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

House set to pass post-Virginia Tech gun bill

Discussion in 'Legal' started by glockman19, Jun 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. glockman19

    glockman19 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,699
    What bill is this?
     
  2. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
  3. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Note that the June 9th Washington Post article said:
    This Reuters article claims:
    Somehow, I don't see the NRA and McCarthy being on speaking terms.

    BTW, here is the new bill, HR 2640.
     
  4. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    Watch for "mentally ill" to be defined to include anyone who wants a gun.

    :mad:

    The NRA should NOT be supporting this. WTH are they doing?!?
     
  5. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    What they think they are doing is throwing the dog a bone, so as keep it from doing anything worse. Whether that is good judgment is open to dispute, I guess. Given political reality, I'm okay with it if they pull it off.
     
  6. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    I am definitely NOT fine with it. We have been down this road this road before; we know what will happen: the libs (oh hell, let's call them what they really are: communists who believe in communial philosophy) will immediately redefine what "mentally ill" means.

    People who will not be able to buy a guy:

    Anyone who is on an anti-depressent

    Anyone who has ever sought counciling

    Anyone who has a family member die

    Anyone going through a divorce

    Anyone eccentric

    You get the point...the communists will intentionally abuse this definition like they abuse "assault rifle", "cop-killer bullets" and the like so they can grab more power. The current system allows for barring someone from purchasing a gun if they are "adjudicated to be mentally insane". This requires judicial review and also removes other rights, in essence lowering a citizens status to that of a minor due to a mental health issue. Nothing needs to be changed!

    :fire:
     
  7. Erebus

    Erebus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,374
    Location:
    North Central MA
    They can just keep broadening the definition until it encompasses everyone.
     
  8. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    Funny thing is that the mentally ill are most dangerous when they are not being treated. All this bill will do is cause the paranoid to not seek treatment thereby producing the very effect that are trying to eliminate. Unless a "mental health" screening will be required for every purchase. It would weed out the unstable but is it an acceptable invasion of privacy?

    Jefferson
     
  9. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest
    In time I'm sure it will be if your are against the "state"...you will be declared mentally ill.
     
  10. Sir Aardvark

    Sir Aardvark Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,277
    Location:
    Southern California
    Let's see if I got this straight...

    Now it is even more illegal for those people who illegally possess firearms to possess those firearms illegally.
     
  11. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    I read the bill and I support it
     
  12. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    I have to say deep down I hope this happens.

    You don't have to be very old to remember how things were before the Brady Act. Now it is considered the very definition of "reasonable gun control." If the Brady Bill was worth opposing then (and it was) it's worth opposing any measure that expands, enforces, or legitimizes it now.
     
  13. Whirlwind06

    Whirlwind06 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    540
    Location:
    North East Ohio
    Next push will be to close the gun show loop hole.
    Then start tacking on more misdemeanor charges to the list that will exclude you from buying a firearm.
     
  14. jr81452

    jr81452 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    St. Pete, FL
    the bill has been passed

     
  15. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,929
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Interesting:scrutiny:

    Note that a voice vote cannot be tracked for either NRA or GOA ratings. An absence of debate also puts nothing in the Congressional record by name. Maybe we'll have to start marking the whole group down for avoiding a roll call vote.

    Note that trigger locks were also represented as a no brainer by both parties. Implications will sneak up on you later.

    My own concern about this current bill was that the final form explicitly and realistically provide for the process of getting ones name removed, no regulatory discretion by NICS. Removal of mental deficiency status should be based solely on State request and subject to confirmation.
     
  16. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    Well, that takes moxie! It is a very good sign when someone is willing to stand alone on the basis of the Constitution!
     
  17. Jorg Nysgerrig

    Jorg Nysgerrig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,823
    Nope, you don't have it straight at all. It has nothing to do with making it "more illegal".
     
  18. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    I think that the Congressional rules need to be changed to eliminate voice-voting. It was originally put in place to speed up government but now we have electronic voting. Today, voice-voting is only used to conceal how your representative voted- not good for a representative government.

    I saw them as "brainless".

    A gun purchase can be denied right now if the purchaser has been adjudicated mentally insane. There is no reason for this bill (other to allow a process other than judicial review to declare you "insane"). :barf:
     
  19. Glockman17366

    Glockman17366 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,150
    Location:
    South Central Pennsylvania
    Basically, all this bill did was add funding to a previously passed bill.
    When you fill out the form (is it 4473???) before purchasing a gun, you certify that you have never been adjudicated as mentally defective. The bill requires such adjucation as being involuntary (you aren't disqualified if you voluntarily commit yourself) and does have checks and balances to ensure your rights are restored when you are cured.

    I do expect malpractice suits over mental health issues if any shrinks pull hank panky.

    I do wish the Lautenberg amendment (disarming "domestic abusers" had been repealed though...that's a real piece of crap bill and easily abused by vindictive spouses and shifty lawyers.
     
  20. Chad

    Chad Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    263
    Location:
    Central Florida
    That's quite true.
    And it seems around here that all the 'rational' gun rights proponents are the ones that favor this bill, while those of us who spend our efforts trying to repeal the Brady Act are "all or nothing" and "tin foil hat" types.

    Ah well...it makes things harder, but we'll keep at it.
     
  21. Geno

    Geno Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,847
    No legislation will ever reduce such acts. I am not cinvinced that the guy was "mentally ill". Some people here in the US seem to have a need to label every evil deed as mental X. I personally believe the person was just plain and simply evil. He had a bitter streak a mile wide and hated America and American culture. Period. Evil and cultural hatred are not mental illness. Ergo, no law re: mental illnesses will not decrease evil acts such as this. It seems little more than feel-good legislation.
     
  22. budney

    budney member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    The premise is asinine: Cho was not adjudged mentally defective or forcibly committed. The law would not have stopped Cho from doing what he did. So what's the point of an empty gesture that merely reiterates an already-existing restriction?
     
  23. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    It hasnt created any more categories of prohibited person and it doesn't give any agency the power to expand existing categories.

    What it does do is give funding to states to provide their mental ill adjudication records to the feds (sort of fixing the Cho problem, except for how he wasn't involuntarily committed).

    More importantly it provides the ATF with funding to lift federal disabilities. There are tens of thousands of vets who came back from Vietnam with PTSD and have been denied firearms ownership for years because of this.

    This is actually a big win for gun rights being sold as a big win for gun control. That anti-gun website gunguys initially went ballistic about this and were subsequently told to **** by their Joyce Foundation bosses. They are going to try to spin this as a gun control win even though it is a big loss.

    Brady is currently operating at a huge loss due to lack of donations. They are drying up and blowing away because no one believes in them anymore. What we are seeing is the beginning of the end of the gun control movement. They are now at the point of adopting our victories as their own, but everyone who cares about the issue knows the score. That puts even more of a hurt on their funding.
     
  24. jr81452

    jr81452 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    St. Pete, FL
    i agree with lawbot. while any gun control is bs i don't see the downside in this perticular bill. if this is the worst "gun control" bill we have to deal with after VT then i would say we win this round. all they are doing is providing funding for the existing laws, and in exchange disabled vets get off the black list, and we get a clearly defined appeals process.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page