Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

What I'm not good with is allowing just any agency to add names to a national database or take rights away.

Agree... And apparently both after the fact and without disclosure to those impacted.

[35NCO]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Actually not that bad. Did you read it?

Veterans with mental issues should not have guns.

Seniors that cannot take care of them selves and have been adjuncticated as such, should not have guns.

And expanding the national background check is fine with me as I'm not a criminal.

What I'm not good with is allowing just any agency to add names to a national database or take rights away.

Yes I read it and researched it. My greatest concern is the lack of due process. Another factor is how it will be determined. Even if specified, I have little trust in enormous bureaucracies getting that right. It has to have even more oversight, notification of pending action, and a reasonable time and way to repeal.

I agree some people shouldent own guns. Setting the precident to remove constitutional rights this way does not help.

[The Reaper]

Sounds like almost as much fun as the "no fly" list.

TR

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

What I'm not good with is allowing just any agency to add names to a national database or take rights away.

Due process? Deplorables aren't worthy of due process.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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.

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. Look how making meth and heroin have really stopped the spread of illegal drugs. What puts people on this crime list? A warrant for a speeding ticket they paid but the county screwed it up and did not record it and issued a warrant? (I seen this happen)

Even if they make it reasonable what will the courts do with it in a few years? Remember once the camel has its nose under the tent the next Obama could run with it.

No real bad idea. Adding more laws on top of the ones that already exist will not help anything but only create more bullshit in the long run. The good idea fairy strikes again.

That tinfoil hat make noise while you're sleeping?

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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.

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. Look how making meth and heroin have really stopped the spread of illegal drugs. What puts people on this crime list? A warrant for a speeding ticket they paid but the county screwed it up and did not record it and issued a warrant? (I seen this happen)

Even if they make it reasonable what will the courts do with it in a few years? Remember once the camel has its nose under the tent the next Obama could run with it.

No real bad idea. Adding more laws on top of the ones that already exist will not help anything but only create more bullshit in the long run. The good idea fairy strikes again.

Below is a much shorter version of an earlier post - calls on bureaucrats to do their jobs and keep criminals and the mentally ill from possessing firearms is a good thing - rather than blanket bans on law abiding folks from possessing firearms.

Watch the video at link.

Some people should not have guns.

NOVEMBER 8, 2017
NSSF ON CNN HEADLINE NEWS: FIXNICS | GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS

Since 2013, NSSF has led the successful nationwide FixNICS initiative effort to improve the reporting of all criminal and adjudicated mental health records by the states to NICS. To date, 16 states have adopted NSSF-led FixNICS changes. Since the campaign was launched through the end of 2016, the number of disqualifying mental health records submitted to NICS increased by 170 percent to nearly 4.5 million, from about 1.7 million in December 2012.

https://www.nssf.org/nssf-cnn-headli...t+Relations%29

[Badger52]

I agree with TR's parallel to the no-fly list. HR 4477 actually does nothing except let Congress tell its lessers that they are doing something (cue the hand-wringing crowds). Oh, yeah, it also threatens to dock the bonus pay of politically-appointed agency hacks if they fail to meet the reporting gates. Whoopee.

There is no requirement to put this on all the agencies when the criteria that determine a prohibited person IAW 922 are based on a court decision. Only those entities that can actually render a legal determination (civil courts, military courts-martial) should be on the hook for this, and that's already in the law. And under existing law the AG already has the authority to gather the information from any agency it needs it from.

The danger is erroneous and/or duplicate reporting by agencies that have no business collecting & submitting records in the first place.

It is a badly written law, and is eyewash.

[tonyz]

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]

Originally Posted by bblhead672

Retired military commanders urge Congress to address 'gun violence crisis'

Traitorous scum.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

That tinfoil hat make noise while you're sleeping?

LOL. Good one.

[BrightGirl]

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]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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.

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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]

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


Why?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by BrightGirl

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.