Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 10:43:02 GMT -5
Timex, Swilk, Henderson, what this bill does is set the groundwork for the confiscation of every firearm from every HOUSEHOLD where a "prohibited person" lives. This is not speculation. I have friends in the BATFE who have stated categorically that that is how the information WILL be used - at least by those Section Chiefs who are Anti-Gun or those who are told by Anti Gun politicians (like in Illinois) that they MUST prosecute. Right now there is no way for the Antis to know which homes have "prohibited persons". All they know is who has guns &/or CCWs. With the implementation of this bill they will be able to cross-reference the two. Simply being on the list is sufficient "probable cause" for a raid. Honest people who happen to be sick will be charged with Felony Possession by a "Prohibited Person" - because someone else in the house owns a gun. Honest gun owners will be charged with abbeting a Felony. They will lose their guns. Some will lose their lives in the BATFE raids. Yeah. Really good law. Divide and conquer. Confiscation of legally owned firearms is a violation of law......just look at what the Court said about the New Oleans fiasco after the hurricane. What this does is require States to notify NICS when a person is adjudicated to a mental facility. This is what allowed the idiot in Virginia to purchase a gun.....he was and there was no record of it at NICS. There's no way that this prohibits anyone not adjuducated to a mental institution from buying a gun........else the NRA wouldn't have endorsed it.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 15, 2007 10:43:29 GMT -5
There has to be more to it than that ..... I could request that Woody undergo an evaluation (just an example Woody .....) ..... any Judge who would sign off on it just because I requested it would face some sort of lawsuit from Woody.
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 15, 2007 10:44:17 GMT -5
They'd be trying to avoid the consequences of very real stigma...if I were a lay person with a mental illness who wanted a firearm for self-protection or some other constructive reason, I might consider not seeking treatment...
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 15, 2007 10:47:49 GMT -5
That is the kind of person who should be forced int treatment ...... if you have to make a decision, own a gun or seek the help you need .... and you choose gun .... you are not capable of making that decision for yourself.
Get the help you need and then do whatever is necessary, assuming you have regained possession of all you marbles, to again have the legal ability to buy a gun.
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 15, 2007 11:27:26 GMT -5
That is the kind of person who should be forced int treatment ...... if you have to make a decision, own a gun or seek the help you need .... and you choose gun .... you are not capable of making that decision for yourself. Get the help you need and then do whatever is necessary, assuming you have regained possession of all you marbles, to again have the legal ability to buy a gun. The nature of active mental illness is it negatively affects one's insight and ability to make constructive judgments for himself or herself. Yes, those who are mentally ill should make the decision to seek treatment before owning a gun, but I can see how many of them will do nothing at all and will tell no one because they don't have the capacity for insight that they would have without their illness, and they are afraid they (or their loved ones) will never be able to own a gun. Plus, many with mental illnesses who have the potential to be a danger to themselves or others will not behave erratically, giving society no reason to "force them" into treatment. The problem with this is that it provides no "out" for those who have completed treatment and are well and not a danger to themselves or others--there is no way to become "un-blacklisted", so folks who have a diagnosis at one point in time could be permanently blacklisted, even if it was more than 30 years ago and the person has been asymptomatic since.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 12:17:18 GMT -5
Confiscation of legally owned firearms is a violation of law......just look at what the Court said about the New Oleans fiasco after the hurricane. Key word: "Legally owned". As soon as one person in a household is "adjudicated" to be an enemy of the State, then it is, by 18USC, "illegal" for there to be any firearms in the household. And if the students or teachers had een armed he could have been stopped too. It's all Speculation. You and the NRA are missing the point. Title 18 USC does not differentiate between "owners". The term is "possession". A person in a house where there are guns present (and not being carried by someone else) is in legal "possession". If you don't think that is the case, then there are an awful lot of people in jail for not possessing illegal drugs. You got dope in the house, EVERYONE goes to jail. It's really sickening how many people seem willing to slap a Judenstern on those icky crazies and tattoo their names into an official government enemies list. Stalin would be proud too. .
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jun 15, 2007 13:13:59 GMT -5
Timex,
"What this does is require States to notify NICS when a person is adjudicated to a mental facility. This is what allowed the idiot in Virginia to purchase a gun.....he was and there was no record of it at NICS."
You are giving the law far too much credit if you think it will stop the same sort of nut from acting in the same or a worse way the next time.
Stats show that 80% of guns used in crimes were acquired by methods other than legal purchase.
So.... IF the nutjob who wanted to shoot up the next school had already been adjudicated too crazy to have a gun, ....and IF the law worked perfectly in its application,.....then the nutjob might have to either get his gun the way the other 80% of criminals get theirs, or he might have to change plans a little and use a firebomb or some fertilizer and diesel fuel.
This law will NOT prevent the nutjob from completing his mission, even if it might inconvenience him slightly.
What it will PREVENT is a person who wants to remain LEGAL, or anyone else in their household, from owning or keeping guns after they, or anyone else in their household, has been adjudicated to have been at some point, mentally incompetent to possess firearms.
Bad law, and I agree completely that the NRA should have fought it further rather than compromising and agreeing to it.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 15, 2007 13:17:39 GMT -5
I urge you all to think this out. On the surface it sounds almost well intentioned. That is how many really bad laws have gotten passed. What this truly does is put in place the first step in requiring EVERYONE to prove themselves SANE or fit to own a gun. Don't you doubt it one second. Notice the surprise admitted by Brady that the NRA supported it in the first place. While it may start with only those who can be proven unfit to own a gun(and by whose standards? What determines whether a person will meet some obstacle in life which pushes them over the edge?), it leads straight into being REQUIRED to prove you are fit to own a gun. What part of 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" isn't in effect here? This ranks right there with the Patriot Act, the assault weapons ban, and the Gun Control Act.
I have already sent my regards to the NRA and will not be renewing my membership. I am sure there is actually still a pro 2nd amendment gun group out there someplace. The NRA just fell off the list in my book.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jun 15, 2007 13:22:40 GMT -5
Like some here; I have mixed feelings about this gun control law bill: H.R. 2640. In someways it might appear to be good, by keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals that are deemed mentality ill. However I can see this law being abused by the Feds disallowing individuals the right the own a firearm when they aren't really mentality ill.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Jun 15, 2007 13:51:51 GMT -5
I think a close reading of the conditions below will help clear some things up. You all are right to be suspicious of government. In this case, however, I cannot believe our enemies signed on to this. I would not be suprised if liberals try to kill the bill in the senate.
This bill would: ( from the NRA website)
Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm. ( drgreyhound, i believe this addresses some of your concerns)
Excluding federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision is intended to address concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform.
Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish “relief from disability” programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years. ( this is huge--it used to be, once a "nut" always a nut. Now any iffy claims of mental illness can be challenged.)
Ensuring—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 15, 2007 13:56:32 GMT -5
Who removes these adjudications--a judge or a mental health professional? How does a judge know that a person who has sought mental health treatment is no longer in treatment (unless the person is court-ordered to treatment, this is not a condition that allows confidentiality to be broken, unless the client has said something that poses a clear danger to himself or herself and/or another person)? And under what conditions exactly are adjudications removed? It's all too unclear for me.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 15, 2007 14:01:47 GMT -5
And it will be no easier to be REMOVED from the LIST than it ever has been. It will most likely be worse, if that is actually possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 14:39:30 GMT -5
Good bill......trust the NRA, not the black helo's conspiracy nuts that claim we are being taken away by Staslinist and Hitler freaks. This one fixes a few of the known problems with a legal gun purchase. Sarah Brady is taking credit for it, but's not what she wants.
