President signed gun control bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Typical Femmer.

Glenn Meyer can likely tell us more accurate info about mental illness. Casual observation tells me that it is curable, comes in degrees, and of course, doesn't automatically make one "dangerous". I would imagine that we have all suffered from a definable mental illness or disorders at one point or another in certain degrees. Depression, ADHD, psychosis, mania, etc...

How many little boys are said to suffer from ADHD or ADD? About 25%? There, one quarter of the male population forbidden to own guns. How 'bout depression at one point or another? 50% of the women or more? Wow- we are swiftly weeding out the people able to own guns and by doing so, gutting the very reason for the second amendment's existence: A well Regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state...

Some of us still do as evidenced by the rediculous nature of the postings and replys here. A lack of logic at the minimum. Still- Fremmer, the constitution does allow for anybody to own "arms" who is capable of coexisting in society with others. If they are adjudicated as so severely mentally ill that they cannot function in society, why exactly would they not be locked up and hence unable to own a gun.

Logic Fremmer, Logic.
 
The part that leaves me uneasy is that both the NRA and the Brady Bunch are claiming victory !! :confused:

:barf:
 
Last edited:
Viginia Tech? What were there- 18 people killed? There were more than that killed in this country yesterday. I would think most killings involve mental illness. I would also say that if my psychiatrist determines that I am a danger to society, in Texas at least, he is required to have me committed.

I would prefer my mental health be determined by my physicians, pastors*, and psychologists, not my representatives in congress.
Yes- liberty has a cost. The occasional Virginia Tech, Columnbine, and other accidents are part of that cost. We all take a chance when we live in a free society. I wouldn't have it any other way.

*Yes- in my church and many others, pastors do recieve a lot of training in mental health issues and counseling- at least enough to make a referral to more trained professionals
 
kjm, were you out of town when VT happened? Do you remember the hysteria about someone as messed up as this shooter being allowed to purchase weapons. This was someone clearly identified as a danger. I am not talking about a short attention span or a mild case of depression. I am talking about a violent sociopath.

So you believe that allowing such people to purchase weapons legally is correct?

Do you think ignoring this huge target for legislation would have been the correct thing to do?

Do you honestly believe that if the NRA hadn't gotten together and helped to craft this bill that a truly nasty piece of anti 2A legislation would not have surfaced and passed in record time using the deaths at VT as justification?

Wake up and smell the politics.
 
lost sight of the issue

I find it hard to believe the posting here that support the right of every nut job running around the streets drooling in their soup while under medication as having absolute rights to be armed. Perhaps they forget one of the reasons they support RKBA is to protect themselves for the same wackos they now want to arm.

Arm the street people that's a sure way to get guns banned across America. You wont have to worry about the antigun crowd pushing the legislation it will come from every faction of the country when they start compiling the boody count. :rolleyes:
 
Glenn Meyer can likely tell us more accurate info about mental illness. Casual observation tells me that it is curable, comes in degrees, and of course, doesn't automatically make one "dangerous". I would imagine that we have all suffered from a definable mental illness or disorders at one point or another in certain degrees. Depression, ADHD, psychosis, mania, etc...
Click to expand...

I keep waiting on common sense to break out with a certain segment of so-called gun rights supporters. Instead, all I see is more fuel being pumped into the black helicopters.

The FAA has a long list of prohibited drugs that will IMMEDIATELY ground a licensed pilot.

Why? Because common sense dictates that a paranoid schizophrenic has absolute zero place behind the controls of an airplane.

If the mentally ill person was content to only crash his airplane with him and him alone it in it, at the very least, he's stil going to damage someone's property in the meanwhile.

But with guns, it seems that the psychos have to go out in a blaze of glory. the puke up in Omaha, the puke at Virginia Tech, the puke in Salt Lake City . . . want more?

These are people that KNEW they were screwed up and that other responsible people KNEW were screwed up.

The Constitution is NOT a suicide document. And with the Bill of Rights comes individual responsibilities. When those responsibilities are ignored or otherwise "excused," you have problems.

Jeff
 
How many little boys are said to suffer from ADHD or ADD? About 25%? There, one quarter of the male population forbidden to own guns. How 'bout depression at one point or another? 50% of the women or more? Wow- we are swiftly weeding out the people able to own guns and by doing so, gutting the very reason for the second amendment's existence
Click to expand...


Wow...are you purposely lying to create your weak argument are do you really believe these people are precluded from owning guns by this bill?

Either way, how embarassing for you...
 
Uh- Thumper, Did this bill specify what type of mental illness/disability would prohibit you from owning guns? Who did they leave that authority up to and what appeal process did they give?

