New Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wayno

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
50
Just how mentally ill does one have to be to be effected by the bill that
the President signed today. How will it effect buying a firearm I wonder?

Im just crazy bout them guns!!!
 
It'll get to the point where if you question the authority of government, you're mentally "ill" and thus should not have a weapon.

This is a slippery slope folks. Those who support the 2nd Amendment should not support this bill even if the N(ot) R(elevent) A(nymore) does.
 
Just how mentally ill does one have to be to be effected by the bill that
the President signed today.
Click to expand...

If you have to ask...:evil:

Seriously, you have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent, i.e. a court has to declare you to be unable to take care of yourself. This is already the law; records, however, were apparently not being transmitted.

Seung Hui Cho bought guns over the counter. He was not legally allowed to. NICS didn't catch it.

I am not saying there's nothing to be concerned about, but that cuts both ways. A few more crazy killers like Cho, and we can kiss more and more of our gun rights bye-bye. The NRA is aware of this, too.

WRT the NRA being irrelevant, which other pro-gun organization gatherings were addressed, in person, by several presidential candidates who have a chance at winning in '08?:rolleyes:

Imperfect? Sure.

Irrelevant? That's a rather uninformed statement, even if you disagree with the NRA on many issues. NRA is politically relevant, all right. So is Nancy Pelosi, whether or not I think she's Medusa. "Irrelevant" means "having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; 'an irrelevant comment'; 'irrelevant allegations'".
 
Yeah, and because someone says another person is a danger to others even if a person has never done anything threatening to another individual, that person must really be a threat and denied the right to defend himself or herself.

On top of that, once a person has been given the label of "mentally ill" they have to sue the government to prove their innocence. Innocent until proven guilty anyone???

Yeah, that's American.

Another great example of liberty for security.
 
Anyone ever see the movie Catch 22? After the Dems get done amending and interpreting the law, that's where we'll be...

Only people who aren't crazy can own guns.
You'd have to be crazy to want to own a gun.
 
RTDB.


maddskillz said:
On top of that, once a person has been given the label of "mentally ill" they have to sue the government to prove their innocence. Innocent until proven guilty anyone???
Click to expand...

No one is "given" the label of "mentally ill", they have to be adjudicated first. Which means a hearing, you know opporunity to present evidence, witnesses, etc and be represented by an attorney. Opportunity to appeal, etc.... So, Yeah. That's American

From HR2640:


SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) COURT ORDER- The term `court order' includes a court order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States Code).

(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the it's not as simple as the mental health fairy going around and tapping people with a magic wand and saying "No guns for you."

Right now if you've been put on the list (whether adjudicated or not) you have no way to get off. With this you now have a way to have your rights restored. And if you been adjudicated mentally ill and get better/cured, you can get your rights back, you couldn't before.

Reading is Fundamental. A lot of people have only read the GOA's press releases and not the actual bill. To quote Quickdraw McGraw: "I'll do my own thinkin' around here."

I'd like to start a a new term: Seagull - A poster who comes in, doesn't bother to read/learn anything about the topic/issue, makes a lot of noise, poops all over everything and leaves. Get informed read and think for yourself.

[Rant Mode = OFF]

Art, Tell Grammaw I've picked out my switch and I'll be waiting in the woodshed for her.......
 
SeagullScout, sorry, but you're wrong. HR2640 does away with "adjudicated" in the sense that is has to be done through the judicial process...

Expansion of the Brady Law. You will be told that people cannot have their names put into the gun ban list of the Brady Instant Check (NICS) unless they have been "adjudicated" as a mental defective. At one time, the term "adjudicate" referred to an official pronouncement that comes from a court, magistrate, or other judicial authority.

But the Leahy-McCarthy bill codifies BATFE regulations, so that it will now only take a "lawful authority" to adjudicate someone as a mental defective. And another section of the bill makes it clear this adjudication does not need to be made by a formal court, but can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis by a psychiatrist.

Such a definition of "adjudicate" does away with due process. Again, not American.

No need to make personal attacks about reading which only hurts your cause since you are in fact incorrect. Though I could as it appears you have not read the entire bill I will refrain. =)

And some reading for you... Pay attention to the bold print here.

