The Second Amendment and the Democratic Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does the above account for how Veterans and ONLY VETERANS who use a fiduciary were prohibited from owning a gun..... But if you are retired FBI, IRS, DOJ, CIA, ABC,etc... you could use a fiduciary and not have your guns taken away.
... oh yeah... he tried it at the very end with SSN recipients...
Click to expand...

Much as I detest having to defend Obama's actions, this statement leaves out vitally important information and creates an impression of deliberate malice that reality (using all the relevant facts) does not support.

Those Veterans, and SSI recipients who were (wrongly) classed as prohibited persons were not just using a fiduciary arrangement, they were ALSO seeking govt. assistance DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS. Any, and all, DOJ, FBI, IRS, CIA, or OGA retirees who both used a 3rd party fiduciary and were seeking govt compensation for mental problems would have been treated the same way.

Obama didn't sign anything to turn those people into prohibited persons. The government bureaucracy did that, by misinterpreting already existing rules. What Obama's administration did was NOT to make any new rule about being a prohibited person, what they did was make a change to govt. policies, to ensure, and improve the transfer and sharing of information between the various govt. agencies.

I doubt anyone in Obama's administration shed any tears or lost sleep over the situation that "improved efficient" resulted in, since no one did anything to fix it, until Trump was elected, but there is ZERO evidence that it was done with evil intent or malice aforethought.

What happened resulted from the fact that different govt agencies have different standards for what is "mentally ill" enough to meet their requirements for compensation/benefits. AND these standards are different from the process in law for determining if a person is not mentally competent to possess firearms and becomes a prohibited person.

Of course, the press mentioned about none of this...

Literally, the system denied those people due process, because of the limitations of the systems used.

The Obama administration said "all you guys must do a better job talking to each other and sharing information" The various agencies then did that, or tried. But what happened was that DOJ (NICS system) got told "JSMITH xxx-xx-xxxx address has been ruled mentally unfit and is receiving benefits from SSI (or the VA).." NICS now has information JSMITH is mentally unfit, and has only one box for "mentally unfit" and that was PROHIBITED PERSON

NCIS does NOT know (or care) that SSI's or the VA's classification of mentally impaired does NOT meet the legal standard specified in law. ON THEIR OWN, they have only one place to put someone who is mentally impaired, so they put them there, making them prohibited persons in their system.

The law is very clear, and has been the law since 1968. You must be adjudicated mentally unfit before you are classed as a prohibited person for mental reasons. That means a JUDGE has to rule it, after a court hearing, where both sides make arguments and present evidence. And, it applies to each individual case. The ruling is for each individual person, and is not a blanket thing.

NO Doctor's opinion, or some clerk checking a box on a form makes you a legally prohibited person (though they can be presented as evidence), only a Judge's ruling does so. Win or lose, the law gives you your "day in court" on the matter.

This did not happen to those Vets and SSI applicants, their legal rights were not so much denied as not recognized as existing by the various agency systems, and that resulted in their becoming prohibited persons.

This was one of the first things the Trump administration changed after taking office. Of course, all the press saw was "Trump repeals law preventing mentally ill from having guns!!!"

What Trump did was to stop agency A from classing someone as prohibited solely on the information provided from agency B or C, and to comply with the law as it has existed since 1968.

The Obama administration could have done that, as the screwup they created was recognized during their administration, but they chose not to.

Perhaps it was just another one of those things that, as VP Biden said, "we don't have time for that.."

Seems Trump did have time for that...

Neither party is our friend or advocate for 2nd A rights. Some individuals are, but the parties aren't. Republicans seem to pay a bit more attention to the rule of law than Dems do on this matter, but that may be an illusion, or just a level of realpolitik the Dems don't bother with.

One candidate says "Hell yes we're going to take your AR15!!" and none of the others even seriously OBJECT. Only ONE says something like "I'm not sure that's Constitutional..".
The rest just kind of nod and go on...

and this is where we are at, today...
 
44 AMP said:
Much as I detest having to defend Obama's actions, this statement leaves out vitally important information and creates an impression of deliberate malice that reality (using all the relevant facts) does not support.

Those Veterans, and SSI recipients who were (wrongly) classed as prohibited persons were not just using a fiduciary arrangement, they were ALSO seeking govt. assistance DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS. Any, and all, DOJ, FBI, IRS, CIA, or OGA retirees who both used a 3rd party fiduciary and were seeking govt compensation for mental problems would have been treated the same way.

