Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is at it again and so is the NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are three versions of the bill. This is a link to the version referred to Senate committee from the House: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110sThWZb::

I just finished reading the version that has been sent to the Senate. I saw no language that would allow physicians any such power. In fact, I saw nothing that would allow NICS any information it is not supposed to have access to already. All I saw would require the states(and help them pay for doing so) to send the Justice Department the information they should have been sending already under current law.

That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the current restrictions. However,that is neither here nor there. The only people who should be disqualified by this are people who currently have fell through the cracks of the current system due to not being reported for whatever reason.

I don't like the disqualification for a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. It's not the domestic violence bit I dislike but the misdemeanor bit. What's the solution? Advocating that all acts of domestic violence be legislated to be felonies? At least that would close the current foot in the door of having a misdemeanor-any misdemeanor-disqualify a citizen from firearms ownership.
 
I wonder how many folks here know someone who has been adjudicated mentally ill.

It's hard. Judges absolutely hate to do it.
Click to expand...

My BIL's brother is darn near certifiable. If you ever met the guy you'd swear he broke out of the loony bin somewhere. They can't get him put away unless he actually harms someone and when he does everyone is going to be saying "Why wasn't he put away if everybody knew he was like that?"

No, your doctor isn't going to be turning you in for taking Zoloft, and even if he wanted to, nothing will come of it. Thats not what this bill is about.
 
"Why wasn't he put away if everybody knew he was like that?"
Click to expand...



The law governing involuntary commitment, in most states, requires that one be a danger to himself or others and that a judge issue such an order. As has been mentioned before in this thread, judges are reticent about handing such orders out even in cases where Joe Bob thinks he's Napoleon or Jesus.

I guess the reason this worries me is how anti-gun the AMA seems to be.
__________________
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on where you're at. I'm a RN. Many of the physicians I work with CCW. More shoot and hunt. In fact, I don't know any anti-gun physicians. I know a couple who are silent partners in a gun store. So, hey, find a physician who is a shooter. Tell your former anti-gun physician why you are changing to the new phsycian. Be sure to tell your new physician also. It won't take but a few patients leaving each physician and going to a new physician under these circumstances for each physician to tell the AMA politely to go urinate up a rope.

There is also a large-and growing-number of physicians who refuse to join the AMA. It's still powerful, don't get me wrong, but it's not what it once was.
 
Indeed, doing so would force doctors to violate a dozen federal and state laws, not to mention their own oaths.
Click to expand...

Doctors, like many other professions, are made up of mere mortals. Many take their oath as a physician seriously. Just as many mouthed the words as they left school while they were busily scheming up ingenious ways to bill Medicare and Insurance companies in new and more creative ways to get rich.

The AMA and many doctors are elitists. Many are regular people who are more like the average American. Which group has the power, influence and pull to affect the lives of average people? Usually the elitists self serving ones. They have an agenda driving them to control and power....money. The
others are just doing a job they enjoy.... a well paid job but not a means to greater power and glory.

Any law that meddles with the requirements of what a physician can, should or must report to the government regarding a citizens health is to be looked at with great fear and loathing. It's too powerful a tool in the wrong hands.
 
The scary part in all this is the opening of a new front in the fight.

I think the anti crowd looks at this as an oppertunity to expand its weapons arsenal and use mental illness as an effective tool to ban firearm ownership. Maybe not in the present form of this bill, but an oppertunity to expand on the definitions of mental illness serious enough to effect your RTKBA in the future, working under the gun control radar.

For those of us who have watched this fight over the years, and all it's expanding fronts, including attacks on certain types of ammo, magazine capacity size, weapon type, etc. - this makes the hair stand up on the back of our necks. Not because we believe this specific piece of legislation is all that bad, but because we know where going down this path can lead us to.

I am concerned . Not to the point of blowing it up into something it's not - but concerned enough that it is worth keeping an eye on. I expect the NRA to also keep their eye on this and they have promised to do that.
 
I think the anti crowd looks at this as an oppertunity to expand its weapons arsenal and use mental illness as an effective tool to ban firearm ownership. Maybe not in the present form of this bill, but an oppertunity to expand on the definitions of mental illness serious enough to effect your RTKBA in the future, working under the gun control radar.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why more people can't comprehend this. The gun-grabbers have NEVER stopped with only one....... they constantly work to enact more and more legislation, chiseling away towards their primary goal of NOGUNSVILLE.

