more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended

Status
Not open for further replies.
This bill does nothing for the people denied by NICS unless it is for mental reasons. How many of the over 600,000 denied are for mental reasons, how many of those will have the finances to restore their rights?
Click to expand...

Well, according to the numbers being used, 90,000 vets with PSTD were summarily added to the rolls of prohibited persons; I'm sure there are another ten thousand or so with other legitimate reasons for no longer being prohibited due to mental health reasons. I'm not saying that EVERY ONE of the people who have been denied are there by mistake or what have you, but I'm sure those people who are, would be grateful for the opportunity to get their rights back. I know that in Washington state, one can have their 2A rights restored on a state level already as is the case in many states. My argument for this bill would be that it allows the state to amend the federal prohibition list -- as it should be.

As it stands, the state puts you on the list and the feds don't ever take you off.
 
Yes there is, that's the very definition of the word "adjudicated", the legal process by which a judge reviews evidence by opposing parties and reaches a binding decision.
Click to expand...

A prosecuting attorney would never argue the meaning of the word "adjudicated'.:rolleyes:

I would feel better if it was explicit, say "legally adjudicated". I don't think that is necessarily redundant, considering how other laws have been abused.
 
A prosecuting attorney would never argue the meaning of the word "adjudicated'.

I would feel better if it was explicit, say "legally adjudicated". I don't think that is necessarily redundant, considering how other laws have been abused.
Click to expand...


I went rooting around my library's resources for definitions of all this stuff (I have some time on my hands at the reference desk). "Adjudicated mentally defective" is defined in 27 CFR 478.11 as:

"Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(b) The term shall include—

(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b."

I wonder what "other lawful authority" is. There is some room for argument.
 
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!:scrutiny:


Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:

Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.

Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.” Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”

In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the certifiably mentally incompetent or completely unstable should be walking around with guns, But I don't believe I ever saw it written in the 2A that a person had a right to bear arms only if he was of sound mind.
 
"As an example: passive-aggressive personality disorder was removed from DSM-IV, although it had been a psychiatric diagnosis for years (DSM-I through DSM-III-R)."
_______________

Please refer to DSM-IV:

301.9 - Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

"...for disorders of personality functioning that do not meet the critera for any specific Personality Disorder." ... "This category can also be used when the clinician judges that a specific Personality Disorder that is not included in the Classification is appropriate. Examples include depressive personality disorder and PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE personality disorder."

So, while it got downgraded and doesn't have its own big number in the book, it didn't completely disappear.

John
 
I don't believe I saw anything in the 2nd Amendment that said 4-year-olds can't go into a gun store and buy a gun on the way to school either.

John
 
Constitutional amendments apply to citizens. Minors are not citizens that's why they get a special body of laws and preferential sentencing. Now knock it off with the kiddy gun remarks.

Jefferson
 
the original post is an utter lie

NOBODY who sought mental help///was-is on pills, will be denied a gun


this ONLY affects those, at COURT LEVEL, are AJUDICATED (ie JUDGE) mentally ill , etc.


nobody who was 'depressed' etc at an early age is anyone subject to denial of a gun.
Click to expand...

For now.

This is a "game" of inches, where gun owners are the only folks giving up anything...ever.

If they want to streamline the NICS process, how about bringing a NICS denial appeal to a close within..... say... a MONTH. I know for a fact that the only responsibility (time wise) that NICS has to the citizen during an appeal is to send a fingerprint card to them in less than 5 business days after their appeal. After that, they can and do take all the time that they want, and they tell you that in the letter. It literally takes months and months to appeal a denial. What part of "shall not be infringed" is not being understood here?

NICS is a joke, and it is the tool of the left to delay and deny 2nd amendment rights. Helping it in ANY way except to speed it up (and this bill doesn't do it) is a mistake.
 
I oppose this bill for a couple of reasons.

There is too much ambiguity in this bill and no clear path for people to get their names removed form the NICS check list without significant legal costs.

