|
Post by drs on Jan 13, 2008 7:53:49 GMT -5
. The bill is too open to abuse. .........MUCH ABUSE!!!!.......
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 13, 2008 7:57:33 GMT -5
And why is it you think disarming americans is a good thing timex? Good question. Over on the Kentucky Hunting Forum it seems that there are many, over there, that are infavor of this bill as written. I don't think they quite know the consequences this bill might have instore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 8:49:19 GMT -5
Question back at you River Jim, why do you think someone who is mentally defective needs to buy a gun once their family has them adjuducted by a court of law???
David, you posted over there and didn't even read what the bill does before you posted. Maybe you still haven't read it???
The NRA knows what it is....so do FFL dealers that see this as an improvement. Nobody wants to go through selling a gun to some one who might committ mass murder with it. In fact, that's why families take the action they do in extreme times. They need support when faced with those choices.
You guys want to see guns in the hands of nuts and cuckoos, sell them one from your private stock......don't wish that a dealer will do it for you and then second guess it after it happens.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Jan 13, 2008 8:54:09 GMT -5
Question back at you River Jim, why do you think someone who is mentally defective needs to buy a gun once their family has them adjuducted by a court of law??? David, you posted over there and didn't even read what the bill does before you posted. Maybe you still haven't read it??? The NRA knows what it is....so do FFL dealers that see this as an improvement. Nobody wants to go through selling a gun to some one who might committ mass murder with it. In fact, that's why families take the action they do in extreme times. They need support when faced with those choices. You guys want to see guns in the hands of nuts and cuckoos, sell them one from your private stock......don't wish that a dealer will do it for you and then second guess it after it happens. You paint people with an extremely broad brush timex-besides being rude and thoughtless in your descriptions of these poor people. The insensitive name calling is NOT called for.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 13, 2008 9:06:45 GMT -5
Question back at you River Jim, why do you think someone who is mentally defective needs to buy a gun once their family has them adjuducted by a court of law??? David, you posted over there and didn't even read what the bill does before you posted. Maybe you still haven't read it??? The NRA knows what it is....so do FFL dealers that see this as an improvement. Nobody wants to go through selling a gun to some one who might committ mass murder with it. In fact, that's why families take the action they do in extreme times. They need support when faced with those choices. You guys want to see guns in the hands of nuts and cuckoos, sell them one from your private stock......don't wish that a dealer will do it for you and then second guess it after it happens. Tom, Yes I've read the entire article as well as the one you posted over on Ky Hunting. As with all of these "Feel Good" Gun Laws, it won't work! I heard, on the news yesterday evening, that there exists loopholes inthat a person with mental illness can look in the classified section of local newspapers and buy a gun from a private person without a background check. What's to say, sometime in the future that you or another member develops some mental issues, form a traumatic experience, that require a Doctor's care. The Government might list you as one that is a danger to yourself or toward others. Better think about this possibility!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 10:32:56 GMT -5
] Tom, Yes I've read the entire article as well as the one you posted over on Ky Hunting. As with all of these "Feel Good" Gun Laws, it won't work! I heard, on the news yesterday evening, that there exists loopholes inthat a person with mental illness can look in the classified section of local newspapers and buy a gun from a private person without a background check. What's to say, sometime in the future that you or another member develops some mental issues, form a traumatic experience, that require a Doctor's care. The Government might list you as one that is a danger to yourself or toward others. Better think about this possibility! There you go, it's called a NICS IMPROVEMENT Act. It's designed to IMPROVE the requirements that dealers have to submit to before selling a gun. As mentioned, it will make the NICS requirement much better to live with and it will remain at no additional cost to the dealer or the customer. Now, David, if you want one or any of these mentally disabled people to still have a gun, you can sell them one of your own. Personally, I'll stick with the NRA on this one and stand by the law as an improvement. I wouldn't want a family to suffer twice that had to use extreme means to deal with a family member, not to mention inocent gun vilence victims. Anyone know a bunch of folks that have been turned down on a gun sale??? What's the count that you know of David? ?
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 13, 2008 10:40:16 GMT -5
Tom, I certainly do not want to see someone with a mental problem to the degree they might do harm to themselves & others, owning or having access to guns. What I am concerned about is potential abuse of this particular legislation. Also, once again; I don't think there is anyway that anyone can do to keep guns out of the hands of those individuals. They can buy a firearm from a private person or worse steal one. This is just another "Feel Good" law which won't work. The government can't even control the flow of illegal drugs & aliens into this country!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 10:43:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 13, 2008 10:47:24 GMT -5
Hope these are correct, Tom. Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 11:23:28 GMT -5
Tom, I certainly do not want to see someone with a mental problem to the degree they might do harm to themselves & others, owning or having access to guns. What I am concerned about is potential abuse of this particular legislation. Also, once again; I don't think there is anyway that anyone can do to keep guns out of the hands of those individuals. They can buy a firearm from a private person or worse steal one. This is just another "Feel Good" law which won't work. The government can't even control the flow of illegal drugs & aliens into this country! You keep saying that this law won't work, which is absolutely wrong. One part is that it permnantly keeps the FBI from charging a fee for background checks........tell us how that won't work to keep the BKG checks from making gun sales cost prohibited? It's not designed to eliminate gun vilence or to completely stop illegal access tp firearms. Those laws already exists. It cleans up the NICS requirement and will work as designed.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 13, 2008 11:41:43 GMT -5
Timex posted: So what good is it? ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 11:51:45 GMT -5
Suppose a Democratic Congress under a anti-gun Illinios Democrat such as Hussein decides to file a bill that imposes a $300 fee to check the background of a person wanting to buy a firearm.......think that might hamper gun sales just a bit???
That's just one. I'm done defending this law, it's past that stage. Plus, it doesn't need defending anyway. You already have your mind made up by other peoples objection to the bill, probably none of them will ever be effected by it in any way.
The NICS Improvement Act does the following to benefit gun owners:
Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for NICS checks. Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed “strong concerns” over this aspect of the bill—surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights. Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed. Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.
Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court. Prevents use of federal “adjudications” that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs. Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal. Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.
The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:
Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction. Requires agencies to create “relief from disabilities” programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging. Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year—for any reason, including lack of funds—the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court. Allows awards of attorney’s fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency’s denial of relief in court. Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health “adjudication” or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief. Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state “relief from disabilities” programs. Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans’ mental health. Instead, the bill just uses the same terms as in the Gun Control Act , thereby leaving interpretation of the terms to the courts rather than to BATFE.
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jan 13, 2008 12:56:42 GMT -5
Question back at you River Jim, why do you think someone who is mentally defective needs to buy a gun once their family has them adjuducted by a court of law??? David, you posted over there and didn't even read what the bill does before you posted. Maybe you still haven't read it??? The NRA knows what it is....so do FFL dealers that see this as an improvement. Nobody wants to go through selling a gun to some one who might committ mass murder with it. In fact, that's why families take the action they do in extreme times. They need support when faced with those choices. You guys want to see guns in the hands of nuts and cuckoos, sell them one from your private stock......don't wish that a dealer will do it for you and then second guess it after it happens. I'm wondering what your operational definitions of "mentally defective," "nut," and "cukoo" are. Are adults who were diagnosed with ADHD as a child "mentally defective," "nuts," and "cukoo"? Are servicemen who developed PTSD as a result of seeing gruesome violence and watching their fellow servicemen die defending our freedoms "mentally defective," "nuts," and "cukoo"? Are the millions of people in America suffering from seasonal affective disorder in the wintertime "mentally defective," "nuts," and "cukoo"? And do these people, who make up the vast majority of those with mental illnesses in this country, deserve to be painted with the same broad brush as those who never received mental health diagnoses (because they never sought mental health care) who committed mass murders regardless of what "gun control" measures were enacted? "Gun control" legislation is not going to stop people with the type of mental illness committing violence that results in mass murders and other acts of homicide (a very small minority of the population of those having mental illnesses), so why should we further stigmatize the majority of those who have mental illnesses and strip them of their second-amendment rights to own a firearm (probably making it less likely that these individuals will seek treatment as a consequence) on account of the vast minority? It is the person, not the gun, who performs the behavior and commits the crime--and if we made it more likely that anyone with a mental illness, whether it could result in homicide or not, would seek mental health care, we could stop the problem where we know it starts--in the behavior of those operating the gun.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 13, 2008 13:08:18 GMT -5
It's always amazing to me, when those gun grabbing liberals pass a new gun law, because the previous one(s) don't workout as they plan; thay always say....."This particular law is an improvement, over the old one, that will work".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 15:13:25 GMT -5
NICS Improvement Act.......good legislation, read what it does before you comment. Those of us that deal in firearms appreciate what it is......those of you that don't are worried about things that will never happen, haven't happened and can't happen.
Those of you that want "seasonal defective: people to have firearms can provide them with one.
David, this bill wasn't passed by liberals. So, your wrong again.....that's several times today already.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 13, 2008 16:13:22 GMT -5
"those of you that don't are worried about things that will never happen, haven't happened and can't happen."
Sorry -that's a no sale for me. I think the senario for abuse has been pretty well laid out, nor does your being a dealer have any bearing on my opinion. I doubt anyone is going to have their minds changed here.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Jan 13, 2008 20:52:46 GMT -5
A careful reading of this law reveals that it does improve the current NICS system.
People were being adjudicated before this law was passed. The information that this law deals with already existed. The government and many other agencies already had "lists" of people with mental illnesses, not not mention every other trait, habit, and condition known to man.
What this law does is make it harder for you to lose your rights due to a one-time or short term mental illness, and REQUIRES the government to provide ways for someone declared unfit because of some technicality to clear their name. Under previous law, once you were committed agaisnt your will, no matter the circumstances, that was it; you could never legally buy a firearm. This bill unquestionably makes life easier for veterans who once were barred permanently from firearms purchases because of a PTSD diagnosis.
