Chills1994 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/ Mods if this gets too political, you know what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I don't know, it seems like a win win. We get the cleaning and maintainance of NICS we've wanted for some time, at the "cost" of better information fed into the system about people with mental problems. And to boot, even that can be cleaned if the steps are followed. It doesn't seem to bad if it doesnt get altered as it goes through the houses. The only issues remaining are those of medical privacy, but I think thats already out in the open when you are talking about court mandated trips to the mental ward, those are already in the public record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Griffin Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I certainly don't agree with the NRA on everything, and I think this is a great example of how it should be done. Being under the microscope, we have to scupulously uphold legislation that prevents guns from getting into the wrong hands, so that we can keep them in ours. H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Though we always should be carefull whos hands are the "wrong hands". That way devils may be hidding. In this case however it is hard to make an argument that people with history if mental problems which have not been cleaned off the record are not the wrong people. As long as there is a way to get off the list when proven "sane". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 As long as there is a way to get off the list when proven "sane". This one thing the NRA could have fully addressed but didn't. Under current federal law, any involuntary commitment for mental health reasons makes one a prohibited person for life, with no procedure to get off that list. Even a short term involuntary commitment for evaluation that results in a medical finding of "no mental illness or defect" reduces someone to less than a full citizen for the rest of their life. The NRA had a perfect chance to negotiate for a procedure to deal with this but chose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Franklin once asked about the price of a whistle. I think this is the same thing. I find this a terrible compromise since the dems are not a group that stops at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Under current federal law, any involuntary commitment for mental health reasons makes one a prohibited person for life, with no procedure to get off that list. Even a short term involuntary commitment for evaluation that results in a medical finding of "no mental illness or defect" reduces someone to less than a full citizen for the rest of their life.The NRA had a perfect chance to negotiate for a procedure to deal with this but chose not to. So a soldier returning from Afghanistan or Iraq with Post-traumatic stress could find themselves committed for a short term and then be banned from owning a gun... that is not good and not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Problem is that the bill could still be amended or tinkered with prior to reaching the president's desk. Not everyone obeys their party leadership. Since it seems destined to pass whether we like it or not, the best that can be hoped for (or asked of your legislator) is that he or she preserve this as a "clean bill - no riders, no amendments." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halvey Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I guess I have no problem with it really. Again, win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I guess I have no problem with it really. Again, win-win. What did we win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) "What did we win?" Anytime two entities that simply do NOT see eye to eye get together and "hammer out" an agreement which mitigates damages while providing a level of protection is a win-win situation. People with documented mental health concerns that are "serious" enough to warrant extensive treatment (in patient-out patient-threats of violence against themselves or against other persons) should not be allowed access to firearms...period. Those of us in law enforcement have are hands full now as it is with individuals that suffer from mental health issues let alone suspects/detainees armed to the teeth by their local gun dealers. Edited June 12, 2007 by Chuck D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 "What did we win?"Anytime two entities that simply do NOT see eye to eye get together and "hammer out" an agreement which mitigates damages while providing a level of protection is a win-win situation. People with documented mental health concerns that are "serious" enough to warrant extensive treatment (in patient-out patient-threats of violence against themselves or against other persons) should not be allowed access to firearms...period. Those of us in law enforcement have are hands full now as it is with individuals that suffer from mental health issues let alone suspects/detainees armed to the teeth by their local gun dealers. I don't consider it a "win" when our side only manages to avoid having something taken away for now, but does not get anything. We got nothing from this deal other than a promise of the other side not to try to take more later. A true Win/Win situation was in Washington State a number of years ago were they got "brady style checks" (before the brady bill) and we got "non discretionary ccw". It's sort of like calling a mugging when the criminal lets you keep half your money as "win/win" - after all, he could have taken the other half as well so you got something you wanted - the ability to keep half. As a LE who deals with mental health, do you think there should be a procedure by which someone who is involuntarily committed can prove they are no longer unsuitable to own firearms? Do you think someone should lose their gun rights if the result of a short term committment for an exam is "no indication of mental illness found?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 "As a LE who deals with mental health, do you think there should be a procedure by which someone who is involuntarily committed can prove they are no longer unsuitable to own firearms? Do you think someone should lose their gun rights if the result of a short term committment for an exam is "no indication of mental illness found?" I thought my position was pretty clear.... "People with documented mental health concerns that are "serious" enough to warrant extensive treatment (in patient-out patient-threats of violence against themselves or against other persons) should not be allowed access to firearms...period." I deal with suspects with mental health issues on a regular basis...if you want, come on up and spend a day with me at the college or an evening with me at the court...and experience dealing with 10-78's first hand. It's an eye opening experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 A true Win/Win situation was in Washington State a number of years ago were they got "brady style checks" (before the brady bill) and we got "non discretionary ccw". Actually, Washington state has had a shall issue concealed carry permit law since 1965. I know this through reading the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) as it relates to concealed carry permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinistralRifleman Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Far too much potential for abuse. People should not be permanently denied their rights without due process. The NRA should not be actively working with our enemies. They won't need to ban guns when they just keep reducing the number of people who can have them. Not everyone with a domestic violence charge is a danger to anyone or their ex, not everyone referred for involuntary mental health treatment (including counseling) is a danger to them self or others, especially not permanently. And yes, military mental health records will likely be used as part of this. Anyone who really wants a firearm will get them somewhere, this won't stop the next Cho. The next one could just as easily decide to make an bomb with what he learned in chemistry class to blow up his school rather than shoot the place up. The NRA doesn't represent me and never will so long as they play the death of 1,000 cuts game: http://www.gunowners.org/a061207.htm Edited June 12, 2007 by SinistralRifleman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 GOA "[The] more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America,... has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill." -- The Washington Post, June 9, 2007 Tuesday, June 12, 2007 While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a "compromise" on gun control legislation. The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written. The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did something about Virginia Tech. So what's going on? On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence, this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names, many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well. Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records." Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the 83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in the NICS system. After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the NICS system. Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun. Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt, have to spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc. And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that backwards? One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the government, rather than vice-versa. The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000 veterans. Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith amendment into law. GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton administration was considering doing. GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-shot Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 It's Great if they'll keep the guns out of crazy peoples hands, but damnit, stop calling me everyday!! Sometimes twice!! Wayne LaPierre is a STALKER!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul B Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Interesting diversity of opinions. Would someone please close this thread before I say something I shouldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 I am going to close this for now before this goes too far over the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts