House passes VT gun bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
I brought it up because you ignored my very pertinent question on how this bill is justified as a Federal action (the Fed can only enforce it's will over states if it affects interstate commerce. Otherwise it is unconstitutional according to the Tenth Amendment).

See, I knew that's where you were going with that, and so did you, so it's more than a bit rhetorical, which is why it resulted in some eye-rolling on my end of the internet.

You're correct about the tenth ammendment, and I won't dispute that point. However, trying to put THAT horse back in the barn is a whole nother thread, don't you think? We're well past the point where we could reasonably undo the fed's wildly overreaching power without a wholesale restructuring of the government. Now, I don't want to chase that particular rabbit, because it leads us way off-topic (fwiw it's one we would probably agree on).

In the real nuts and bolts world, the Fed already has their fingers in it, because we each are subject to a federal background check each time we purchase a firearm. Without removing that system, it's my opinion that the best we can hope for is to get it working as it was intended, which is the thrust of this most recent legislation.
 
If the State of Virgina was one of a handful of states that was already complying with adding this data to the NICS, and that didn't stop the Murder at Virginia Tech, How is this Bill going to stop future Virginia Tech Murders?

States can already add this information to the data base. More of the same is just more of the same. If the problem is not being able to clear one's record, then they need to address that and only that.

If state law conflicts with federal law on the definitions of mental defective and commitment, what prevails federal or state law?
 
Noxx,

Thank you for recognizing the fact that this bill oversteps it's authority based on the Tenth Amendment.

Since this is the first Federal gun legislation in over a decade, I am not one to just accept that this bill is nothing to be concerned about. Considering its sponsors (Schumer et al), I think suspicion is only being responsible.

With regards to the Second Amendment, I am still not sold on this bill. Several other members have raised very valid issues with regards to how NICS has been /will be handled and I think a detailed explanation is a legitimate request. At present, the explanation is, "trust us".

So, even within the narrow confines of the Second Amendment (and disregarding how this bill is unconstitutional by violating the Tenth) I do not think it is a good idea in it's present form.

Thanks again for debating the bill, and if you haven't heard it from someone already, welcome to The High Road! ;)
 
Originally posted by DomMega:
All its doing is finally enforcing what is already on the books into the NICS. Nobody wants someone straight out of the nut hut to be buying guns when their mentally deficient, I sure don't. The VT gunman was a complete nutbar to say the least. Granted he would've retrieved guns somehow, but if it makes it harder to attain them legally, than so be it. The working order of a saturday night special is questionable at best.

First off if they are going to get guns anyway why should it be harder for me the law abiding citizen? Second I dont think you should ever complain about CA gun laws as it will only make it harder for a criminal to commit a crime.

And what are you talking about Saturday Night Specials? So because a criminal may buy a broken gun illegally its ok to make it harder for law abiding people to buy new guns legally. That is logical. :rolleyes:
 
Dare I Say It Again?

Those who cannot be trusted with arms belong in prison or executed, institutionalized, or under full time guardianship. No NICS needed, then.

Pretty simple, isn't it! Cheaper, too.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other act that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
 
First off if they are going to get guns anyway why should it be harder for me the law abiding citizen?

Have you been committed? Then how in any way does it make your getting guns harder?
 
Whether or not of this bill will do anything positive or negative, I'm not sure, but I can say that anything that is passed as knee jerk reaction to a tragedy is usually a sensationalized piece of junk that does nothing but trade freedom for security.
 
Doctors and judges will probably be fairly cautious in determining who is actually mentally defective. Some are suggesting that the courts will run all willy-nilly with this, and the concern has crossed my mind a few times.

However, suppose a doctor determined that you are a nutball because he doesns't like the look of your face. A judge carelessly determines that he is correct. However, you get a second opinion from another doctor or two, take things to court, and BAM! multi-million dollar civil suit for the doctor and/or magistrate involved for violating your constititional and civil rights.

The mental health community should be very careful when determining whether someone needs to be labelled as a potential danger to self and society.
 
Why should we let someone who is mentally ill have a driver's license? After all, they might have a psychotic episode and decide to mow everyone down on the sidewalk or drive into a crowd.

