Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)
-   -   Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40772)

tonyz 12-06-2017 07:57

For reader's convenience below is link to Senator Cornyn's web page describing the proposed legislation and text of proposed legislation for Fix NICS Act of 2017.

There is no bump stock language in the proposed Senate version - there is in the House version.

Links directly to the differing House and Senate versions of the proposed legislation are also produced below. Hope this helps.

CORNYN'S take:
https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/node/4478

https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/sites/...ill%20Text.pdf

SENATE VERSION:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/2135/text

HOUSE VERSION:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/4477/text

Perhaps, fix NICS with properly reporting prohibited persons (felons and those adjudicated mentally ill) and tie the passage of that proposed fix to simultaneously passing national reciprocity for law abiding folks.

ETA: introduce specific and expedited relief provisions into the proposed fix language for those wrongly placed on the "no buy" list to address that legitimate concern.

tonyz 12-12-2017 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by bblhead672 (Post 636218)

A response to the "Generals" from a representative of NSSF (firearms industry trade association) that touches on some good points.

DECEMBER 12, 2017
RETIRED BRASS OFF TARGET TRUMPETING FOR GUN RESTRICTIONS

By Mark Oliva

Sixteen of our nation’s senior military officers recently penned a letter to Congress under the banner of the Giffords Veteran Coalition. They chose to lend their military authority and prestige to assist an ongoing political effort to further restrict their fellow law-abiding American citizens’ Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because they mistakenly believe they know how to reduce criminal misuse of firearms.

Generals and admirals, this is something that I just can’t salute.

The retired military leaders, who of course deserve accolades for leading forces in combat and humanitarian operations, cited the recent tragedy in Sutherland Springs, Texas, to call for more gun control laws. Unfortunately, they never mentioned that our nation’s military itself had the tools to prevent this tragedy from ever happening but failed tragically in that mission.

The Sutherland murderer had been convicted of domestic violence in a court-martial and involuntarily committed to a mental health facility before being booted from the Air Force with a bad conduct discharge. At least two of these instances would have been enough to bar the murderer from buying a firearm. But the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was not informed of these facts because the Department of Defense never submitted the required disqualifying records. Because of DoD’s failure to follow its own regulations and our nation’s laws, this murderer was able to buy guns not just once, but four separate times. Each time he passed the background check.

Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, the military services were required to submit these records. The flag-level officers didn’t mention the DoD’s own instruction ordering compliance with the law. Nor was there mention of the Inspector General’s reports criticizing the military’s failure in its obligation to submit names of prohibited persons to the NICS database.

The generals and admirals tell Congress their command experience is foundational to their moral authority to call for restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners. They didn’t tell Congress, though, that during the height of the fighting, while Army General Petraeus commanded Coalition forces, Iraqi families could keep a fully-automatic AK-47 and 30-round magazine in their homes. U.S. forces didn’t want these families left defenseless against the terrorists who preyed on them.

This was the practice during my tour in Fallujah in 2006-2007. It was just one of several combat tours to Iraq and Afghanistan during my 25-year Marine Corps career. I trusted my life to their battlefield decision making. Yet, their letter wrongly blames the firearms, accessories and laws recognizing the fundamental right of Americans to keep and bear arms for the criminal activities of individuals.

There is a cognitive dissonance that these generals and admirals would seek restrictions on law-abiding Americans, who are only looking to make the best choice to protect themselves and their families. They never saw the same need in a nation under martial law with no Second Amendment rights. They advocate banning modern sporting rifles, the most popular rifle sold today. Nearly half of those who own these are former active and former military and law enforcement. They buy them primarily for target shooting, which follows a long history in the United States of service members in civilian life purchasing firearms similar to the rifle they used in uniform for lawful purposes like target shooting and hunting. Their opposition to this, and other measures, doesn’t pass muster.

Instead of endorsing new laws that criminals would not obey, the generals and admirals should devote their energy and commit their prestige to helping ensure that the laws already on the books are enforced. That includes keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons by ensuring that disqualifying records are submitted to the system designed to help protect their fellow citizens. Sixteen retired generals and admirals do not speak for the overwhelming veteran population who know and treasure their Second Amendment rights.

ETA: link https://www.nssf.org/retired-brass-o...-restrictions/

About the Author
Mark Oliva is Manager, Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition and industries. He is a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant with 25 years of service, including tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Albania and Zaire.

mojaveman 12-31-2017 21:24

Sad day in Kalifornia
 
No more Internet ammo sales to the People's Republik of Kalifornia as of tomorrow.

Was at Walmart earlier this evening and the manager of the store told me that they will not be selling any ammunition in any store in California after they close tonight.

All of this ammunition restriction is going to do is create a thriving black market here.

Can't wait to retire and leave this place. :(

DinDinA-2 01-01-2018 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant (Post 636310)
That tinfoil hat make noise while you're sleeping? :munchin

LOL. Good one.

BrightGirl 02-12-2018 09:16

Well said Team Sergeant
 
Team Sergeant,

I agree with every word written in your position statement. I highly recommend that all who care about our country read two books that I just finished: Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog by Dr. Bruce Perry. These books were written as easy-to-read textbooks, citing research and anecdotal information to support the claim that our future is in jeopardy. The books include suggestions on what we can do to address the problems.

We (as a society) have created this problem and we (with the skills) must fix it. As a sheepdog, I want to be part of the solution. The first step is to list who is doing what already. Creating the list begins now. I seek the names of organizations and their leaders who are addressing removal of media violence, elimination of gun-free zones and/or prevention of childhood trauma.

