Congressional Leaders Moving To Pass Gun Control Without A Vote!

[Rogue]

Written by Mike Kinsey
Thursday, 26 April 2007

This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around the country. It's not going to be easy.

Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier this week, you need to do so once again.

All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very, very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago -- legislation that never got through Congress.

You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week, Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun control.

He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for cars."

Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.

In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.
This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your Senators.)

On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems with this approach:

1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.

2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.

3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert, severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have here.)

McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS

HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."

Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.

In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.

And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay" because it's only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and criminals who are trying to kill us.

As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic, state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in the system as possible.

The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all "relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

ACTION:

1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.

House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen. Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer amendments.

Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.

2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners as you can.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support HR 297, the NICS Improvement Act. I hope that you will OPPOSE this bill and urge your party leadership to either kill it outright or to allow other pro-gun amendments to be offered (repeal of the DC gun ban, reciprocity for concealed carry holders, etc.).

In its current form, HR 297 will treat gun owners even worse than terrorists, giving the FBI a mountain of private information on law-abiding Americans like me.

How is it that, despite all the criticism over the Bush administration's attempts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists without a court order, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information on ME -- information which dwarfs any warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.

And all of this personal information would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

How is it that spying on terrorists is bad, but spying on honest gun owners is good?

Again, I hope that you will oppose HR 297. Gun Owners of America will continue to keep me informed on the progress of this bill. Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Team Sergeant]

America needs a wake up call.

This is going to get to a point where good men, become indifferent.

Can we stop the bad men, yes, will we intervene is going to become the next issue.

I will never run away from a gun fight, but will I ever again run to one?

Do I run the risk of being sued for stopping the bad man?

America needs to wake up.

Team Sergeant

[Sionnach]

At least in Illinois, Pike Co. is standing up to the state gun grabbers.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/archives/2007-04-26

Pike County is renowned for some of the best whitetail and wild turkey hunting in Illinois. That deserved reputation has turned hunting into a significant revenue source for the county and its residents.

A threat to that revenue may cause Pittsfield, the county seat, to someday be known as the spot where a quiet groundswell of protest against the growing proliferation of firearms restrictions finally erupted into grassroots action.

On Tuesday evening the Pike County Board citing the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, passed a resolution saying no to any state legislation limiting the right to keep and bear arms would be recognized in Pike County.

Their resolution minces no words:

"Now, Therefore, It Be And Is Hereby Resolved, that the people of Pike County, Illinois, do oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, and deem such laws to be Unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority."

In short, no state law placing any limitations on firearms will be valid in Pike County.

This action is aimed squarely at a measure currently being proposed by the state legislature. This proposed state legislation would outlaw semiautomatic firearms and ban .50 caliber firearms (including muzzleloaders). It is being championed by two Chicago residents: Mayor Richard M. Daley and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

It may be popular in Chicago political circles, but it's not going to win Blagojevich any votes in Pike County.

One of the two Pike County Board Members who sponsored the Resolution, Robert Kanady, says he hopes the measure would "be the spark that lights a cannon heard all across the United States."

Co-sponsor Mark Mountain said: "We have to stand up. We have to voice our opinion. As an individual, it doesn't mean much. As a county, it means more. As three or four counties, it means a lot."

In recognition of the resolution's importance, the Tuesday meeting was reportedly the most heavily attended public meeting in county history. Residents overflowed the courtroom, spilling out into the courthouse rotunda.

The measure also had extensive public discussion. At one point, a reluctant commissioner raised concerns that perhaps the measure was a "political hot button" and not something in which a county government should involve itself.

That drew an emotional response from one resident:

"This proposed legislation would greatly harm the citizens of this county, and we believe the members of our County Board are bound by the oaths of office to speak for us on this issue.

"The issue here is not politics, the issue is freedom. Freedom began in this nation more than 200 years ago, when small groups of people like us, in towns even smaller than ours, gathered together to tell the King who tried to rule them from a huge city an ocean away, 'Enough is enough!' Freedom will only survive today if we have the courage to do the same."

