I think this settles nra's anti 2nd amendment attitude about full autos

[Al Norris]

Shall we take a look at HR 2640 (tooltimey, pay attention here)?

Section 101(c)(1) sets out the standards for "Adjudications, Commitments, and Determinations Related to Mental Health" - as they relate to agencies of the Federal Government. It prohibits departments or agencies from transmitting records of anyone to NICS if:

(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

Section 101(c)(2)(A) specifies that each department of the U.S. that makes any such adjudication or determination shall set up a seperatate program within that department that would allow such a person to apply for relief of the disability. It is to be modeled after the standards of title 18 USC 925(c).

Section 101(c)(2)(B) specifies that any records not transmitted to NICS wherein the person was not determined to have met the qualifiers of 101(c)(1)(A), or a person that has been granted relief under 101(c)(2)(A) shall be deemed not to have incurred the penalty of 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4).

Section 101(d)(1) specifies that only those that have met the qualifications of the preceeding may be included in the NICS records.

Section 101(d)(2) specifies that any records that were previously transmitted to the NICS that do not meet the qualifiers above, shall be removed from the NICS database.

So, while these various departments and agencies relief mechanisma may be defunded at the federal level, just like the generic process under 925(c) has been defunded, it would require the legislature to specify each and every department and agency so defunded as a seperate item in any appropriations bill.

Still, I will concede that this is not an entirely insurmountable task. Some, like Chuck Schumer may attempt to do just that. It does make it harder to accomplish, however.

That takes care of the Federal side of things.

Section 105 deals entirely with the various departments and agencies of the States. It sets up the same criteria used at the federal level in order for the disability to occur. It mandates that the States will setup processes will be available for individuals so adjudicated, to apply for relief. This will be funded and processed entirely by the States. In addition, any denial by the States for relief can be taken to State Courts for a de novo review of the denial.

That in and of itself is a great step forward, as a de novo review allows the appeal to be made to the court entirely on its own merit, and not simply for procedural defects, as would a normal appeal entail.

Now along with the funding of the States ($250M) to supply all this updated info, in the manner provided, the proposed legislation also says that if the States do not provide functions and procedures for relief of disability, then not only will they get no more funds to operate the NICS referrals, they will have to return all monies given to them. A very strong incentive for the States to comply. This can all be found in Sections 102 and 103 of the Bill.

So, where's the Beef?

 

[JohnKSa]

The problem is that it's made our enemies strong too in that they feel that they can set the agenda and then see if it's approved, rather than the NRA being able to beat down anything and everything they attempt.

It's made our enemies so strong that they couldn't renew the AWB.

It's made our enemies so strong that most states now have shall-issue concealed carry licensing.

It's made our enemies so strong that Castle Doctrine laws are passing in state after state.

The list continues.

Ok, enough sarcasm...

What it's done is made the NRA strong and those who oppose the NRA are now the ones who are beginning to look radical. The results speak for themselves.

I am 100% glad that CHL exists-----BUT we shouldn't be begging to have our rights back.

You didn't read my whole post. It's now legal to carry a concealed handgun in TX WITHOUT A PERMIT. Do you think that law could have been passed if 12 years of CHL history hadn't supported the idea that law-abiding citizens with guns don't cause the problems that the antis always claim? NO.

Licensing is not really in accordance with the true meaning of the 2A, IMO, but it is leading to laws that ARE.

Like it or not, compromise HAS lead to progress and that progress has given us momentum that has passed laws that AREN'T compromises.

It doesn't matter what is considered "radical."

Public perception is always an issue. That fact is self-evident.

The whole premise of our country's existance was and is "radical" for its time...

I agree. That's precisely why it took armed conflict to bring it to be.

It takes a little more time to achieve progress without killing people. It goes without saying (or it should) that there are, however, tremendous advantages to the slower approach.

 

[Eghad]

The Democratically led Congress tried to pass a bill in Congress to repeal the protection for firearms manufactureres. The NRA helped to kill that bill in committee. The Democrats know who the 900 lb gorilla is.

