The Giant NICS Improvement Act Thread Myth v. Reality

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

This is only one bill being looked at and called "Veterans Disarmament Act". Please look at HR 4757, "Our Lady Of Peace Act" which has already passed the house.

Why are we looking at this bill again? The "Our Lady of Peace Act" (HR 4757) was introduced by McCarthy and passed by the House in 2002 and did not become law. Similar versions were also introduced in the 108th and 109th Congress. If you wanted to point out other legislation that was related, try HR 297 which was the latest attempt at this bill before HR 2640 was introduced.

 

[Hobie]

I read one verison of the bill that did do what GOA says but the current versions (there are three) do NOT and are in line with the NRA's official stance. I don't know exactly what happened here but I'm no longer in a dither over this bill. What I want to know is how did the NRA make it happen that we can actually, according to the bill as it is now, get removed from the prohibited persons list? Almost all the sponsors are antis.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2640:

 

[TheFringe]

Okay, let's assume that if this bill passes, gunowners will lose their rights only if they are Involuntarily committed but will retain their rights if they seek Voluntary care or commitment as the bill states.

Right now in most places it is very hard to obtain involuntary commitment of an individual. However, what if the standards were to change ? You see, the bill is 'gaining support' because most know you have to be 'way out there' to warrant forced commitment, and thus have nothing to worry about if you seek care yourself.

I have a feeling (and I know I'm right) that if this bill passes, there will be a drastic lowering of the requirements calling for Involuntary commitment. Behaviour and actions which presently DO NOT qualify will gradually be added to the list for Involuntary commitment and thus loss of 2A rights. This is why I take the GOA's position.

 

[Diamondback6]

I have a feeling (and I know I'm right) that if this bill passes, there will be a drastic lowering of the requirements calling for Involuntary commitment. Behaviour and actions which presently DO NOT qualify will gradually be added to the list for Involuntary commitment and thus loss of 2A rights.

That's the trap, at least to my sense of smell--we expect things to sty defined one way, while the Leftoids will try to redefine everything up to and including the meaning of "is" to achieve their agenda. What if these schmucks define "hoplophilia" as a disorder warranting involuntary commitment? You know they would, if they thought they could get away with it...

 

[CDignition]

I don't see the standard being lowered..how would that be done??..

 

[TheFringe]

I don't see the standard being lowered..how would that be done??..

Incrementally. The same way they are taking away our gun rights.

Very simple: Actions, behaviour, statements, etc. by individuals that would presently not call for Involuntary commitment will gradually be amended to require just that.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, first of all - I have merged all of the various H.R. 2640 threads into this single mega-thread. Please keep the topic related to the mission of the Legal forum. New H.R. 2640 threads appearing elsewhere will be deleted without mercy.

Now, having said that...

I have a feeling (and I know I'm right) that if this bill passes, there will be a drastic lowering of the requirements calling for Involuntary commitment.

OK, you are a Senator wanting to pass gun control. As a practical exercise, is it easier to pass a bill that affects only gun owners or is it easier to pass this bill and then attack both everyone who has sought treatment for mental health AND gun owners? Exactly what obstacle are you overcoming by this innovative approach?

 

[Dr. Dickie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Dickie
Gee, and I thought that, "..shall not be infringed," was pretty damn clear. I was wrong about that and I think the NRA is wrong about this.
How about providing some law or past examples in support of your argument then? Can you show how the definition of "adjudicated mentally ill" has changed over the years? Can you show where it has changed at all?

The argument that we can't pass any legislation because someone might interpret it differently no matter how obviously we spell it out is a fallacious argument. It is nothing more than an argument that we should always do nothing because if we try to do anything, people might twist the words. Using the same logic, there is no point in trying to pass new legislation protecting gun rights because it will just be twisted against us later.

First, I never said that we cannot, nor should we not pass ANY legislation because it may be interpreted differently down the road. Although, I have to tell you, I DO think that is a damn good reason to keep the legislation passed down to a minimum, and that what does get passed should be very clearly spelled out. That is, spelled out so even a lawyer could not mis-read what it says.
Look at the Disabilities act, and how it was use by that golfer to try to force the PGA to let him use a golf cart. Was that what the legislation was for? Come on!
My point was that relying on the fact that they expect it to be interpreted one way, despite how it is written, rather than correcting the language is not convincing me. The NRA's position (which is what I was referring to) is that the open ended language will not be interpreted to mean other than what it says, BS.