In closing, he offered: "In this room tonight we are not conservatives; we are not liberals. In this room tonight we are not Democrats; we are not Republicans. In this room tonight we are Americans."

The standing ovation he received was apparently enough to convince the Commission to overwhelmingly pass the measure.

Pike County's resolution may, indeed, be unprecedented in modern history. Our research (albeit brief at this point) has yet to produce another instance of a county government having voted to refuse to enforce proposed state statutes it viewed to be in conflict with federal law.

And the Pike County Resolution minces no words as to why they felt the action necessary: "the People of Pike County, Illinois, derive great economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within Pike County using all types of firearms allowable under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois."

The resolution also cites the Commission's sworn duty to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, saying the proposed legislation currently under consideration by the Illinois State Legislature would "infringe the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, and would ban the possession and use of firearms now employed by individual citizens in Pike County, Illinois, for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property, and would ban the possession and use of firearms now employed for safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within Pike County, Illinois.

In Canada, several provincial governments flatly refused to enforce revisions to the country's firearms registry. The provincial governments said the changers were not only ill advised, but unenforceable. Eventually their resistance became a major political factor, turning out the liberal ruling party and electing a conservative government that has systematically dismantled the registry.

The decision in Pike County was not one that was lightly made, nor considered. Officials had carried on quiet talks with outside Illinois before Tuesday evening's vote. We have learned those talks have led other local governments to begin considering similar measures as a means of expressing their displeasure with attempts to legislate firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Individuals involved in those conversations speak of the frustration of a large, and formerly quiet group of citizens who feel the will of the majority of the people is being ignored by legislators.

Should Pike County's resolution catch on across Illinois and correspondingly across America, this single action taken by a small county government may, indeed, ignite a chain of similar actions across the country that serve notice that the majority opinion of Americans heartland regarding firearms will no longer be ignored.

We will keep you posted.

[The Reaper]

Do the Dims really want to touch this rail this close to the next Presidential election?

There are a lot of single-issue voters who will turn out over this. Gun control cost AlGore the 2000 election in his home state and therefore the Presidency.

The AWB and Brady Bills cost the Dims Congress in 1994, and they acknowledged it.

The moderate Dems elected in 2006 ran with a key issue of no new gun control laws. This will not help them get reelected.

What is the national Democratic leadership thinking, beyond knee jerk to VaTech and pandering to the far left?

TR

[jatx]

I will never run away from a gun fight, but will I ever again run to one?

Do I run the risk of being sued for stopping the bad man?

Team Sergeant

In Texas, our new Castle law (expected to go into effect 9/1/07) confers immunity from, not just an affirmative defense against, civil suits following the justified use of force.

:lifter

[Ret10Echo]

I've always liked Texas...considering I was a "resident" for 21 years :D

[incommin]

Ah, another reason for me to move to Texas!

Jim

[TENGU]

Florida also just passed legislation that allows one to stand your ground and fight! No need to retreat if possible, as was the old law.

[kgoerz]

In Texas, our new Castle law (expected to go into effect 9/1/07) confers immunity from, not just an affirmative defense against, civil suits following the justified use of force.

:lifter

I didn't see it on the SD Forum. Is there a list of States that give you immunity from civil suits following justified deadly force? Looking for the NC policy.

[jatx]

I didn't see it on the SD Forum. Is there a list of States that give you immunity from civil suits following justified deadly force? Looking for the NC policy.

I don't know of such a source, perhaps AL or RL could help on that one. The new Texas legislation was written in two parts: the "stand your ground" provisions and then the civil immunity provisions, which I believe are quite rare. You are much more likely to find states that offer some sort of affirmative defense, which is nice but not as ironclad.

[The Reaper]

What we need to do is to to start grassroots legislative efforts in the states that do not have it, like we did with CCWs.

Take back your right to defend yourself.

Those who blaze the way in the states that have already passed such legislation will surely shut up the opponents with their "Dodge City" analogies that fail to come to pass, the same way states with "shall issue" legislation did for CCWs.