Lying- no. Disliking intensely a poorly written, unspecific bill, yes.
 
Again...wow.

I appreciate your openly proving that you haven't taken the time to read the Bill...

If anything, the bill provides a doorway to restore rights to individuals that have already had them taken away.

Here, since you refuse to look it up for yourself, perhaps this can help you:


(c) Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication 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 or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

(2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATIONS AND COMMITMENTS-

(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES-

(i) IN GENERAL- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections.

(ii) PROCESS- Each application for relief submitted under the program required by this subparagraph shall be processed not later than 365 days after the receipt of the application. If a Federal department or agency fails to resolve an application for relief within 365 days for any reason, including a lack of appropriated funds, the department or agency shall be deemed for all purposes to have denied such request for relief without cause. Judicial review of any petitions brought under this clause shall be de novo.

(iii) JUDICIAL REVIEW- Relief and judicial review with respect to the program required by this subparagraph shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code. If the denial of a petition for relief has been reversed after such judicial review, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee for any and all proceedings in relation to attaining such relief, and the United States shall be liable for such fee. Such fee shall be based upon the prevailing rates awarded to public interest legal aid organizations in the relevant community.

(B) RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- In the case of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution, a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or from which a person has been granted relief under a program established under subparagraph (A) or (B), or because of a removal of a record under section 103(e)(1)(D) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the adjudication or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code. Any Federal agency that grants a person relief from disabilities under this subparagraph shall notify such person that the person is no longer prohibited under 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, on account of the relieved disability for which relief was granted pursuant to a proceeding conducted under this subparagraph, with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms.

(3) NOTICE REQUIREMENT- Effective 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, any Federal department or agency that conducts proceedings to adjudicate a person as a mental defective under 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall provide both oral and written notice to the individual at the commencement of the adjudication process including--

(A) notice that should the agency adjudicate the person as a mental defective, or should the person be committed to a mental institution, such adjudication, when final, or such commitment, will prohibit the individual from purchasing, possessing, receiving, shipping or transporting a firearm or ammunition under section 922(d)(4) or section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code;

(B) information about the penalties imposed for unlawful possession, receipt, shipment or transportation of a firearm under section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code; and

(C) information about the availability of relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- Except for paragraph (3), this subsection shall apply to names and other information provided before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act. Any name or information provided in violation of this subsection (other than in violation of paragraph (3)) before, on, or after such date shall be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Click to expand...
 
kjm said:
Glenn Meyer can likely tell us more accurate info about mental illness. Casual observation tells me that it is curable, comes in degrees, and of course, doesn't automatically make one "dangerous". I would imagine that we have all suffered from a definable mental illness or disorders at one point or another in certain degrees. Depression, ADHD, psychosis, mania, etc...

How many little boys are said to suffer from ADHD or ADD? About 25%? There, one quarter of the male population forbidden to own guns. How 'bout depression at one point or another? 50% of the women or more? Wow- we are swiftly weeding out the people able to own guns and by doing so, gutting the very reason for the second amendment's existence: A well Regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state...
Click to expand...

AGAIN the legislation is addressing ADJUDICATED mental incompetence NOT diagnosed mental or behavioral problems.

kjm in same post as above quote said:
Some of us still do as evidenced by the rediculous nature of the postings and replys here. A lack of logic at the minimum.
Click to expand...

AGREED.
 
Pay no attention to the acual language of the legislation. Dont' read the legislation yourself; ignore that stuff. Just rely on the GOA to tell you what the legislation means! Remember, we're looking out for you, and don't forget about the super-secret conspiracy that obviously occurred due to the voice-vote!

Contrary to what these silly people who insist on posting the actual language of the legislation may assert, our sources at GOA indicate that the legislation also bars those individuals who suffer from the common cold, a car accident, and/or diabetes from purchasing a gun. :eek:
 
I think he may have realized what he was missing about the legislation and is either Googling his fingers off looking for a rebuttal or dodging the issue as it has become a bit embarrassing.

Should it be the second the remedy is simple. Just post an 'oh yeah, missed that, my bad, eating hat' type post and people will respect the admission and by extension, the poster. I recently had to feast on my cover over Hillary's New Hampshire win in another thread.
 
with regards to relief:

2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATIONS AND COMMITMENTS-

(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES-

(i) IN GENERAL- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections.

(ii) PROCESS- Each application for relief submitted under the program required by this subparagraph shall be processed not later than 365 days after the receipt of the application. If a Federal department or agency fails to resolve an application for relief within 365 days for any reason, including a lack of appropriated funds, the department or agency shall be deemed for all purposes to have denied such request for relief without cause. Judicial review of any petitions brought under this clause shall be de novo.

