[neverdem]

I read the summarries on this bill over at govtrack.us. I don’t get what is so bad about this bill. What am I missing?

The most important right, the right to self defense, IMHO, is open to folks with many agendas. Search hr2640 as a keyword. This bill sounds goods until you understand all of its implications. It has the potential to deny any combat veteran who talks to a shrink to someone who was prescribed an antidepressant to stop smoking the right to buy a firearm, courtesy of the computerized NICS and computerized script ordering. If two docs in NY say that you are a threat to yourself or others, regardless of whether they have an agenda, that's it. It's over. That is enough for adjudication.

You have to look at it from the gun grabber's mindset. In the discussions to allow concealed carry privileges, many thought a DUI was sufficient to deny the privilege, a privilege that others think is a right. If you have a kid who was diagnosed as having attention deficit disorder, ADD, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, they can't enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces until they have been off their meds for a year. I looked it up. I confirmed it on a Department of Defense website for the qualifications to enlist.

The left in this country, not unlike the old Soviet Union, will exploit psychiatry to the max.

[SUSSA]

You’re right. This bill MUST be stopped.

[Delacon]

I don’t know ND. I am as receptive as the next pro gun guy to accusations of encroachment by the federal government but your reply doesn’t do much to convince me that my view of the summaries are incorrect or lacking understanding. You use terms like “implications”, “has the potential” and “In the discussions” to assert that there is sufficient concern for gun rights advocates if this law is enacted. Still as far as I can see, this is a law to facilitate the exchange of information between the states and the federal government, mostly of those who have already been deemed not qualified to own guns by the states. It doesn’t expand or contract the rights of the citizens, as far as I can see. If your concerns are based on how the anti-gun crowd will interpret them, well thats why we have our lawyers and they have theirs and why we count on judges to come up with the right interpretations.