TR

[shadowwalker]

Orginally posted by rogue8261
Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.


Orginally posted by rogue8261
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below.

I have emailed my Congressmen and representative. It still is not enough. I recently checked into the concealed carry laws in Florida. They are pretty lenient but now if this bill passes it concerns me that I would become a target for fanatics in government positions, if I were to get a concealed carry permit.

It is a constitutional right to bear arms, IMO it is an act of tyranny to attempt to take that right away.

[echoes]

Take back your right to defend yourself.TR

Sir, Agreed!

Until I legally obtain my handgun, I am following the advice I read on this board...I will scratch, punch, kick, and go down swinging if I am faced with a gun that will harm me or my family. It may provide time for others to escape.
I will not submit willingly! just my .02

Holly

[Kyobanim]

This article sort of fits here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18355953/

SALT LAKE CITY - Brent Tenney says he feels pretty safe when he goes to class at the University of Utah, but he takes no chances. He brings a loaded 9 mm semiautomatic with him every day.

[NSDQ]

In Texas, our new Castle law (expected to go into effect 9/1/07) confers immunity from, not just an affirmative defense against, civil suits following the justified use of force.
S.B. 378

By: Wentworth

Criminal Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Unamended)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In 1973, the Texas Legislature imposed a duty to retreat in the face of a criminal attack, permitting the use of deadly force only if a reasonable person in the situation would not have retreated. This, in effect, placed the burden on the victim to retreat in the face of an impending lethal attack and reversed what had been the long-standing practice of recognizing the right of a person to stand his or her ground in the face of an attack. In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly force in response to an unlawful entry into the habitation of the actor, but the duty still applies in any other location where a lethal attack might occur.

Under Chapter 9, Penal Code, a person is justified in using force and, in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor. In deadly force situations, the person must reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect his or her person from the aggressor's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Also, a person is justified in using force if the person would be justified in using force against the aggressor under Section 9.31, Penal Code, and if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated. These two criteria in addition to the previously stated criteria regarding reasonable belief would all have to be met in order for the justification of using deadly force to be protected under law. Current law provides an affirmative defense to a civil action brought for damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of deadly force, but only in cases involving home invasions. As a result, a person who justifiably uses force or deadly force outside of the home and is not guilty of any crime may still be open to a civil action filed by the criminal or the criminal's family.

Senate Bill 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. S.B. 378 also creates a civil immunity to a civil action brought to apply to any force or deadly force conduct justified by any portion of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

This bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.

S.B. 378 amends Section 9.01, Penal Code, by adding definitions for "habitation" and "vehicle" to the chapter.

S.B. 378 amends Sections 9.31 and 9.32 of the Penal Code to provide a presumption of reasonableness that a person believed the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary if all of the following criteria are met:

- If the person knew or reasonably believed that the person against whom force or deadly force was used:

- unlawfully and forcefully entered or was attempting to unlawfully and forcefully enter the occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment of the person who used the force or deadly force;

- unlawfully and forcefully removed or was attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove the person from any of these locations; or

- was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery;

- If the person did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

- If the person was not engaged in criminal activities other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time force or deadly force was used.

S.B. 378 amends Sections 9.31 and 9.32 of the Penal Code to explicitly state that a person has no duty to retreat before using force or deadly force authorized by Sections 9.31 or 9.32, Penal Code, if the person has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, if the person has not provoked the person against whom force or deadly force is used, and the person using force or deadly force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force or deadly force is used. The fact that the person did or did not retreat before using force or deadly force cannot be considered by a finder of fact in determining whether he or she reasonably believed the use of force or deadly force was necessary for purposes of Sections 9.31(a) or 9.32(a)(2), as applicable.

Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is also amended to create an immunity from civil liability for personal injury or death if the defendant was justified in using force or deadly force under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. S.B. 378 changes the heading of this section to "Civil Immunity," and deletes existing text relating to an affirmative defense to civil action arising from the use of justifiable deadly force.