Obama didn't sign anything to turn those people into prohibited persons. The government bureaucracy did that, by misinterpreting already existing rules. What Obama's administration did was NOT to make any new rule about being a prohibited person, what they did was make a change to govt. policies, to ensure, and improve the transfer and sharing of information between the various govt. agencies.

I doubt anyone in Obama's administration shed any tears or lost sleep over the situation that "improved efficient" resulted in, since no one did anything to fix it, until Trump was elected, but there is ZERO evidence that it was done with evil intent or malice aforethought.

What happened resulted from the fact that different govt agencies have different standards for what is "mentally ill" enough to meet their requirements for compensation/benefits. AND these standards are different from the process in law for determining if a person is not mentally competent to possess firearms and becomes a prohibited person.

Of course, the press mentioned about none of this...

Literally, the system denied those people due process, because of the limitations of the systems used.

The Obama administration said "all you guys must do a better job talking to each other and sharing information" The various agencies then did that, or tried. But what happened was that DOJ (NICS system) got told "JSMITH xxx-xx-xxxx address has been ruled mentally unfit and is receiving benefits from SSI (or the VA).." NICS now has information JSMITH is mentally unfit, and has only one box for "mentally unfit" and that was PROHIBITED PERSON

NCIS does NOT know (or care) that SSI's or the VA's classification of mentally impaired does NOT meet the legal standard specified in law. ON THEIR OWN, they have only one place to put someone who is mentally impaired, so they put them there, making them prohibited persons in their system.

The law is very clear, and has been the law since 1968. You must be adjudicated mentally unfit before you are classed as a prohibited person for mental reasons. That means a JUDGE has to rule it, after a court hearing, where both sides make arguments and present evidence. And, it applies to each individual case. The ruling is for each individual person, and is not a blanket thing.

NO Doctor's opinion, or some clerk checking a box on a form makes you a legally prohibited person (though they can be presented as evidence), only a Judge's ruling does so. Win or lose, the law gives you your "day in court" on the matter.

This did not happen to those Vets and SSI applicants, their legal rights were not so much denied as not recognized as existing by the various agency systems, and that resulted in their becoming prohibited persons.

This was one of the first things the Trump administration changed after taking office. Of course, all the press saw was "Trump repeals law preventing mentally ill from having guns!!!"

What Trump did was to stop agency A from classing someone as prohibited solely on the information provided from agency B or C, and to comply with the law as it has existed since 1968.

The Obama administration could have done that, as the screwup they created was recognized during their administration, but they chose not to.

Perhaps it was just another one of those things that, as VP Biden said, "we don't have time for that.."

Seems Trump did have time for that...

Neither party is our friend or advocate for 2nd A rights. Some individuals are, but the parties aren't. Republicans seem to pay a bit more attention to the rule of law than Dems do on this matter, but that may be an illusion, or just a level of realpolitik the Dems don't bother with.

One candidate says "Hell yes we're going to take your AR15!!" and none of the others even seriously OBJECT. Only ONE says something like "I'm not sure that's Constitutional..".
The rest just kind of nod and go on...

and this is where we are at, today...
Click to expand...
You are right.

I remember outrage about the veteran's being targets of this so I pulled up this.

From Chuck Grassley, "Roughly 99 percent of all names submitted to the list’s “mental defective” category were reported by the VA even though every federal agency is required to report."
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-stands-veterans’-second-amendment-rights

The rest seems to discuss a lot of what you wrote. But I don't think these unintended consequences were indeed unintended. I saw afterwards they started providing an appeals process and I think they did that reluctantly... probably cause of that pesky U.S. Constitution.

I remember many vets started to get worried. I know 60 plus vets with PTSD and TBIs and none were on this list that was entered into the NCIS, but thought that they would soon be on some list.

The democrats in the past, and i guess now it is worse, had this idea of getting anything passed... no matter how little. The day after Sandy Hook, Nadler got behind a microphone at a press conference and went through this list of laws "we can pass right now that would make this country safer from attacks like these". And one of them was to repeal the concealed carry in National Parks and Forests and BLM Lands that G.W. Bush signed into law in 2005. And a few others that were just as unrelated to what Adam Lanza did in that classroom. So some mentally ill kid murders a bunch of little kids in a classroom and Nadler is out there blathering about stopping people from carrying in the National Parks, etc... that is a kind of mental illness all to itself if you ask me... not name calling, I just think there has to be some screws loose to think that way.

Anyway, I'm having a hard time looking at what republicans do and what democrats do and seeing any similarities.... despite what some others on this forum who seem to be trying very hard to make them look like they are the same.

Also, your post helped clear up a lot of things for me. Thanks.
 
In a free country such as ours, it is my opinion that the federal government should be the protector and guardian of our civil rights. The government of the people should protect the rights of the people from other entities. Any laws and regulations that restrict those rights are attempts by the authorities to protect us from our own rights.
The rights aren’t granted to us by the government, we were born with them. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give us anything, it’s a list of things the government can’t touch without due process. I often wonder how it would go if some bureaucrats changed the definition of a word now all of the sudden property owners are forced to house and feed troops unwillingly; I don’t think that would go over to well.
This candidate and that candidate make outlandish statements about violating our rights. Some citizens become alarmed but then told by other gun owners, “don’t worry, the 2nd amendment will protect us” or that there’s nothing to worry about because a republican is in the White House. But we should worry, more and more extremist legislators are in office, there’s extremist judges and extremists candidates are inching closer and closer to occupying the White House. President Obama is a right leaning moderate by today’s standards (my opinion).

Of topic question: did anyone else here notice Speaker Pelosi’s bullet bracelet?
 
NJgunowner said:
This is why I hate political debates, and make no mistake that's what this whole thread is.
Click to expand...

For someone who hates political debates, you sure seem to be trying to take this one off Second Amendment topics and get the thread locked.

My grandfather was very pro-gun, but very anti GOP until he passed away for these very reasons.
Click to expand...

And how are gun rights in NJ these days?
 
Cries of “Obama’s going to take your guns!” were so loud in conservative circles dating back a decade that very few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. By Executive Order, Obama banned the importation of all firearms manufactured by the Russian company Kalashnikov Concern and it's Sister companies. This includes Kalashnikov, Izhmash, Saiga, and others. At the time, I owned two .22LR target pistols made by Izhmash. Both needed a "tune up" new springs etc. I dropped the ball and didn't buy the parts, and got stuck with two paper weights. I sold both pistols, valued at ~$1500.00 (if repair parts were available) for $800 and felt damn lucky to get that. So it's not true that Obama was neutral on gun control. Not true at all.
 
44 AMP said:
Much as I detest having to defend Obama's actions, this statement leaves out vitally important information and creates an impression of deliberate malice that reality (using all the relevant facts) does not support......
Click to expand...

Excellent summary! Thanks!
 
Someone noticed what wasn't said during the debate about guns

According to this article,

http://thegunfeed.com/democratic-debate-key-takeaways-on-guns-no-one-noticed/

Many questions and answers swirled around who, how, what and when they would confiscate ARs and AKs.

But not one question was asked nor did no candidate give one suggestion as to how they would get guns out of the criminals hands.

Disheartening to see that the hottest topics are the least important.
 
L2R said:
According to this article,

http://thegunfeed.com/democratic-debate-key-takeaways-on-guns-no-one-noticed/

Many questions and answers swirled around who, how, what and when they would confiscate ARs and AKs.

But not one question was asked nor did no candidate give one suggestion as to how they would get guns out of the criminals hands.

Disheartening to see that the hottest topics are the least important.
Click to expand...
They never have anything to say about the criminals. All they do is blame the southern states and other midwestern states for all of the woes in their inner city cesspools. Like banning guns will somehow uncorrupt the lowlife minds of the criminal element. All of a sudden if guns were inaccessible, they will sign up for night classes and get that degree they always wanted.

What is worse, is that the democrats make excuses for the criminals.
 
Neither party are our friends when it comes to the RKBA. The current Democratic platform is openly hostile to it, as we've all seen. The Republican party isn't agressively anti-gun, but they're not going out of their way to help us either.

The difference is, we can still exert some political pressure on the latter, and they'll feel at least some obligation to play ball when the voters are watching.

If you think anybody in Washington gives a rat's patootey about civil rights (beyond statements that make for good soundbites), let me disabuse you of that notion. It's all about money, influence, and tenure.
 
1)Which [democrat] debate participant will protect my right to buy an AR pattern rifle in the future?

2)Do you think any of them would veto a UBC bill?
Click to expand...

Don't know number 1. I do see and hear the rhetoric but also understand that most who end up in the big chair THEN recognize the complexity of getting anything done. A new AWB is a messy sausage to build. Really depends on congress, it's makeup. I 'suspect' the senate will stay n GOP hands after 2020.

2)nope and maybe not DJT either.
I think he has no conviction on the topic, and that what he would sign would depend on the prevailing winds.
Click to expand...

Agree
 
Which debate participant will protect my right to buy an AR pattern rifle in the future?
Click to expand...

Since they are all in favor of an AWB the clear and concise answer is: none of them.

Unless they are lying.
 
MTT TL said:
Since they are all in favor of an AWB the clear and concise answer is: none of them.

Unless they are lying.
Click to expand...
indeed
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump joined with the Democrats and Sen. Dianne Feinstein in a meeting on gun control as he appeared to signal support for an assault weapons ban in what many see as a betrayal of his base of supporters.
Click to expand...
During a live broadcast in the White House Cabinet Room, Trump appeared to signal support for Feinstein’s radical gun control measures which include banning assault-style weapons.
Click to expand...
“Dianne, if you could add what you have also — and I think you can — into the bill,” Trump said.

“Joe, can you do that?” Trump asked. “Can you add some of the things. I’ll help. Can you add what Amy and what Dianne have?”
Click to expand...
“I’m going to say this,” Trump continued. “We’re going to get it passed.”
Click to expand...
 
Hal said:
Just an FYI & head's up Fox is now under the Disney umbrella. Chances are, the days of non-biased information is gone - providing it was there to begin with.

I still recall wondering why Fox News could call the 2008 election for Obama - a couple hours before the polls closed. If I'm not mistaken, that's illegal - but - I sat in astonishment over that going down.
Click to expand...
My favorite Fox News Contributor is Cathy Areu. lol Since Trump was elected I could only watch certain shows on Fox News... and I was glad to see Shepard Smith left... I'm sure he will be enshrined in the Mainstream Media Hall of Fame. I think Fox News thought fair and balanced meant they should have equal number of the left wackos to counter anything that was actually fair and balanced. Now I'm down to the first 20 minutes of Your World, Tucker and Hannity... without the DVR I would get no news. lol

And I wish they would be more clear on what they consider so called Mental Health in their polls. Is it mentally ill, who are usually victimized. Or is it the evil wastes of life that plan rehearse and execute their successful attacks because they are pissed off about something. Mental illness is a cop out category. Evil is what these people are... but politicians use other labels that they use in their sound bytes for better effect... with the only goal of pitting American against American and not solving anything.
 
This is why gun owners should not be blindly supportive of any one political party. Don't let anyone else own your vote. In Washington they are serving ice cream. You can have Chocolate or Vanilla. You can ask for Cherry Pie, but they are only serving up ice cream.
 
This is why gun owners should not be blindly supportive of any one political party. Don't let anyone else own your vote. In Washington they are serving ice cream. You can have Chocolate or Vanilla. You can ask for Cherry Pie, but they are only serving up ice cream.
Click to expand...

It shows the importance of primaries. I don’t place a lot of trust in Trump on the 2A; but come 2020, it’s either him or one of these primary candidates. The great thing about being the incumbent is the ability to sit behind the scenes and pick the opposing candidate you want to run against.

And Bloomberg is certainly making sure that nobody who aspires to leadership in the Dem party is going to be anything but anti-2A.
 
Now I'm down to the first 20 minutes of Your World, Tucker and Hannity... without the DVR I would get no news. lol
Click to expand...

Just like every other MSM platform, you aren't getting 'news', but Opinions...

As for quotes above, I DID watch the video and it just shows how TV moments frame 'policy', and how that 'policy' disappears once the cameras are off.

BUT, once again..'some' are all twisted about some minor candidate's statements on a DEM 'debate' stage, with the election 13 months away while other 'candidate's' make similar statements, who happen to be on the other side of the isle and it's 'so what, he doesn't mean it'...
 
Last edited:
while other 'candidate's' make similar statements, who happen to be on the other side of the isle and it's 'so what, he doesn't mean it'...
Click to expand...

It wasn't that he didn't mean it, he never said it. It was completely fake news made up by liberal bloggers and you fell for it like a sack of potatoes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top