Existing law states a prohibited person has to be "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution". These terms have not yet been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). But, pro-gun forces and most lower court precedents say "adjudicated" means a ruling by a court of law where due process rights are protected. However, the BATFE has written regulations defining "adjudicated" to be a ruling by "a court, board, or other lawful authority", not just a court of law where due process rights must be protected. The BATFE regulations include more people than does the plain wording of the law because the words "board or other lawful authority" could include school psychologists who determine your child has ADD, VA psychiatrists who diagnose returning veterans with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which almost invariably includes some element of possible danger to ones self or others), or a psychologist appointed by the court to evaluate a child custody dispute. The validity of the BATFE regulations have not yet been decided by the SCOTUS. H.R. 2640 would turn the BATFE regulations into law, which is a loss for the pro-gun side. Thus, more people would be prohibited from possessing firearms under H.R. 2640 than would be prohibited under existing law if the BATFE regulations were found to be an improper interpretation of the law - which is likely.

So there you have it. The usurpation of federal legislative authority and the judicial authority by the BATFE due to their definition of "adjudicated."

Still think it's American SeagullScout?
 
Last edited:
Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved. see also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adjudicate or http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adjudication

Diagnosis In medicine, diagnosis or diagnostics is the process of identifying a medical condition or disease by its signs, symptoms, and from the results of various diagnostic procedures. The conclusion reached through this process is called a diagnosis. The term "diagnostic criteria" designates the combination of symptoms which allows the doctor to ascertain the diagnosis of the respective disease. see also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diagnosis

maddskillz said:
And another section of the bill makes it clear this adjudication does not need to be made by a formal court, but can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis by a psychiatrist.
Click to expand...

BUUUZZZZ...Wrong. Doctors (including Psychiatrists) can only diagnose, they can NOT adjudicate.

maddskillz said:
the BATFE has written regulations defining "adjudicated" to be a ruling by "a court, board, or other lawful authority"
Click to expand...

DING, DING, DING correct. Notice the key word "Adjudicated" as opposed to "Diagnosed". Let's take a look at what the ATF really says, shall we ??

From: an Open Letter to States Attorney General from the BATFE Director, dated 9 May 2007 http://www.atf.gov/press/2007press/050907open-letter-to-states-attourneys-general.htm

Each of these terms is defined by Federal regulation at 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 as follows:

ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE
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:
Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
The term shall include—
A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
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.
COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION
This term means a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term also includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, and commitments for other reasons such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a mental institution.
Click to expand...

ATF has historically interpreted these provisions as constituting two distinct prohibitions. Each prohibition represents a separate disqualification. For example, a “commitment” means a formal commitment, not a voluntary stay. Excluded are stays for observation only. Nor does the term include a stay in a mental institution that never involved any form of adjudication by a lawful authority. However, a stay that began as a voluntary stay may be subsequently transformed into a disqualifying stay if a court, board, or other lawful authority makes a determination that the person is a danger to self or others. Moreover, a voluntary stay that is by itself not disabling could be later converted into a formal commitment and therefore be disabling.

For purposes of a Federal firearms disability, ATF interprets “adjudicated mental defective” to include anyone adjudicated to be a “danger to him or herself,” “a danger to others,” or lacking “the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs.” For purposes of Federal law, “danger” means any danger, not simply “imminent” or “substantial” danger as is often required to sustain an involuntary commitment under State law. Thus, for example, adjudication that a person was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others would result in Federal firearms disability, whether the court-ordered treatment was on an inpatient or outpatient basis. This is because the adjudication itself (a finding of danger due to mental illness) is sufficient to trigger the disability.

