Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun bill supported by Va. Tech families hits snag in Senate
wdbj7.com ^ | October 16, 2007 | NA

Posted on 10/17/2007 3:51:48 PM PDT by neverdem

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - A gun-control bill that advocates say could have prevented the April killings of 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus has hit a roadblock in the Senate.

The measure would provide money to states to ensure that they properly update the national database of those prohibited to purchase weapons. It has support from both handgun control groups and the National Rifle Association but Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says his colleague Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, has derailed any hopes of quick passage.

Under federal law, people with criminal records and those who have been judged mentally defective are generally barred from purchasing weapons, and their names are placed in a database.

Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before committing suicide, had been deemed mentally defective and should have been in the database. But Virginia authorities never added Cho's name. He bought two guns in the weeks before the killings.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 110th; 2ndamendment; backgroundcheck; banglist; mentalillness; rkba; secondamendment; vatech; virginiatech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
You know Schumer wants this so bad he can almost taste it.
1 posted on 10/17/2007 3:51:56 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“You know Schumer wants this so bad”

NRA, too. I have received many pieces of mail “explaining” the bill. The NRA website has lots of explanations why they’re on board with Schumer.

2 posted on 10/17/2007 3:59:37 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Odd that the article does not say what the holdup is, or what the objections are.


3 posted on 10/17/2007 4:00:46 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
The objection is that the bill SUCKS!!! it is a gun rights grab pure and simple.
4 posted on 10/17/2007 4:02:53 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Do you want to be right or successful!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Feel sorry for the families, but they (and, unfortunately, my NRA) are DEAD WRONG in pushing ANYTHING little chuckie schumer is for.

Like 9/11, the ONE thing that would likely have prevented the tragedy, is law-abiding citizens (and/or pilots in the case of 9/11) on the scene with concealed carry.

5 posted on 10/17/2007 4:06:01 PM PDT by DocH (RINO-rudy for BRONX Dog Catcher 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The NRA helped author the GCA 1968. They’re always there to ‘compromise’. Sort of like a true RINO.


6 posted on 10/17/2007 4:10:51 PM PDT by Old 300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Odd that the article does not say what the holdup is, or what the objections are.

IIRC, the rules of the Senate allow individual Senators to place "holds" on any bill. Maybe it's just a failure to get unamimous consent?

7 posted on 10/17/2007 4:12:26 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Yes, having Chuckie in favor of something makes it immediately suspect in my mind, but on the other hand, what would have been wrong with having the VT gunman's mental records in the system? Yes, he probably would have found a way to get a weapon anyway, but I was under the impression that most of my Second Amendment friends don't have a problem keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the insane.

If there's a flaw in this bill, perhaps someone will point it out, but on the surface of what I've read, I don't have a problem with it at this point...

8 posted on 10/17/2007 4:25:38 PM PDT by hunter112 (Change will happen when very good men are forced to do very bad things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
could have prevented the April killings of 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus

Quick. Close the barn door. The horse got away.

9 posted on 10/17/2007 4:30:56 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Take the wheel, Fred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old 300

***The NRA helped author the GCA 1968. They’re always there to ‘compromise’. Sort of like a true RINO.***

Actually the 1968 GCA was Thomas Dodd’s baby, based on the 1938 Nazi weapons act.

The NRA prevented a registration/confiscation bill by modifying the 1968 GCA to it’s less dangerous form of total registration of all guns. There were less than one million people in the organization then and they did NOT have a lobbying wing.

What we got, the 1968 GCA was much less severe than what Kennedy and Dodd wanted and the ONLY reason it passed is that Congress voted to give money to each police department for “crime control”. Sort of like when Clinton got the assault weapons ban by bribing the congressmen with pork for 100,000 police on the streets. $$$$Money talks$$$$

Without the NRA we would not have any firearms at all except single shots and they would have to be kept at a police station.

If you were alive at that time you would know just how the news media managed to create a wave of hysteria after the shooting of Bobby Kenney. It was an avalanche even the NRA could not stop, they did manage to divert it into a less offensive, but still onerous, bill.


10 posted on 10/17/2007 4:31:14 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Was Thomas Dodd the father of Christopher Dodd?
11 posted on 10/17/2007 4:36:11 PM PDT by samm1148 (Pennsylvania-They haven't taxed air--yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: samm1148

It’s daddy.