Bright Girl

RichL025 02-12-2018 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie (Post 636290)
So what mental issues that veterans have could qualify? Anything? Trooper snuffy goes through a divorce so his CO sends him to counseling to cover his ass and bam on the list. What about PTSD? How severe does he have to have it? Remember they found the Melfiquin caused brain damage to a lot of people and mimics PTSD. What about a trooper that was caught in an IED and his bell was rung so he was a little off for a couple weeks? Where do we draw the line?

Why can a senior that can not take care of themselves have a gun? Granted some should not but what if it is a physical problem not a mental one but a physical one? Where is the line drawn? I believe the law already states anyone mentally defective can not buy a firearm. also do you think anyone that is mentally adjudicated due to dementia would be able to fill out the form to begin with? Have you ever worked with someone like that? They can not fill out the form, kind of a check onto its self.


Just because a line has been drawn poorly in the past, does not mean that no line should be drawn.

Sure there are many vets with mental issues who are perfectly safe to own firearms. But there are many who are not. At least 20 per day, according to the statistics.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie (Post 636290)
What would expanding the data base do? It missed the last asshole that should have been on there. Do you think it will stop any crimes at all...

So because one person slipped through the system, your solution is to not improve the database and continue to allow prohibited persons to slip through? I'm not following the logic here....

.

Box 02-12-2018 09:50

...are we letting these "mentally impaired" people vote?


Why?

Team Sergeant 02-12-2018 09:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrightGirl (Post 639974)
Team Sergeant,

I agree with every word written in your position statement. I highly recommend that all who care about our country read two books that I just finished: Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog by Dr. Bruce Perry. These books were written as easy-to-read textbooks, citing research and anecdotal information to support the claim that our future is in jeopardy. The books include suggestions on what we can do to address the problems.

We (as a society) have created this problem and we (with the skills) must fix it. As a sheepdog, I want to be part of the solution. The first step is to list who is doing what already. Creating the list begins now. I seek the names of organizations and their leaders who are addressing removal of media violence, elimination of gun-free zones and/or prevention of childhood trauma.

Bright Girl


Not many on here have anything good to say about Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. In my opinion he writes for one reason only, the money.

bblhead672 02-12-2018 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box (Post 639977)
...are we letting these "mentally impaired" people vote?


Why?

Yes, they are called "Democrats". :D

RichL025 02-12-2018 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brush Okie (Post 639980)
We already have a system in place that this guy slipped through. By the rules today and for many years he should not have had a firearm. Fix the current system, making more rules will not fix it but potentially cause more problems.

So you think this is a zero-sum game, we can "either" fix the current system "or" make our rules better?

I disagree. We can BOTH fix the current system, and then, as a society of laws, we can make the current system better if (as a society) we agree that other classes of people should not be eligible to own a weapon.

Or are you saying that you are OK with a person with poorly controlled paranoid schizophrenia buying firearms?

I think we all can agree (please tell me if I'm wrong) that a person whose "mental health issues" means mild PTSD or well-controlled depression can own weapons. Just like I think we all can agree that the guy who thinks police officers are evil aliens coming to abduct him should NOT have them. I agree, drawing the line between those two may sometimes be difficult, but that is not a reason to give up and not draw the line at all.

Box 02-12-2018 13:46

Why are we only concerned about our 2d amendment rights?

Shouldn’t concerns about mental health be applied to the entire Bill of Rights? There is more to the Bill of Rights than just the 2d amendment; abridging someone’s constitutional liberties should not be done in a vacuum. If we are willing to take away freedoms specifically addressed in the bill of rights, why are we still letting crazy people vote? Why are dangerous crazy people given any liberties at all? Crazy people should be subject to a different set of laws than the rest of us. There are some people that have clearly lost their minds, yet they have the unabridged freedom to stir up the masses.

I agree that there are many controversial people out there with mental health problems that don't talk crazy and they may not ALL pose a threat, but there are a lot that can't be trusted to speak in public without causing trouble and we can’t afford to let the really crazy ones slip through the crack. If that means that there are innocent crazy people being deprived of some rights so that the rest of us can be safe from the dangerous crazy people, so be it.

The 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments remove prohibitions on voting rights based on race, color, sex, and age; there is nothing that says we can't keep crazy people from voting.

Ret10Echo 02-12-2018 16:24

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Box (Post 639996)
Why are we only concerned about our 2d amendment rights?

Shouldn’t concerns about mental health be applied to the entire Bill of Rights? There is more to the Bill of Rights than just the 2d amendment; abridging someone’s constitutional liberties should not be done in a vacuum. If we are willing to take away freedoms specifically addressed in the bill of rights, why are we still letting crazy people vote? Why are dangerous crazy people given any liberties at all? Crazy people should be subject to a different set of laws than the rest of us. There are some people that have clearly lost their minds, yet they have the unabridged freedom to stir up the masses.

I agree that there are many controversial people out there with mental health problems that don't talk crazy and they may not ALL pose a threat, but there are a lot that can't be trusted to speak in public without causing trouble and we can’t afford to let the really crazy ones slip through the crack. If that means that there are innocent crazy people being deprived of some rights so that the rest of us can be safe from the dangerous crazy people, so be it.

The 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments remove prohibitions on voting rights based on race, color, sex, and age; there is nothing that says we can't keep crazy people from voting.

This sounds oddly familiar..............


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28.


Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®