 

[publius42]

The NFA can be considered as part of the New Deal, as it was enacted with the slew of other Acts. submitted by the FDR administration.

That's true, I was just saying that the legal precedents underlying the NFA are from a couple of decades before the actual passage of the act. Without the drug war legal precedents, the power to tax probably could not have been used as a regulatory power grab in the war on guns.

The pattern repeats itself. First the power to tax was used against drugs, then guns. Then the (modern understanding of the) power to regulate commerce was used against drugs in 1969, and then guns in 1986. (For some interesting reading on that, look at the text of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. That one was actually based on the commerce power.) The abuse of civil asset forfeiture to punish drug crimes without bothering with a conviction, introduced in the 1980s, has similarly spread to the war on guns in more recent years. And, of course, Raich was immediately applied to Stewart.

Whatever drug warriors do is sooner or later applied to guns, and the NFA was just one of the early examples. Yes, it happened during the New Deal, but it could not have happened without the Harrison Act and the legal precedents spawned by that Act.

So, while these various departments and agencies relief mechanisma may be defunded at the federal level, just like the generic process under 925(c) has been defunded, it would require the legislature to specify each and every department and agency so defunded as a seperate item in any appropriations bill.

Still, I will concede that this is not an entirely insurmountable task. Some, like Chuck Schumer may attempt to do just that. It does make it harder to accomplish, however.

Chuckie has a large staff for just this kind of thing. It seems to me that GOA has a valid point here. The provisions are already there to restore lost rights, and they have been defunded. Now we are being told they are being put there again, but it's a little harder to defund them this time.

Color me "not too relieved" by that assurance.

 

[ConfuseUs]

I am 100% glad that CHL exists-----BUT we shouldn't be begging to have our rights back. It is unacceptable to me that we are in the position of having to ask to be returned to us what is rightfully ours. The 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights is written to say that our rights belong to us and that WE own control, and it's not the government's to give and take as they please--the ability to carry concealed, own whatever configuration of rifle I want, etc. is MINE and not theirs. They should be asking me what they can do, not the other way around.

What you see as practicality is why they are behind, not why they're ahead. If they were ahead, they'd be going for term limits and automatic ejection from office for authoring bills attempting to infringe upon the rights of the people, and total eradication of specification restrictions (repeal NFA, etc.) and impediments to CCW anywhere and everywhere.

Well, given that the gun grabbers have been losing ground for the past decade it seems that if the trend continues you could get what you want. After all, 1994 was supposedly their biggest year ever what with the Brady Law and the AWB. Brady hasn't worked and it's a cinch to rebut anyone who claims it did. THe AWB just banned some cosmetic features, motivated a lot of people to get while the getting was possible, and cost the gun grabber party Congress. The gun grabber (AKA Democrat) party has since had a revolt in the ranks and the gun grabbers in either party still do not have Congress back. In the past decade CCW in most states is on a shall-issue basis as opposed to in the '80s when most states had either no CCW or may-issue CCW. The gun grabber have ALWAYS been wrong about the results of liberalized CCW. We're batting a thousand on that issue.

That's not half bad progress for the NRA considering that they only started to focus on gun rights in the late '70s while the gun grabbers started in '34 and spent decades enacting state laws that effectively prohibited concealed carry. It's important to pick the right battles, and repealing NFA '34 is politically unrealistic at this time. Repealing the '86 MG ban might be accomplished with a very tough political fight right now, but as more and more shooters discover the joy of the EBR they'll want to join the Select Fire club without paying country club dues. So stopping AW bans in their tracks, getting EBRs into more hands, and saying "Gosh, didja know that your country lets you have this but not a new full-auto?" is essential to getting the political traction necessary for having a crack at '86. NFA '34 is a long ways off from that, barring some judicial activism in our favor. And automatic removal from office for proposing unconstitutional laws isn't part of our system of government. A branch of government for declaring laws null and void because they are unconstitutional is, it's called the Supreme Court.

 

[Al Norris]

Color me "not too relieved" by that assurance.