...no matter how obviously we spell it out..

Ahh, but there is the run isn't it.

Can you show how the definition of "adjudicated mentally ill" has changed over the years? Can you show where it has changed at all?

I never said it would be from the definition legally, it could come medically. What is needed for "adjudicated mentally ill"? Does the definition need to change, or does it just need a judge to agree with the doctor? Nope, not even that much according to here:
http://www.lcav.org/content/mental_health_reporting.pdf
"A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority..."
That is all that is needed for the federal definition of adjudicated mentally ill. So if some judge decides that the police chief is a lawful authority; the police chief doesn't want guns on the streets, bam. You want a gun, he says you are mentally ill, no soup for you!

Do you think the number of cases we have today in autusim is because there are so many more children suffering from the the syndrome?
From here:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/autism/detail_autism.htm

What is autism?

Autism (sometimes called “classical autism”) is the most common condition in a group of developmental disorders known as the autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Autism is characterized by impaired social interaction, problems with verbal and nonverbal communication, and unusual, repetitive, or severely limited activities and interests. Other ASDs include Asperger syndrome, Rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (usually referred to as PDD-NOS). Experts estimate that three to six children out of every 1,000 will have autism. Males are four times more likely to have autism than females.

Used to be just classic. Nowadays they pretty much just lump all the rest under autism. Why? More money to study it, and it is just easier to call it autism. According to the new standards, if I was in grade school today I would be classified as autistic.
How about ADD? Yup, must be something in the water, or perhaps it is inoculations?
When you have something medically unclear (a danger to himself or others--well now I think a hell of a lot of anti-folks would say ANYONE that wanted to own a gun would meet that criteria), the diagnoses can increase with no change at all other than the attitude of the folks making the call.

How about providing some law or past examples in support of your argument then?

I thought I provided a good one, how many lawyers have said the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right?

I have no problem with seriously mentally ill folks not getting firearms, but I have HUGE problems with this bill.
You trust the lawyers to do the right thing and look out for our rights, I don't!
As far as other legislation being mis-interpreted down the road, I don't have the time to do the research, but you can't be serious that it doesn't happen. I've lived long enough to know better than that. Not legislation, but Brown vs The Board of Education comes to mind of how a court ruling can be twisted for the purpose of those that want to. The original ruling was so the boy could go to school a couple of blocks away and NOT get bused across town.
Boy, that did not get changed at all!

 

[Diamondback6]

Dr. Dickie just called my other worry, as a shooter with Asperger's. And on any trust whatsoever in most lawyers...

 

[SteveS]

I have a feeling (and I know I'm right) that if this bill passes, there will be a drastic lowering of the requirements calling for Involuntary commitment. Behaviour and actions which presently DO NOT qualify will gradually be added to the list for Involuntary commitment and thus loss of 2A rights. This is why I take the GOA's position.

What is this feeling based on? Have you ever been involuntarily admitted? Have you ever taken part in a hearing to have someone involuntary admitted? I have (the second, not the first) and it is a very difficult standard to meet. I suppose there could be a big push to change the standards at the state level (since this is where those standards are found), but the opposition would be tremendous. In addition to various gun groups, the ACLU, NAMI, (maybe the ABA) and other advocacy groups, along with almost all mental health professional groups, would oppose these changes. Do you have any evidence this will change.

As for the GOA's position, the prohibition against people that have been involuntarily admitted having guns is already the law. HR 2640 not passing wouldn't prevent the scenario you fear from happening.

 

[SteveS]

That is all that is needed for the federal definition of adjudicated mentally ill. So if some judge decides that the police chief is a lawful authority; the police chief doesn't want guns on the streets, bam. You want a gun, he says you are mentally ill, no soup for you!

Nope, under the proposed law, there would still have to be a "finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs." Sec. 101(d)(1)

I suppose your fictional judge and his pal the police chief could still take away your guns, but they would be have to be making stuff up. Under your scenario, what would stop the judge and chief from just rounding up all the gun owners and fabricating charges.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I think it might be a set-up to something very bad, But somebody is right and somebody is wrong I pray that I am wrong and that the bill just keeps the real criminals in focus.

 

[ronwill]

Jorg, and any others that wonder why, I post things like this because of some things the NRA has done that has made me a little disenchanted with their actions. I am still a member and will be for years to come because thet are one of our best hopes to fight off the anti's. To many will say "If the NRA says it's alright, it must be." All it takes is a small loop hole in any bill, such as HR4757 had and the anti's will be all over it. I only want caution when making new laws that may affect the RKBA.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

All it takes is a small loop hole in any bill, such as HR4757 had and the anti's will be all over it.

I'm sorry, I'm still not following what a 5 year old version of this bill has to do with the current discussion.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

"A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority..."
That is all that is needed for the federal definition of adjudicated mentally ill.

Uh... don't you think what is behind those elipses might be important? Here is the full quote from the [url="http://www.lcav.org/content/mental_health_reporting.pdf"same source (LCAV); but different document[/url]:

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

So if some judge decides that the police chief is a lawful authority; the police chief doesn't want guns on the streets, bam. You want a gun, he says you are mentally ill, no soup for you!

No, because a lawful authority isn't just whoever happens to be in authority. It applies only to certain administrative courts, military courts, etc. It can't just be the police chief declaring you mentally ill because that would deprive you of due process. You get to have a hearing with counsel present and argue your side. The "other lawful authority" just extends the authority to administrative hearings (like the VA) and is exactly how the current law works.

As far as other legislation being mis-interpreted down the road, I don't have the time to do the research, but you can't be serious that it doesn't happen.

My point is that this applies to all legislation equally. You might one day be defined as a felon for a completely innocent offense. In fact, that threat is probably a lot more real than the concern about the mentally ill definition being expanded - would you fight against a bill giving states money to add felons to NICS if it also provided relief from disability?

All it takes is a small loop hole in any bill, such as HR4757 had and the anti's will be all over it.

Ronwill, Jorg's point is that the bill your are referencing (HR 4757) is from 2002. H.R. 2640 is not the same bill and has different language. If you weren't aware of that distinction, you might want to read the current bill. If you were aware of it, referring to the bill by the number from several Congresses and five years ago is a bit confusing.

 

[txgho1911]

I am apposed to bedding with the enemy. If this legislation is so important why did the NRA have to do this with the enemy. Some bugs don't have a cure.

 

[carebear]

GOA is doing just what the anti's do.

Ignoring the facts by not actually publishing the text of the issue in their alert, telling people outright lies instead, and appealing to the emotion of folks who can't be bothered to think for themselves, in this case gunowners.

We owe it to our credibility to take the time to learn to read legislation and original sources, to deal with facts rather than emotion and to not appear to be the same "sky is falling" maroons that are trying to take our rights away.

It's not that hard to become intelligent and aware and stop being a blind follower of others.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

As Promised, My Letter To The NRA

Dear NRA,

HR 2640, regardless of all the supposed good it will do, is still part of unconstitutional law. Supporting this bill is no better than passing any other unconstitutional law. All this bill does is increase the dependence upon unconstitutional law to supposedly prevent criminal activity instead of forcing law enforcement and the judicial system to keep violent criminals and the mentally incompetent or untrustworthy off the streets. Preventing crime is nearly impossible. Being armed to address crime as it happens is the best way to handle crime. This is one case where the ounce of prevention is worthless compared to the pound of cure that is needed to save lives and preserve property when criminals are determined to ply their trade.


It isn't up to us here in the NRA to provide for, or support, solutions to the judicial system that enables them to shirk their responsibilities to keep those adjudicated untrustworthy either institutionalized or imprisoned; or to execute those adjudicated as irredeemable and dangerous. The only thing NICS does is "allow" the court to release dangerous criminals from prison by forcing everyone to pass a background check before they can buy or carry an arm in the hopes that the NICS will keep arms out of the hands of the violent criminals. We all know how well that works, don't we!


I seriously considered no longer supporting the NRA when it comes out in favor of such misguided endeavors as the NICS. But then I remember it's MY National Rifle Association. I would rather address the internal solution - that being the firing of all those who voted in what ever committee or executive session that made the decision to support this bill.


Please forward to me the names and positions held of all employees of the National Rifle Association who had a hand in the decision to support HR 2640. If you include the names and positions of all members of any such committee or executive board, please include how they cast their votes so that I may be able to single out those who voted in support of this bill. It is my wish to mount a campaign to vote these people out of their positions, and to campaign for NRA members who will support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms AS PROTECTED by the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Bruce Wood

CC: TheHighRoad, USA Carry

Woody

Be careful who you choose to stand behind and support. If you are unwilling to take care of yourself, you must take whatever care that comes along. I've yet to see a flock of sheep, no matter how well cared for and tended, that doesn't get fleeced from time to time and eventually end up on the dinner table. Not many sheep die a natural death. B.E. Wood

 

[JohnBT]

"Is there a reason people fall for these lies so easily?"

