.
This isn't one of those cases where the NRA's usual "Something was going to pass, we helped write it to minimize the damage." rational applies. Nothing was going to pass without the NRA's active support, and even with that support they were so scared of voter backlash they felt the need to keep us from knowing who actually voted for it. Backlash from US, folks; They're coming to understand that the NRA doesn't really represent gun owners anymore, that the NRA's support for a bill doesn't mean it won't piss us off.
With this step, the NRA has officially made the transition from fighting against gun control, to fighting for it. To thinking moderate INCREASES in gun control are desirable. I've stomached a lot from the NRA over the years, but I think this is the time for me to cut my life membership card up, and mail it in.
RealGun
Member
Did anyone say that? I don't believe the law says that. I believe the language is "a threat to himself or others". If actually having a record of being a danger, a restriction is a no brainer, until such time as officially deemed a normal member of society. In order for RKBA to be sacred, there would need to be a genuine provision for conditions under which rights would be restored. That will not happen unless the law is explicit. Leaving it up to regulatory discretion is no different than saying the restriction will be permanent...sorry.
JohnBT
Member
"They're coming to understand that the NRA doesn't really represent gun owners anymore"
The NRA does represent gun owners.
Federal law has prohibited firearms purchase and possession by individuals adjudicated mentally ill/involuntarily committed since 1968.
Are we close enough to next year to just call it 40 years?
Now they're working on a law to encourage the other 28 states to computerize their records of the folks who fall in the legally adjudicated group. Only 22 states have been reporting any info and none of those complete info on persons prohibited by the 1968 law.
Good luck getting the '68 GCA overturned. I'm not saying I'd mind it, just good luck.
John
The NRA does represent gun owners.
Federal law has prohibited firearms purchase and possession by individuals adjudicated mentally ill/involuntarily committed since 1968.
Are we close enough to next year to just call it 40 years?
Now they're working on a law to encourage the other 28 states to computerize their records of the folks who fall in the legally adjudicated group. Only 22 states have been reporting any info and none of those complete info on persons prohibited by the 1968 law.
Good luck getting the '68 GCA overturned. I'm not saying I'd mind it, just good luck.
John
I have to agree with JohnBT. Their is nothing I see in this bill that adds any additional restriction to our gun rights. It merely enfoces what is already there. Keeping in mind what could have happened after VT I think we got off easy.
Why give the anti-gunners anything if we don't have to? Even if it is small (and that's debatable).
Hardly anyone in Congress wanted to go on record for any gun control even after VT. Note the sneaky voice vote, so no one knows who voted for it.
Even when we are winning in public opinion, the NRA is still compromising. I'm sick of it. Gun Owners of America more accurately reflects my views and gets my support.
How about rolling back what is already there? Do you think the Libs will ever settle for the status quo?
Fletchette
Member
Bravo!
We will never get our rights back (and yes, we have lost a bunch of them) unless we are willing to go on the offensive. After a long, bitter and difficult Klinton administration, the Second Amendment rights groups managed a very successful defensive campaign. We managed to prevent most new gun legislation and convince even Klinton himself that gun control was a losing issue. But it was not really a 'victory'; it was merely effective defense.
Once you stop the enemy advance it is not the time to lay back and rest - you must immediately go on the offensive or else the enemy will re-group and attack you again.
We HAVE to get comfortable with the fact that we need to go on the offensive and repeal the multitude of unconstitutional laws and not become content with "brokering deals" that allow for the passage of new gun control laws, however small the incremental change is. That is why I am against this bill, even if it in its current form does not interoduce anything "new", it should be defeated on principle and a gun law repeal bill immediately submitted to Congress.
A poster here said that they dont think it is so bad because who wants "people who are a danger to themselves or others" to be able to have firearms.
That could be a pretty broad blanket. I do not see any thing about that in the Second amendment.
That could be a pretty broad blanket. I do not see any thing about that in the Second amendment.
Brett Bellmore
Member
The other purpose of "sneaky voice votes" is to prevent you from being able to prove in court that there wasn't a quorum present when they held the vote. You may be quite certain that relatively few members were actually present to vote for that bill.
And considering that the members most likely to vote against this bill are our best allies, keep in mind that the NRA was party to deliberately engineering a vote with pro-gun House members absent. Which is why I say they've crossed the line: They actually conspired with the anti-gunners against us in this case.
JohnBT
Member
"How about rolling back what is already there? Do you think the Libs will ever settle for the status quo?"
Not while the Democrats are winning the Congressional elections and setting their sights on the Oval Office.
Some people seem to think the NRA runs Congress and votes on laws. Why they think that is beyond explanation.
Regarding GOA, well, send them your money and see what you get for it other than a bunch of e-mails slamming the NRA. Uh-oh, now I've done it.
John
Not while the Democrats are winning the Congressional elections and setting their sights on the Oval Office.
Some people seem to think the NRA runs Congress and votes on laws. Why they think that is beyond explanation.
Regarding GOA, well, send them your money and see what you get for it other than a bunch of e-mails slamming the NRA. Uh-oh, now I've done it.
John
Actually, the thing I like about GOA is that they spend most of their efforts alerting me via email to call and write elected officals about pending legislation, whether my membership is up to date or not.
All I ever get from the NRA is expensive solicitations to send the NRA more money.
Unfortunately, the NRA needs to be bashed over this recent bill.
Here's what happened to a poor guy that was lost and looking for the gun range.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=56748
Edited to add - the "Baker Act" is Florida's M.H. Act, F.S. 394. Being "Baker Acted" typically means being taken in for psychiatric observation and evaluation. If the psych./facility feels it is warranted they can petition the state to hold an involuntary commitment(treatment) hearing.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=56748
Edited to add - the "Baker Act" is Florida's M.H. Act, F.S. 394. Being "Baker Acted" typically means being taken in for psychiatric observation and evaluation. If the psych./facility feels it is warranted they can petition the state to hold an involuntary commitment(treatment) hearing.