It should be emphasized that whatever adjudication procedure a State employs, the Constitution requires certain guarantees of due process. In order for a particular commitment order to qualify as a prohibiting commitment, ATF historically has required that traditional protections of due process be present, including adequate notice, an opportunity to respond, and a right to counsel. (emphasis mine) Such protections are important because whether a person has been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, the firearms disability is permanent.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say "Diagnosed" it says (repeatedly) "Adjudicated". It says there has to be due process. Yes, it may not be a court with a judge. But it cannot just be a psychiatirst saying "He's nuts." to get you on the "No guns for you" list. You have the opportunity to have legal representation, present witnesses, evidence and testimony; oh, and the opportunity to appeal the ruling. Yes, you have to have due process, something as American as Baseball, Hot Dogs, Mom, and Apple Pie.

What you (and the GOA) are claiming can happen is what actually happened to 116,000+/- veterans during the Clinton administration. When he basically called the VA and said "Hey, anybody that ever came to see you about PTSD or any other mental health issues, yeah, send those names over to the FBI and get them put on the NICS "NO" list." With this bill you now have a chance to get off the list. Whereas previously, once you were on the list, you were on forever.

Again, Read the Bill (posts #6 & 7 in this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=324595 also post #5 has links to other threads discussing this very issue.), the US Code, ATF Regulations, and not just the hysterical rantings in the GOA press release.
 
This topic is going pretty strong over at Leverguns.com... LINKY

The fact that the NRA got into bed with the anti's on this one doesn't bode well for the 2A. Another small victory for the anti-2A crowd. It's all incremental until it's all gone.
 
Guys, first, I am not a lawyer, just a plain speaking American that has served his country for going on 25+ years now. However, what I read says "lawful authority" and I don't find a clear, solid definition of that term. Adjuticate is one thing and it relates to due process as guaranteed in the US Constitution; however, lawful authority is another - who decides what the lawful authority is (Feds, state, county, city, etc.) and what do they decide it is (LEOs, shrinks, DAs, JPs, elected leaders without medical training, etc.)?

I don't know the answers to this question but it is heading down the same road as the one we were promised with drug seizures - remember, no ones due process will be violated, courts must rule, etc. Well, tell that to the folks that were busted on I-10 for roach clips without residue hanging from their rear view windows and then when found not guilty went thru heck getting their vehicles back once they were seized, if they hadn't all ready been sold at a LEO auction...

hmmmm, what about that lawful authority in NO during Katrina that seized firearms...I guess begrudgingly getting back ruined firearms after several costly lawsuits is a redress of grievances after a sort, but it ain't what the founders had in mind.

I don't wear a tinfoil hat, my chosen headgear is made of Kevlar; but folks better wake up to what is possible when you trust in men rather than good, simple, well-written laws. There are literally hundreds of examples in the news every day, from bad addresses on warrants that were approved by a judge, to overzealous DAs suppressing evidence that will clear folks, etc, etc, etc

Good men in power that don't abuse power are the exception, not the rule, and a thorough reading of world history will convince you of that if you don't believe that; and if we allow laws to be written assuming no one will ever abuse or misuse them, then we would be better off hoping the tooth fairy will leave us a gift under the pillow. We can't wish away our responsibility to this republic if we wish to keep it a republic. Remember, it is supposed to be a nation of laws, not men....lets all try to keep it that way and recognize bad, poorly written law for what it is regardless of who supports it and who opposes it, after all, we are the ones that are governed by it in the end.

Oh yeah, if the law is written so poorly that we as citizens are even having this debate/discussion because of confusion, perspective, misinterpretation, etc., then that just proves the point that it is poorly written and not well thought out. Laws should be written short, concise and to the point with the average voter, wage earner, citizen in mind and not for lawyers and scholars.

My .02 to the potpourri......:neener:
 
The fact that the NRA got into bed with the anti's on this one doesn't bode well for the 2A. Another small victory for the anti-2A crowd. It's all incremental until it's all gone.
Click to expand...

On the other hand it's also all incremental until it's all won. The eventual result depends on whether you're a determined winner or a committed loser. You get to choose for yourself in this wonderful country.

Until I read the original post I hadn't known that the President signed The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 today. If so I think it's no longer a bill but a law, but I know that the legal analysts here will correct me if I'm incorrect. Or even if I'm correct. It doesn't matter: that's how I learn what's really happening.