Oh that's right, they could still do it anyways...

Hey wait a minute, I think that applies to firearms too..

Geeeeeeeeee...........
 
I'd just like to know how this affects illegal guns and the criminals who use/obtain them. Mentally incompetent criminal is going to be so mentally incompetent that he's going to try to get a firearm from a dealer?

I honestly don't know where to stand on this. I can see the merits but I can also see where it could be used to push something more...

I just dunno :(
 
Originally posted by Ratzinger P38:
Have you been committed? Then how in any way does it make your getting guns harder?

Well eventually they may committ you for things that are not committable now. Why should I have to jump through more checks and should my tax dollars pay for another pointless government program that will not prevent or solve crime?

Just because something does not affect you personally does not mean it is ok. That is the same as saying that it is ok to require extra background checks because it may prevent a crime? How about a longer waiting period because it may prevent a crime?

I am sorry but more useless laws will not do anything but further inhibit our freedoms.
 
One should note, I think, that in order for this law to really address how the VT shooting was possible, one would have to play hell getting their name off the list, and good luck with that.

Since Cho's record had been expunged by the judge, his theoretical NICS record would qualify to be removed. Some officious fed bureaucrat could then say that States' judgment on such matters cannot be trusted, and they will remove a record when it suits them. So who should really believe that being in the NICS database will not be a lifelong curse, another form of injustice and oppression by "the system". Knowing that will probably mean that there will be hesitation in committing someone.

The son of a friend of mine is just now going through the process of trying to get his guns back after his wife filed charges for spousal abuse. Now she's back, but his guns are not. There was never any evidence that the charges were valid or even that threats were made. That's the Lautenberg Amendment, but the point is that once you are on a list, good luck with getting off.

And what's with the question, [have you EVER BEEN?]. How about [are your currently?].
 
I don't like this bill but maybe some good will come of it.

Perhaps since the NRA supports this bill, maybe we'll get something in return. Like easier* ways to obtain NFA goodies. Or lowering the age requirement to 18 in order to purchase handguns so I can get that 1911 I've been coveting.

Or maybe we gun owners will be able to have universal CCL that work in every state.

*And legal.;)
 
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?

+1.

Not a big step toward the government redefining "mental health" any way it wishes.
 
Article in today's Washington Post:


A Long-Sought Advance for a Gun-Control Bid Born of Sorrow
By Lois Romano
Thursday, June 14, 2007; Page A25

Carolyn McCarthy was a content homemaker and a nurse before gun violence blew up her life. Yesterday, she found a moment of peace when a promising piece of gun-control legislation cleared the House.

Fourteen years ago, the New York Democrat's husband, Dennis, was among six people killed when a deranged gunman opened fire on a Long Island commuter train. Her only child, Kevin, was shot in the head and injured.

From that moment, McCarthy became one of the most vocal advocates of gun control, ultimately deciding to run for Congress in 1994 after her representative voted to repeal the assault weapons ban.

"I thought I'd be here for two years," she said in an interview in her office. "I thought -- one term, I'd do my work, get gun-control legislation started. . . . But it doesn't work that way."

Now in her fifth term, McCarthy can see the light. Spurred by the massacre of 32 people by a gunman at Virginia Tech in April -- and in a rare collaboration with the National Rifle Association -- the House passed legislation that would provide money for states to collect and maintain records on the mentally ill, with penalties if states don't comply.

McCarthy said the bill in essence enforces a 1968 gun-control measure that prohibits the sale of firearms to those adjudicated as mentally ill. She gives major credit to Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, for negotiating with the organization, because she was a bit wary.

"When things like Virginia Tech happen, for me it becomes very personal and very emotional," she said. "My whole family goes almost into post-traumatic stress syndrome. It all comes back, the pain and the chaos."

This is McCarthy's fourth try at the bill, which for various reasons never made it through the process. She reintroduced it again in January, and after Virginia Tech, she said, it was on a fast track. She said that though the legislation may not have prevented her husband's shooter from buying a gun, it would have caught Seung Hui Cho, whom a judge had declared mentally ill.