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 15, 2007 14:44:19 GMT -5
And it will be no easier to be REMOVED from the LIST than it ever has been. It will most likely be worse, if that is actually possible. I forsee this as well. If being "removed" from the list requires testing to be done, where are the boundaries of "normal" and "pathological" drawn? There are simple instruments designed more as a quick "screener" that list different degrees of pathology, but many of the more comprehensive personality tests that provide more depth of information are much more complex and require much more skill to interpret in terms of someone's environment and personal circumstances than the "screener" instruments (expert witnesses are many times called in to interpret these instruments in court). I for one would be very uncomfortable putting the interpretation of one of the more complex instruments into a judge's hands, and I would hope others would be too, as the consequences of misinterpretation could be disastrous. The question remains--where do you draw the line for "mentally incompetent"?
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 15, 2007 14:45:36 GMT -5
Good bill......trust the NRA, not the black helo's conspiracy nuts that claim we are being taken away by Staslinist and Hitler freaks. This one fixes a few of the known problems with a legal gun purchase. Sarah Brady is taking credit for it, but's not what she wants. I will not blindly "trust" any organization's stance on an issue without examining all sides and implications of the issue myself--but this is just my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 14:46:39 GMT -5
Henderson: THERE IS NO FUNDING FOR PROVIDING RELIEF FROM DISABILITY.
It matters absolutely squat if there is a provision in the bill. IF THERE IS NO FUNDING NOBODY GETS OFF THE LIST.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 14:53:20 GMT -5
Good bill......trust the NRA, not the black helo's conspiracy nuts that claim we are being taken away by Staslinist and Hitler freaks. This one fixes a few of the known problems with a legal gun purchase. Sarah Brady is taking credit for it, but's not what she wants. Oh yeah. I'm really a conspiracy theorist. One who asked these same questions to people I know in the BATFE and FBI. History doesn't lie. This is the same crap used by every Fascist government to date. This bill puts INNOCENT PEOPLE in a CRIMINAL DATABASE. That is, in and of itself, utterly noxious.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 14:56:39 GMT -5
And it will be no easier to be REMOVED from the LIST than it ever has been. It will most likely be worse, if that is actually possible. I forsee this as well. If being "removed" from the list requires testing to be done, where are the boundaries of "normal" and "pathological" drawn? There are simple instruments designed more as a quick "screener" that list different degrees of pathology, but many of the more comprehensive personality tests that provide more depth of information are much more complex and require much more skill to interpret in terms of someone's environment and personal circumstances than the "screener" instruments (expert witnesses are many times called in to interpret these instruments in court). I for one would be very uncomfortable putting the interpretation of one of the more complex instruments into a judge's hands, and I would hope others would be too, as the consequences of misinterpretation could be disastrous. The question remains--where do you draw the line for "mentally incompetent"? And who pays for the testing? Who sets the criteria? We KNOW there are people that believe the simple desire to own firearms is indicitave of "violent pathology". I'm sure we should all be good sheep and trust our overlords to decide who is and is not politically reliable enough to own weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Jun 15, 2007 15:51:37 GMT -5
Ironsights..... IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE A NUT AND BE INNOCENT AT THE SAME TIME. If that is putting innocent people in a database, so be it. It is not easy to restrict insane people anyway, Cho proved that. His teachers said he was not only nutty as a fruitcake, but dangerous as well. So did his classmates. Nobody could even get him thrown off campus, let alone locked up, where he needed to be. The man was a loon, and a judge had even reviewed his case and determined that he was, yet he waltzed right into a store and bought a handgun. This adjustment to the law would have prevented him making a legal purchase.
The results of mister looney tune's killing spree endangered gun rights far more than this modification of EXISTING LAW ever could. What gives banners more ammunition than a stack of dead students?
We are clearly worried about protecting the rights of the mentally ill, to prevent just the kind of persecution you are worried about. It should be hard to lock up somebody; it should have to be shown that they are dangerous, and it is.
Regarding the terrible NRA, everyone here should bear in mind that if they had not been on the political scene in the last thirty years, we wouldn't have any background checks to worry about, because we wouldn't be able to buy a gun at all by now. There have been numerous restrictive proposals stopped dead because of the clout possesed by the NRA, the group so often maligned by some forum members.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 16:04:31 GMT -5
So, you would be more than happy to see the BATFE kick in my door because my wife was "adjudicated" at age 18?
That's nice.
|
|