Today is December 21, 2007. I am going to be interested in seeing how Gun Owners of America keeps the promise it made just four days ago to fight this bill when Congress goes back into session in 2008. GOA said it's working with Sen. Tom Cobun of Oklahoma on that fight so it promises to be worth watching. Maybe some GOA members will keep the rest of us posted on its progress.
 
Sorry, but the it's not as simple as the mental health fairy going around and tapping people with a magic wand and saying "No guns for you."

No, we aren't quite there yet--but being a fellow resident of IL I fear that there are processes at work to maximize the the membership rolls of the 'no guns' list that will be uploaded to the fed gov. In IL a citizen has his or her FOID revoked automatically for five years for spending one day as a self-admitted patient in a mental hospital or treatment facility for any reason.

Not trying to drift the thread to our own state's problems, but my question would be if IL will be just adding those folks in the above catagory (NOT actually prohibited by any adjudication) to the federal list anyway? Kind of a hard thing to get an answer on I would bet; I'm not even sure who to ask.
 
On the other hand it's also all incremental until it's all won. The eventual result depends on whether you're a determined winner or a committed loser. You get to choose for yourself in this wonderful country.
Click to expand...

True enough. But didn't we have it already "won" once way back in December 15,1791? Anyways, like most of the stuff put out by those protecting us from ourselves it's longwinded and difficult for a simple minded guy like me to understand. That means I have to trust those more intelligent than myself to ensure that the .gov actually adheres to what it is supposed to do. Chances of that happening aren't in the people's favor.
 
Warlokke:
Oh yeah, if the law is written so poorly that we as citizens are even having this debate/discussion because of confusion, perspective, misinterpretation, etc., then that just proves the point that it is poorly written and not well thought out. Laws should be written short, concise and to the point with the average voter, wage earner, citizen in mind and not for lawyers and scholars.
Click to expand...

There's a movement working to get Congress to do that.. http://www.downsizedc.org
In brief, one of their goals is that they want short bills.. the requirement to read every word aloud in session 7 days before voting ought to do that nicely..

Back to the topic on hand.. It appears several different organizations have read the bill and come to different conclusions.. That's not a good sign.. It leaves too much to the lawyers and bureacrats to interpret.. :what::fire:

Steve
 
True enough. But didn't we have it already "won" once way back in December 15,1791? Anyways, like most of the stuff put out by those protecting us from ourselves it's longwinded and difficult for a simple minded guy like me to understand. That means I have to trust those more intelligent than myself to ensure that the .gov actually adheres to what it is supposed to do. Chances of that happening aren't in the people's favor.
Click to expand...

But I didn't have it "all 'won' once way back in December 15,1791. Although I am old, I am not that old. If you were there then, I hope you're not planning to drive that Freightliner of yours anywhere near my home. The sight of a skeleton steering a truck around the streets here is sure to scare hell out of the neighbor's dogs and set them to barking.

So tell us about your experiences in the Revolutionary War when you helped win it all. Did you and Larry Pratt really say to the British "We're here. You lose. Go home." And did they all say "Darn. We can't beat you "No Compromise" people and leave at once? Or did you have to fight battle after battle before you won it all?

I suppose those questions don't matter because the real question is why you don't see a difference between a shooting war that ended with total victory in 1791 and living with people who disagree with you today. How will you get total victory over them?

You plan to vote for Ron Paul as President in 2008 even though you know he can't win:

The Republicans haven't fielded much of a group of candidates either. The sole exception is Ron Paul. The problem is I know he won't win. But since I've always been the kind of guy to vote for what is right instead of what is popular chances are fairly good that I'll vote for him.
Click to expand...

I'm fascinated by anyone who makes a conscious decision to be a loser instead of a winner. You know it's what you're doing but you choose to do it anyway. Is that so you guarantee yourself the ability to complain? Although it's hard to be a winner it's not all that hard and it's much more fun than being a complaining loser.

I don't see how it helps strengthen your Second Amendment rights in any way when you vote for a candidate who can't win, even if he says lots of things you want to hear. I don't like any of the potential Republican Candidates either, but I don't think that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will do anything except attack my Second Amendment rights, so I'll probably vote for a half-baked Republican than an overdone Democrat. I compromise. If I can't get best I'll take second, third, or even fourth best. But I'm not going to vote for a sure and certain loser just so I can tell myself I did it to myself.