S.B. 378 provides that the changes in law made by this Act to Section 9.31 and Section 9.32, Penal Code, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. An offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

S.B. 378 further provides that the changes in law made by this Act to Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, apply only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2007.



Congratulations to Texas and to our Forefathers, may the trend continue throughout the US. :cool:

NSDQ

[mswilliams]

I didn't see it on the SD Forum. Is there a list of States that give you immunity from civil suits following justified deadly force? Looking for the NC policy.


There is a series of good books out there called "The (state name) gun owners guide" I just finished reading the "Virginia gun owners guide". You can find the books at http://www.gunlaws.com/index.htm .
the problem with a number of gun laws now in existence is that the burden of proof for jusitifable defense resides with the trigger puller. The law assumes you are guilty and you have to prove it was justifiable homicide. To use a justifiable homicide defense, you have to admit you pulled the trigger, if you dont prove your case you are automatically guilty of at least manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder.
Thats why it is important to read as much about the law as possible and take a concealed carry class, even if you were the honor grad at SFARTEAC, you dont know the civilian laws of your state, these classes teach you a good many of them and assign as homework the rest.
Texas of course is leading the way towards relieving that burden of proof.
What a great State!

[Ret10Echo]

Congress OKs Va Tech-Inspired Gun Bill

December 20, 2007 - 6:42am
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress passed a long-stalled bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings that
would more easily flag prospective gun buyers who have documented mental health problems. The measure also would help states with the cost.
Passage by voice votes in the House and Senate Wednesday came after months of negotiations between Senate Democrats and the lone Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who had objected and delayed passage.

It was not immediately clear whether President Bush intended to sign, veto or ignore the bill. If Congress does not technically go out of session, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has threatened, the bill would become law if Bush does not act within 10 days.
"This bill will make America safer without affecting the rights of a single law-abiding citizen," said the
Senate's chief sponsor, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. One of the House's chief sponsors, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, spoke in the full House about her husband, who was killed by a gunman on the Long Island Railroad in New York. "To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive," said McCarthy, D-N.Y. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., added that the bill will speed up background checks and reinforce the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Propelling the bill were the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16 and rare agreement between political
foes, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association.
But other interest groups said that in forging compromise with the gun lobby, the bill's authors unintentionally imposed an unnecessary burden on government agencies by freeing up thousands of
people to buy guns. "Rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. "It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others." The measure would clarify what mental health records should be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which help gun dealers determine whether to sell a firearm to a prospective buyer, and give states financial incentives for compliance. The attorney general could penalize states if they fail to meet compliance targets.

Despite the combined superpowers of bill's supporters, Coburn held it up for months because he worried that millions of dollars in new spending would not be paid for by cuts in other programs.
His chief concern, he said, was that it did not pay for successful appeals by veterans or other people
who say they are wrongly barred from buying a gun. Just before midnight Tuesday, Coburn and the Democratic supporters of the bill struck a deal: The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons.

The compromise would require that incorrect records such as expunged mental health rulings that once disqualified a prospective gun buyer but no longer do _ be removed from system within 30 days.
The original bill would require any agency, such as the Veterans Administration or the Defense
Department, to notify a person flagged as mentally ill and disqualified from buying or possessing a gun. The new version now also would require the notification when someone has been cleared of that
restriction. The bill would authorize up to $250 million a year over five years for the states and as much as $125 million a year over the same period for state courts to help defray the cost of enacting the policy. Propelling the long-sought legislation were the April 16 killings at Virginia Tech. Student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students and himself using two guns he had bought despite his documented history of mental illness. Cho had been ruled a danger to himself during a court commitment hearing in 2005. He had been ordered to have outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the two guns he used. But Virginia never forwarded the information to the national background check system.

[Pete]

.....The measure would clarify what mental health records should be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which help gun dealers determine whether to sell a firearm to a prospective buyer, and give states financial incentives for compliance...

I would worry about this if I were younger like some of you. It is now laws made by congress that will say if you should be allowed , are stable enough, to purchase a firearm or not.

