VA. Governor adresses more gun control

[Glockman17366]

The article is in the Washington Times: Kaine will tighten gun-buyer controls.

I don't see any loosening of CCW in schools. I'm in PA, so not much I could do on this, but you folks in Virginia might want to read this article and make your views known to your representatives...and call the governor's office to make your views known there as well.

Good luck, keep us posted.

BTW, you MD folks might want to read this article too.

 

[bdutton]

Seems reasonable. This would require persons deemed dangerous by a judge and placed into a mental institution to be denied a gun purchase.

32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the terms of the mental illness reporting portion of the NICS law.

I'm pro gun, but not stupid.

 

[RNB65]

Tim Kaine (who I refuse to acknowledge as my Gov) is nothing but an old school liberal who would love to ban guns completely if he could.

 

[S.P.E.C.T.R.E.]

We just have to be very careful, the mental illness aspect could be used as a loophole for antis to start denying innocent people their firearm rights.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Seems reasonable. This would require persons deemed dangerous by a judge and placed into a mental institution to be denied a gun purchase.

While in the mental institution, sure. Forever? Is that reasonable? Never "cured"? Never have rights restored? What other rights should they lose forever? Voting? Preaching?

 

[Travis McGee]

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
~Senator Charles Schumer, 1993

I can see the Schmuckies in Congress eventually stretching this mental clause into a backdoor ban prohibiting half of America from owning guns. They'll just gradually add "anyone who was ever prescribed antidepressants" etc to the law.

 

[bogie]

would require persons deemed dangerous by a judge and placed into a mental institution to be denied a gun purchase.

Uh... I thought this was already the case?

If so, do we need ANOTHER law, or do we need to worry about maybe making the existing law actually function?

 

[Glockman17366]

I'd like to see you Virginians tell Kaine to open the campuses to CCW.
As far as the mentally ill, let's see what the federales do.

But, the main thing...you Virginians got to impress upon Kaine the value of CCW

 

[Geno]

The whole danged process is "bass ackwards". We in society sit and wait to see which of our gun rights will survive this pack of self-loving, legislative fools, rather than us contact them and demand that they report to session and represent our will. Screw what they want...they work for us! We should collectively demand that whatever measure is proposed to be implemented, be either:

1) put on a ballot, if it in any way shape or form effects our Constitutional rights

or

2) that legislators report back to their representative communities, in person, for town hall meetings before they vote, if it will simply be legislated without a public vote.

 

[Titan6]

I don't see why people deemed a danger to themselves and others due to mental illness should have guns. Nor should they drive vehicles or operate heavy machinery or be left repsonsible for kids at say a school...

This would be lot harder than people are willing to admit. However, we no longer live in a society where people know each other well enough to say that a person is insane, dangerous and irresponsible. Even if we did that person could easily move about the country posing a threat to a new community. This is likely the best solution we have for our world. If someone can be cured and deemed no longer a threat I would say restore rights, but in today's litigous society what doctor would sign off on that?

 

[992]

I am wondering if a person intent on murdering as many people as he can,would be stopped by ANY law?
Feel good laws do nothing to stop a determined killer.

992

 

[Vern Humphrey]

32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the terms of the mental illness reporting portion of the NICS law.

32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the Constitution and not forbidden honest people to carry on campus.

 

[bdutton]

While in the mental institution, sure. Forever? Is that reasonable? Never "cured"? Never have rights restored? What other rights should they lose forever? Voting? Preaching?

I believe that there already is an appeal process to have your name removed from the NICS 'list'.

If so, do we need ANOTHER law, or do we need to worry about maybe making the existing law actually function?

Problem with the existing law was the states had to volunteer the info. If there is no penalty, the only incentive are more acts of of violence by people who SHOULD be denied. What good does that do? It makes us honest gun owners look like monsters for fighting tooth and nail every single gun law.

We need to pick and choose our battles. I would think that reasonable people would support a law that prevents psychos from passing a NICS check. WE should be leading the fight for this type of law.

 

[bdutton]

32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the Constitution and not forbidden honest people to carry on campus.

I agree. I think it would have helped if Cho had failed a NICS check as the original NICS law intended.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I would think that reasonable people would support a law that prevents psychos from passing a NICS check. WE should be leading the fight for this type of law.