12 posted on 10/17/2007 4:41:24 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: samm1148
Yes. Interesting article in the Waterbury, CT newspaper about him.
13 posted on 10/17/2007 4:45:22 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
These guys should be equally concerned about colleges, universities, factories and office buildings being brought into line with modern building standards that require main entry doors to be of a design that cannot be disabled with a mere chain.

Because the first responders were delayed 9 minutes when they attempted to enter Norris Hall, the killer had ample opportunity to kill or wound dozens of people.

14 posted on 10/17/2007 4:50:52 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The only problem is that pretty much any medical doctor or counselor could declare pretty much anyone to be a “mental defective” and there is no real legal recourse.


15 posted on 10/17/2007 4:57:03 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

See my reply above.


16 posted on 10/17/2007 4:58:27 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: samm1148

***Was Thomas Dodd the father of Christopher Dodd?***

Yes he was. It was Thomas J. Dodd and Emanual Cellar who claimed in 1962 that “We don’t want to take your guns away. We only want to register handguns. Long guns will not be included.”

Quite a difference from today isn’t it.


17 posted on 10/17/2007 5:06:54 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yep. The only gun law that would have prevented the VA tech massacre is a concealed carry for qualified students and faculty. Mental health evaluations give the left a perfect tool to use on law-abiding gun-owners.


18 posted on 10/17/2007 5:14:35 PM PDT by Mogollon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
I think we knew it was coming: The whole idea of gun control is as absurd as man made global warming. Only a crazy person can be influenced by inanimate objects.

But it makes for a nice dodge when a particular political party is advocating for the criminal class. Look over here at this fantasy problem while we do nothing about criminal behavior.

19 posted on 10/17/2007 5:24:46 PM PDT by samm1148 (Pennsylvania-They haven't taxed air--yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Without the NRA we would not have any firearms at all except single shots and they would have to be kept at a police station.

That might be, unless you think that the second amendment defends all others, including itself.

Actually the 1968 GCA was Thomas Dodd’s baby, based on the 1938 Nazi weapons act.

From keepandbeararms.com:


NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."

by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com

March 29, 2002

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22


20 posted on 10/17/2007 5:25:22 PM PDT by Old 300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“A gun-control bill that advocates say could have prevented the April killings of 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus has hit a roadblock in the Senate.”

The ONLY thing that would have prevented that mass killing?

Another gun.


21 posted on 10/17/2007 5:26:10 PM PDT by Grunthor (http://franz.org/quiz.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I doubt that Coburn is blocking this. Last I heard the bill was caught in a turf battle between Leahy and Kennedy. Schumer is probably trying to blame his failure to push it thru on Coburn because he doesn’t want to admit its the Dems fault. it makes no sense that one minority Senator could block this from coming to the floor.


22 posted on 10/17/2007 5:56:43 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old 300

***NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934***

Lets remember that the in origional wording 1934 law would have also banned handguns . The NRA managed to get that removed.


23 posted on 10/17/2007 5:58:11 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

nonsense. no one wants mentally disturbed people to have access to guns. most of us would like for them to be in lockup, in fact, without guns.


24 posted on 10/17/2007 5:59:58 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

A few more compromises like the 1934 issue on handguns, and there won’t be a Republic.


25 posted on 10/17/2007 6:07:33 PM PDT by Old 300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
This has been chewed on FR already but the bill is flawed. ALL veterans who have committed themselves for any reason AND not been adjuscated as "cured" (even though they have been released)could have their rights taken away. In many states your family can have you put away and your rights could be removed. YOU would have to go to court to get your rights back. That is exactly the wrong approach. There is no funding attached.

