Posted on 04/20/2007 1:49:09 AM PDT by Oakleaf
BS. They shouldn't be balancing anything. They should be telling the liberals to go pound sand. Why is it that the NRA is always the one to compromise? Why don't the libs ever compromise and repeal idiotic gun laws already in existence that don't work? I don't pay the NRA money to kiss the ass of Chuckie Schumer or Carolyn McCarthy. I pay them to hit them over the head with a hammer (in a manner of speaking).
If only the adjudication was necessary to add Cho to whatever Federal mechanic is used to decline him via 'instant-check' on his firearms transfer in VA, why didn't it?
The Bill of Rights limits the scope of the Constitution and specifically excludes any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms from the government's power to regulate commerce.
If it is so "reasonable" for the federal government to regulate arms, why did our Founders prohibit it?
If you don't have enough laws already, when do you think you will have enough? The slippery-slope suggests that it will eventually be suggested that people have to undergo psychiatric examination in order to purchase a gun. Why wait until commitment is mandated if a timely examination can reveal the problem?
Do you think Cho was a suitable candidate to own a gun on the day BEFORE he was institutionalized? I don't. But with freedom there is risk. There always will be.
And before you suggest that my slippery-slope argument is invalid, consider that Kalifornia is not "shall-issue" with respect to concealed carry permits. One of the requirements in my county is an interview with a "counselor".
But this guy was not committed or deemed mentally defective. See that is the problem. The government is going to catch alot of normal people in their sweep. Just wait if you have ever seen a physician for depression or anxiety you will be denied. That would be probably 50% of the population. The ACLU will be aganist this as will I. Freedom is a hard thing for those who want the government or some law to make them feel safe. It will not work. Life is not fair and freedom is dangerous.
If you check with the background information on the Second Amendment as written by the Founders, you will find references to "able-bodied" citizens. It is a safe bet that idea includes mental capacity. This is also a notion that appled to the "militia".
The VT shooter, on the other hand, was correctly diagnosed on more than one occasion as being a risk to society. It does seem reasonable to expect judgements from appropriate medical personnel to be available to the screening process.
Do you realize the rate of fire of a SMG is more than 10 rnds per second?
My response to the NRA-ILA and my congressman:
Gentlemen,
There is an article in today’s Washington Post that indicates the NRA is working with Representative John Dingle to “bolster the national background-check system and potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill.” While no one supports unstable individuals having access to any means of harming others, the devil is truly in the details.
Will guns be singled out as the only covered means of harm, as opposed to a two thousand pound vehicle traveling at seventy miles an hour, for instance? Who gets to establish who is “mentally ill” and by what criteria? For example, would a person who is prescribed a medication for a hopefully temporary condition of depression (a mental illness) qualify? Or, will a medical doctor who might consider possession of a gun in home with small children as “crazy” adjudicate the criterion? Will, the provisions of HIPPA be strengthened to require notification of the individual that they have been blocked and provide real and meaningful recourse to have the process independently evaluated and reversed?
After long debating joining the NRA and finally doing so this year, I did not sign up to being a party to knee-jerk responses to a tragedy in the hopes of being seen as “reasonable”. I trust the NRA will concentrate on broadening the means of self defense of all law abiding individuals over the potential for inviting unintended consequences by attempting to restrict the very, very few.
If we gather anything from the horrible events at Virginia Tech this week, it should be that the picture could have been vastly different had the victims not been denied the means of effective self defense by “reasonable” restrictions. Criminals and the unstable will always have the means to harm others, whether by guns, or knives, baseball bats, or their bare hands. Let’s not dip our hands in the blood of innocents by weakening their survivors in the attempt to show how reasonable we are.
Sincerely,
LTCJ
NRA 000xxxxxxxxx
JPFO, Charter Member
cc: Representative Jack Kingston
The federal law (GCA68) says that you have to have been committed to a mental institution or you have been adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective in order to deny your purchase. Seeing a doctor for depression does not rise to this level. The law would have to be changed in order for what you are saying to be true.
Well yes the law would have to be changed. Is that NOT what the NRA is talking about. Loosen up that catagory to a less strigent determination. That I am aganist. VERY AGANIST. I am a physician and my faith in the snake handling PSYCH heath care providers is VERY limited. They are also at the APA level very liberal and VERY ANTI-GUN ownership. I DO NOT trust them or the government.
Let the NRA agree to this...it will be the mental health lobby that blocks it.
Besides, I’m not sure that preventing mentally ill (If defined as involuntarily committed) people from purchasing a firearm wouldn’t be considered a reasonable restriction that would survive strict scrutiny.
I think that the NRA is just trying to make the NICS check work like it is supposed to. That is to verify the info that the purchaser puts on the Form 4473 is correct.
!8USC922(g)(4) uses the word or. 28CFR25.4 says the States volunteer to give any info regarding those things that would show any person was disqualified under the fed rules contained in 18USC922. VA chose not to give the info. VA's rules are less strict than the fed rules. The VA rules require full involuntary committment, not just a judge's ruling. So the VA chief LEO contacted for the VA BG check, said he was OK.
Both the chief LEO and Judge Burkett that made the ruling were referring to VA law, not fed law, when they said what they did.
Wrong. BG checks, forbidding sales to prohibited persons, requiring licences ect, do not infringe on the right. Do you wish to allow sales to enemies of the US and folks adjudicated as dangerous to self, or others? Maybe you think hte Bloods and the Crips should be allowed roadside gun sales as they see fit to?
" If it is so "reasonable" for the federal government to regulate arms, why did our Founders prohibit it?"
They didn't.
" Do you think Cho was a suitable candidate to own a gun on the day BEFORE he was institutionalized?"
He wasn't institutionalized. As long as he wasn't disqualified, there was no problem.
"One of the requirements in my county is an interview with a "counselor"."
That's an infringement, because one is assumed guilty of mental disease before the fact, is arbitrary, and one needs to ask permission, which can be refused for arbitrary, or no particular cause.
===================================
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 28, Volume 1]
[Revised as of July 1, 2001]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 28CFR25.4]
[Page 421-422]
TITLE 28--JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 25--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS--Table of Contents
Subpart A--The National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Sec. 25.4 Record source categories.
It is anticipated that most records in the NICS Index will be
obtained from Federal agencies. It is also anticipated that a limited
number of authorized state and local law enforcement agencies will
voluntarily contribute records
[[Page 422]]
to the NICS Index. Information in the NCIC and III systems that will be
searched during a background check has been or will be contributed
voluntarily by Federal, state, local, and international criminal justice
agencies.===================================
Thank you. I didn't know this.
It is already the law (Federal) and it makes no difference whether the commitment is voluntary or involuntary.
The problem arises when said individuals on the rifle and pistol ranges realize that the killer's automatic weapon's fire is coming from behind them. And the rangemasters WILL react to that and are aggressive enough to go after him.
Do you realize the rate of fire of a SMG is more than 10 rnds per second?
Yes, I'm quite aware of the cyclic rate of fire on many submachineguns.
Another problem is that the perp will probably empty his mag very quickly. Unless he brings a bag full of loaded mags and has practiced changing them on the particular SMG that he has rented he will be in a world of hurt.
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.