Let's compromise -- lets include in the same bill a provision that allows citizens to carry anywhere, in any state on their CCW -- just as they can drive anywhere, in any state on their state driver's license.

 

[One of Many]

The whole idea that the majority must pay for the sins of the minority is unjust. One crazy person breaks the law, so we pass new laws that only affect the law abiding, not the criminals and crazies - this is idiotic. The politicians need to be committed to mental institutions.

From a Risk VS Benefit approach, we are better off as a society to suffer a RARE mass killing of this type, than to prevent self defense by tens of thousands of individual victims of violent criminals.

When only the criminals have the means to use violence to achieve their goals (because they ignore gun laws), we suffer runaway rates of armed robbery, rape and murder, because no one can defeat the muggers. Under disarmament laws, only the illegally armed victim can stop the criminal attack, because the police are never around when these crimes are committed. An illegally armed victim that stops a criminal attack is much less likely to report that attack to the police, so the criminal attacker (if he survives) is less likely to be arrested and sent to jail.

Criminals, by definition, are those that disobey laws - laws against possessing guns, robbing or raping defensless victims, or even murdering people. Criminals don't stop at just one crime - they continue to commit crimes as long as they are allowed to roam the streets with unarmed targets of opportunity.

Violence itself is not the problem - violence when used at the proper time and place, under the correct circumstances, is beneficial to society. The concept of capital punishment is based on the use of violence as a means to control the antisocial actions of a small portion of the populace. It is a recognition that some people deserve to die, for the harm they cause to the law abiding members of society.

Laws that reward the criminals for Violent behavior (put them in a warm, dry, and comfy jail cell, with three meals a day and free entertainment) and turn them back out on the street with a better education in criminal practices (they get instructions from other prisoners) do nothing to reduce the amount of crime. One way to reduce the amount of crime is to reduce the amount of criminals, and one way that happens is when violent criminals are killed (either by armed victims, or execution by judicial sentencing).

Criminals need to know that violent attacks against other people will cost them their life; it is senseless to sentence someone to life in prison, and force the victims to pay for the upkeep of that criminal. Prison should be for non-violent criminals, and should be harsh enough that the people who leave prison never want to do anything that will get them returned to prison. The cost of prison should be paid by the prisoner, by working at some job in prison that benefits the law abiding members of society.

The people of this country have got to take responsibility for their own safety, and responsibility for dealing with the violent criminals in a manner that ensures the violent criminals will never repeat their criminal violence again. If that means kicking all of the politicians out of office and replacing them with servants that follow he will of the people, then so be it. Laws define the society - bad law creates a sick society - good law creates a healthy society. Law is suposed to serve the members of society, not subjugate them.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I agree. I think it would have helped if Cho had failed a NICS check as the original NICS law intended.

The problem is, Cho's status was accidental -- the next Cho might have go postal before ever entering the system. So "tightening up" the NICS wouldn't catch or stop him. Or he might obtain his weapon illegally.

However, if we actually enforce the people's rights to bear arms, the odds are very good the next Cho will run into an armed victim in the course of his rampage.

 

[bdutton]

so we pass new laws that only affect the law abiding, not the criminals and crazies - this is idiotic.

???

When a criminal or crazy person goes to court and a judge determines that they are guilty or crazy and sends them off to prison or the mental institution they fill out a form that puts the person's name in the NICS system

How are the law abiding people getting adversely affected?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If so, do we need ANOTHER law, or do we need to worry about maybe making the existing law actually function?

The issue is that only 22 states currently even have computerized databases on people who have been involuntarily committed/adjudicated mental defective. Since Printz v. U.S. (original Brady Bill) held that Congress cannot commandeer the resources of state officials to enact a federal law in this circumstance, Congress must either bribe the states (more federal funds) to report this information or extort the states (withhold federal funds). This bill does both; but it also changes the definition used for misdemeanor domestic violence slightly and gives the states incentive to report records that are not truly relevant.

I believe that there already is an appeal process to have your name removed from the NICS 'list'.

The appeal process only works if your name was included on the NICS list wrongly (i.e. I am "John A. Smith, SSN: 123-45-6789 - the guy who is denied is John A. Smith, SSN: 123-45-6780). If you were adjudicated mentally ill in 1970; but have lived for the past 37 years with no problems with the law or mental illness you are still prohibited from owning a firearm and there is no way to appeal it.