Had it a little rough this last deployment, went in for a little chat with the Doc a few times, need to work through a few issues? Sorry your firearms application is denied. Not right now but I can see it coming.

[Defender968]

I would worry about this if I were younger like some of you. It is now laws made by congress that will say if you should be allowed , are stable enough, to purchase a firearm or not.

Had it a little rough this last deployment, went in for a little chat with the Doc a few times, need to work through a few issues? Sorry your firearms application is denied. Not right now but I can see it coming.

Let’s hope it doesn't go that far. From the other side though, and please understand I'm a LEO who is hugely in favor of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens, however I went to a call just a couple of days ago that makes me think about this issue. So here's the stage, young 20 something had a fight with his girlfriend after a bit of drinking, is depressed and has been... pulls out his handy lock blade knife, and slashes his wrist, immediately realizes he's made a mistake and calls for help. Now typically these types of calls for us are a joke. Normally the vic has a cut on their wrist that doesn't look as bad as some of my shaving cuts, but they're looking for attention and they get it, no big deal. Not this call, he had probably lost a pint or so, was bleeding pretty good, and the wound was deep, was getting a little light headed and pale. I personally believe after talking to the guy while trying to calm him before EMS got there, that had he had a gun, he would have successfully created a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I would argue that he shouldn't have a gun, and very possibly ever depending on what a professional headshrinker says.

Of course not having a gun is not going to stop him from hurting himself, if he wants to die we've got plenty of bridges, but it does keep him from going out and hurting others, or from being able to kill himself quite as easily. Does that mean he shouldn't ever be allowed to own a gun... I don't know but I am starting to think that it should be an option.

I know it's a slippery slope, but there has to be some sort of system in place to enforce the laws we currently have in place. Some states already have laws against mentally deficient folks buying guns, but there is no way to enforce them.

[Razor]

Defender, could your guy just have easily drank too much or ODed, realized he made a mistake, and then driven himself to the hospital, swerving off the road onto a crowded sidewalk or into a busload of kids? If he steps out a window 10 stories up and lands on another person or in traffic and causes an accident that kills other people, what then? Do we require anyone living above the third floor to have a psychological exam every six months? There are hundreds of thousands of 'what ifs' we can legislate in the name of protecting the public, but at what cost to our freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

What truly saddens me is that, especially in light of the shootings at New Life Church, the 'lessons learned' from the VT shootings wasn't that more people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons to stop criminals, but rather that stricter gun laws are needed.

[longrange1947]

Not sure if this is the same hysteria bill, but I think that some are over reacting to it. The idea of this bill was to give recourse to those that have been denied ownership and gives you ways to get off the do not sell to list.The NRA backed the bill by placing limitations and adjudications that were missing before.

This is what I got from the NRA:

Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act

After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following:

* Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for NICS checks.

* Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for "relief from disabilities." Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed "strong concerns" over this aspect of the bill-surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.

* Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.

* Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.

* Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.

* Prevents use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

* Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.

* Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.

The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:

* Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.

* Requires agencies to create "relief from disabilities" programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.

* Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year-for any reason, including lack of funds-the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.

* Allows awards of attorney's fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency's denial of relief in court.

* Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health "adjudication" or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.

* Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state "relief from disabilities" programs.

* Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans' mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.

There is no targeting of veterans, no targeting of anyone. It actually allows you recourse so that you can get off the list if it was due to bad info. Before this there was no was to get your name removed.

My 2 cents on this one. :munchin

[Ret10Echo]

There are hundreds of thousands of 'what ifs' we can legislate in the name of protecting the public, but at what cost to our freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

Don't worry, the Nanny-State will guide you (because you are unable to think for yourself).

A little off topic...

It has been my brief experience that what is classified as a "win" is a matter of opinion. When outright bad policy is proposed, and an individual or group manages to have that draft policy modified (but not outright defeated) they count that as a "win". Attrition by degrees.

