Posted on 12/21/2007 9:45:54 AM PST by Revtwo
"Nope, wrong again!" says Rafiki, the anthropomorphized monkey in The Lion King as he hits his wayward student on the head with his staff. Well, the so-called "no-compromise" NRA Bashers have again firmly sided with the extreme anti-gun movement in their opposition to the recently amended HR 2640, which now awaits the President's signature to become law. The NRA Bashers are wrong again and need a whack from Rafiki's staff. Here is the proof.
(Excerpt) Read more at pgnh.org ...
dude, I dont know why you believe that socialists will obey laws or play fair, but you are dead wrong.
Evidently you have some kind of stake in a disarmed population, more luck to ya pal, cause Im telling you that free men are growing tired of playing fair while knowing we're gonna get screwed. There is a point that its just another bs piece of paper to wipe my ass on , not a 'law'...
"Can you cite where this new law, or a combination of the old and new, actually says that?"
A determination that a person is a danger to self, or others due to mental defect is a medical opinion. All 50 states require the appropriate med license, with the corresponding appropriate creds. All 50 states and the 14th Amend also require due process of law for such an adjudication which would infringe on a person's rights to take place. Also, the 14th requires legal representation during the hearing required by the 14th and the state laws. The requirement for legal representation was per court cases in all states was per court cases the early '60s.
A doc must make the diagnosis and opinion based on the diagnosis, but only a court of law can alter the status of anyone's rights.
GOA has never once sent me an e-mail or flyer offering to sell me a T-shirt or novelty, and I’ve been sending them a nice annual check for the past 7-8 years. They do, however, frequently send me well-written informative newsletters focusing on serious legislative matters and cases of government trampling on citizens’ RKBA (newletters which I leave on trains after I’m done with them, so that the information can be spread further), and post cards to send to my congresspeople and senators re specific legislation. They also send me regular e-mails re urgent legislative matters, keeping me updated about amendments to bills, etc. The NRA, which I’ve never sent a penny to, keeps sending me full color glossy ads for women’s hunting events (with hefty participation fees), full of reminders about what a “fun sport” shooting is.
GOA is doing a very good job of informing and educating people about serious gun rights issues, and that certainly has an effect on legislation. Sure it would be great if they could do a lot more, but they’re doing very well with the resources they have, and I have no reason to think they wouldn’t do even more good with more resources. The NRA, on the other hand, will continue promoting compromise legislation and spreading the word that the most important reason for ordinary citizens to have guns is that shooting “sports” are so much FUN!
I don't.
"Evidently you have some kind of stake in a disarmed population,"
Only in disarming violent felons, psychotics, those dangerous to self, or others due to mental defect, enemies of the US, and the dishonorably discharged.
The requirement for legal representation in all states, was per court cases in the early '60s. Some states, such as FL had no requirement for legal representation in state trials, before the SCOTUS ruled the 14th required it.
Though some people over-complicate things, the simplest explanation for the "felon" exception is to read the Second Amendment as applying to all free persons. Clearly it was never intended to apply to slaves, and the Thirteenth Amendment would authorize states to enslave felons, thereby disarming them.
Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, common law recognized a number of other circumstances in which a person was "not free". Unemancipated minors, for example, are subject to the will of their parents; persons who have been declared incompetent are subject to the judgment of their guardians.
The problem is that the government doesn't want to admit the equivalence between freedom and armament. Declaring people un-free would be more likely to spur resistance than disarming them first.
When will the NRA endorse a candidate? In the General Election only?
1] I think that it is just so cute that you trust the promises of the likes of Schumer, Kennedy, and McCarthy. /sarc
2] I just can’t help but laugh at the irony of your tagline.
If I am reading your intent properly, you are ridiculing Rudy for his statement and for being a gun grabber, yet you seek to grant yet more authority to the government.
3] What you seem to be missing is that once granted any authority the feds have a long history of abusing that power.
4] I don’t believe that anyone here is arguing that insane people should be able to purchase firearms (although this bill is still an infringement no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise) it isn’t the proper application of the law that bothers us. It is that we know that the law will be abused and misapplied and people who are not a threat to anyone will lose their rights and possibly their lives if they are unable to defend themselves.
5] Since when did any law stop a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm when they want to create havoc or commit murder? In the real world, ‘sane actors’ (as you like to call them) we realize that any attempt to disarm the bad guys and the insane will only result in harming the law abiding citizen.
You're right about the tagline, but not the rest. The feds had the authority from the beginning, but I already covered that.
"the feds have a long history of abusing that power."
Explain how keeping firearms out of the hands of violent felons, psychotics, those judged a danger to self, or others, enemies of the US, the dishonorably discharged, known illegal aliens is an abuse of the power granted the feds in the Constitution. The NRA doesn't believe it is, and neither do I. I'm certain the majority of Americans that take part in the political process agree with us.
"I don’t believe that anyone here is arguing that insane people should be able to purchase firearms "
You must have missed the post that indicated that wasn't a problem, because they could just be shot later.