The bill will now head to the Senate, where members seem confident it will pass, potentially making it the first new gun-control law in 13 years. "If I can't pass this bill now, I don't know what I'm doing here," she said.

Is she confident this bill will stop the next shooter?

"Hopefully we'll never know," she said.
 
AugustusMcCrae

You said:

Perhaps since the NRA supports this bill, maybe we'll get something in return. Like easier* ways to obtain NFA goodies. Or lowering the age requirement to 18 in order to purchase handguns so I can get that 1911 I've been coveting.

Or maybe we gun owners will be able to have universal CCL that work in every state.

All i can say to that is - i am grateful for the optimism of youth...

(in other words, the above have less chance of happening legislatively than Satan having a snowball fight in his backyard)
 
Here's the latest news...sorry if this has been repeated.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns14_jun14,1,5342176,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

House, with NRA's backing, passes gun bill
Following Virginia Tech shootings, measure would make it easier to track mental patients, others who cannot buy firearms.
By Joel Havemann
Times Staff Writer

June 14, 2007

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday passed what could become the first significant gun legislation in a decade, directing states to streamline the system for keeping track of criminals, mental patients and others barred from buying firearms, and providing $250 million a year for the central database and grants to states to contribute to it.

The bill, which was passed by acclamation, was the product of rare cooperation between gun-control advocates and the National Rifle Assn. It is intended to address problems highlighted by the April 16 mass shooting at Virginia Tech by a student with a history of mental health problems.

The measure is expected to pass the Senate.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the bill, said the current state records system was so flawed that "millions of criminal records are not accessible" by the national database that is supposed to notify gun dealers of disqualified buyers.

"I came to Congress in 1997, in the wake of my own personal tragedy, to help prevent gun violence," said McCarthy, referring to her husband's death at the hands of a gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993.

A spokesman for the NRA insisted that the bill did not amount to gun control and said the group endorsed it because it would improve enforcement of current gun restrictions, rather than adding more. "There's nothing in this bill that's a step backwards," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Stricter gun-control efforts began after President Kennedy was slain in 1963 and culminated in a significant revision of gun laws in 1968, after the assassinations of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

The last major changes came in 1994 — the last year, until now, that both houses of Congress were under Democratic control — when a five-day waiting period and background checks on potential handgun purchasers were imposed and the sale of some assault weapons was banned.

But since 1996, when individuals convicted of domestic violence were added to the list of prohibited purchasers, gun rights organizations have successfully fended off attempts to impose additional controls. Even after the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, an effort to make sales of guns at gun shows subject to rules similar to those governing licensed dealers failed in Congress. The ban on selling assault weapons was allowed to lapse in 2004.

The latest legislation passed the House as President Bush received a report on the Virginia Tech shootings recommending broader action. The report endorsed the key goal of the House legislation: better reporting by the states to the FBI's database of the names of people not allowed to purchase a gun because of a mental disability.

"The focus of discussions related to gun policy was on increasing the effectiveness of current federal firearms regulation, which is limited by divergent state practices," said the report by the departments of Health and Human Services, Justice and Education. For example, the report noted that only 23 states provide information to the FBI on people who, under federal law, cannot buy a gun because of mental health issues.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that the president "very much" supported the goals of the House bill, but that his aides had some concerns about its $250-million annual price tag.

The House acted after a parade of legislators from both parties praised the legislation. Only Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a presidential candidate, spoke out against the bill, calling it "flagrantly unconstitutional" for undermining the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms as well as a violation of privacy rights of those whose medical records go into the FBI database.

The bill would require states to enter into that database the names of persons whom a court has deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Seung-hui Cho, who killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech before taking his own life, had been ordered by a court to undergo outpatient mental health therapy and should have been barred from buying the two handguns he used. But because he was ordered to get only outpatient care, his name was not sent to the FBI.

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

LaPierre, in the uncustomary position of being in accord with Helmke, said the bill would not infringe on the right of qualified people to buy guns; it would merely tighten enforcement of existing laws that are supposed to deny unqualified persons the opportunity to buy guns. "We've always been vigorous about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them," he said.

