Congress Passes Law Abridging Right to Bear Arms

[Scooter]

Yesterday, both houses of Congress passed a law making it illegal for mentally impaired people from purchasing guns. This obviously violates the 2nd Amendment and may impact many on this BB. :) Two questions:

How do you feel about this?

Will Bush sign the Bill?

[Sponsored Links]

[John R]

"How do you feel about this?"

You mean how do I feel about the fact that a bill affecting the mentally challanged may affect a lot of people on this forum? What are you saying about this forum?

John

[HS345]

Yesterday, both houses of Congress passed a law making it illegal for mentally impaired people from purchasing guns. This obviously violates the 2nd Amendment and may impact many on this BB.

Aw c'mon Scooter, don't be so hard on yourself? :D

Obvioulsy violates the 2nd Amendment? To Whom? Not you, you're in favor of NO law abiding civilian citizen being able to own a gun, according to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Isn't it already illegal for mentally ILL people to buy guns?

Another waste of time, by a do nothing congress.

I don't know the particulars of the actual wording of the bill, and who, and how, "mentally impaired" would be defined. Therefore,I can't comment in that regard.

Generally speaking, I don't trust a Demo-cratic congress to pass any beneficial gun legislation whatsoever. :suspect:

[Scooter]

No, I don't believe that every state has a law prohibiting the mentally ill from purchasing guns, at least Virgina. This would be a national standard, same set of laws over the United States.

I believe the bill requires an adjudication of being mentally ill and reporting the information to the Feds so as to quickly disqualify a person from owning a gun.

Rep. Tom Colburn supported it, who is firmly in the pocket of the gun lobby.

Do you think Bush will sign it?

[flatfloor]

Isn't it already illegal for mentally ILL people to buy guns?
:nod:

Another waste of time, by a do nothing congress]

Not so, they voted for $180 billion in pork and gutted the border fence bill.

[ss3964spd]

I doubt he will, he'd then have to turn in his guns.

[HS345]

I believe the bill requires an adjudication of being mentally ill and reporting the information to the Feds so as to quickly disqualify a person from owning a gun.Again, adjudication by whom? By what standards?

Rep. Tom Colburn supported it, who is firmly in the pocket of the gun lobby. Good for him!

Do you think Bush will sign it? I hope not. It would be just another piece of useless legislation. The "mentally ill", not to mention, criminals, don't usually aquire their guns from gun shops.


Another waste of time, by a do nothing congress.
Not so, they voted for $180 billion in pork and gutted the border fence bill.

Excellent point Flat. I guess I should have said: "a do nothing GOOD congress". ;)

[Scooter]

adjudication by whom? By what standards? By whatever standards the particular State has. Adjudication is by a Court. The NRA I just read is now supporting it. That change your mind?

[HS345]

The NRA I just read is now supporting it. That change your mind?
Not necessarily.

[sandbagger]

of course Bush will sign, and of course the NRA supports it. In reality it changes little, if anything of the qualifications for gun ownership. It's a "feel good" bill that does nothing, brought to you by your Democrat-controlled do-nothing Congress. Unfortunately the "do-nothing" monicker may not be entirely true - I'm betting there's a taxpayer cost in there somewhere. :devil:

[Old World Tile and Marble]

Ouch

[kate42]

Again, adjudication by whom? By what standards?

First what is the defination of mentally ill??
Second, does taking any type of anti depressant make one mentally ill?

Good people, do we ever have a problem. :rolleyes:

Depression can be something very temporary.It doesn.t make one totally mentally ill.

Watch out folks. They will find another reason to ban the ownership of guns.

PS I do not own a gun. I do believe that it's your right to own a gun.

[sdaniels7114]

As long as they aren't arming Bears. Imagine running from a Bear, finding a tree and getting up, thinking you're safe only for the Bear to pull out his 12 Gage and blast you in the arse? Those critters are dangerous enough as it is.

[kate42]

[QUOTE=Steve]As long as they aren't arming Bears.[/QUOTE

Really????????????????? :D

[cx]

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom
of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power
than by violent and sudden usurpations." It's a "feel good" bill that does nothing, brought to you by your Democrat-controlled do-nothing Congress. Yeah, Art, unlike all the good legislation passed by the recent Republican-controlled Congress repealing lots of the unconstitutional gun laws of the past. Riiiiiiiiiiight. And, of course, immediately signed by our Second Amendment-supporting Chief Executive. Riiiiiight.