[Defender968]

Defender, could your guy just have easily drank too much or ODed, realized he made a mistake, and then driven himself to the hospital, swerving off the road onto a crowded sidewalk or into a busload of kids? If he steps out a window 10 stories up and lands on another person or in traffic and causes an accident that kills other people, what then? Do we require anyone living above the third floor to have a psychological exam every six months? There are hundreds of thousands of 'what ifs' we can legislate in the name of protecting the public, but at what cost to our freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

What truly saddens me is that, especially in light of the shootings at New Life Church, the 'lessons learned' from the VT shootings wasn't that more people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons to stop criminals, but rather that stricter gun laws are needed.

Razor I was in no way suggesting we need or should have more gun laws, we have the laws we need already. Federal law already prohibits anyone “adjudicated as a mental defective,” from owning a firearm. The problem is that the system is currently broken. I hate to use the NY times, but ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html

According to the article only 22 of 50 states currently submit any mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and from what I've seen in the Law Enforcement world that sounds about right.

You are correct in saying my guy could have done any of those things and hurt other people, however I wasn't suggesting we go that far by any means. While I fully believe in and support the 2nd amendment like anything else there should be some common sense applied. If a guy gets committed for trying to kill himself or is diagnosed with another mental disorder which makes him very likely to hurt himself or others i.e. has been found mentally defective, I fully believe he shouldn't have a gun and we should make sure he can't get one. We already have the vehicle to do so, IMO it should be no different from keeping a felon from having a firearm.

Like I said before I am all for law abiding citizens having the right to bear arms, including on school campuses, but at the end of the day there are people that should not have firearms, and to me Violent felons and mentally deficient folks fit the bill, and to do that I don't think we need stricter gun laws, just a system to enforce the ones we already have.

[The Reaper]

Watch for future definitions of mentally defective to get broader and broader, till we have a POS law like Lautenberg or Brady that prohibits increasingly large categories of citizens from owning weapons.

TR

[Lanyard]

This broad definition of "Mental" is already in effect with commercial aviation pilots. Seeing a mental health profesional and getting script for a mild anti-depressant can fail your company physical or prevent you from getting a job. The justification is that if they are in such "dire" need of help they shouldn't be driving a plane.

[mdb23]

This broad definition of "Mental" is already in effect with commercial aviation pilots. Seeing a mental health profesional and getting script for a mild anti-depressant can fail your company physical or prevent you from getting a job. The justification is that if they are in such "dire" need of help they shouldn't be driving a plane.


The airlines are merely protecting their arses from lawsuits with this one. They really don't have a choice. If they are aware of the fact that one of their pilots is being treated for depression, and allow that pilot to Captain a plane, in the event that there was ever a crash they would be sued out of existence. Completely.

Attorney: "So, CEO Johnson, you knew that Captain Smithers was being treated for depression, but allowed him to fly anyway?

Jury: "Gasp! Give the families 49 billion each!"

It'sa matter of survival in our litigious society.

[CosaNostraUSMC]

+1 on what Pete said.

My bone of contention is this...

Law abiding, tax paying citizens will be RESTRICTED on their rigth to bear arms while being forced to REGISTER.

Criminals, who buy on the black market will CONTINUE to acquire guns, obviously UNREGISTERED.

Illegal aliens will be harbored, supported and ALLOWED to work in certain states while UNDOCUMENTED.

Basically, the RIGHT folks will be treated as a sex offender would.

The WRONG folks get a silk hat.

That makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:

CosaNostraUSMC

[Lanyard]

mdb23,
I understand the flawed logic being used in this case, and if the stressors could be removed from the situation I could agree with it. However, life continues to go on and as long as there is "death in the family", illness, bankruptcy, adultery and divorce there will continue to be pilots in the air who shouldn't be in the cock pit. I should add that this isn't just Airlines who think this way, many pilots feel they do not need professional help. In most cases these situations are transitional and with a little help and direction (maybe medication) they are overcome with the passage of time. The rub is that if they do get official help it's in their file and it doesn't help with promotions. Fast forward a few years, they have a mark in the file but there is no formal resolution, most patients just stop getting help when they feel they don't need it. Is this entry in the file indicative of deeper problems or is it a sign that the individual knows their limits and how to ask for help? Now consider that there are at least 100 pilots for every good job. It's no wonder that some pay cash under an alias to get help.

