| Author | Message | ||
     M1combat |
He could have done the veto thing... Have you ever taken a look at Bush's voting record on gun control? It's not pretty. I agree with you in that he can only sign things brought to him by congress though. | ||
| Ryker77 |
Bush is common place with the Veto pen. Funny how it was signed into law during the New Hamshire primaries. So the media wouldn't have much time to focus on it.  "First & foremost, if someone is PROVEN to be mentally unstable, PLEASE take away their "right" to own firearms. " What is a person is proven to be OCD, which is mentally unstable. They simply like to have a clean house or they wash thier hands too much. Mentally unstable could include a motorcycle rider. Since the very act of riding on the street is dangerous, the rider must have a mental problem. Too many people will now have the Ability and CONTROL over you and your rights. Funny things is - I could move to Iraq, the country that were spending billions in, not pay any taxes and legally caryy a freaking machine gun or rocket. Yet in my own (free) country - I could be declared unstable and be prevented from owning a .22 rimfire rabit gun. | ||
| Ryker77 |
"So what you are saying is that you are ok with a mentally disabled person to have firearms. I could give a sh1t whether or not they are a vet or not, If they are having a problem then they don't need guns. " Did you read the law. The word MINIMAL is used to define the condition. Also any person that is court ordered by say a divorce with a child custody case would be included. MINIMAL is the issue. Also mental conditions can cover a huge range of problems. Alchol use? Riding a motorcycle too fast, OCD, Anxiety, a mother who has depression after child birth, even a cop who would ask for help after a on the job shooting. MINIMAL! Is a scary word. | ||
| Mikej |
"Too many people will now have the Ability and CONTROL over you and your rights. " I backed out of this thread earlier, but this is my chief concern about it, and the lack of due process in the removal of Rights. If someone wants to decide my mental state then I'd like to know their mental pre-disposition firsthand. I'll be elsewhere discussing this. = = = = = "I believe this law will be abused by people with an agenda. " Exactly! (Message edited by mikej on January 10, 2008) | ||
| Ironken |
Any president can only sign legislation brought to him by congress, which at this time it is controlled by the democrats. So I hope your point wasn't just another "I hate Bush" rant. That's exactly what it was! And how many years was lord Bush in office before the Dems took majority? You know what I've learned about a lot of the people that tend to want to become psychologists (actually every single one that I have ever known)? They're pretty messed up and they know it. They want to learn about the subject so they can figure out what's wrong with themselves. I would imagine that the rest are the ones who've decided that they're good and they need to tell everyone else that there's something wrong. Having gone thru a divorce and child custody case involving a couple of these jewels, I couldn't agree more. They for the most part have an idealistic view of how things are and how they should be. They cannot be reasoned with. I have dealt with these clowns so much, that I actually got into this bimbo's head and had her rattled pretty good.....It was pretty funny. Remind me to tell you sometime..... (Message edited by ironken on January 10, 2008) | ||
| Ryker77 |
Pretty slick how they ushered this bill into law during the busy New Hamshire voting. So the media wouldn't focus on it. | ||
| Ryker77 |
Ironken. did you notice this part of the law "* Were referred by such "lawful authority" to a psychiatrist or psychologist to be evaluated in connection with child custody procedure or other contexts in which professional assessment is ordered." You would not be allowed to own a weapon? If I am reading the law correctly. | ||
| Mikej |
Couple of links, do with them what you may: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx? id=219&issue=018 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= h110-2640 This following link may or may not work: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/ ~c110SLZz2a if the link dies just search for h.r.2640 | ||
| Ironken |
Ryker77, I agree with you on your interp. of the law. It is like the patriot act IMO and is just one more vague law to castrate American citizens.....Very scary! | ||
| Ryker77 |
"will prohibit the individual from purchasing, possessing, receiving, shipping or transporting a firearm or ammunition under section " So If my elderly Grandpa lives with me and he has a mental condition - I can't even purchase a weapon for a Christmas present. Or even have some hunting ammo. -------------- But the Leahy-McCarthy bill codifies BATFE regulations, so that it will now only take a "lawful authority" to adjudicate someone as a mental defective.1 And another section of the bill makes it clear this adjudication does not need to be made by a formal court, but can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis by a psychiatrist.2 Such a definition of "adjudicate" does away with due process. A "mental defective" once meant that one was found "not guilty by reason of insanity." Now a person can lose their rights because he or she has been "adjudicated" by a psychiatrist who has determined that such a person could be a danger to self or to others -- or simply cannot manage his affairs. By the way, in its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn’t have to be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include "any danger" at all -- even an infinitesimal risk. How many shrinks are ever going to clear a person based on this standard? | ||
| Ryker77 |
(a) is under indictment or has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year; that covers alot (b) is a fugitive from justice; (c) is an unlawful user or an addict of any controlled substance; thats covers alot of Americans (d) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (e) is subject to a court order restraining them from domestic violence; Standard procedure for most divorce lawyers is to request a restraining order even if there was never a valid reason. No the accused person will need to pay$$$ to argue a court case infront of a judge to prevent the restraining order which would prevent the right to own a gun or even bullets (f) has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor; (g) has been dishonorably discharged from the military; What does this have to do with anything about a firearm. I belive Tim Mcviegh was an Honorable discharge as was Oswald. (h) is an illegal alien; or no shit) (i) renounced U.S. citizenship. | ||