They're all the same, Art. There ain't a dime's worth of difference between those two political parties. They are each in full support of their party and have no respect for, nor allegiance to, the Constitution of this nation.

Only when We The People start recognizing that and start throwing the whole bunch of'em out, qukk we at least be able to begin getting back to the government the Founders intended.

[HS345]

They're all the same, Art. There ain't a dime's worth of difference between those two political parties.

People often trot out that old chestnut, nothing could be further from the truth.

To be sure the Repubs have their fair share of problems, but the difference between Demo-crats and Re-pub-lick-ens, is as wide as the Grand Canyon, from an ideological standpoint.

I think part of the problem, and the reason more and more people have come to believe what you said is, many who claim to be one or the other, are neither.

[sandbagger]

but the difference between Demo-crats and Re-pub-lick-ens, is as wide as the Grand Canyon, from an ideological standpoint. AMEN! :usflag:

Problems? Certainly.

Differences? Absolutely.

I'll repeat 2 points I've made several times:

1) The next President of the United States will be a Republican or Democrat. One way or another, we will all influence that outcome.

2) If you really want to effect change, it starts at the local level. Spend more time worrying about who you elect to city council, state office, or Congress. It takes longer, but you'll ultimately have more impact and the impact will last much longer than any single President.

[sandbagger]

getting back on topic - can someone explain precisely what this legislation changes in the current laws? precisely what it is that has certain folks here stirred up? So far haven't seen anything except inference and innuendo - hardly material for getting worked up over. :shrug:

[John Bridge]

Well, to begin with it's probably an encroachment on states rights. But of course, under current interpretations, I'm probably wrong. It's merely an extension of the "commerce clause." :)

I love the Madison quote posted by CX. If it is an abridgment of states rights, we should nip it in the bud whether the law appears to do anything or not.

Finally, as with criminals, insane people can get weapons any time they want them, and I don't think a whacko is worried about breaking a law, state or federal. :)

As to federal firearms restrictions within states, look up United States v. Lopez.

[sandbagger]

still looking for specifics, John. I fear this is a lot like the Patriot Act - good for a lot of talk but not much substance. Yes, I understand the debate about states rights and certainly support the idea of a less encroaching Fed.

But you want to see real encroachment on rights? Stop worrying about the Feds! :shake: The destruction of the Constitution is bottom-up, folks. Just look at all the ridiculous state and local regulations that get enacted at an ever-increasing rate. Look around. Smoke much? Not around here. Everyone here has no doubt had some sort of encounter with the code police, and in some communities the DIYer is the biggest endangered species. And don't get me started on photo-ticketing and traffic checkpoints. :mad:

[John Bridge]

"Stop worrying about the Feds! The destruction of the Constitution is bottom-up, folks. Just look at all the ridiculous state and local regulations that get enacted at an ever-increasing rate."

Art,

The Constitution of the United States was written, ratified and applied to the federal government only. It imposes no restrictions on what the states might do except in a very few specified areas -- making treaties, import-export, etc. Other than that it doesn't say a thing about taxation within the states for whatever reason. You want specifics? So do I. Point me to anything in the constitution that says your state or your local government can't tax you any way it sees fit WITHIN the constitution of that state. :)

[Shooter]

The Dems, liberals, gun grabbers, whatever you wanna call them have really shot themselves in the foot with this one. Their knee jerk reaction to the Virginia Tech Tradgedy which pushed this bill is gonna hurt them in the long run. Don't get me wrong and let me state this clearly, Virginia Tech was a horrible tradgedy and there should have be tighter control on the entire mental illness issue. It is not about making new laws but about enforcing ones that we already have.

You bet Bush will sign it, especially if the NRA is behind it.

I am also an NRA lifer and even though I don't deal with the lobbying part of the orgainization, I too am all for this bill.