I agree. I think it would have helped if Cho had failed a NICS check as the original NICS law intended.

He might have, he might not. The court cases on the subject have only dealt with what is defined by "involuntary commitment." The government has never tried to argue that being found a danger to yourself or others (adjudicated mentally defective) under the standards used to commit Cho is a violation of 922(g). It is a grey area in law and past case law suggests that the regulation might not pass the scrutiny of the court. It seems the main problem here is that Cho had more of a preliminary hearing than an actual adjudication of his status. If that is the case, then NICS still would not have caught him.

I personally wouldn't support H.R. 297 myself and I would let the NRA know why I didn't support it; but on the other hand I don't think the law should be pulbicly renounced by the NRA either. It is bad politics and serves no purpose when the bill will die easily enough on its own. Think of how tough a sell this issue is on a board like THR that is filled with gun owners... it surely isn't going to sell any better to the general public unless somebody can figure out some very compelling arguments (which I have not yet seen).

I think the NRA should take the position that they will support the bill if:

1) The incentive to include ANY or ALL relevant records is removed and states do not get credit for records that are determined not to be relevant to a 922 determination
2) The definition of misdemeanor domestic violence is left as it is currently instead of being broadened in a sneaky, underhanded fashion
3) Funding for relief from disability is restored by Congress

Those are all rational arguments you can defend in the public arena and that the antis cannot easily discount. Issue #3, while being a basic idea of justice in our society is probably also a poison pill for the chances of this bill passing since both Republican and Democrat Congress have refused to do it since 1992.

 

[bdutton]

The problem is, Cho's status was accidental

The state of VA chose not to share the data with the feds. Probably with lots of pressure from the AMA and ACLU. Not exactly accidental. I do believe that CCW should be allowed on ALL campuses.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Crazy?

Do they let "crazy" people drive cars?

Buy gasoline?

Chainsaws?

Vote?

This slope sure has a lot of grease on it.

Something to remember:

When you start revoking rights based on the opinion of a "doctor" whose field of "expertise" has been used as a political tool of oppression for nearly a century, you allow it to become a political tool here as well.

They're solving the wrong problem in any case.

The majority of dangerous sociopathic murdering jerks out there are not maladjusted, twitchy, and "obviously" nuts.

Evil doesn't often register as a beacon.

You place this kind of power in the hands of self-important politically motivated "doctors" and they will actively seek to expand it until they and their opinions are "indispensible" to law enforcement.

Cho wasn't as crazy as some would like to think. If he had been TRULY crazy, he'd have attacked a police station or an army base.

He didn't. He was completely aware that he needed a no-resistance zone to wreak his havoc.

Quit trying to turn this into a medical thing.

Let people arm themselves and put paid to this kind of idiocy.

 

[fiVe]

32 innocent civilians might be alive today if VA had complied with the Constitution and not forbidden honest people to carry on campus.

Let people arm themselves...

I agree. All this red tape over our 2nd amendment right. I read somewhere that if the 1st amendment had the same regulations/limitations that are currently on the 2nd amendment, we would only be allowed to use vowels.

 

[bdutton]

All this red tape over our 2nd amendment right. I read somewhere that if the 1st amendment had the same regulations/limitations that are currently on the 2nd amendment, we would only be allowed to use vowels.

o ue! ;-)

 

[Glockman17366]

"I believe that there already is an appeal process to have your name removed from the NICS 'list'"

It's my reading (and a call to the NRA) that the NRA negotiated version on HR 297 added a removal process. As far as an appeal process, I'd guess that's up to the state.
However, I'd like to see a review process for any denial as part of any bill.

 

[Majic]

But, the main thing...you Virginians got to impress upon Kaine the value of CCW

The CCW shouldn't be the issue, but rather the ability to just have a firearm on campus. No matter how a firearm is carried or stored just the presence of one and the mindset to use it could have ended the entire incident a lot earlier.
Let's not allow our CCW'ers to be like the anti's and let this unfortunate incident be a platform for their personal agenda. The ability to have a firearm on campus should be the subject. Not how you would carry it.