Lack of reading skills? Poor comprehension? Stupidity? They're just paid shills? Too lazy to read the bill? I know, we should do a poll.

John

 

[SteveS]

No, because a lawful authority isn't just whoever happens to be in authority. It applies only to certain administrative courts, military courts, etc. It can't just be the police chief declaring you mentally ill because that would deprive you of due process. You get to have a hearing with counsel present and argue your side. The "other lawful authority" just extends the authority to administrative hearings (like the VA) and is exactly how the current law works.

Bingo. A process where the chief, even working with a judge, could deprive of substantial liberties would be a violation of substantive and procedural due process. I am not saying it could never happen, but it wouldn't likely stand once it moved up through the appellate process.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I am not saying it could never happen, but it wouldn't likely stand once it moved up through the appellate process.

It shouldn't be an issue to begin with.

Woody

 

[Cavalier Knight]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=306552

 

[Robert Hairless]

From time to time there are points at which intelligent people find it useful to negotiate with opponents for the resolution of a few issues between them.

That's one of the best reasons for fighting: to reach as many of those points as possible, so that major disagreements can be resolved issue by issue, sometimes a little at a time. A history of successful resolution of some issues tends to encourage future negotiations that lead to other resolutions.

Right now is one of those times.

As for refusing to negotiate with your enemies because they are your enemies, who else would you negotiate with. Your friends?

 

[Dr. Dickie]

Quote:
As far as other legislation being mis-interpreted down the road, I don't have the time to do the research, but you can't be serious that it doesn't happen.

Bartholomew Roberts:

My point is that this applies to all legislation equally. You might one day be defined as a felon for a completely innocent offense. In fact, that threat is probably a lot more real than the concern about the mentally ill definition being expanded - would you fight against a bill giving states money to add felons to NICS if it also provided relief from disability?

I understood what you were saying, and I truly hope that you are right and I am wrong. As I see it (and I am not a lawyer, just one who has witnessed the shenanigans of courts over the years) the way this is laid out, it can easily be mis-applied by those that would use any course to get their ends.
Like I said, it wouldn't bother me in the least if the Fed was only able to get through a couple pieces of legislation every year, but what they got through was clearly defined and not open to interpretation down the road
You are right about the felony conviction, but this yet ANOTHER avenue that leads to a bad end. The more there are, the more likely one can be used when another does not get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Dickie
So if some judge decides that the police chief is a lawful authority; the police chief doesn't want guns on the streets, bam. You want a gun, he says you are mentally ill, no soup for you!



No, because a lawful authority isn't just whoever happens to be in authority. It applies only to certain administrative courts, military courts, etc. It can't just be the police chief declaring you mentally ill because that would deprive you of due process. You get to have a hearing with counsel present and argue your side. The "other lawful authority" just extends the authority to administrative hearings (like the VA) and is exactly how the current law works.

That still does not fill me with comfort.

The "other lawful authority" just extends the authority to administrative hearings (like the VA) and is exactly how the current law works.

Right, which is what the fear is. Some bureaucrat (or group there of) is making the decision. "Other lawful authority" does not sound so clearly defined to me, that seems to be up to the judge in the future to decide just what a "lawful authority" is or is not.
And just because that is the way it works today, is not a reason to pass more legislation based on poor and open ended definitions. Fix the definitions, clear up the language, then consider the legislation.
Again, I really, really, hope you are right. I hope I am wrong-- but just like Hans Solo, "I got a bad feeling about this."
My gut says, "What Schumer and McCarthy want, can't possibly be good."
Sure, just because they are who they are does not mean they can't pass good legislation (isn't that an oxymoron?), but it means that what they want should be put under and electron microscope to see if there are any Trojan horses amongst the prancing ponies!

 

[Dr. Dickie]

From time to time there are points at which intelligent people find it useful to negotiate with opponents for the resolution of a few issues between them.

That's one of the best reasons for fighting: to reach as many of those points as possible, so that major disagreements can be resolved issue by issue, sometimes a little at a time. A history of successful resolution of some issues tends to encourage future negotiations that lead to other resolutions.

Right now is one of those times.

As for refusing to negotiate with your enemies because they are your enemies, who else would you negotiate with. Your friends?

You are quite right of course, but "rights" are not negotiable. If they were, then they are not a right but something grated by the power that you are negotiating with.