That may be. Like I stated though, that's only at the federal level. At the State level, it's an entirely different story. Not even Schumer can defund something that's not funded by the Feds.

In the case of the Feds, it's mostly the VA that suffers from lack of funding. It's mostly the VA that sends this data to the NICS. It would be easier to get folks to rally behind our vets, and to make sure things are funded, than for any other alphabet soup agency.

I may be wrong, but I believe that's what the NRA is counting on/hoping for.

 

[publius42]

In the case of the Feds, it's mostly the VA that suffers from lack of funding. It's mostly the VA that sends this data to the NICS. It would be easier to get folks to rally behind our vets, and to make sure things are funded, than for any other alphabet soup agency.

That's good as long as someone tells Schumer that he's really got to stop defunding the program this time, and he actually listens. Maybe I've had too much GOA Kool Aid, but I think there's some reason to believe it'll be the same song, second verse.

 

[Al Norris]

OK... Then tell me how Schumer or anyone else in the Federal Government is gonna stop the states?

Even if they defund the relief from disability of section 101, how they gonna stop section 105? There are some States, like Idaho, Wyoming and Montana (and possibly Utah and Texas) that would love to thumb their collective noses at the Feds and the BATFE. This law gives them that authority.

Should we mention that the majority of people who are adjudicated, committed or determined mentally unfit are from State courts? You would stop this, just on the belief that the Federal portion could be defunded?

This legislation also solves the ongoing case of Wyoming v. BATFE.

This legislation resolves the split between the 6th and 8th Circuiits and the 1st Circuit, in determining the onset of the disability, let alone the relief from the disability.

Yet, you would still drink the kool-aid being handed out by the GOA?

 

[publius42]

I don't know enough to say whether I support or oppose this compromise, but you make good points.

Regardless, it seemed to me in the other threads (the ones actually about the background check, not full autos, but oh well) that the GOA was being called all kinds of names because they were saying this bill doesn't improve things as far as the VA situation is concerned. They're all worked up over that, and calling it the veterans disarmament bill or some such. Well, those other issues aside, they are right about that one point. It can still be defunded, just as it has been in years past. Even you drank that Kool Aid.

 

[Al Norris]

No, I conceded one point. Overall, the rantings of the GOA are just that. Rantings... Or outright lies.

It is still to be seen if the Congress has the guts to actually attack our veterans. A lot of political hay can be made against those that would go against the vets.

 

[Jermtheory]

Using firearms in self defense against our government is a concept that is long past it's usefulness. We have constructed legal and political systems that allow for "peaceful" revolt these days.

and we all know the unwavering and enduring nature of legal and political systems.

i'd just like to repeat an earlier quote...

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

i would only question the use of "exceptionally rare".

i wont even get started on you sig.:barf:

edit-
btw,i have no interest in owning a full auto weapon(overrated imo and i couldnt afford the ammo to shoot it much anyway).but i do believe it should be (is) a right protected by the 2A.

as many others i have mixed feelings about the NRA.i havent kept my membership up to date in the last couple years,but i think its time to rectify that.

 

[STAGE 2]

It's now legal to carry a concealed handgun in TX WITHOUT A PERMIT.

Thats news to me. Do you have a link I can read up?

 

[SteelCore]

Using firearms in self defense against our government is a concept that is long past it's usefulness. We have constructed legal and political systems that allow for "peaceful" revolt these days.

This is a fundamentally anti-Second Amendment position, and I disagree with it for a number of reasons:

(1) In the real world, might makes right. If you rely on laws and legalities to protect your rights, you are relying on things that men have created and that men can destroy at any time.

(2) Working within the system doesn't work in the long run. Anyone who disagrees should ask whether we have more gun rights in the US today than we did in the 1920s, 1950s, or even the early 80s. Our legal rights will have dwindled proportionally in another few decades, if not sooner. Nevertheless, we should still try our best.

(3) Guerrilla resistance most certainly is effective against even a superpower, as has been demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. It would be even more effective on one's own soil, where there are no rear areas and no blanket ethnic/racial differences between the oppressors and the resisters.

