Posted on 10/17/2007 3:51:48 PM PDT by neverdem
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A gun-control bill that advocates say could have prevented the April killings of 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus has hit a roadblock in the Senate.
The measure would provide money to states to ensure that they properly update the national database of those prohibited to purchase weapons. It has support from both handgun control groups and the National Rifle Association but Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says his colleague Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, has derailed any hopes of quick passage.
Under federal law, people with criminal records and those who have been judged mentally defective are generally barred from purchasing weapons, and their names are placed in a database.
Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before committing suicide, had been deemed mentally defective and should have been in the database. But Virginia authorities never added Cho's name. He bought two guns in the weeks before the killings.
“A gun-control bill that advocates say could have prevented the April killings of 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus has hit a roadblock in the Senate.”
The ONLY thing that would have prevented that mass killing?
Another gun.
I doubt that Coburn is blocking this. Last I heard the bill was caught in a turf battle between Leahy and Kennedy. Schumer is probably trying to blame his failure to push it thru on Coburn because he doesn’t want to admit its the Dems fault. it makes no sense that one minority Senator could block this from coming to the floor.
***NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934***
Lets remember that the in origional wording 1934 law would have also banned handguns . The NRA managed to get that removed.
nonsense. no one wants mentally disturbed people to have access to guns. most of us would like for them to be in lockup, in fact, without guns.
A few more compromises like the 1934 issue on handguns, and there won’t be a Republic.
Posted by mad_as_he$$ to Shooter 2.5 On News/Activism 10/07/2007 11:50:22 AM PDT · 37 of 78 Again I beg to differ the bill ONLY says "committed to a mental institution" how you got there is open and not consistent state to state. Getting off the list and getting your record cleared requires a court date - good luck. Also this little tidbit: "discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring" This implies that you do not have to be committed only under supervision, treatment, monitoring - does that include court ordered detox under the care of a doctor? A good family friend was "committed" two years ago by her husband who decided he didn"t want to be married to her anymore and was not going to pay her any alimony. He managed to have her committed for 72 hours based upon a trumped up domestic violence charge. She was angry and the shrink went to court and had her committed for three months - simply because she was angry that her ex had taken away all of her means for support for herself and her child. The divorce is final and she is now waiting for the judge to remove the "commitment" from her record based upon the opinions of two other shrinks. The court date is one year out. Oh and one other dirty secret, if you have insurance coverage you are WAAAYYY more likely to be committed than if you don't. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies
Posted by mad_as_he$$ to SJackson On News/Activism 10/07/2007 9:50:02 AM PDT · 19 of 78 Actually my point was that the system failed. Every day we see posts of stories here where the Government failed in some manner in what would appear to be a simple thing. We here grouse all day about how the Government does it's job and then we are willing to turn over gun rights just because the NRA says it is OK? Not this cowboy. As a side note in many states you can be committed by relatives on very little evidence. In many it only takes a cop and a judge to send you in for "psych hold". The system is completely broken. I have a very good employee who served in the Army for 15 years. A family member was killed in the first Gulf War, on the way to the funeral his wife, son and both his parents were killed in an accident - more than any human should have to take. He checked himself into the psych ward at the VA and stayed for two weeks to get his head on straight. He now has a psych record. One of the most level headed guys I have ever known and I trust him with fortune and my life. He could have his gun rights denied and then have to go to court to fix it - how is that fair? I have told my Congress critter and my "good" Senator that this is unacceptable on numerous occasions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies
The NRA wasn’t even a lobbying group in 1968 so your information is wrong.
Blaming the NRA for not being a lobbying group back then is the same as someone blaming the GOA for not existing during that period.
Angel Shamaya is no longer associated with that website.
Isn’t he still in jail for weapons violations?
Indeed. On the other hand, it would be much easier under this legislation to permanently disarm people without good cause than to lock them up without cause.
WTF... did you start writing for GunGuys.com or something?
Anyone with their head wired right should be able to see that allowing gun hating legislators and the BATFE to redefining the standard is a VERY bad idea.
KeepAndBearArms.com — The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.
To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" — elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman — NRA's premier magazine, then and now — and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later — decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch — a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
Owning over zero guns under a Clinton administration could put you on this database. So could not keeping your gun locked up at the range which is the only place that you can legally handle it could too.
Wanting to carry concealed could get you put away for life.
If I am not mistaken a mental condition includes the Vets that come home with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome?
The key word is “adjuciated” according to NRA. It must be a court order or court action that makes the determination. A doctor, clinic, policeman, or your lieutenant cannot adjuciate mental incompetency.
But if Schumer wants it I am still highly suspicious.
Or as Bob Hope has been quoted, “Oh, you mean Democrats.”
A very interesting point!
Of course, it does not advance civil disarmament.
It’s the BATFE that does the enforcement though. Bet on them abusing this and you will never lose a dime.
A cut and pasted article by a NRA basher.
Is Angel still locked up?
“Bet on them abusing this and you will never lose a dime.”
You’ll spend $10,000 proving that not fitting “Redondo Beach” on a line .4 inches long is not a felony.
Yah, I hear you.
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.