"this bill is still an infringement no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise"
It is in no way an infringement, because only the names of the disqualified appear on the list and the requirement to check with the holder of the list before dealings falls on the licensed FFL, whose license is issued under the authority of the Commerce Clause. All the law may do is result in minor inconvenience. Those unreasonable folks that see no reason why they should be inconvenienced are simply demonstrating that they could care less if those on the disabled list are able to possess and obtain firearms as they see fit to.
"people who are not a threat to anyone will lose their rights"
No new disqualifications were created by this law. The disqualifications already existed. Psychotics and those adjudicated to be a danger to self, or others have proven themselves untrustworthy and some states lax in forwarding info they had in hand to the NICS. This law simply remedies that problem.
"Since when did any law stop a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm when they want to create havoc or commit murder? "
Checking the list works fine to keep disqualified persons from engaging in the legit market. If one wishes to become a felon, in order to aid and abet criminals to obtain firearms, they can do so.
"In the real world, ‘sane actors’ (as you like to call them) we realize that any attempt to disarm the bad guys and the insane will only result in harming the law abiding citizen."
Rational actors. The law refers to them as the reasonable person. A rational person exercising sound logic would find your statement is a false and illogical claim.
Funny thing, the pharmacy at Tinker AFB stocks and dispenses antidepressants to active-duty people who need them. I’ve worked with quite a number of people, over the years, who take them. Only people who ever really scared me were NOT taking antidepressants, and thought anyone who did was out of control...
I guess my copy of the constitution has stuff in it that yours doesn't. Mine has Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." I guess that the "living document" concept that you appear to support allows for such - along with McCain - Feingold violating the 1st amend. CHeer up even the supremes agree with you and disagree with me on this one. I appear to be in the minority opposed to those "law and order" types on this forum who think that the government can amend to constituion by passing unconstitutional laws. I believe that it means what it says.
The disqualifiers that elaborate on those not included in the 2nd Amend, also include, enemies of the US and those that obtained dishonorable discharges from the Armed Forces of the US.
In spite of your additional list of people who have no 2nd amendment rights, I still don't see them in my copy of the document. Funny, but I suspect that the framers of those documents didn't have a bunch of exceptions in mind when they wrote it. I guess they had the antequated notion that people who were out and about were entitled to the protections the same as the rest of us. GUess I'm just old fashioned
I just don't agree. The framers had slaves and felons (not so many of the latter - they executed many criminals who today would be turned lose with a slap on the wrist), but they said nothing about except felons and slaves.
Why send money to a group that has never accomplished a single solitary thing? If you don’t like the NRA, then send your money to the Second Amemdnment Foundation. They have a good track record for working alone and with the NRA.
I’ll tell you what. I’m assuming you are a member in good standing with this useless organization. Ask them to buy or rent a billboard somewhere in Washington D.C. that is in support of the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court rules this spring. I’ll bet you they don’t even do that.
Do you think anyone in 1791 would have entertained the notion that slaves had the right to keep and bear arms? The exception is not stated, because the notion of arming slaves would have been considered absolutely preposterous.
What problem is there with reading the Second Amendment as applying to any and all free persons? I like that reading not only because I think it's accurate, but because it also highlights what gun-grabbers are really after.
A Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature that effects, or more persons in particular by name. An ex post facto law is a criminal law that has effect prior to the date of enactmentand publishing.
Under treatment means nothing. A doc has to make a diagnosis that one is a danger to self, or others and a court action has to back that up. The court must force the action, which means the action is involuntary. The equivalent in the military would get one a dishonorable discharge, or med/psych discharge with the appropriate note of danger to self, or others. The disqualifiers are contained in 18USC922 and elaborated on in 27CFR478.11. This new law contains nothing new with regard to any disqualifier. It simply says the states must learn what the fed disqualifiers are and report the names of those known to be disqualified.
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include-- (1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
Way too open of definition (emphasis added) of who can take rights away. By definition ALL uS Military are a "danger to others". So if say New York State sets up a "Commission" to determine who is a "danger" do you think most FReepers would be exempt from that definition?
We live in a world where 10 years old girls are charged with felonies for having a steak knife. I can tell you that when I came bask from VN if you crossed me in any way you were in immediate danger of having you life terminate with prejudice. I was not going to take any crap from anybody. Did I act on that no- at least I am not admitting it - but a shrink would of had me committed.
A very good friend of mine and an employee was in Walter Reed with PST from the Chosun Reservoir experience. He is the most normal guy I know. He just needed some time to get his head straight. Under this bill he would of had to petition a court to get his rights back.
This bill can be knocked down under states rights issues and I hope it is. The Feds have no business in mental health.
"shall not be infringed".
Only the problem that it isn't what it says and you're into the realm of interpreting what the writers meant. To many nuances and umbras etc. already for my preference. I'd rather take my chances with a few armed felons (they're armed anyway), then a government able to disarm us for some arbitrary restriction
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.