Most of this is covered by current laws and there is no need for the additional expense to tax payers. 250,000,000 is about a dollar for every person in the country. For something that will do nothing to prevent someone from committing another VT. Let's start a database so "crazy" people can't buy gasoline or use kitchen knives. Better yet lets take away their rights to free speech or their right to vote or fair trial.

Hows this for off the wall thinking: If these people aren't cured or rehabilitated and are still a danger to themselves or others why are they on the street at all.

The NRA in bed with McCarthy is about as bad as George Bush with Ted Kennedy on the immigration bill. Frankly it all disgusts me. :barf:
 
"It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers."

No. Not true. It does not expand; it merely funds a presently-inefficient system. The inefficiencies of the present records-keeping have allowed violent felons and court-adjudicated mental-problem people to get past the NICS.

And that's the "why" of the NRA cooperation. Without the NRA's efforts, the bill could well have wound up as the GOA would have us believe. And the GOA could not do anything about that, due to little or no influence or credibility with Congress. The GOA does have value in being able to get people to contact their legislators, but little beyond that.

Art
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Art, but increasing funding for a system is expanding that system.

These "violent felons and court-adjudicated mental-problem people" will get weapons illegally anyway, no matter how efficient NICS gets.

And, why can't the NRA regularly encourage people to contact their legislators the way that GOA does?
 
My objection to this bill derives primarilly from the way it was passed: Good bills don't have to be passed that way. Good bills are enacted openly, with members recording their votes, because they don't fear the public knowing who voted for them.

It was their judgement, and the judgement of the NRA, that this wouldn't have gotten past the House if they'd scheduled the vote in advance, and done a roll call vote. That says worlds about what kind of bill THEY think it is.
 
Hmm.. Seeing as 90K vets' V.A. records were added by executive fiat, might this bill encourage more records to be added like that? Including military spouses and children? Or what about government employees like ,say, law enforcement, who sometimes undergo psychological pre-screening or later counseling for job-related stress? If vets can be added to NICS for seeking help with PTSD or whatever, might a State's records of a cop visiting a department shrink for depression/PTSD/etc.. after a deadly force situation be added?

And what happens if we end up with some sort of socialist health care system? Would visits to a state-funded psychiatrist be dumped into NICS like the V.A. records were? Yes, it's not a "adjudication" in the literal sense, but if the BATFE and the Clinton administration felt that a V.A. doctor is a "lawful authority" with or without a court martial, might a state-run doctor's opinion be treated the same?

Maybe this is just a tinfoil-induced slippery slope argument, but how much further can they nudge us towards the slope before we go sliding down it?
 
Wouldn't have stopped cho anyway he wasn't legally adjudicated, he was just ordered to counseling.

Jefferson
 
Art, we are whistling to the wind... In the dark!

First, how a person is involuntarily committed, varies from state to state. In Idaho, I can only be involuntarily committed by a court. A hearing must be held. Therefore, in Idaho, you must be adjudicated in order to be committed. Your State may not be this strict... So get on it and change your laws!

Second, The BATF has nothing whatsoever to do with who gets placed on the NICS database. That's the job of the FBI. This bill says in no uncertain or ambiguous terms that should your State remove the disability, then the FBI will remove your name from the NICS database. Further, it will be as if it was never there to begin with. That's all in section 105.

Third, since this is all done by State action, there is absolutely nothing to defund - Eat your heart out, Chuckie!
 
And there are methods included for restoration of status
Click to expand...

"They might violate your rights for a while, but don't worry, you can petition to get them back."

Schumer, on top of gun control, was pushing for government price controls on name-brand breakfast cereal a few years back--it was "too expensive" for the typical consumer, who apparently isn't smart enough to buy generic or use oatmeal. Therefore, they must be protected by the government.

