Posted on 12/21/2007 9:45:54 AM PST by Revtwo
Keep in mind that it requires a doc and a court to make the determination in the first place. That’s after the person seeking a remedy provided all of the original evidence that they were dangerous in the first place.
LOL! Depends on what the bad spell was.
Doctors aren't judges, and can't, by the normal definition of the term, adjudicate anything. Of course they can advise judges, or juries.
The Supreme Court, IIRC, has already ruled that failure to act on such an application is not a denial.
BTW, the information is in the original article by "Pro Gun New Hampshire", which was defending HR 2640 and the NRA.
"What if Congress should decided misdemeanants, speeders, folks who spit on the sidewalk and jaywalkers should also lose their rights?"
Irrelevant, until such time the concept is on the table.
"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 one's rights are being violated by Congress. A felon abrogated their own rights when they committed the crime. The 2nd Amend doesn't protect felons, or the dangerous due to mental defect. The list is composed of felons and those dangerous due to mental defect. There's also the misdemeanor domestic violence crap, but that's separate matter.
Docs evaluate and judge according to the evidence presented by the patient. The doc's evaluation and judgment then becomes evidence at trial. The full cut was...
"Docs with licenses issued per state legislative acts and judges, per state constitutions and legislative statutes and rules."
The matter before the court was whether, or not Congress had effectively denied the provision for remedy, which the Republican Congress blessed. The Court simply said that Congress's failure to fund the remedy effectively scratched out that section of law providing for it. In this case, HR2640, remedy is provided through state court action if the state fails to act and the state court can't deny the remedy, w/o losing fed funds. That's weak, but the person seeking remedy is doing so, because they screwed up in the first place, or went dagerous due to mental defect.
Nope.
I’ll clarify that. In no state can anyone be committed w/o legal counsel and a trial.
Observation is not equivalent to commitment. It is simply observation, which is not a fed disqualifier.
"Under this law there is a real threat that will be used to deprive many of their rights"
No.
Gee, I got an email from the Brady Bunch today and they think THEY won with the bill. Silly rabbits.
Funny , but I missed seeing the exceptions in the original. Maybe I have a bad copy I guess my copy missed out on the part right after the word people that says "except felons and those dangerous due to mental defect" I need to get a newer copy.
There's also the misdemeanor domestic violence crap, but that's separate matter.
Why do you consider this a separate matter? Clearly those who wrote the laws consider felons, people with mental defects and those with misdemeanor domestic violence all in the same pot. It's an infringement for all of those people.
You really see no down side to this? You continue to dismiss original intent and stated goals for the Constitution and the limits it imposes, and you actually see this expansion of government power as being covered by the Commerce Clause despite the logical evidence against it...
You aren't worth discussing this then. You seem to have a personal stake in it that cannot be countered by logic, facts, or reason.
Went out the door with “speedy trial”, “innocent until proven guilty”, “self incrimination”, and “limited government”.
Unintended consequences are ignored at all of our peril...
The rights of felons are open to differential treatment by legislatures. Laws can be passed that specifically and negatively effect felons as a class, and not all citizens. That violates the concept of equal protection, but it's justified by the concept and principles of attainder. Attainder holds that when the felon commits a felony, they forfeit their rights and those rights are then subject to the good will of the legislature to ever recognize them. Attainder is what justifies disallowing felons to obtain certain licenses, or occupations, why they can't vote, and why they can't engage in the legitimate firearms market.
Folks that are dangeous due to mental defect aren't normal folks that can be described as rational actors. The people in law are considered to be rational actors. When any court has clear and convincing evidence that they are not, that they can't handle their own affairs, or that they are a danger to self, or others due to mental defect, the court essentially finds and declares they are not rational actors and modifiers their rights appropriately.
Misdemeanors are not subject to the common law concept of attainder. An individual's rights were never thought of as forfeit by the commission of a misdemeanor. Laughtenberg's crap was the first law, that I know of that attempted to equate misdemeanor, with felony and thus imply that loss of right applies to any infraction, however petty.
Re: The 2nd Amend.
"Funny , but I missed seeing the exceptions in the original. Maybe I have a bad copy I guess my copy missed out on the part right after the word people that says "except felons and those dangerous due to mental defect" I need to get a newer copy."
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. You'll need to include those in with the poor oppressed psychotics and violent felons you're rooting for to have unfettered access to firearms, as members of the group known as the people.
No.
"You really see no down side to this?"
There is no down side.
"You continue to dismiss original intent and stated goals for the Constitution and the limits it imposes,
No, I just don't think you have a firm grasp of the matter.
"and you actually see this expansion of government power as being covered by the Commerce Clause despite the logical evidence against it...
It is covered and justified by the Commerce Clause, as per original intent.
"You aren't worth discussing this then. You seem to have a personal stake in it that cannot be countered by logic, facts, or reason."
Sure thing... As if allowing the possession and sale of firearms to psychotics, those adjudicated a danger to self, or others, violent felons, enemies of the US and those dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces of the US is logically justified. Religion of Pieces clerics have a right to nukes too, I suppose.
Can you cite where this new law, or a combination of the old and new, actually says that?
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.