What blows my mind is that everybody is going nuts about this modification of existing law, but nobody hand the slightest reservations about the previous version of NICS that created all kinds of impossible hurdles for those diagnosed with mental illness.
All this fear-mongering talk of Nazis and communists is ridiculous. If a government with the actual ability to take your guns comes to power, they are not going to bother having us all declared insane and use NICS to deny purchases. There will be no purchases! There will be some BS emergency order or declaration and the government will simply try to take them. NICS will be the least of our worries.
BTW, there is such a thing as a person that needs to be committed. Cho did not have "a treatable illness." He was stark raving mad, and needed to be locked up. Furthermore, his parents and any teachers that did not try to get Cho locked up should have been locked up with him. We need to stop the PC baloney and deal with obviously dangerous people like Cho. We are so worried about rights... what about the 32 people that are dead because we as a society were unwilling to call an obviously insane person insane? What about their rights? It seems to me that anyone with a minor mental illness need not worry when we let violent lunatics walk the streets.
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jan 14, 2008 5:33:36 GMT -5
And those of us who deal in mental health care appreciate the implications of the legislation; namely, that millions of people who have the right to defend themselves under the 2nd amendment may not be able to for having a treatable--but, unfortunately, stigmatized--illness. The legislation is way too open to abuse, as DBD has stated several times. Absolutely, although this number is far fewer than many people would like to believe in comparison to the number of people who do just fine in outpatient mental health care. Although my hunch is to agree with you (a very small minority of mental illnesses--such as antisocial personality disorder--can be very resistant to treatment and can involve acts of homicide), this judgment can not be made until we have 100% of the needed information to make this call. Someone committing homicide alone is not enough information to make this judgment; however, if someone says they are going to commit an act of homicide and has a plan and/or means to do so, I feel they should be hospitalized to protect the public. From the comparatively little I feel that I know about Cho's mental health care circumstances, it sounds to me like the hospital that evaluated Cho made an awful error of judgment by discharging him with a referral to the college counseling center (as if he was going to go--duh) once they determined he was a threat to himself and/or others. I don't think the other millions of people with treatable mental illnesses who aren't a danger to the public or themselves and who are law-abiding should lose their rights, along with their loved ones, to bear arms under the 2nd amendment because of the Chos in the world and the seemingly incompetent hospitals that make mistakes (like all hospitals do), because the Chos will likely obtain a firearm or other weapon (tool?) no matter what blanket "gun control" legislation is enacted and commit their act of homicide regardless. But it seems to me like they should (understandably) worry if they are going to be painted with the same broad brush by society as the small minority of individuals with treatment-resistant mental illnesses who commit homicide, as they are going to be further stigmatized by society for their illnesses and will lose their rights in the process, although they are law-abiding, normal people who don't deserve this. And I didn't mean any of this to be "politically correct"...
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 14, 2008 5:33:59 GMT -5
I agree that potential was there before and yes there are many possibilities for abuse, just not the mental health avenue. That still doesn't mean this doesn't allow for abuse as well. I understand the concerns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2008 5:52:43 GMT -5
A careful reading of this law reveals that it does improve the current NICS system. People were being adjudicated before this law was passed. The information that this law deals with already existed. The government and many other agencies already had "lists" of people with mental illnesses, not not mention every other trait, habit, and condition known to man. What this law does is make it harder for you to lose your rights due to a one-time or short term mental illness, and REQUIRES the government to provide ways for someone declared unfit because of some technicality to clear their name. Under previous law, once you were committed agaisnt your will, no matter the circumstances, that was it; you could never legally buy a firearm. This bill unquestionably makes life easier for veterans who once were barred permanently from firearms purchases because of a PTSD diagnosis. What blows my mind is that everybody is going nuts about this modification of existing law, but nobody hand the slightest reservations about the previous version of NICS that created all kinds of impossible hurdles for those diagnosed with mental illness. All this fear-mongering talk of Nazis and communists is ridiculous. If a government with the actual ability to take your guns comes to power, they are not going to bother having us all declared insane and use NICS to deny purchases. There will be no purchases! There will be some BS emergency order or declaration and the government will simply try to take them. NICS will be the least of our worries. BTW, there is such a thing as a person that needs to be committed. Cho did not have "a treatable illness." He was stark raving mad, and needed to be locked up. Furthermore, his parents and any teachers that did not try to get Cho locked up should have been locked up with him. We need to stop the PC baloney and deal with obviously dangerous people like Cho. We are so worried about rights... what about the 32 people that are dead because we as a society were unwilling to call an obviously insane person insane? What about their rights? It seems to me that anyone with a minor mental illness need not worry when we let violent lunatics walk the streets. Good post, glad someone actually took the time to read the law and comment on it sensibly instead of knee jerking to "just another leiberal gun bill".
|
|