Posted on 12/21/2007 9:45:54 AM PST by Revtwo
I’m with you on this one. How can a person be a member of a ‘well regulated militia’ if they are all hopped-up on anti-depressants? This bill will give pause to the losers who think a diagnosis of PTSD is a free government welfare ticket. If you’re seeing a shrink.......you ain’t right in the head.
The debates are not part of the Constitution. The 9th is irrelevant. The Commerce Clause is as I said, general, with general applicability. In the absence of a specific complaint, you have no standing.
"Who gets to define who is "sane"?"
Docs with licenses issued per state legislative acts and judges, per state constitutions and legislative statutes and rules.
"Dems get in control and you could easily have VPC writing the statute."
Irrelevant. The imaginative possibilities presented in fiction do not apply to actual law. Actual law must be judged on it's merits.
"Just wanting to own a gun in the first place could be a "mental health disqualification"."
No. It's really that simple. Mental illness is defined by noting evidence of faulty reasoning abilities, and emotional instabilities. Logical reasoning, the logic and right of self defense, and the use of effective defensive tools is not, and can never be evidence of mental illness. Illogical reasoning, the denial of the right of self defense, and failure to defend oneself can be evidence of mental illness.
"Think it through instead of just sitting there spouting crap."
Yeah, try to do that and quit advocating that mental cases have access to the legitimate firearms market.
That's not true. When a rational person notes he has a problem, they go to the docs to get help. Fed law recognizes that, so they don't disqualify folks when they voluntarily seek help. Only the ones that are involuntarily committed by a court, after having demonstrated they are a danger to self, or others are.
"How can a person be a member of a ‘well regulated militia’ if they are all hopped-up on anti-depressants?"
Other than the above consideration, you're right. The mall/school shooters certainly would not have performed well in any militia and I doubt many militia members themselves would've been comfortable having them around with anything sharp.
So you are of the opinion that the Commerce Clause can mean anything they want it to mean? That's some pretty effed up thinking right there. And the Debates are relevant as they give us the Const Convention and 1St Congress' thoughts on what they meant.
Docs with licenses issued per state legislative acts and judges, per state constitutions and legislative statutes and rules.
Sounds like State powers, not Feds.
Irrelevant. The imaginative possibilities presented in fiction do not apply to actual law. Actual law must be judged on it's merits.
So you are ignorant of history as well. How nice...
Yeah, try to do that and quit advocating that mental cases have access to the legitimate firearms market.
Quit trying to give the FedGov power over what standard is used to disqualify people from exercizing a Right.
Militia service is not a pre-condition for having your Rights protected.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1430
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3295
I don't know where you got that, but it doesn't apply to this law HR2640, note that in what you did post, the remedy can be obtained through a fed court. Relief from the disability must come from state action here, because that's where the action originated. The appropriate section of the new law type HR2640 in search is:
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.
Gun Owners Get Stabbed In The Back
— Veterans Disarmament Act on its way to the President
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
“To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive” —
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), CBS News, December 20, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back
yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his
congressional opposition into agreeing on a so-called “compromise” on
HR 2640 — a bill which now goes to the President’s desk.
The bill — known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents —
is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady
Campaign.
The Brady Bunch crowed “Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady
Background Check System.” The NRA stated that last minute changes to
the McCarthy bill made a “good bill even better [and that] the end
product is a win for American gun owners.”
But Gun Owners of America has issued public statements decrying this
legislation.
The core of the bill’s problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes
you a “prohibited person” on the basis of a “medical finding of
disability,” so long as a veteran had an “opportunity” for some sort
of “hearing” before some “lawful authority” (other than a court).
Presumably, this “lawful authority” could even be the psychiatrist
himself.
Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn’t have
to occur. The “lawful authority” doesn’t have to be unbiased. The
veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney — much less an
attorney financed by the government.
So what do the proponents have to say about this?
ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for
prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.
ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in — statutorily — huge
numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied
the right to own a firearm.
And then it “graciously” allows these newly disarmed Americans to
spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain
the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.
More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the “right
hand” are taken away by the “left.” Section 105 provides a process
for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to
get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in
subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur
only if “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.” (Emphasis added.)
Um, doesn’t this language sound similar to those state codes (like
California’s) that have “may issue” concealed carry laws — where
citizens “technically” have the right to carry, but state law only
says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such
leeway, those sheriffs usually don’t grant the permits!
Prediction: liberal states — the same states that took these
people’s rights away — will treat almost every person who has been
illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting
relief would be “contrary to the public interest.”
Let’s make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton
Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans — promoted by the Brady
Anti-Gun Campaign — is illegal and morally reprehensible.
But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal
actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily
barred from possessing firearms.
True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their
rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn’t
have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of
inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend
thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the
wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.
Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a
veteran’s gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year.
Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.
The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House
yesterday — both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill
passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White
House.
Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar “compromise”
deal helped the original Brady Law get passed. In 1993, there were
only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a
Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady
bill to President Clinton — at a time when most legislators had
already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.
Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to
read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago.