Posted by mad_as_he$$ to Shooter 2.5 On News/Activism 10/07/2007 11:50:22 AM PDT · 37 of 78 Again I beg to differ the bill ONLY says "committed to a mental institution" how you got there is open and not consistent state to state. Getting off the list and getting your record cleared requires a court date - good luck. Also this little tidbit: "discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring" This implies that you do not have to be committed only under supervision, treatment, monitoring - does that include court ordered detox under the care of a doctor? A good family friend was "committed" two years ago by her husband who decided he didn"t want to be married to her anymore and was not going to pay her any alimony. He managed to have her committed for 72 hours based upon a trumped up domestic violence charge. She was angry and the shrink went to court and had her committed for three months - simply because she was angry that her ex had taken away all of her means for support for herself and her child. The divorce is final and she is now waiting for the judge to remove the "commitment" from her record based upon the opinions of two other shrinks. The court date is one year out. Oh and one other dirty secret, if you have insurance coverage you are WAAAYYY more likely to be committed than if you don't. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies

Posted by mad_as_he$$ to SJackson On News/Activism 10/07/2007 9:50:02 AM PDT · 19 of 78 Actually my point was that the system failed. Every day we see posts of stories here where the Government failed in some manner in what would appear to be a simple thing. We here grouse all day about how the Government does it's job and then we are willing to turn over gun rights just because the NRA says it is OK? Not this cowboy. As a side note in many states you can be committed by relatives on very little evidence. In many it only takes a cop and a judge to send you in for "psych hold". The system is completely broken. I have a very good employee who served in the Army for 15 years. A family member was killed in the first Gulf War, on the way to the funeral his wife, son and both his parents were killed in an accident - more than any human should have to take. He checked himself into the psych ward at the VA and stayed for two weeks to get his head on straight. He now has a psych record. One of the most level headed guys I have ever known and I trust him with fortune and my life. He could have his gun rights denied and then have to go to court to fix it - how is that fair? I have told my Congress critter and my "good" Senator that this is unacceptable on numerous occasions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies

26 posted on 10/17/2007 6:56:17 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Do you want to be right or successful!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Old 300

The NRA wasn’t even a lobbying group in 1968 so your information is wrong.

Blaming the NRA for not being a lobbying group back then is the same as someone blaming the GOA for not existing during that period.


27 posted on 10/17/2007 6:56:44 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Old 300

Angel Shamaya is no longer associated with that website.

Isn’t he still in jail for weapons violations?


28 posted on 10/17/2007 6:59:27 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
nonsense. no one wants mentally disturbed people to have access to guns. most of us would like for them to be in lockup, in fact, without guns.

Indeed. On the other hand, it would be much easier under this legislation to permanently disarm people without good cause than to lock them up without cause.

29 posted on 10/17/2007 7:11:13 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Do you LIKE the unConstitutional Illinois law a vindictive ex- railroaded Angel with?

WTF... did you start writing for GunGuys.com or something?

30 posted on 10/17/2007 7:14:01 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Anyone with their head wired right should be able to see that allowing gun hating legislators and the BATFE to redefining the standard is a VERY bad idea.


31 posted on 10/17/2007 7:15:17 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
The NRA was established after the Civil War, and has had considerable influence on politics well before 1968. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247 makes the argument that the NRA both did not fight the GCA itself, and advocated language in other bills which were reassembled into it:
KeepAndBearArms.com — The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.

As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.

To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" — elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.

Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman — NRA's premier magazine, then and now — and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.

First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts."  —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later — decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.

The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)

The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch — a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.

"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)

That's one form of registration.

"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns."  (P. 22)

That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.


32 posted on 10/17/2007 7:19:31 PM PDT by Old 300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
those who have been judged mentally defective are generally barred from purchasing weapons, and their names are placed in a database.

Owning over zero guns under a Clinton administration could put you on this database. So could not keeping your gun locked up at the range which is the only place that you can legally handle it could too.

Wanting to carry concealed could get you put away for life.

33 posted on 10/17/2007 7:24:45 PM PDT by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

If I am not mistaken a mental condition includes the Vets that come home with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome?


34 posted on 10/17/2007 7:25:09 PM PDT by Snoopers-868th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
“pretty much any medical doctor or counselor”

The key word is “adjuciated” according to NRA. It must be a court order or court action that makes the determination. A doctor, clinic, policeman, or your lieutenant cannot adjuciate mental incompetency.

But if Schumer wants it I am still highly suspicious.

35 posted on 10/17/2007 7:26:53 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Or as Bob Hope has been quoted, “Oh, you mean Democrats.”


36 posted on 10/17/2007 7:28:09 PM PDT by Steamburg (Your wallet speaks the only language most politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

A very interesting point!

Of course, it does not advance civil disarmament.


