Replies

A lot of people are going to be 'railroaded' into these government databases..

A lot of people already are being railroaded into these databases.

Like I said, if in the process of adding provisions for mental health background checks, we can establish due process protections for not only those who are hit by mental health checks, but for all the rest, too, I think it's a good deal.

It depends very much upon the specific technical details of the bill. But there are folks at the NRA who understand this stuff as well as anyone in the world.

Consider Thomas Lamar Bean - a gun dealer who got hit with a federal felony conviction because an employee put a box of ammo in his car after a gun show, and he crossed into Mexico without realizing its presence. He's no threat to anyone, but he's stuck with a lifetime firearms disability. Federal law establishes a process by which such a disability can be removed, but Congress has blocked it.

If, as a part of this compromise, this process was made active again, would it change your mind about the value of the compromise?

This could be, depending upon the details, a good bill.

This could be, depending upon the details, a good bill.

It's a bad bill. The government has no constitutional authority to do this- 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Well, if you ask me.. all of these databases and such are an infringement.

While it might sound like a 'good idea',,, that dfoes not mean thats it's a good or constitutional law. The constitution was written for a reason. However, over the past couple of decades, the constitution has been slowly eroding (mostly due to congress).

jdege
Where is the due process? What is the standard of evidence? How is the decision appealed? What does it take to have the disability removed?

The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts

The thread above answers many of those questions.

A lot of people already are being railroaded into these databases.
Federal law establishes a process by which such a disability can be removed, but Congress has blocked it.

You are admitting Congress can, and does ignore federal law, yet you want to pass another ~compromise law~ that in effect gives them even more power to ignore our right to own and carry arms.

If, as a part of this compromise, this process was made active again, would it change your mind about the value of the compromise?

No. - It is past due time to stop the compromises and infringements.

This could be, depending upon the details, a good bill.

No, because in effect, this bills compromise would confirm that the ~database concept~ is a valid infringement/regulation. [see the article cited above]
We who fight for an uninfringeable right to bear arms cannot give in on this point.