The NRA has always preached that the mentally ill, who have been deemed a threat to themselves or others, should not be in possession of firearms. This is supposed to be an anti-gun bill but it also follows the NRA standpoint. But in essence the bill, if signed, will have better records and state input of records but will actually have more pro-gun ramifications. It is within the best interests of the NRA to support this bill. It does not matter if the bill is signed or not, it is a win win situation for the NRA and pro gun rights people.

The idiot gun grabbers, while well intentioned about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, have created some serious loop-holes. The funding for better accuracy of reporting etc, was good but they included too many loop holes, which is gonna seriously bite them in the ass.

FWIW - There is only a very small percentage of mentally ill people who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others by a court of law. There are staggering amounts of mentally ill people who just get treated by doctors or shrinks.

You liberals better be careful because you are barking up the legislation path that may someday give big brother more power to look into your private life and perhaps medical records etc...The foundations of a slippery slope is now being laid.

Be careful what you wish for and make sure it doesn't bite ya in the ass when it shows up knocking at your door.

[kate42]

:wave:

Can anybody describe the meaning of "mentally ill"?
At what point is one "normal" or "mentally ill"?

[ddmoit]

Kate,

Here's a little something on the people that decide who is mentally ill...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0rA993Z6s0

[djg]

I think this goes a little deeper. I think its going to include returning veterans and all veterans that have been treated for combat stress. So people should be careful.

[MudMaker]

It is just lip service to the massacre @ V.P.I
When something bad happens, government feels they have to make a new law... It's just what they do.. Busy work.. Helps explain the big salaries.. and extensive perks... :sheep: :sheep:

AK-47 and a 50 cal sniper rifle
Stephano.. You got some heavy artillary in yer arsenal don't cha.. :yeah:

Shooter.. You gone off'n the deep end?? :stick:
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens

[MudMaker]

I don't see anything wrong with it.... :shrug:

NICS - National Instant Criminal Background Check System


Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act, House Concurs

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.

Late yesterday, anti-gun Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), failed to delay progress of this pro-gun measure. The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control and gun ban groups are opposed to the passage of this legislation because of the many pro-gun improvements contained within.

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 uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.
On Wednesday evening, by unanimous consent, the U.S. House accepted the Senate amendment to H.R. 2640. The legislation is headed to the President's desk for his signature into law.

[sandbagger]

It imposes no restrictions on what the states might do except in a very few specified areas ....Don't know about you, John, but I have a bit of a problem with the current trend toward the "nanny state" that your comment seems to endorse.

For example, AZ is following the lead (or leading, in some cases) of the states implementing photo-ticketing. Very simple - you pick up your mail as usual and find a notice from some court you've never been to demanding money or lose your license. There's a picture of a car that might be yours with someone driving who might look like you - or might not. You've just been convicted without ever seeing your accuser or setting foot in a court. Think it's a mistake? Good luck, because in the court of photo-ticketing you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

But the real irony here is the 2nd Amendment itself. There are far more problems with gun rights - or lack thereof - at the local and state levels than anything that is going on with this bill. For many Americans this whole bill is moot because local regulations are FAR more restrictive, often to the point of making gun ownership impossible (for the good guys, that is).

[Shooter]

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Shooter.. You gone off'n the deep end?? Whats the matter Frank you got something against roses or kittens? Well OK, I can do without the roses, but I sure do like kittens.













I can eat 5 or 6 of em in one sitting! :rofl:

OK, everyone, that was just a joke and I do not actually eat kittens, well atleast not the 4 legged variety......... :devil:

[Shooter]

I don't see anything wrong with it....:shrug: Yep, them tree huggers sure screwed the pooch with this one. Just about everyone can agree that fixing deficiencies in the actual physical reporting system of the NICS, not just mental health related, is necessary. However the bill itself will open the door for many more issues that definitely heavily favor the Pro-Gun camp. That is why the NRA and well informed Pro-Gun people are overwhelmingly for the bill. People are purchasing weapons in record numbers, not just staunch gun owners, but by first time owners. No more background taxation, yada, yada, yada, get that past stress disorder off the books, yada, yada, not too mention other issues in the bill and guess what? Viola, more people lining up to purchase guns.

Bush would be an absolute fool for not signing it. It will make him look good in the eyes of the tree huggers and the Pro-gun people including Bush will be snickering in the background.

