Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks

Washington Post ^ | April 20, 2007 | Jonathan Weisman

[Condor51]

This 'mentally ill' thing is a slippery slope.

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 180^o.

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.

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.

[Joe Brower]

"potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill."

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.

[SWO]

Shooter, This article is why I really dislike the NRA’s tactics, and I’m a member.
They are already negotiating from the 50 yard line.
The fact of the matter is you can either be on the Strategic Defensive or on the Strategic Offensive. Playing defense you fight to hold what you have, and by definition the other guy gets to play offense. On the offensive you attack their position and they have to defend it.
The NRA lost coming out of the gate. How you frame the problem sets the bounds of the discussion for possible solutions.
How does that work in this case
Was the problem at VT?
A: “Guns got in the wrong persons hands because we don’t keep the right data, aren’t willing to disbar more folks from owning guns, magazines too big, no waiting period etc. etc..?
Or is it?
B: “You will never prevent all of these events from happening; it could be terrorists the next time. The students in these situations have no way to defend themselves, and since in practical terms the police cannot protect every classroom in this country, never will?”
In the ‘A’ case we argue about how much harder we make it to buy a gun in this country, and about expanding the list of folks who cannot buy guns. This is endless. If the next adult mass shooter was in detention as a child, do we add ever having been sent to the counselor’s or principal’s office to the list of criteria for never owning a gun. That’s what Dingell will want. The NRA will get it lowered to three or more detentions between the 9th and 12th grades, and call it a victory.

In the B case we make them defend their “no guns in schools” position. We make them discuss how to make schools safe, how their solution will stop a shooting in progress etc. If they argue for a continued gun ban in schools we ask them for their fall-back plan if a gun does get there in the hand of a shooter. In this case they are defending the no CCW on campus (and a lot of other places) position, and having to make the case for not changing it.

On the Strategic Defensive the best you can do is NOT LOOSE, everything else is worst.
On the Offensive you can fail and still HOLD WHAT YOU HAVE, or take ground, advance your position and maybe get in some victories.

Then NRA is playing defense here. They are trying to limit damage. In this case the NRA has given up the high ground and is back to fighting on the gun banners terms which are that gun owners are the problem and the number of folks with guns need to be limited.
Strategically we should be arguing “Guns Save Lives”. .
The best we’re going to get out of this is a smaller list of disbarred folks.

[Hawthorn]

> I don’t 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.

[Eagle Eye]

And 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...

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.

[Eagle Eye]

I just read the Second Amendment againt and I don't see anything that limits the right to possess a firearm to law-abiding, mentally stable people.

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.

[Durus]

Is there any logical reason to conclude that this crime would never had occurred if the killer had been prevented from legally buying a gun? What law are they going to pass to stop people from buying guns illegally? This completely ignores that there are far more effective and attainable weapons to commit mass murder with. We can’t ban everything.

[Dead Corpse]

Exactly. That word "grant" in relation to RKBA makes my trigger finger itch. How is someone "granted" a pre-existing and Constitutionally protected Right?

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.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****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.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****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.

[P-40]

Is there any logical reason to conclude that this crime would never had occurred if the killer had been prevented from legally buying a gun?

With this killer, it would not have mattered as far as his acquiring a firearm goes. It could have raised some red flags though....not that there was a shortage of raised flags already.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The NRA once again is negotiating away our rights.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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...

---

So you want President Hillary’s team to have access to our medical files, huh?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The next law will be, present your “Not A Wacko” ID card to rent a firearm.

---

I could live with a generic firearms owner card (”not a criminal”) if it meant that I could buy whatever I wanted without anyone in the government ever know what and whether I bought. Including machine guns.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The GOA has never accomplished a single thing in the last seven years since I have been a member of FR.

---

There are excellent state associations with ties to GOA that have done wonders, without the GOA label, but with GOA support.

Which is better than the NRA surrender monkeys negotiating with those who would terrorize the Constitution. Legitimizing the efforts of the gun grabbers.

[Grampa Dave]

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.

[mvpel]

Well, this opens the door wide-open to all sorts of abuse, and must be watched with extreme care.

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.

[mvpel]

Which is better than the NRA surrender monkeys negotiating with those who would terrorize the Constitution. Legitimizing the efforts of the gun grabbers.

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.

[tiger-one]

Why would you need a card?

[Joe Brower]

"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."

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...