Posted on 04/20/2007 1:49:09 AM PDT by Oakleaf
-snip-
...the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system and potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill.
Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), a gun-rights Democrat who once served on the NRA's board of directors, is leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal by early next week, Democratic aides and lawmakers said.
Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases. For the first time, states would face penalties for not keeping the National Instant Criminal Background Check System current.
-snip-
The gun lobby stayed relatively neutral during past efforts to pass the measure, but this time Dingell is pushing for an endorsement, or even for the NRA to make it a "key vote" for its supporters.
McCarthy, whose husband was killed during a gunman's rampage on the Long Island Rail Road, admits her crusades for far more stringent gun control measures have made her toxic in gun circles.
So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA, said an aide participating in those talks...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has asked Dingell to broker a deal by Tuesday. But the aide said Dingell and NRA negotiators are skeptical they can reach an accord that quickly.
-snip-
But pitfalls remain. The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restrictions on gun purchases.
An NRA lobbyist said last night that the group would not comment on the effort.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
IIRC there's 20,000 listed mental illnesses (almost matching the number of guns laws. Hey what a coincidence). And just who is to decide if YOU have one of those 20,000 'mental illnesses? Some loony-tunes psychiatrist with an Oedipus complex who sleeps in his moma's nightie?
A couple years back Dubya pushed for Federal 'mental health screening' of all new mothers. I don't think it went anywhere but that was a baaaad idea. A similar mental health screening law almost passed in IL, until We The People found out and raised hell. My own State Rep was the sponsor and even SHE didn't want it passed after the mental health experts got their hands on on it and changed the thing 180o.Naturally I don't want a Charlie Manson walking around armed to the teeth, BUT I sure as hell don't want some fruity pedophile 'psychiatrist' determining whom should have a firearm.When I talked to her after the final bill was ready, I asked what would happen in a household where a mother was found to have an 'illness' and there were Firearms leagly owned by another - wouldn't they be removed by law? She paused for a moment and said, "yes I believe so, but I never thought of that". I also asked if a mother 'failed' this test wouldn't she be BANNED for life from owning a gun. Again she answered yes and again the, 'gee I never thought of that'.
So there you have it. The law of unintended consequences strikes once more. What starts out as a 'feel good' law to 'help' young mothers who may be 'depressed', goes immediately into infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.
Well, this opens the door wide-open to all sorts of abuse, and must be watched with extreme care.
Don't forget that gun-banner's will consider you "mentally ill" for... you guessed it... wanting to own a gun.
> I dont think it is unreasonable that you have to be a citizen in order to purchase a gun. <
I disagree. As John Lott says, “More guns, less crime.” Therefore, if law-abiding, good-hearted greencard holders (resident aliens) have guns and CCW permits, so much the better.
That is, the deterrent effect of “more guns in the hands of good people” isn’t changed by the fact that some of the gun owners haven’t yet obtained citizenship.
And by the way, if NON-LAW-ABIDING aliens want to obtain guns either for terrorism or for simple criminality, they will get them regardless of the law.
There was a time that cars didn't even have seat belts.
Not long ago we were promised that not using a seat belt would never be a primary offense.
Now one can be pulled over by police for not using a seat belt and then asked for permission to search the vehicle.
Giving Feds access to any medical records is a very bad idea. Very bad.
I really don't care if criminals have guns...if they want them they already can get them...but I do care if they use them criminally. There's a huge difference between possession and criminal use.
If a person cannot be trusted to possess a weapon then perhaps they shouldn't be trusted to be free or unsupervised.
This Victim Mentality crap has got to stop. We're apex predators for a reason and it has nothing to do with our ability to belt out a rousing chorus of Kum-by-yah.
****Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), a gun-rights Democrat who once served on the NRA’s board of directors,****
DON’T EVER FORGET that John Dingell resigned his NRA board of directors position so he could vote FOR Bill Clinton’s Assault weapons ban.
I haven’t forgot.
I haven’t forgotten that Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado also voted for the bill.
****Yeh, do something. Get rid of the anti-gun laws. Let us protect ourselves since the government won’t. ****
Let’s return to the pre-1968 gun laws. I remember those good times for gun owners.
The NRA once again is negotiating away our rights.
if the Fed is going to demand background checks, they should have access to mental health records that indicate when a person has serious issues with reality...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The next law will be, present your Not A Wacko ID card to rent a firearm.
Which is better than the NRA surrender monkeys negotiating with those who would terrorize the Constitution. Legitimizing the efforts of the gun grabbers.
This is probably the only area where Dingell has been right on for decades.
Rumors tell of him never even making a right turn to get to and from the Capitol.
That horse already left the wide-open barn door.
Those adjudicated mentally defective and anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution are already in the prohibited persons category, and have been for years.
As imprecise as this wording is, it's just a result of laziness on the part of journalists.
If the gun banners want to block purchase by anyone suspected to be mentally ill, or who is prescribed antidepressants, or who wants to buy guns, they're going to have to try to change the law.
Here's the NRA negotiating with Congress in some cases over the years:
Those who bash the NRA would have you believe that winding up like this:
... is somehow more worthy and admirable than getting the tanks to steer in a different direction.
Why would you need a card?
Aye, which is what they are probably attempting to address now.
The way the VA Tech nutcase was telegraphing his psychosis for years, and the enabling "understanding" he was met with time and again by the "authorities", lead me to believe that even if enacted, this law would find little enforcement. For fear of lawsuits, not to mention that it might impact the little darling's feelings...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.