37 posted on 10/17/2007 7:30:18 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

It’s the BATFE that does the enforcement though. Bet on them abusing this and you will never lose a dime.


38 posted on 10/17/2007 7:30:26 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Old 300

A cut and pasted article by a NRA basher.

Is Angel still locked up?


39 posted on 10/17/2007 7:34:52 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

“Bet on them abusing this and you will never lose a dime.”

You’ll spend $10,000 proving that not fitting “Redondo Beach” on a line .4 inches long is not a felony.

Yah, I hear you.


40 posted on 10/17/2007 7:37:58 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/03/breaking-news-angel-out.html
- That’s all I know. I didn’t realize who he was, thanks. If you like the status quo, and if you think the NRA is doing well, then I agree it’s better than nothing. But I’d prefer to support JPFO or GOA.


41 posted on 10/17/2007 7:42:32 PM PDT by Old 300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Or worse...

http://www.redpills.org/?p=418

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/10/exaggerations-from-atf-seattle-field.html

Not the folks I want "interpreting" how to enforce this "law"...

42 posted on 10/17/2007 7:43:11 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Nope. Just don’t like stupidity like the behavior Angel brought down on himself. Had a brother in law with the same problem.
Cop: Does your husband own a gun?
Wife: Sure he does. I’ll go get it for you.
Both wife and husband living in the same house in nasty gun banned Oak Park Illinois. He should have told the cops it was her’s. LOL. By the way, this is after he refused to help overturn the ban and ignored my pleas for assistance.

I have to admit I smiled over the irony. It’s not like Angel could call the legal aid department of the NRA and get some help.


43 posted on 10/17/2007 7:43:22 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I doubt that Coburn is blocking this. Last I heard the bill was caught in a turf battle between Leahy and Kennedy. Schumer is probably trying to blame his failure to push it thru on Coburn because he doesn’t want to admit its the Dems fault. it makes no sense that one minority Senator could block this from coming to the floor.

They do it with judicial nominees, IIRC. The Senate has a bunch of weird rules.

New U.S. Senator opposing H.R. 2640, and a detailed rebuttal of the NRA's defense of gun control

P.S. Thanks for helping me find this. I searched coburn hr2640 hold and found that.

44 posted on 10/17/2007 7:44:17 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

I have a friend who has been very prominent in the NRA. I asked my friend why the NRA was supporting this bill, and could only get a “beats the $h!t out of me” response. My friend is totally flabbergasted by the NRA’s stance on this issue, and DOES NOT support it.
Neither do I. I will not be renewing my membership.


45 posted on 10/17/2007 7:50:12 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old 300

JPFO isn’t a lobbying group and they are even failing to turn the tide in the Jewish Community. I used to like them but they should change their tax status and join the fray.

The GOA has a dismal record. They haven’t accomplished anything that I know of and I’ve been asking on this board for years since I’ve been here. This piece of legislation may be their first. I’ll congratulate them if they succeed.

so far it’s like this:
NRA-Castle Doctrine. GOA-0
NRA-End of the Assault Weapons Ban. GOA-0
NRA-CCW laws. GOA-0
So on and so forth.


46 posted on 10/17/2007 7:50:52 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

You sound happy about it. Feel the same way about Red’s getting railroaded as well? After all, most of the registration standards they are accused of violating the NRA approves of...


47 posted on 10/17/2007 7:51:49 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

The “problem” is that currently, you have to be adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective. You know, due process. As I understand it, this bill will allow a “board, commission, or pyschiatrist” to judge you as a mental defective, and then you are toast.


48 posted on 10/17/2007 7:52:36 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

It all depends on where you see the curve of history shaking out. After the betrayal America has seen in the amnesty battle, I don’t think we have much longer. At this point, I don’t write checks to those who compromise, and I don’t vote for people who ride fences. The NRA doesn’t get my membership.


49 posted on 10/17/2007 7:54:29 PM PDT by Old 300
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free
The “problem” is that currently, you have to be adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective. You know, due process. As I understand it, this bill will allow a “board, commission, or pyschiatrist” to judge you as a mental defective, and then you are toast.

See the link in comment# 44. Any two physicians has been ruled legal in NY by a federal judge, IIRC.

50 posted on 10/17/2007 8:04:29 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson