Posted on 12/19/2007 3:47:55 PM PST by RDTF
I agree. I don’t even like the “new and improved” version they’re hawking on NRA-ILA. FReeper elpinta wanted to know where the NRA stood on the bill’s passage, so I provided the link.
Well, think of what portion of our population is the most heavily represented in the "social" sciences. And know that they get to create the definition. I envision something like this:
"If you're conservative, you are mentally Ill and will not be able to legally own or carry a gun."
He should have been locked up in a nut house the 2nd time.
Personally, if the judges and lawyers were targets they might wake up but I doubt it.
If this nut job hurt one of my family members I’d go after the judge and defense lawyer first. I’m tired of living with their libearlism crap.
basically the case as stated.
Done deal.
I used to get a bit angry when the liberals called President Bush "stupid" or an idiot, but after signing this useless bill, and that new mileage standards bill, I think I'm starting to agree with them. I don't doubt that he'll sign this latest gun grab bill as well.
Not true.
you’re calling Bush a stupid idiot?
I wonder if and how they check this at the local high school gun and drug emporium.
No extra "laws" or "databases" for the government to abuse and deny us our Rights.
Set ‘em up, eliminate the threat before the viper strikes...
The lawyers played no games to try and release them.
The "police officers" in the USSR were certain that these individuals were mentally ill. To a man, they would confirm it if asked, and they were safe from these deranged individuals.
Freedom is not safety and always has a price
I guess we'll just have to vote against all the incumbents until this sort of thing ceases.
This is, I believe, the "Brady/NICS Improvement Act that we've been debating here for some time. It has the full support of the NRA (as did NICS in the first place) but not the GOA or CCRKB/SAF or several state level groups.
In which case it will finally be "time". See tag line.
Remember some Berkeley psychologists published a paper arguing conservatism was a mental disorder....
Someone, the police or the prosecutor, has to take him to a Judge and get him declared mentally incompetent. Without the 7 days voluntary business. Then, and only then, with that kind of due process, can he be denied his RKBA. It really ought to take a jury, but it generally does not. But you don't want some liberal psychologist do be able to disqualify someone on her own hook. Heck, she might decide you were too rough with some scum bag and a "danger to others', and there you'd be, no job, and no guns. Or an outlaw.
Only a judge can determine whether he's a danger to himself, or others. If the judge determines that, and orders an evaluation, or has one in hand, and the evaluation says he's got a problem, and the judge makes a finding/ruling that the 7 day treatment stay is needed, due to danger to self,or others, the person has been adjudicated a danger to self, or others per the fed requirement. That's all that's needed for the fed disqualifier to take place. State law doesn't matter. Fed law says he can't possess a gun period anywhere in the US.
Cho, from the VA Tech shooting, had been adjudicated a danger to self after being hauled in for stalking a woman who didn't know him. The State of VA had stricter rules than the feds and VA failed to volunteer the info to the NICS, as per fed request. HAd the VA court forwarded the info, Cho would have been flagged as a disqualified person.
This law changes voluntary state forwarding, to mandatory forwarding.
Yet.
I suspect, like the definition of a "felony", it will be continuously expanded until it encompasses the known universe.
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.