(iii) JUDICIAL REVIEW- Relief and judicial review with respect to the program required by this subparagraph shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code. If the denial of a petition for relief has been reversed after such judicial review, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee for any and all proceedings in relation to attaining such relief, and the United States shall be liable for such fee. Such fee shall be based upon the prevailing rates awarded to public interest legal aid organizations in the relevant community.

(B) RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- In the case of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution, a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or from which a person has been granted relief under a program established under subparagraph (A) or (B), or because of a removal of a record under section 103(e)(1)(D) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the adjudication or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code. Any Federal agency that grants a person relief from disabilities under this subparagraph shall notify such person that the person is no longer prohibited under 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, on account of the relieved disability for which relief was granted pursuant to a proceeding conducted under this subparagraph, with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms.
Click to expand...





SEC. 105. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM REQUIRED AS CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS.

(a) Program Described- A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program--

(1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;

(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person's record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest; and

(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.

(b) Authority To Provide Relief From Certain Disabilities With Respect to Firearms- If, under a State relief from disabilities program implemented in accordance with this section, an application for relief referred to in subsection (a)(1) of this section is granted with respect to an adjudication or a commitment to a mental institution or based upon a removal of a record under section 102(c)(1)(B), the adjudication or commitment, as the case may be, is deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.
Click to expand...
 
publius42 said:
For those who actually want to learn what's wrong with this law, read the exchange I had with Antipitas which started here.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, where to start?

Publius, in that thread I said: Needless to say, that no one has challenged the NFA as being an exorbitant tax, AKA banning by taxation. Up until the ratification of the 34th amendment, you wouldn't have had much legal groundwork to stand upon.

You responded by pointing to Sonzinsky v. U.S as the case that challenged the NFA Taxation.

Well, I've had the chance to read that case, but since so much time had passed in the other thread, I just let the matter drop. But since you bring it up again, here's what the case was really about:

Sonzinsky challenged section 2 of the NFA which dealt only with the excise tax that all FFL's pay on a yearly basis. It did not challenge the NFA tax on section 3, which was the taxation directly on the guns themselves and was the context of my statement, above.

I've still not encountered the case I spoke of, above.

Of course, back in October, we didn't have access to this amended bill. Most all the references to to the standards of adjudication were taken out of the bill, in favor of incorporating 27 C.F.R. §478.11 by reference, which is the existing standards for adjudicating someone as having mental impairment. They are specific and incorporate exactly the wording of the older, but unamended bill.

So a simple medical finding of impairment will not do. It must be emphasized that not only is their some mental impairment, but that such an impairment must be accompanied by a finding that the person poses a danger to themselves or others or cannot competently handle their own affairs.

The new legislation specificly makes such an adjudication notify the person that this finding would impair their ability to own or possess firearms. Further, if the person has resolved the issues, this new legislation demands that such a notification be sent to the individual, stating that they are now permitted to own or possess firearms. Further yet, if the agency has been de-funded and cannot process any applications for relief of disability (the fear of many), after 365 days have passed, the individual can file a claim in a federal district court and that court will have to do a full review of the facts and make a determination as to the application of the disability. This is what a de novo review entails. Next, should the review be in your favor, you can recoup all costs of this review from the feds themselves.

Now I will submit that perhaps you shouldn't have to wait a year to do this, but understand also that a year is not a long time in the scheme of federal processes. So that in and of itself is not entirely unreasonable.

Now let's back up a minute and think about those thousands of names the VA (under orders from the Clinton administration) that are currently on the NICS list. The legislation gives explicit instructions to the AG that any and all names on the list must be removed if they do not meet the criteria as set out in 27 C.F.R. §478.11. That means the NICS will have to be purged of those names. See §101(a)(4)(D)(i) and §101(a)(4)(D)(ii).

Thanks to Thumper and Eghad for posting the actual parts of the bill that reflect all of this, so I don't have to.
 
Judicial review of any petitions brought under this clause shall be de novo.
Click to expand...

which basically means a new trial in which new evidence can be introduced.

After reading all this I find it hard to understand the GOA stance that says this bill removes rights from individuals especially veterans.

1. It requires adjudication not just a diagnosis of disability. Spelled out in plain English in the law.

2. It gives people who are well and have completed a course of treatment to regain rights.

3. It specifically gives instructions to the Attorney General and state and federal agencies.
 
I suspect it passed quietly with a simple voice vote because nobody but the fringest of the fringe thought it was a bad bill.
Click to expand...
No, that's how they pass bad legislation that no one wants to "parent". That way they can say, "I didn't do that" with a straight face.

The bill was turd polishing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top