But he warned the Senate not to amend the bill to include tougher gun controls. Such a strategy, he said, could cost the support of the gun lobby.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]

Times staff writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.
 
If someone is so "dangerous" they can't own a gun, they shouldn't be on the street.

Self defense is a basic human right.
 
This new bill provides funding, money, to the states to encourage them to submit the involuntary committment info. Not voluntary treatment info, but adjudications - involuntary committments where the judge decides a person is a danger to themselves or others and orders treatment. FWIW, many of the 2- or 3-day evaluations result in the judge allowing the person to voluntarily enter treatment and that won't count. Only when the judge orders a committment does it count.

Ah, great! So now all we need is an agenda-driven judge to start committing people for less-than-valid reasons. But that could never happen...could it? :uhoh:
The judge presiding over the hearing in relation to whatever whacky thing one might have done to land themselves in a courtroom.

Uh huh. No one ever ends up in a courtroom staring down the wrong end of the System unless they've done some "whacky" thing. The System never makes mistakes in arrests. Never in trials. Never in convictions. Never in involuntary commitments. And agenda-driven Systemites would never intentionally violate citizens' rights. :rolleyes:
 
HonorsDaddy, I know my hopes are probably not going to happen.

I'd prefer to be able to get 1911's from vending machines & suppressor's at the Dollar General.:D

However a wise man once said this, "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of all things. And no good thing ever dies." Yes I stole that from "The Shawshank Redemption" but I still stand by it. :)

However if we petition, vote, march, debate, educate & persevere through the black night that looms before us, maybe our grandchildren may be able to wake up one morning, go to their local grocery stores & pick up their MP5's with suppressors with their Raisin bran & Pepsi.:)
 
I think one of the other things some of you against this bill are failing to realize is that if someone who is by all definitions a "nut" and is a danger to themselves and everyone else, gets a hold of a gun, what do you think is going to happen? All of us will be attacked because of it. Just as always predicted, when violence of gun crime happens, everyone says, "Get rid of guns, they're so dangerous and scary!" Now imagine if some guy who has been in mental instutitions involuntarily and has to be medicated all the time is allowed to purchase firearms because the law allows him to, all of us will have a lot of explaining to do if we were the ones who said we don't stand by the bill.

The NRA is backing this thing up for a reason, and one of those reasons is to protect all of us. It's not really that hard to comprehend. After all the evidence was displayed after the tragedy at Virginia Tech and they realized that this kid was mental but it didn't show that in the NICS, I said this is something that needs to change immediately. And it did, and I'm happy about it. It does NOT affect any of you, at least I hope it doesn't. ;)
 
Now imagine if some guy who has been in mental instutitions involuntarily and has to be medicated all the time is allowed to purchase firearms because the law allows him to, all of us will have a lot of explaining to do if we were the ones who said we don't stand by the bill.
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.

I think one of the other things some of you against this bill are failing to realize is that if someone who is by all definitions a "nut" and is a danger to themselves and everyone else, gets a hold of a gun, what do you think is going to happen?
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?
 
Reasonable Gun Control sounds good enough, however you have to look more closely. The closer you look the more UNREASONABLE it becomes.

The reason is this:

First, categories of people prohibited from ownership are created (EG felons, mentally defective, etc.)

Second, those categories are made liberally expansive. For instance, someone who is arrested for public urination can be prosecuted as a sex offender, which may one day be a bar on gun ownership.

On the surface it sounds reasonable that domestic violence should be a bar to gun ownership. However, domestic violence may include pleading guilty to a misdemeanor for arguing with your spouse where the police responded and were required to arrest someone. So if you look under the surface, it's less reasonable than one might think.

I just now realized that US veterans claiming mental problems for benefits are barred from gun ownership! That is a sad state of affairs!
 
If this bill makes it through the senate and I'm sure it will, does that mean the FBI will make this new information available to the ATF, have them contact FFL dealers requesting copies of alleged offenders form 4473 and start rounding up alleged offenders that are deemed mentally unstable or convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top