He's a Nazi (Nationalist + Socialist) clown, and anything he supports should be opposed by anyone with any decency. End of discussion. If he comes out tomorrow and supports abolishing the IRS, I'm going to double check the language of the bill and look for the fine print where it will undoubtedly say, "All Americans will be paid by the State according to their needs."

Ditto for McCarthy.

If you compromise with refuse, you get smeared.

And good to see that NRA bashing is unacceptable. GOA bashing, of course, is perfectly okay. After all, they don't matter. They're loons who believe in a Second Amendment as written and won't "compromise."

What kind of fool supports THAT?

After all, NFA, GCA 68, the full auto ban, the 94 AWB, Brady, the CA ban, aren't all THAT bad, are they?

Hey, we got FOPA. So it was a compromise and fair, right?

Besides, some gun control is inevitable. Now, here's what you do: pick the kind that hurts least and use lots of lube. Don't worry, in a few years you'll learn to accept it. Fighting it will be TOO HARD! Besides, you might lose, so why not bend over and take it without a fight?:fire::cuss::banghead:
 
This bill says in no uncertain or ambiguous terms that should your State remove the disability, then the FBI will remove your name from the NICS database. Further, it will be as if it was never there to begin with.
Click to expand...

Is this the same FBI (or was it BATFE) that got caught keeping NICS gun records for 6 months or longer, that were supposed to be deleted/destroyed in 24-48 hours, in violation of existing law? (Has that ever been corrected? If so, do you trust that it actually was corrected?)

My point is these alphabet organizations don't even obey these laws, so why give them more information, that you know they will only abuse at some later date?
 
Is this the same FBI (or was it BATFE) that got caught keeping NICS gun records for 6 months or longer, that were supposed to be deleted/destroyed in 24-48 hours, in violation of existing law? (Has that ever been corrected? If so, do you trust that it actually was corrected?)
Click to expand...

The law required that the records be destroyed; but didn't specify a time limit. The Clinton Administration took the position that 18 months was sufficient time. Gun rights groups took the position that it should be immediately. After comment on rule making, the FBI settled on 6 months and successfully defended that policy against lawsuits by NRA and other gun rights groups.

When Ashcroft took over DoJ in 2000, he changed the policy to 24 hours. In 2002, after Republicans gained back the Senate and House, they wrote the 24 hour period into law.

My point is these alphabet organizations don't even obey these laws, so why give them more information, that you know they will only abuse at some later date?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that many gun owners don't understand existing gun laws all that well - which isn't suprising given the complexity and lack of logic of many of them; but it leads to a lot of confusion over proposed legislation as well.
 
And good to see that NRA bashing is unacceptable. GOA bashing, of course, is perfectly okay. After all, they don't matter. They're loons who believe in a Second Amendment as written and won't "compromise."
Click to expand...

My problem with the GOA isn't their unwillingness to compromise, but their willingness to outright lie to their own supporters in an attempt to whip up sentiment. I thought that was the purview of the Fed.
 
t seems to me that many gun owners don't understand existing gun laws all that well - which isn't suprising given the complexity and lack of logic of many of them; but it leads to a lot of confusion over proposed legislation as well.
Click to expand...
Funny really considering that the only valid federal firearm law is exactly one sentence long.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
Click to expand...
emphasis added

Jefferson
 
"Shall Not"

Illegal aliens? Five-year-olds? Felons? Crack addicts? Speed freaks?

Everybody gets a free pass?

Of course, when the 2nd was written it didn't include everybody in the country, but you gloss right over that, don't you?

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
McCarthy answers anti-gun critics of H.R.2640
Replies
8
Views
786
coyote_jr
C
M
  • Locked
NRA Statement On Legislative Efforts On Capitol Hill
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
RIDE
R
R
  • Locked
NRA e-mail : "The truth about the NICS improvement act"
2 3
Replies
55
Views
8K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
"nics Improvement Amendments Act" Not Gun Control!
Replies
22
Views
638
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Pro-Gun Groups Disagree on Bill Improving Background Checks
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
nico
N
Back
Top