Can anybody that's defending this bill take an honest look of the history of "gun-control" in America (or the world for that matter) and say that anything short of prohibition will satisfy the likes of the brady bunch and anit-gun politicians like that psycho McCarthy? Would you have been the same people arguing over "sporting purpose" when MG's were banned?

How do they do it....? Kicking down doors and confiscating.....? Or, do they keep taking an inch wherever they can to achieve a larger goal? Methinks the second scenario is more likely...... at least for now.
 
Can anybody that's defending this bill take an honest look of the history of "gun-control" in America (or the world for that matter) and say that anything short of prohibition will satisfy the likes of the brady bunch and anit-gun politicians like that psycho McCarthy? Would you have been the same people arguing over "sporting purpose" when MG's were banned?
Click to expand...

Don't know if I'm 'defending this bill' or not, in your view. I, too, view incrementalism as a danger from gun control advocates. And no, I was not arguing over 'sporting purposes' when MG's were banned as I was a machine gun owner and remain one today.


All I am saying is this: We point fingers and yell foul when our opponents, their allies, and fellow travelers lie, mislead, or use misdirection in their endeavors to curtail our rights. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. We are NOT well served when we, our allies, and our fellow travelers lie, mislead, or use misdirection in their endeavors to support our rights.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to cite the portion of the bill that includes provisions for doctors to put patients on a nutter list. These third hand accounts from partisan sources aren't helpful. I can find no such language in the bills, but maybe I missed it.
 
I wonder how many folks here know someone who has been adjudicated mentally ill.

It's hard. Judges absolutely hate to do it.
Click to expand...

I would really love to believe that, but the only case I know of personally, it was all too easy for the judge to commit the person involuntarily.
 
So, I believe it is bad law...guilty by association and I am going to start talking to my Senators.
Click to expand...

This is the very best way to judge any and all legislation. No need to read all the cryptic legal legislative speak. Go by who supports the bill and you will be on the right side 99% of the time. I just use the "Ted kennedy legislative barometer". If Ted kennedy supports it, it's bad for America, simple as that. This man is a complete disgrace to our nation but he does provide the most accurate political barometer in existance.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to cite the portion of the bill that includes provisions for doctors to put patients on a nutter list. These third hand accounts from partisan sources aren't helpful. I can find no such language in the bills, but maybe I missed it.
Click to expand...

Cosmoline--

They won't be able to cite it and you didn't miss it, because it's not there. The GOA has misrepresented what this bill does and doesn't do and created a situation that has raised unneeded alarm in those gun owners who are too lazy to read the legislation for themselves. Those gun owners are guilty of the same lack of critical thinking skills they lay on the anti's. By crying "wolf," GOA diminishes its credibility and risks not being heeded when they raise a warranted alarm. In the meantime, by repeating the ridiculous notion that this bill "allows your doctor to put you on a no-buy list" makes those gun owners and their more sensible brethren appear foolish.

Still, this bill merits close watching to see if the anti's try to tack on amendments that pose new restrictions or other negative features. The NRA has stated they are ready to withdraw their support if that happens. And so should we.

K
 
This is the very best way to judge any and all legislation. No need to read all the cryptic legal legislative speak.
Click to expand...

Yeah, reading big words is so difficult for gun owners. :(

Other than that, I agree TK is a waste of protoplasm.

K
 
The GOA has misrepresented what this bill does and doesn't do and created a situation that has raised unneeded alarm in those gun owners who are too lazy to read the legislation for themselves. Those gun owners are guilty of the same lack of critical thinking skills they lay on the anti's. By crying "wolf," GOA diminishes its credibility and risks not being heeded when they raise a warranted alarm. In the meantime, by repeating the ridiculous notion that this bill "allows your doctor to put you on a no-buy list" makes those gun owners and their more sensible brethren appear foolish. - Kentak
Click to expand...

You are characterizing GOA without quoting them. Is that somehow better?

I would like to meet the judge who is going to second guess a doctor's recommendation. I contested a traffic ticket once, just me, the Justice of the Peace, and the patrolman. It lasted about one minute, no contest. The judge and the doctor are both part of "the system".
 
Kentak states:

They won't be able to cite it and you didn't miss it, because it's not there. The GOA has misrepresented what this bill does and doesn't do and created a situation that has raised unneeded alarm in those gun owners who are too lazy to read the legislation for themselves. Those gun owners are guilty of the same lack of critical thinking skills they lay on the anti's. By crying "wolf," GOA diminishes its credibility and risks not being heeded when they raise a warranted alarm. In the meantime, by repeating the ridiculous notion that this bill "allows your doctor to put you on a no-buy list" makes those gun owners and their more sensible brethren appear foolish.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. GOA is guilty of using the same pseudo-fact portrayal as Michael Moore - fast and loose. The anti's love to play this way whereby the "end justifies the means". We cannot allow ourselves to sink to that level. Simply put, in my opinion GOA is guilty of promoting lies and falsehoods.

Regarding Precisionshootist's statement:

This is the very best way to judge any and all legislation. No need to read all the cryptic legal legislative speak. Go by who supports the bill and you will be on the right side 99% of the time. I just use the "Ted kennedy legislative barometer". If Ted kennedy supports it, it's bad for America, simple as that. This man is a complete disgrace to our nation but he does provide the most accurate political barometer in existance.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone will debate the merits of your disgust with Ted, but to suggest that we should support or dismiss any legislation without actually reading it is ridiculous. Folks, we've got to be smarter than this.

stellarpod
 
States like Illinois are adding fast-track bills to allow ANY medical professional to add someone to the fed list if they are any sort of 'danger' to themselves or others (read: depressed). The bill in IL grants full and complete imunity from civil liability to the 'professional' who reports someone for any reason.

So in Illinois, here's how it will go: You'll go to the Doc cause you're feeling a bit off, and when you check in the receptionist will just fax your data in to the list to be on the safe side. After all, they might be liable if they don't send you down the river, but they sure WON'T be if they do!!!

It won't be the hallowed and revered physician that decides, but the 19-year old snapping gum and photo copying insurance cards at the front desk that turns in everyone's data just in case.
 
Kentak asked: "What *new* restrictions does this legislation bring about?"


None

.

.

.

.

YET!

But that's what I'm trying to tell you! Once you give those legislators an opening they'll use it, and they'll use it for stuff you never imagined. The only defence we have against this sort of "nose-under-the-tent-flap" lawmaking is to disallow the original law, the vehicle that will be used (and it will be used) to cram some unwanted - but 'reasonable' amendment down our throats later.
By the way, when was the last time Congress actually repealed a law?
 
States like Illinois are adding fast-track bills to allow ANY medical professional to add someone to the fed list if they are any sort of 'danger' to themselves or others (read: depressed). The bill in IL grants full and complete imunity from civil liability to the 'professional' who reports someone for any reason.

So in Illinois, here's how it will go: You'll go to the Doc cause you're feeling a bit off, and when you check in the receptionist will just fax your data in to the list to be on the safe side. After all, they might be liable if they don't send you down the river, but they sure WON'T be if they do!!!
Click to expand...

Can we have a link to the bill?
 
Tried to get it to work. Apparently the server is configure such that you can't link directyl to the bill. Go here http://thomas.loc.gov/

In the search window type H.R. 2640 and left click on bill number just below the search window. Then click on 'search.' That will take you to three versions of the bill. The pertinent one at this time is the one that has been sent to a Senate subcommittee.
 
Neo-Luddite,

You haven't read the bill have you? It details what information the states should send and defines that information quite closely. Not much wiggle room and federal law trumps state law.

I'm no expert at reading legislative speak but I don't think the states have the authority to legislate what you claim.
 
Sage of Seattle,

Tell us about it.
Click to expand...

I can give some background information, but just be aware that my opinion is just one side of the story; I certainly believe, however, that it was a sure injustice.

The man had a history of depression, but was never violent or suicidal. He was in a nursing home where (and I know this from personal experience) weapons are not allowed. He legally purchased several handguns and was essentially caught with them at the nursing home. The staff called the cops. The cops came out, said he didn't break any laws, there wasn't anything they could do. The staff then called in the state social workers who interviewed the staff and the guy and decided to go with what the staff said, which was that he was suicidal. From what I understand, one of the staff members claimed he told her, "if I had a gun, I'd shoot myself now." Since he didn't seem to recall ever saying that, I guess the social workers thought he was lying, so they hauled him off for the involuntary 72 hour hold. After that, it gets murkier, but I know that his attorney never presented any evidence on his behalf -- no statements from family or friends or nurses who knew him saying he wasn't suicidal or dangerous; nor was he able to present any evidence from psychiatrists or doctors stating he was not suicidal or dangerous. Maybe his attorney was incompetent -- I don't know. But, based on the recent purchase of several handguns and one person who claimed he made a suicidal statement, that was enough of a reason for the psych docs to make a recommendation for him to be involuntarily committed, and the judge banged his gavel and that was that. The fact that he was a legal owner of rifles, a shotgun, and several handguns for over a decade before all this happened was never taken into consideration, nor was the fact that he was a CHL holder for over a decade as well. In other words, I would have argued that purchasing a handgun or two shouldn't have been an issue when he had access to many different kinds of firearms for years that, if he felt so inclined, he could have used to kill himself with. Or, as has been pointed out hundreds of times on THR, he could have taken two hundred dollars, say, gone downtown Seattle and in twenty minutes, bought a handgun, no questions asked and then used that one to kill himself. And the authorities would have been none the wiser.

Ultimately, it just seems to me that this mental health adversarial process (which I do still believe in, despite this case) fails from time to time.

However, this always brought up a question in my mind which has yet to be answered: if a person agrees to an involuntary committment, how could it then still be considered involuntary? I mean, we're not talking about a guilty or nolo contendre plea to a criminal charge where one accepts punishment.

At any rate, he is still a legal gun owner as far as Washington state law is concerned, but is apparently now federally barred due to Lautenberg. And I also know that even if he were banned by Washington state from owning firearms due to the mental illness thing, there is already a mechanism in place to gain his rights back, apparently unlike the federal laws now in place. I guess that's why I am more supportive of HR 2640 than not; it spells out more clearly that people can get their rights restored at the state level which will then take their name off of the federal ban list.

After I've read stories here on THR of others with verifiable, documentable, chronic, dangerous mental illnesses who, even then, are still allowed to bear arms legally, I have found this case to be one of the rare, legitimate instances of an innocent being trampled.

And since I've known him for years and he has always been, and continues to be, a law abiding citizen, I sure hope he can find a good 2A lawyer to help him fight to get his rights back. If anyone knows of such a lawyer who can practice in Washington, I'd be happy to pass along the information.
 
Neo-Lud says

So in Illinois, here's how it will go: You'll go to the Doc cause you're feeling a bit off, and when you check in the receptionist will just fax your data in to the list to be on the safe side. After all, they might be liable if they don't send you down the river, but they sure WON'T be if they do!!!

It won't be the hallowed and revered physician that decides, but the 19-year old snapping gum and photo copying insurance cards at the front desk that turns in everyone's data just in case.
Click to expand...

Man, you need to see a proctologist if you just pulled all that out of your ass. Because it sure didn't come from anywhere else. Just for fun, got a link to that IL bill?

K
 
Hey, thanks for asking so nicely (OK--most of you guys did ask nicely)-- give me a few and I'll find it--it's cleared the Illinois Senate. Jeeze---don't sqeeze them so hard, OK? It's a fricken' Saturday, dude!
 
Last edited:
I've read the House legislation and the only flag that went up was on the definitions page. It cited specific US code for definitions to be used. So I daisy chained over to the definition and was unable to find the definitions. I'll pursue the matter next week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
McCarthy answers anti-gun critics of H.R.2640
Replies
8
Views
791
coyote_jr
C
O
  • Locked
McCarthy's at it again...
Replies
2
Views
368
Standing Wolf
S
J
  • Locked
McCarthy & Schumer at it again...
Replies
0
Views
332
Jayman
J
S
  • Locked
Carolyn McCarthy is Tireless:Wants Background Checks for Gun Shop Workers
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
#shooter
S
K
  • Locked
Extracted from the Patriot Post
Replies
3
Views
453
JohnBT
J
Back
Top