I don't think it's a wise decision or in any way useful to anyone except the Democratic Party candidate who will win that election, but I'm fascinated by it in the same way I'm fascinated by people who kill themselves because they're afraid of dying.

Maybe it is more comforting to lose by your own decision than to take the chance that you might lose by working with other people. Or maybe it defines you as a man of principle who won't settle for anything less than he wants and prefers to get nothing instead of something less than his ideal. If enough people follow your thinking we all will get nothing. I don't understand that kind of thinking because I don't know how to think that way.

You know that craving you get sometimes for a particular kind of food? Sometimes on a long trip I pull into a Flying J with a taste for its meat loaf. When meat loaf isn't there I compromise and get something else to eat. I don't have any principles, I guess, so I'll settle for the fried chicken.

But how do you survive as a man of principle if a truck stop restaurant doesn't have what you really want and you won't eat anything else? I would rather eat something that's not my first choice or maybe even my second instead of going hungry.

I guess I could just get back on the road and going until I found a truck stop that had exactly what I wanted the way I wanted it, but that seems to miss the point. The point is to get where I want to go and not be hungry while I'm getting there. Everything else is irrelevant, not worth my time or trouble, and I'm certainly not going to starve myself because I won't eat anything except meat loaf at a Flying J and they don't have it.

It's not 1791 anymore. It's 2007, going on 2008, and we're here and now. Shooting the British is no longer a good idea.
 
Can anyone have a conversation without "your wrong" "No your wrong" ?
Click to expand...

Sure, but I never said "No, you're wrong." what I have said, repeatedly, is READ THE BILL and then tell me what you think.

I'm the Legislative Action Co-Chair at my club. I've probably 70-80 people (mostly fellow veterans) come to me in a panic after only reading the GOA e-mail. I have handed them a copy of the actual bill and said "read this and then tell me what you think."

I also explain to them what happened to the 116,000 +/- veterans during the Clinton administration, and the fact that there is currently no funding (and hasn't been for several years) for the BATFE relief from disability program to get your 2A rights restored.

After they read the bill, to a person they have all come back to me said "That actually that makes things better."
 
I guess we'll see how it plays out. For me, it doesn't matter (right at this moment)--but I have pals (some who served recently in Iraq) who might get caught up by this nonsense. Military service aside, the rights of our mentally ill must not be abridged lightly regardless of the larger good served--or we'll ALL find oursleves with a 'CRAZY' tag one day.
 
Last edited:
"I've probably 70-80 people (mostly fellow veterans) come to me in a panic after only reading the GOA e-mail."

Does anybody know why the GOA puts out such boneheaded e-mails? Don't they have one person in their little office that has at least average reading comprehension skills?

Sometimes I think they have an organizational personality disorder - if there's such a thing - that makes them blurt out nonsense just to get attention.

John
 
Does anybody know why the GOA puts out such boneheaded e-mails? Don't they have one person in their little office that has at least average reading comprehension skills?
Click to expand...

Same reason the Brady bunch does. Frightened people donate.
 
Madskills:
Where did you get this:
But the Leahy-McCarthy bill codifies BATFE regulations, so that it will now only take a "lawful authority" to adjudicate someone as a mental defective. And another section of the bill makes it clear this adjudication does not need to be made by a formal court, but can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis by a psychiatrist.
Click to expand...
 
RoadKingLarry:
Please explain the following remark:

Dr. Mengele, I mean Dr. Tom withdrew his objections after some changes were made to the bill allowing it to proceed.
Click to expand...

The reason I ask is because Coburn was being lionized for his hold on the legislation....

There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation floating around out there.
 
The slippery slope is embedded in the phrase or other Lawful Authority.

Is a shrink other lawful authority?

In most states a shrink can, by law, have a patient involuntarily commited, without benefit of a court order, for up to 3 days. That sounds a lot like lawful authority to me and I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that the BatMen would interpret it that way too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top