I have absolutely no problem with those judged mentally incompetent being barred from owning handguns.
In theory I don’t either. What I do have a problem with is knee-jerk legislation designed to appease the very vocal gun grabbers who would love to see us continue to slide down the slippery slope (and if you don’t think we are on that slope, better think again). Gun control has nothing to do with crime.
“I have absolutely no problem with those judged mentally incompetent being barred from owning handguns.”
That’s how they get you with their “reasonable” gun regulations. How will you feel when an unelected judge or Government employee decides, in secret, that you might pose a risk to society and takes away your rights to even possess a gun — and you find yourself not only lacking a root to appeal, but even the right to know who decided you are incompetent to possess a weapon?
That is what this new legislation permits.
When the left calls it “reasonable” you can bet you’re about to get screwed.
In theory this is a good idea, but remember it is a government employee who determines your sanity. This will be really easy to abuse.
All you need is a anti-gun shrink to say you’re unfit to carry a gun and all yours are gone.
Don’t think this is exactly what they are going to do with this.
“Oh, you don’t like shrinks, sir? Why not? That’s a little paranoid, don’t you think?”
You bet your can there will be people losing guns who are not mentally unstable. They will paint you as one. How do you refute it? If you’re not a qualified professional shrink, who’s word is going win?
1. The leftists and mainstream media have been unusually quiet for the last two major public shootings (VA Tech and the church shooting last week). Their normal modus operandi is to use incidents like these to trumpet ‘reasonable gun control’. Oddly, there have been no dem/handgun control press conferences demanding new laws. That should make one pause and wonder why the quiet response - but respond they will. They realize from the past couple elections that ‘gun control’ is NOT a winning issue. They will try to take advantage of the situation legislatively or through government fiat (read: regulations).
2. Don’t support a regulation or law just because you have faith (diminishing though it may be) that the current administration and executive branch appointees will safeguard your rights. Imagine the worst case that Hillary! or another marxist will someday wield those powers and ask yourself you are willing to sacrifice your God given rights to a communist authority.
3. At some point, you may be considered by the powers-that-be as crazy if you aren’t a card carrying member of Code Pink, Moveon.org, NAMBLA, or some like organization. “If you don’t support our agenda, you must be insane!” and therefore declared too unstable to possess weapons.
Food for thought.
Kit.
The problem is how do you define “mentally incompetent?” This government will you that loop hole to ban 99% of the public. And should one minor bout of depression cause you to loose ALL your Continual rights?
I agree. I also have no problem with those to be judged intoxicated being barred from driving. I have no problem with those to be judged XXXX being barred from XXXX.
My problem exists in the Enforcement and meaning being the words.
What does Mentally Incompetent mean? Not what the dictionary says, or what you think it means, but in terms of the Legislation.
Say you get a Clear Cut Definition you are happy with. The legislation is enacted and becomes law. And now that it is In it's a relatively Easy process to Add things to the list of what is deemed Mentally Incompetent (MI). And to change the length of time a person can be deemed MI.
It might start out as: MI is decided after Independent Review by three Independent Qualified (define qualified) Persons. All three must agree. Their finding can be reviewed after 12 months.
Then it changes to Two independent people and a review after 24 months.
Then it changes to "Anything on the list" as diagnosed/determined by One person (Govt employee) and carries a Minimum 5 year ban.
Then what is on the list changes to ensnare More people and carries a 10 year ban.
Then the list changes again to ensnare even more people and carries a 20 year ban.
And you get the idea.
Once a List has been created, any dope is able to enforce the list and you cannot argue because it's on the list. And that's policy.
And to insure our mental competence, all school records will be reviewed (that fight in the 5th grade could mean you have violent tendencies and aren't mentally competent to be given access to a firearm) and workplace psychological profiles. And even then, you may need to be put through an Evaluation before being issued a Firearm License.
See how it can go.
In Australia they have ACTS of Parliament. This provides the overall rules. The Legislation provides the details. So an ACT might say an infringement is punishable by the paying of 20 units. The legislation, which can be changed without consultation by whomever is in power, determines how much a Unit is worth in today's terms.
So the ACT would say a person may not possess a firearm for X years when judged Mentally Incompetent. The legislation defines how many years X is and what is meant by Mentally Incompetent. The ACT requires consultation with all parties in the house and senate. The legislation does not.
But regardless of all this... if a nutbag wants to get a gun and go on a rampage, they will find a way. And once again, the honest citizen is punished in a so-called effort to get bad guys who ignore the rules anyway. And the scary thought... the politicians behind it know this and do it anyway. What's that tell you about them?