With your help, Gun Owners of America has done a yeoman’s job of
fighting gun control over the years, considering the limited
resources that we have. Together, we were able to buck the Brady
Campaign/NRA coalition in 1999 (after the Columbine massacre) and
were able to defeat the gun control that was proposed in the wake of
that shooting.
Yesterday, we were not so lucky. But we are not going to go away.
GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding
Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the
books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the
House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control.
So our appeal to you is this — please help us to grow this coming
year. Please help us to get more members and activists. If you add
$10 to your membership renewal this year, we can reach new gun owners
in the mail and tell them about GOA.
Please urge your friends to join GOA... and, at the very least, make
sure they sign up for our free e-mail alerts so that we can mobilize
more gun owners than ever before!
No, logic applies.
"Quit trying to give the FedGov power over what standard is used to disqualify people from exercizing a Right."
You just said, "Sounds like State powers, not Feds", regarding the determination of mental illness. Which is what I said. So ponder your own words: "That's some pretty effed up thinking right there."
Re: The imaginative possibilities presented in fiction do not apply to actual law. Actual law must be judged on it's merits.
"So you are ignorant of history as well. How nice...
History is not a logical operation that applies figments of the imagination to any actual law.
That's correct. I was simply discussing the usefulness of a militia member that is a danger to himself, or others and how welcome he'd be among fellow militia members.
The GOA is “Trying” to get things done????
That’s a laugh. They are a t-shirt and novelties company. Nothing more.
Good intentions mean nothing. Tell you what. Put me on your company payroll and I’ll try to show up for work. No promises but I do expect a payroll check in my name every week out of your account. Deal?
Cho was adjudicated a danger to himself by a judge after the court ordered evaluation came back with the doc stating that was the case. That is sufficient for the fed disqualifier to kick in and that's good enough, because the focus and purpose of the fed law is to keep dangerous mental defectives from engaging in the legitimate firearms market. The Constitution doesn't have the authority to address your "shoulds". It does give Congress the authority to regulate the interstate firearms market.
"If judges are given the authority to disarm people without locking them up, you can bet that many of them will do so with even the tiniest sliver of vague justification."
No. From #42, "Mental illness is defined by noting evidence of faulty reasoning abilities, and emotional instabilities. Logical reasoning, the logic and right of self defense, and the use of effective defensive tools is not, and can never be evidence of mental illness. Illogical reasoning, the denial of the right of self defense, and failure to defend oneself can be evidence of mental illness." Only a licensed doc can provide evidence of mental illness for the purposes of this law, and the right of a judicial hearing and legal representation must be available for any legal finding to be made that alters the rights of any individual. That's per 14th Amendment's due process clause.
"If the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of all free persons, who does it really protect?"
All free persons whose rights have not been effected by due process, after having comitted a felony, or after having provided clear and convincing evidence to both docs and a court that they are a danger to themselves, or others.
"One may reasonably quibble about which people should be 'free' or 'not free', but one shouldn't lose sight of what disarmament means."
The idea that dangerous people shouldn't be allowed sharp objects is ancient. That idea never included the wisdom that they should be locked up, or killed as a general rule.
Notice that someone wrongly denied their RKBA, even through bureaucratic inaction, must wait a full year before they can take it to federal court. Better than the existing situation, where if the BATFE did not act on your application for having one's RKBA restored, rather than denying it, you could not go to court at all.
Well no, the amended law provides you can at least go to court after a *a full year* of inaction on your application. Not good, but better than the preexisting situation. Whatever happened to "Justice delayed is justice denied"?
It already has.
I corrected your post. I know you know better than to put that qualifier in there.
If someone isn't going to leave his house in pursuit of sharp objects, then keeping his home free of such things may provide reasonable and sufficient protection. I can't believe people would have ever imagined any way, other than confinement (or execution) to keep those who would seek out sharp objects from getting them.
Of course they supported the Firearms Owners Protection Act. Could they help it some shiite for brains Congressman added that provision, via a voice vote of "questionable propriety" at the last minute, nearly literally, on the House floor?
David Hardy wrote a good law journal article on the subject.
Except for that one provision, which is horrendous, the FOPA was a good law. It removed many of the more onerous provisions of the '68 Gun Control act, provided for protected transport of a firearm through anti gun jurisdictions, and once again allowed the interstate purchase of ammunition by non-dealers, among other things. Like this current bill, it provided for "relief from disability, but failed close the "budgetary loophole" that prevents BATFE from acting on those applications (not that they want too do so anyway).
If the SC finds that the Second Amendment *is* an individual right, which of course it is, then the machine ban, and perhaps the entire "tax a right" scheme of the National Firearm Act (also supported by the NRA as "compromise" after handguns were dropped from it's reach), may be ripe for adjudication as well.
Well, after waiting a full year anyway. While they didn't use the phrase "whenever they get around to it", allowing denial of a right without possibility of redress comes pretty close.
What if Congress should decided misdemeanants, speeders, folks who spit on the sidewalk and jaywalkers should also lose their rights? That be OK under your all encompassing commerce clause.
Hint. The Bill of Rights was added the Constitution to prevent "misconstruction or abuse" of the powers granted to the government. IOW, the second amendment overrides the commerce clause, as do all the other amendments when there is a conflict. No matter what the actual extent of the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce might otherwise be.
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.