My worry about this info in personnel files is the rationale; If the pilot is too messed up to fly how can he have a gun? Is the info shared with the NICS? As more and more companies begin to use psychological profiles will this info be shared with NICS? Will a private company be liable if they knew that a person they tested, but didn't hire because of poor profile, then went on to go Postal at their next job? What is the line between brotherly concern and Big Brother? I don't want my government to decide this.

[The Reaper]

mdb23,
I understand the flawed logic being used in this case, and if the stressors could be removed from the situation I could agree with it. However, life continues to go on and as long as there is "death in the family", illness, bankruptcy, adultery and divorce there will continue to be pilots in the air who shouldn't be in the cock pit. I should add that this isn't just Airlines who think this way, many pilots feel they do not need professional help. In most cases these situations are transitional and with a little help and direction (maybe medication) they are overcome with the passage of time. The rub is that if they do get official help it's in their file and it doesn't help with promotions. Fast forward a few years, they have a mark in the file but there is no formal resolution, most patients just stop getting help when they feel they don't need it. Is this entry in the file indicative of deeper problems or is it a sign that the individual knows their limits and how to ask for help? Now consider that there are at least 100 pilots for every good job. It's no wonder that some pay cash under an alias to get help.

My worry about this info in personnel files is the rationale; If the pilot is too messed up to fly how can he have a gun? Is the info shared with the NICS? As more and more companies begin to use psychological profiles will this info be shared with NICS? Will a private company be liable if they knew that a person they tested, but didn't hire because of poor profile, then went on to go Postal at their next job? What is the line between brotherly concern and Big Brother? I don't want my government to decide this.

This has been flogged to death here.

If the pilot should not have a gun, he should not be piloting a plane. If you pull his flight privileges, he will no longer have a gun on the plane.

It is a shame that acknowledging one's problem and getting help is grounds for loss of employment.

TR

[mdb23]

It is a shame that acknowledging one's problem and getting help is grounds for loss of employment.

TR

Agreed, however I place the blame for this upon the juries that award ridiculous civil judgements, and not upon the businesses and govt agencies that are merely trying to protect themselves.

[Pete]

..Not sure if this is the same hysteria bill, but I think that some are over reacting to it. The idea of this bill was to give recourse to those that have been denied ownership and gives you ways to get off the do not sell to list.The NRA backed the bill by placing limitations and adjudications that were missing before. ....

Recourse for a sane person to get off the list? And how is a person to find out they are on the list? When they go to purchase a firearm?

A hurricane is bearing down on a section of the coast, a homeowner forts up, gathers supplies and then decides he would like to buy a shotgun for security. He goes down to the local gun store and fills out the paperwork only to be turned down because his name is on the do not sell list.

"Don't worry", the dealer says, "with a good lawyer and about 10 grand you should be able to get your name off the list in a year to 18 months -maybe."

Pete

[CosaNostraUSMC]

Hey Pete,

Care to bet on how many names on the "don't sell" list will be on there by accident?

Better yet, how many people will have the misfortune of having the same name as a blacklisted person, as we saw on that post-9/11 airline watch list?

I mean, even the names of politicians ended up on there. We're in for much of the same.

[longrange1947]

Christ all mighty people this friggin list has been kept for years! Pull your friggin foil hats off. There were already people on this friggin list that could not buy guns. Now you can get you name off when before you could not. :rolleyes:

[Pete]

Christ all mighty people this friggin list has been kept for years! Pull your friggin foil hats off. There were already people on this friggin list that could not buy guns. Now you can get you name off when before you could not. :rolleyes:

Nobody is is disputing the fact that this list has been around for years and nobody is sorry that we can now get our names off the list once we find out our names are on it - when we go to purchase a firearm.

The disagreement is with the politicians finding out they can expand the list as to who gets on it.

How long before a solidly Democrat Congress expands the reporting reguirement to anybody who went in for counseling? After all, if it will save the life of just one soldier who thought he had a little PTS and wanted to talk about it.......

It is never "The Law", it is how the politicians want to use the law.

[brownapple]

It is never "The Law", it is how the politicians want to use the law.


Bingo.

[82ndtrooper]

The problem, as I see it, is that even if you do have the ability to remove your name from the "Do not proceed with purchase" list what are the hoops and hurdles that one must undergo to get it removed ??

I would suspect that your psychiatrist would have to actually write an affidavit of confidence that you are not a danger to your selves or others. I do not see too many doctors stepping deep enough into a patients request to get documented proof that would then be submitted to a government agency, FBI and NCIS system.

How many doctors are willing to take the chance, with total liability, when you say to him or her "I want to buy a gun and I need your help" :rolleyes:

It sounds good on the surface, but I doubt that if you were on the list that it will be anytime soon that you could remove it due to a built in beauracacy with FBI data files and NCIS check system. Good luck.

[Pete]

OK, so it's from worldnetdaily but it does have a bunch of links to other stories.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59341

[brownapple]

Wow.

If it is signed, it reduces the number of people who can legally buy weapons, and specifically those who are most likely to resist attacks on their rights.

And, it just might reduce VA claims for veterans who decide that retaining their right to keep and bear arms is more important than disability payments or assistance.

Win-win for the government from Chuck Schumer's point of view.

[Defender968]

Ok so if this is the way the Dims are going to go about this I repeal any and all support for this type of legislation. I hate the thought of crazies with fire arms, but not as much as I hate the thought of disarming sheepdogs because they went to seek help after going though real mental trauma in service of their county. The Dims should be ashamed of themselves. Taking this type of action against the veterans who provide the very freedom they are taking away disgusts me. I'm going to read the bill now.

[Defender968]

Ok so I read the bill and I also read article 922(g)(4) of title 18, and the rest of the 922 statute, as I didn't want my liberal sister accusing me of not being educated before I started raising hell over yet another attempt by the Dims to take away our legal right to bear firearms.

This bill is entirely too broad, "adjudicated as a mental defective" what the hell does that mean, the bill equates that to being committed but does not define what "mentally defective" actually means, does that mean if one gets a little down and goes to see a headshrinker about Snuffy their dog dying they are no longer allowed to purchase a gun? Why can't they just be specific as to what constitutes being mentally deficient, i.e. schizophrenic, bi-polar, committed to a mental institution for suicidal tendencies. etc.

I thought I read something about having to have a court hearing before they put you on the list, but after going back through it a second time I didn't see what I thought I read, I guess that was just wishful thinking. This is nothing more than a flanking maneuver to attack the 2nd amendment; they don’t want to go straight at it so they make a broad bill like this to continue their assault.

Like I said as a LEO I personally don’t want crazies to have guns, but as a member of the military I have sacrificed, (though not nearly as much as most on this site) to defend the rights of all Americans and it angers me more than I can even express to have those idiots in Washington try this kind of crap.

[Defender968]

And it begins, I didn't see any media coverage on this when it passed, surprise surprise, pinko liberals. :mad:

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1561484

They're slowly but surely going to usurp our 2nd amendment rights, got to love the sheep..... I mean the Dims.

I went and read the summary at

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h110-2640

A good argument to this bill is that they didn't do anything to keep those convicted of domestic violence from getting a gun, and they are by far more dangerous statistically than the mentally ill, and current gun laws keep them from owning firearms as well. Here's a good article on it from the psychiatric news.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/43/3/1

[82ndtrooper]

Wow.

If it is signed, it reduces the number of people who can legally buy weapons, and specifically those who are most likely to resist attacks on their rights.

And, it just might reduce VA claims for veterans who decide that retaining their right to keep and bear arms is more important than disability payments or assistance.

Win-win for the government from Chuck Schumer's point of view.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Double edged sword. Those that need treatment may not speak up for help if their right to keep and bear arms is going to be infringed. Although they might seek help outside of the VA system if they are capable of paying out of pocket.

Just some thoughts.