(4) It is not necessary for there to be a full-scale revolt for the Second Amendment to be of use. Even a smattering of citizens who resist a particular tyrannical action by a government can cause that government to reconsider before repeating such an action in the future.

In spite of all this, most gun owners don't really believe in the Second Amendment and share the NRA view: that the SA is about the right of people to play games with firearms (hunting, target shooting) and to use handguns in self-defense against common criminals. I blame the NRA for this, as they are in a position to remind gun owners of their duty to freedom as Americans.

If the position in my signature below is considered "too radical," then it's the responsibility of groups like the NRA to make it seem less radical by promoting it and reminding people that this country was founded on such ideas.

In the end, if most gun owners continue to take the position that they will NEVER fight for their rights physically, even to the death, then they don't deserve their rights anyway. And they WILL lose them -- guaranteed.

 

[publius42]

It is still to be seen if the Congress has the guts to actually attack our veterans.

I think you meant to say, "It is still to be seen if the Congress STILL has the guts to actually attack our veterans AGAIN."

After all, when they have done it each year since 1995, the VA funding was being cut off. The issue was there to exploit politically, yet it did not happen.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The idea that we may not need someday to fight against tyranny is quite foolish. History demonstrates that civilized socities in time of stress can dissolve and become tyrannies. Look at pre WWI Germany and the monster it became in the 30's. Civilized to monster in a short time period.

Disaster, religious fanatics, etc. all are possible in the USA. With the Patriot Act, etc. debates we see a small taste of a move to tyranny. The extreme religious right and their views on gays and women could morph into Iran or Taliban like strictures if the country was stressed.

The idea that a resevoir of force exists across the country makes it less likely that such things could happen.

 

[JohnKSa]

Thats news to me. Do you have a link I can read up?

Got in a hurry in my second reference to the topic and didn't type the whole sentence. I got it right the first time.

Now, in TX, it's even explicitly legal to carry a handgun in a vehicle concealed WITHOUT a license--something that hasn't been true since the late 1800s.

Here's the text as passed. The online statutes have not yet been updated.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/HB01815F.pdf

 

[Supertac]

.


Is this the Brady Center webpage?

From some of the quotes it seems to be.

wow, just wow.

People need to learn US history, learn Constitutional Law, and read Founding Father's letters.

This is really sad.


.

 

[Redneck_Riot]

I Have taken the time to read all of the text in this thread, and I have been both educated and dismayed by its contents. I am a 30 year old man and I want to address something that I feel most of my demographic believe in the issue of the second ammendment of whether or not firearms are a god given right or not! and that is that this was written a very long time ago, in a age where technolgy was still an infant. our society today has changed and therrefore so should the law of our land. It is my opinion that if I were to take a poll of the X generation in concern to firearms that the results would astound the elders of this country, I have no doubt that a 60% possibly higher majority would vote to outlaw guns of any kind regardless of purpose. especially in the wake of all the unfortunate events that have plagued this country in terms of school massacres and the overall inner urban environment

this is not my position and it sickens me to have to be apart of this generation of people! my peers have for the most part never known what it is to be without, they take the freedoms of this country for granted every day they do not stop to understand the sacrifices and the bloodshed that all of the previous gerations endured so that Freedom is possible and continues to thrive.

Veterans understand what it takes to be free ! those who have never had to fight for freedom most likely do and will continue to take freedoms for granted.

How many of you are parents? of that number how many of you have taught your children of the price of their freedoms today? and the reasons why the second ammendment is so vital to its survival, I was never taught by mine, I learned when I was deployed to Bosnia and I saw first hand the atrocities that people can face to be free


I believe that the second ammendment was written by our founding fathers to serve as a check and balance, against a future government that would seek to enslave its people.



I would like to create a t-shirt or bummper sticker that would read

"Have you thanked a Veteran today for giving you freedom"

off topic if I were president I would force every citizen in this country to serve in some form of the military so they would understand the price of Freedom and the sacrifices it takes to provide the same for our children-