An knee-jerk tree hugger reaction of a bill, that is gonna bite them in the ass.

[John Bridge]

Photo ticketing. Don't know as I like it any better than you do, but it's no different than being accused of speeding and written up by a cop. You can pay the fine and by so doing plead guilty, or you can go to court. The photo process is the same. You pay the ticket and plead guilty or you go to court. What's the difference?

Again, I don't like the idea of it, but I don't see that's it's unconstitutional. You're not guilty until proven innocent. You've merely been accused. It's a pain in the ass, I'll give you that. ;)

[cx]

You're not guilty until proven innocent.Gotta disagree with JB on that one. When they send you a demand for payment of a fine, that indicates you've already been judged guilty. And without any opportunity to face your accuser as is the case when the cop stops you.

And when the law is arbitrary and capricious, such as the red light at an empty intersection at three in the morning, I find it even more unreasonable that they can issue a citation and levy a fine.

Speed limits are similarly irritating, but that's a different argument along with the methods of licensing drivers and insuring of automobiles. :)

[MudMaker]

I am fighting the photo ticketing by wearing a mask and wig when I drive.
I tried wearin a red button nose n fake eyelashes with rosey cheeks.. Trouble is... it still looks like me... :lol1:

[sandbagger]

once upon a time the reading on the radar gun was not enough to convict - the cop had to tell the judge how he verified he had the correct vehicle. That's obviously gone. And while radar is better than 20 yrs ago at picking targets, it's far from perfect. There's a thing called "radar profile" that determines which vehicle the radar sees (usually determined by size). Basically it means if you are driving your work truck next to a Corvette your truck is prolly gonna be the one to get busted.

And the idea that you can mask your face isn't working too well, either. :shake: Some folks have suggested "pleading the Fifth" when the judge asks you to ID the driver, but these traffic courts mostly care more about the money than any "rights." Some municipalities are even resorting to "fake tickets" (http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/fake-red-light-camera-ticket/) as a ruse to get motorists to self-identify.

[John Bridge]

Read the fine print, CX. It's as I said it is, at least in Houston. They started red light ticketing several months ago here. It was warning tickets for a while and then they went live. It's now $75, which is a lot less than if you got stopped by a cop for the same offense. I think they figure the low ticket prices will cut down on challenges. You do have the right to challenge it, though, and I'm sure it's that way everywhere. If it weren't it would be unconstitutional and be struck down in no time. ;)

[Scooter]

Many of the photo tickets are run by outsourced companies that purchase, install, service, ticket, and receive the fines, then split off a percentage of the revenue. Private Companies. Dan oughta like that.

The easy way to beat those tickets is not to speed or run red lights.

[Shooter]

Usually the main differences in photo tickets is that, in general, photo related tickets are a decriminalized offense as opposed to often times being a criminal offense when an officer actually issues the citation. This may lead to a lesser fine imposed from a photo citation as opposed to a ticket issued by an actual officer. The main goal of any court is for people to flat out pay the fines. Litigation can get expensive and tie up courts. They hope that you will just pay the lesser fine and feel that you are getting a break or that the lesser fine is not worth your time to contest it. This also leaves room for controversy as to legality as to a double standard but this is how many states and municipalities are getting away with these programs. In a civil ticket as opposed to criminal you are in essence circumventing the 4th, 6th and 14th.

Also there are issues in regards to the validity and integrity of photo programs being run by independent companies that are directly profiting from revenues collected. A most notable outcome just recently is from a San Diego court where the Honorable Judge Ronald Styn ruled on a case presented by 290 defendants in a 7 day hearing where Judge Styn granted a motion to dismiss on the above mentioned grounds. This may have a very damaging effect many current programs especially those within the Ninth Circuit.

FWIW - My state launched a 3 year pilot program in 2002 for speeding cameras operated by an independent company. Each ticket garnered the company $17 per citation, not too mention being paid to provide the vans and cameras and all other necessary equipment. There was such a huge public outrage at the program, the senate, many of whom were staunch supporters of the program, voted 25-0 to kill the program a mere 6 months after its launch. The Governor who initially supported the program also succumbed to pressure and let the program die. Needless to say that pending red light camera programs that were too follow went into the crapper also.