Last edited:
Posters have been ok with this bill because it doesn't add new restrictions and/or fixes a broken system and it's ok because people can petition to get off the ban list.
1. Does fixing an injust system make it better? That it hasn't been functional has been a saving grace. Sure there are some people who received a MH commitment probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I bet there are a lot more who have moved past their problems and don't deserve this.
2. The feds position is that a person EVER committed, even as a minor, for treatment, even for 1 day, is FOREVER barred from the right to protect him/herself. There is no getting better. Petty criminals can petition to get off the list. "Mental defectives" can't.
3. People do not understand how capricious the MH system really is. People are committed all the time for unbelievable reasons. Little things like greed and doctors on power trips (ie. you dare disagree with their treatment plan.)
4. Contrary to what someone posted - it is almost impossible to prove you were improperly committed, let alone win a multi-million $ judgement.
5. People forget how easy it is for regimes to use state run psychiatry to eliminate opposition and silence dissent. Remember the Soviet Union and Cuba? Think it would never happen here?
6. Imagine if the litmus test question for deciding mental illness became "Do you believe your .gov always acts in your best interest?" No - you are labeled a paranoid conspiratorialist and deemed to dangerous to be allowed to own weapons. Yes - you are a sheeple and don't need to own guns because the .gov will take care of you.
Do YOU suffer from RTKBAitis?
1. Does fixing an injust system make it better? That it hasn't been functional has been a saving grace. Sure there are some people who received a MH commitment probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I bet there are a lot more who have moved past their problems and don't deserve this.
2. The feds position is that a person EVER committed, even as a minor, for treatment, even for 1 day, is FOREVER barred from the right to protect him/herself. There is no getting better. Petty criminals can petition to get off the list. "Mental defectives" can't.
3. People do not understand how capricious the MH system really is. People are committed all the time for unbelievable reasons. Little things like greed and doctors on power trips (ie. you dare disagree with their treatment plan.)
4. Contrary to what someone posted - it is almost impossible to prove you were improperly committed, let alone win a multi-million $ judgement.
5. People forget how easy it is for regimes to use state run psychiatry to eliminate opposition and silence dissent. Remember the Soviet Union and Cuba? Think it would never happen here?
6. Imagine if the litmus test question for deciding mental illness became "Do you believe your .gov always acts in your best interest?" No - you are labeled a paranoid conspiratorialist and deemed to dangerous to be allowed to own weapons. Yes - you are a sheeple and don't need to own guns because the .gov will take care of you.
Do YOU suffer from RTKBAitis?
gc70
Member
Here is a word-for-word comparison of the original HR 297 versus HR 2640 as passed by the House. Verbiage deleted from HR 297 is struck through and shown in red. Verbiage added by HR 2640 is underlined.
Read and judge for yourself.
Read and judge for yourself.
gc70 - I wasn't aware the bill had been changed so much. (Perhaps because they did it in SECRET.) It seems they did a reasonable job working with the mental health groups to get some decent protections built in. Thanks for the update.
Assuming this passes, hopefully it will actually work as written.
Assuming this passes, hopefully it will actually work as written.
RealGun
Member
I recall statements of fact regarding NRA actions or positions. I also recall inferring that GOA by comparison was tougher. I do not recall any outright "bashing" of NRA nor any constant effort to discredit them as a means of promoting GOA as an alternative. GOA needs to justify itself and to remind members why it is a valuable organization. Obviously they are not going to promote the notion that all one has to do is join the NRA.
RealGun
Member
Well yeah, keeping track of mentally defective people sounds like a good idea, and coordinating State action sounds right too. The problem is the federal government does not have legitimate jurisdiction. This is all based upon the income tax. If States want their appropriations, they will comply. It's blackmail. Furthermore, the law is an unfunded mandate. Instead of providing funding for another State burden, they just blackmail the States. They have done routinely and will rely upon that strategy and those precedents again. The country took a hard left turn when they empowered the federal government with massive amounts of tax dollars.
"Interstate commerce" is often an illegitimate regulatory power as well.
I just have a problem with gaming the Constitution with the aid of the courts. If there needs to be a method of coordinating action among the States, why can't they do it right instead of creating so much disdain for the law?
I wouldn't be satisfied with this law or the provisions of GCA 1968 in this regard unless it was the State that said who will or will not be on the list. If a State can put someone on the list, they should be the authority to remove the person's name. The federal agency is not a higher authority in my opinion. To me, they have no legitimate jurisdicton beyond being the keeper of the list. The Feds should not be able to override the State's own list. If your State says you are good to go, and you are not on any other State's list (NICS), the Feds should not be able to rule otherwise, saying you cannot be removed from your own State's record.
"Interstate commerce" is often an illegitimate regulatory power as well.
I just have a problem with gaming the Constitution with the aid of the courts. If there needs to be a method of coordinating action among the States, why can't they do it right instead of creating so much disdain for the law?
I wouldn't be satisfied with this law or the provisions of GCA 1968 in this regard unless it was the State that said who will or will not be on the list. If a State can put someone on the list, they should be the authority to remove the person's name. The federal agency is not a higher authority in my opinion. To me, they have no legitimate jurisdicton beyond being the keeper of the list. The Feds should not be able to override the State's own list. If your State says you are good to go, and you are not on any other State's list (NICS), the Feds should not be able to rule otherwise, saying you cannot be removed from your own State's record.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked