Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is at it again and so is the NRA
- Thread starter Waitone
- Start date
- Status
Neo-Luddite
Member
For us in Illinois, any inpaitient stay in a 'mental health' place (even for alcohol/ drug rehab) on a volentary basis causes the automatic revocation of the FOID card for 5 years. It's been that way for decades. You can appeal to the State Police for early re-issue, but that is really (I'm guessing) a subjective process not often successful. This will expand that to outpatient psych clinics as well. And THAT is just the tip of the ice-berg as this codifies reporting to the Fed-gov which (otherwise just crazy) Illinois law has not done before now.
If they weren't into overtime working on the budget, this would have been cut and dried I think.
If they weren't into overtime working on the budget, this would have been cut and dried I think.
Last edited:
Brett Bellmore
Member
IIRC, the National Instant Check System was the NRA's substitute for the anti-gunners' National Slower Than Heck Check System. It was sold to us as a lesser evil, but was in no way an improvement in RKBA terms over what went before it.
I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now: It's just a federal system for maintaining some of the population as second class citizens. If somebody genuinely can't be trusted with a gun, then they can't be trusted, PERIOD, and what the heck are they doing free among us? And since anyone who is legally prohibited from gun ownership can get one anyway if they've got ill intent, what do we gain from it? Nothing.
Since I don't like it, why should I be expected to like amendments intended to make it function better, make it more effective at denying 2nd amendment rights to people who might have slipped through the hoops before?
I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now: It's just a federal system for maintaining some of the population as second class citizens. If somebody genuinely can't be trusted with a gun, then they can't be trusted, PERIOD, and what the heck are they doing free among us? And since anyone who is legally prohibited from gun ownership can get one anyway if they've got ill intent, what do we gain from it? Nothing.
Since I don't like it, why should I be expected to like amendments intended to make it function better, make it more effective at denying 2nd amendment rights to people who might have slipped through the hoops before?
Lucky
Member
seems that if Luddite is actually addressing the questions and taunts put out, those who were rudest should be first to politely respond. Or slink away, whichever.
JohnBT
Member
I don't know, are we still talking about McCarthy/NRA thread topic or are we off to Illinois now?
John
John
Neo-Luddite
Member
Lucky--
Hey, thanks--but there's no harm nor foul. In fact, I would like nothing better than for someone to convince me that this bill is in fact not nearly as far-reaching as I perceive it to be. It's not the Federal-level that concerns me in specific, but the state-level legal machinery that will interact and mesh with it; and this bill is a 'technical' bill in Illinois and one not at all on the (usually very good) Illinois State Rifle Association radar (yes, I've e-mailed them).
I tend toward flowery statements and hyperbole--and I can be a bit of a schmuck--so I can give it and take it, too. THR is, to me, a virtual local pub in that regard. Sláinte!
Hey, thanks--but there's no harm nor foul. In fact, I would like nothing better than for someone to convince me that this bill is in fact not nearly as far-reaching as I perceive it to be. It's not the Federal-level that concerns me in specific, but the state-level legal machinery that will interact and mesh with it; and this bill is a 'technical' bill in Illinois and one not at all on the (usually very good) Illinois State Rifle Association radar (yes, I've e-mailed them).
I tend toward flowery statements and hyperbole--and I can be a bit of a schmuck--so I can give it and take it, too. THR is, to me, a virtual local pub in that regard. Sláinte!
Neo-Luddite
Member
JohnBT
Not trying to hijack things or go off topic. Illinois is a good 'worst case scenario' for this type of national legislation. I've said my say about it. For any citizen in any state, I hope my home state's actions illustrates the larger spectre of the thing in terms of the RKBA and our liberties in general.
Not trying to hijack things or go off topic. Illinois is a good 'worst case scenario' for this type of national legislation. I've said my say about it. For any citizen in any state, I hope my home state's actions illustrates the larger spectre of the thing in terms of the RKBA and our liberties in general.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
THR is a POLITE and CIVIL local pub. No personal attacks!
gc70
Member
The Illinois bill cited does appear to implement a broad range of mental health disabilities to obtaining a FOID card.
Nevertheless, I fail to see the basis for some of the concerns that have been voiced about H.R. 2640.
Mental health disabilities already exist under the current federal law. H.R. 2640 actually narrows the definition of the federal disabilities and provides for a state-based appeal process.
The current federal law already mandates NICS reporting. H.R. 2640 gives the states money for more current and complete reporting under the existing requirements.
I happen to be a life member of the NRA and I know what has to be done. Rep Carolyn McCarthy needs to be recalled and replaced with a pro-gun Rep. All the anti-gun politicians have been there to long[even MRS.HITLER CLINTON] We need a change. Even the Mayor of New York City needs to be recalled and replaced with a pro-gun Mayor. And also remeber NAZI-California,Their anti gun politicians needs to be recalled and replaced also. The anti-gun politicians always forget that we the VOTERS are their EMPLOYERS,The antis are just rinky-dink EMPLOYEES,at the VOTING BOOTH,THEY CAN STAY OR BE FIRED!!!!!!! rich642z,Omaha,Ne.
RealGun
Member
Why don't we make it so that only NRA members can vote.
Seriously, you might want to focus on who voted those folks into office and why they keep getting elected. You might then find that gun owners are trying to keep their heads above water in a socialist republic.
Mr. Luddite, sir,
If my previous post about seeing a proctologist was rude, I apologize. I was trying to be humorous in a smart-ass way.
Anyway, thanks for providing the link to the IL law. I'm not a lawyer, and not familiar with IL gun law, so trying to understand the full impact of that law was difficult, esp since it referenced other related laws. More about that in a bit.
If people have not been following this thread closely, there's going to be confusion about whether a comment refers to the fed bill or the IL law, making meaningful discussion even more difficult.
Keep in mind that this thread is primarily about the federal bill and the discussion has centered on whether or not there has been misrepresentation about what the bill does or does not do. I understand that if one believes a law is a bad law, one wouldn't want it to be enforced more efficiently. However, I have often heard pro-RKBA folks oppose *new* gun laws by saying that the new law wouldn't be needed if existing laws were better enforced. No one has shown that this bill adds any *new* restrictions that did not already exist in current law. And, my understanding is that the camel's nose has been pushed back a bit by mandating procedures for granting relief from disability *and* specifying that involuntary mental-health hospitalization *must* include the diagnosis of danger to self or others. This appears to be less restrictive than the current law. My position in this thread has been that the notion that this bill is *more* restrictive is unwarranted and, to purposely mislead people about its effect is not helpful to RKBA.
Now, what IL does in regard to its FOID requirements doesn't impact the federal bill one way or the other, and IL could have passed that law absent any federal action. I tried to objectively understand the IL law as best I could by reading it. Sure, it sucks. I especially think the denial of a FOID for any mental health hospitalizations is a travesty. I would hope advocates for the rights of people with mental health issues would oppose this, as well as pro-RKBA advocates. Still, your conjecture about the ease with which a casual doctor visit for "depression" or the actions of a 19 yo desk jockey will prevent one from getting a FOID is not supported by what I'm reading, and is, again, alarmist.
This horse has been beat to death. Good luck fighting the good fight in IL.
K
If my previous post about seeing a proctologist was rude, I apologize. I was trying to be humorous in a smart-ass way.
Anyway, thanks for providing the link to the IL law. I'm not a lawyer, and not familiar with IL gun law, so trying to understand the full impact of that law was difficult, esp since it referenced other related laws. More about that in a bit.
If people have not been following this thread closely, there's going to be confusion about whether a comment refers to the fed bill or the IL law, making meaningful discussion even more difficult.
Keep in mind that this thread is primarily about the federal bill and the discussion has centered on whether or not there has been misrepresentation about what the bill does or does not do. I understand that if one believes a law is a bad law, one wouldn't want it to be enforced more efficiently. However, I have often heard pro-RKBA folks oppose *new* gun laws by saying that the new law wouldn't be needed if existing laws were better enforced. No one has shown that this bill adds any *new* restrictions that did not already exist in current law. And, my understanding is that the camel's nose has been pushed back a bit by mandating procedures for granting relief from disability *and* specifying that involuntary mental-health hospitalization *must* include the diagnosis of danger to self or others. This appears to be less restrictive than the current law. My position in this thread has been that the notion that this bill is *more* restrictive is unwarranted and, to purposely mislead people about its effect is not helpful to RKBA.
Now, what IL does in regard to its FOID requirements doesn't impact the federal bill one way or the other, and IL could have passed that law absent any federal action. I tried to objectively understand the IL law as best I could by reading it. Sure, it sucks. I especially think the denial of a FOID for any mental health hospitalizations is a travesty. I would hope advocates for the rights of people with mental health issues would oppose this, as well as pro-RKBA advocates. Still, your conjecture about the ease with which a casual doctor visit for "depression" or the actions of a 19 yo desk jockey will prevent one from getting a FOID is not supported by what I'm reading, and is, again, alarmist.
This horse has been beat to death. Good luck fighting the good fight in IL.
K
Neo-Luddite
Member
Kentak--I largly agree with your analysis of the situation with HR 2640. It's effects will be mostly transparent to gun owners as a whole--if it goes off in present form. But it does offer some grim oportunities for extrapolation seeing as how the political winds are shifting these days.
RealGun
Member
Not really parallel at all, but I am reminded of having twice had to wait for the issue of my withholding my Social Security number being escalated from that 19 year old at the front desk. No way was that scenario foreseen when the Social Security Act was passed.
My biggest issue with the NICS bill is that it validates existing law (NICS with no jurisdiction) to which I object and which I repeatedly watch become a Trojan Horse for something else not represented in the statement of original legislative intent.
I don't think it is fair to discredit concerns about where a law might lead. Who are the smarter ones? Who are the slow learners?
I don't like trigger locks simply because of the precedent of how the seat belt law progressed. Not wearing seat belts is now becoming a primary offense or headed in that direction. All of these things have an evolutionary plan. Don't kid yourselves.
Ever since the Civil War, the federal government has been trying to establish itself as the supreme power in all things. If one doesn't keep that in mind, it all kind of creeps up on you, most of it without any meaningful change in the Constitution except the big one, the income tax.
gc70
Member
Thank you, RealGun. You have provided the clearest and most succinct objection to H.R. 2640 that I have seen.
Is it unreasonable to think that with this law being used as a weathercock for the direction of thought of the anti-gun lobby to think that there may not be more "reasonable restrictions" in store?
Would a NICS amendment to require a recent psychological check-up be able to pass with such ease? Especially from "certified" doctors (not your own). Cho was not adjudicated and this amendment would not have prevented him from acquiring a firearm legally. So the stated purpose of removing firearms from the possession of people like him would require something else. Psychology is so subjective that any person may not "pass" such a check if required to take one. This disturbs me simply because of the opportunities for further infringement under the flag of "Reasonable."
Jefferson
Would a NICS amendment to require a recent psychological check-up be able to pass with such ease? Especially from "certified" doctors (not your own). Cho was not adjudicated and this amendment would not have prevented him from acquiring a firearm legally. So the stated purpose of removing firearms from the possession of people like him would require something else. Psychology is so subjective that any person may not "pass" such a check if required to take one. This disturbs me simply because of the opportunities for further infringement under the flag of "Reasonable."
Jefferson
Last edited:
Cosmoline
Member
Without a release or a court order it's a serious violation of confidentiality and privacy laws. Where in the federal bill does it say this is allowed? Where does it say the diagnosis of a physician can be used in lieu of an adjudication?
gc70
Member
With or without H.R. 2640, the anti-gun lobby will always want more "reasonable restrictions."
H.R. 2640 provides a narrower definition of mental health disabilities and a state-level appeal system, while the anti-gun lobby gets a hollow PR victory (finally passing McCarthy's perennial gun-control bill).
Fighting H.R. 2640 appears (to me) to be a losing proposition. It is hard for me to believe that the majority of the population would favor allowing nutcases to buy guns, which is exactly how a fight against H.R. 2640 would be portrayed.
On the level of basic principles, I agree conceptually with RealGun that H.R. 2640 validates NICS and I object to NICS. If I were to fight H.R. 2640, I would also have to fight for the repeal of NICS. I do not think the time is right for that strategy because the majority of the population is not ready to scrap NICS.
stellarpod
Member
gc70:
Very well stated.
stellarpod
Very well stated.
stellarpod
Neo-Luddite
Member
Cosmoline--I was ranting about the specific situation in Illinois that is developing on the state level. The state-level bill that enables the data sharing with the FBI has a potential to vastly increase the number of Illinois citzens not being permitted to own firearms owing to outpatient psych care.
Nothing specific for non-IL residents to worry about except to say watch how your own state is handling this new process and what they (the state) might be zinging through the legislature as a piggyback. The states that didn't send psych data to fed gov before (like Illinois) now have to set up an aperatus to do so to comply.
Sorry to add to the confusion.
Nothing specific for non-IL residents to worry about except to say watch how your own state is handling this new process and what they (the state) might be zinging through the legislature as a piggyback. The states that didn't send psych data to fed gov before (like Illinois) now have to set up an aperatus to do so to comply.
Sorry to add to the confusion.
oldfart
Member
Let us not lose sight of the fact that legislators are elected and paid to pass laws, not to repeal them. After a couple of centuries of this it's obvious that some of the laws have profound effects on other, earlier laws. Any legislative aide worth his salt knows how to write a bill that will enhance some earlier law.
Since it has been stated many times by most of those who seek to take our guns that their ultimate goal is to disarm us completely, I believe we should - if not repeal some of the more odious statutes, at least refrain from helping them write new ones. While it is true this bill doesn't do anything new or different, can anyone honestly say that it isn't a handy vehicle for a future amendment requiring an afidavit from a mental health professional before a person can buy a gun?
The original Constitution and Bill of Rights struck a semblance of balance between the people and their government. The government had certain limited powers and the people had almost unlimited rights. Over the years the people, fearing one enemy or another, have sacrificed many of their rights to give government more power. Someone - I don't remember who, once said that it is unwise to give government anything it doesn't absolutly need. I am unconvinced that the government needs the power this bill would give it.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Since it has been stated many times by most of those who seek to take our guns that their ultimate goal is to disarm us completely, I believe we should - if not repeal some of the more odious statutes, at least refrain from helping them write new ones. While it is true this bill doesn't do anything new or different, can anyone honestly say that it isn't a handy vehicle for a future amendment requiring an afidavit from a mental health professional before a person can buy a gun?
The original Constitution and Bill of Rights struck a semblance of balance between the people and their government. The government had certain limited powers and the people had almost unlimited rights. Over the years the people, fearing one enemy or another, have sacrificed many of their rights to give government more power. Someone - I don't remember who, once said that it is unwise to give government anything it doesn't absolutly need. I am unconvinced that the government needs the power this bill would give it.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
JohnBT
Member
"While it is true this bill doesn't do anything new or different, can anyone honestly say that it isn't a handy vehicle for a future amendment requiring an afidavit from a mental health professional before a person can buy a gun?"
I don't see how this bill is a vehicle. If the gunbanners want to pass a law requiring a mental health affidavit all they have to do is submit a bill and get enough votes. They could have done it last year or the year before - if they'd had enough votes. I don't see that the bill under discussion has anything to do with it one way or the other. New bill, amended bill, whatever - if they have enough votes they can do it.
But like you said, "...it is true this bill doesn't do anything new or different"
John
I don't see how this bill is a vehicle. If the gunbanners want to pass a law requiring a mental health affidavit all they have to do is submit a bill and get enough votes. They could have done it last year or the year before - if they'd had enough votes. I don't see that the bill under discussion has anything to do with it one way or the other. New bill, amended bill, whatever - if they have enough votes they can do it.
But like you said, "...it is true this bill doesn't do anything new or different"
John
RealGun
Member
I don't see that the bill under discussion has anything to do with it one way or the other. - JohnBT
Such an amendment would be very germane, and many amendments aren't germane at all. It could happen. This bill as a foundation for something else quite related is not a stretch.
Such an amendment would be very germane, and many amendments aren't germane at all. It could happen. This bill as a foundation for something else quite related is not a stretch.
- Status