| Mikej |
If you do away with the due process part then you open up the constitutionality of it, innocent until proven guilty and all that other legal stuff. Just because Congress and the Senate pass a legislation and the President signs it into law in and of itself does not guarantee that the new law is Constitutional and does not prevent it from being challenged. Means and balances, or something like that. | ||
| Ironken |
Ryker, I don't know your take on this stuff (no I'm not a conspiracy theory dude), but I feel that it is just annother step in disarming the public under the, "good intentions," cover of further protecting us from us. In actuality, I feel that it is the Gov. protecting themselves from us....... | ||
| Bad_karma |
The enemy is from within(UN,Federal, state, county & city). I believe this and so did the members of congress and states of the union that made and ratified the 2nd amendment. But saying that I'm now at risk of not hunting next year. Joe (Message edited by bad_karma on January 11, 2008) (Message edited by bad_karma on January 11, 2008) | ||
| Sgthigg |
"If someone wants to decide my mental state then I'd like to know their mental pre-disposition firsthand. " Amen, I agree. Since McCain spent years in a POW camp. I am pretty sure he would have some sort of PTSD. He might possibly be the first president\commander and chief that cannot own a gun. WTF are we coming to? Now, Im off to go take my prescribed mental pills, and get some sleep. I got get ready to go back on deployment to Iraq again soon..  (Message edited by sgthigg on January 11, 2008) | ||
| Bad_karma |
Jason Thanks for your service. Be safe. Joe | ||
| Ryker77 |
I'm stunned that this is slipping by the main stream media... But then again - I shouldn't be. I don't see how the supreme court will alow 95% of this bill to remain law. | ||
| Mikej |
Someone has to go through the steps to challenge it first. Someone has to get penalized by it before that can happen. Then court case, then appeals, then acceptance to hear it if it gets that far. Not an easy process. Not an inexpensive process. Not a fun process. But at least there is a process. Things could be different. | ||
| Blake |
What does the NRA have to say about the legislation? | ||
| Ryker77 |
NRA folded and supported it. GunOwnersofAmerica didn't support it. Many other also didn't support it. | ||
| Buellerandy |
I have officially lost the faith in this nation's government. But the people in this country still make it great, and because of that, there is still hope for much needed change in the machine. | ||
| Ironken |
NRA folded and supported it. WHAT???? Holy crap! | ||
| Buellerandy |
Just found some more material to question- http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,0 0.html?wh=wh http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.asp x?id=3321 | ||
| Mikej |
Both "sides" negotiated and both sides ended up believing they each got their way which is why it passed with relatively no resistence and just a voice vote in both houses from what I've read. No big fight, not big news, other stuff more flammable, which might be why it was so low profile in the mainstream press. I guess Hillary crying was more important since she got more press with tears than this legislation did. | ||
| Swampy |
The problem with the NRA-ILA is that it is up against raving lunitic groups trying to lobby unconstitutional rules, yet they only respond with kid gloves or not at all. I want a a rabid pit bull group countering the anti-gun groups, showing just how stupid any gun control measure is. They should constantly be on the offensive trying to remove all firearm rules knowing full well that only a portion of what they lobby for will pass. Now they only pick their fights and the anti's incrementaly succeed in restricting firearms ownership and use. And another thing, the NRA spends way too much money on their elite shooting facilities that only a very small portion of the membership have the means to use. And the NRA fat cats all stand around congratulating themselves on a job well done for something that should not even been brought to the light of day. jpfo.org seem to be on the offense. | ||
| Swampy |
Hey look, its winter out.... | ||
| Littlebuggles |
I used to be a member of NRA, felt like they spent too much of my money sending me flyers about how great they were to have much money left for fighting anti-gun legislation. It's called checks and balances... Mike; trouble is it might be a while before the thing gets contested in court. While it might not be constitutional it will take a lot of money and a gutsy lawyer to prove it. There are a lot of police officers who could loose their jobs over this too. If it's illegal for them to have their gun because of a divorce or just talking to a counselor because of a bad experience at work. Yeah, that word "minimal" covers way too many people, hell every time we ride we're at risk of being hit. i think we could call that risk "more than minimal". | ||
| Oldog |
IIRC: There are 2 things that must be done to take over a country, 1. DISARM the population 2. wreck the currency I dont want nut bags running around with guns BUT, who can clearly and fairly define what a nut bag is? the last thing I want is a court of law to decide anything relating to my future, WHY ? "Remind me to tell you some time" My favorite Gun control story was Kennasaw GA. mandatory ownership required.... | ||
| Ryker77 |
"and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction" "may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial." Here is the real kicker. Note that it doesn't say that the persons name is removed by the court or attorney general. It says the relief of the disability will be published in the federal register. It also says that the reason for the action will also be published. I sure the hell don't like the words "may". | ||
| Ryker77 |
The problem with this bill can be summarized by one line: "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" What exactly does that mean? Who gets to determine what a "lawful authority" is? What board? What commission? -- Could "any other lawful authority" in HR2640 include Mayor Ray Nagin who confiscated legally owned weapons from hurricane Katrina survivors? Could a superior officer who doesn't like you be a "lawful authority"? ------- the house of representatives pushed this bill through the house of representatives when most congressmen were out of town on a 'non essential' calendar with a NON ACCOUNTABLE 'voice vote'. In other words we do not know who voted for or against this bill. No blame for passing this controversial bill |
