Posted on 11/12/2002 5:10:09 PM PST by chuknospam
We're talking about the law, not Rosie O'Donnell's wet dreams, okay?
18 USC 922 (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
When they start trying to pass laws defining the desire to own, carry, or operate firearms as a "mental defect," then I'll be actually worried.
If they're confined to a mental hospital, then there's no need to worry about whether they can obtain guns. It's the same logic you hear from people saying that convicted felons shouldn't own guns. Sure they shouldn't - they shouldn't be out on the street in the first place! If you have the right to be in society, you have the right to the means to defend yourself - period.
It all sounds well and good to say that "those people" shouldn't have the right to a gun, but when you start making lists of gun owners, it doesn't just inconvenience "those people"; it casts a chill over the right of everyone to be armed. When government has extensive knowledge of who's armed and who isn't, it defeats a very important purpose of the second amendment.
Thats' true, but it took a majority of the house to pass it. They seem to think it's OK that expost facto, misdemeanors and general handwaiving suffices to deny someone their right.
No matter what the conclusion of the doctors at that institution was. No matter the reason for being committed.
"(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;"
Now I would read that to mean, in part one, that someone who has been adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction as a homicidal sociopath, as an example, that it would not be a good idea for them to own a gun. Okay, sounds reasonable. Moreover, in the second part I would interpret that to mean someone who is currently a resident of a mental institution. Again, fair enough, as I think it is safe to say that one would not want inmates of a mental hospital running around with firearms.
Now, let’s take a look at what they are proposing in these bills.
“The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3 million more Americans who have spent time in mental health facilities. This group has no more involvement in violent crime than does the rest of the population”
So does that mean that if 20 years ago while you where going through a divorce, had financial problems, and lost your job, and you decide to check into Charter for emotional problems for 15 days, that you are now no longer eligible to own a firearm to protect yourself and your family. Incidentally, the 3 million figure they quote that would fit that definition is way low. If you have doubts about that, look in any major metropolitan area phone book and you will find that mental health facilities are big business these days.
” or who have been written a prescription for depression”
Having worked for Eli Lilly, the makers of Prozac, a drug for bi-polar disorder, I can assure you that there are millions of people in this country that take this drug on a daily basis. I am sure you know people who take Prozac, but you are probably unaware that they do. In fact, you might find that some of your buddies down at your local gun club take Prozac.
In case you are unfamiliar with bi-polar disorder, it is a chemical imbalance in the brain that people are born with and sometimes manifest itself as depression, it is not something that they have created or contributed to through their behavior, aside from not taking their medication on a regular bases. Do you believe that these people should also be deprived of their Constitutional rights to protect themselves and their families?
” The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors.”
Oops, hope they don’t find out about that J-walking thing.
“It could require that states forward information concerning drug diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution, in order to determine whether a person was an unlawful user of... any controlled substance”
So in other words if that state simply alleges that one might have abused any controlled substances, and I am assuming that would include illegal as well as prescription narcotics, but in fact did not have enough evidence to bring proceedings against you to prove their case. That would be good enough for you to deprive people of the right to protect themselves?
” When they start trying to pass laws defining the desire to own, carry, or operate firearms as a "mental defect," then I'll be actually worried.”
Well if you support these kinds of bills that day wont be far away. Paranoid delusion comes to mind just off the top of my head.
Personally, I think that talking it over with your bartender might just work out better...
· Less than one in 10,000 prospective buyers have been stopped based on the mental health disqualification.
· Less than 1 of 1,000 prospective buyers have been stopped based on a restraining order disqualification.
· Less than 1 of 1,000 prospective buyers have been stopped based on a drug disqualification.
Or maybe it has nothing to do with the records. Maybe less than 1 in 10,000 has a mental health disorder, less than 1/1000 have a restraining order (I hope) or drug disqualification. The reasoning drips of contempt for those who want to buy a gun.
If you cannot do that, then would you please list all the people that you do not think should be allowed to arm themselves?
I think that the NEA does a damn fine job of showing exactly where they stand on this issue...as if it had anything to do with education!
Who sponsors legislation is irrelevant. Republicans hold a majority in the House. Republicans have the final say on which legislation passes and which doesn't. The bill discussed on this thread was passed while Republicans held a majoity of seats in the House. The Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996 was passed while Republicans held a majority of seats in the House. It was a purely symbolic gesture intended to make Republicans look like they're tough on crime.
So is Bingo Jim in WI, who will be our next Governor thanks to Ed Thompson of your party.
Ed Thompson had nothing to do with McCallum's loss. To imply otherwise is a Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy.
...are you a member of the NRA?
The NRA is an organization of sellouts and compromisers. The NRA supports stricter enforcement of gun-control. I support the repeal of gun-control. I will never vote for a candidate who supports stricter enforcement of gun-control. NRA ratings are worthless. Any legislator who votes to enact more gun-control or supports stricter enforcement of gun-control deserves an F. Since the NRA supports both I give them an F.
...which party is it that is trying to allow CC for law abiding citizens?
You keep hammering away at getting those state-issued licenses, ok? I'll keep working toward a Libertarian society so it won't be necessary to ask the state for permission to carry a concealed weapon.
However, you continue to assert that there is no diference between Republicans and Democrats.
The differences are so insignificant as to be inconsequential.
Perhaps it is the LP term "Republicrats" that confuses you. Don't blame the Republicans for your confusion, blame YOUR party! You guys can't seem to keep them straight.
My opinion of Republicans was arrived at through many hours of reading and research, some of which I've presented to you in previous posts and which you've ignored. Whether your refusal to even acknowledge what I presented was the result of willfull ignorance or denial I have no idea.
Perhaps also you are confused by the DEMOCRATS; since they know their true agenda would be instantly rejected, they pretend to be Republicans when they campaign on issues.
Coincidently, Republicans campaign like Libertarians with talk of reducing government. But, after they get elected they make government bigger.
You also assume that I am a Republican, since I am not a rabid LP'er. I am not, my views lie much closer to the LP than to the Republicans, however unlike you I allow reality in my world and know that without power to make changes you can't make changes!
It doesn't matter to me what party you belong to. It's your voting that concerns me. Unlike you I came to realize a long time ago that I'll never get smaller government if I keep voting for people who are making government bigger.
I am a Constitutionalist; I believe that the Founders ment EXACTLY what they wrote in the Constitution and Bill of Rights...
Ask anyone in Congress and I'm sure they'll say the same thing. Republican Congressman David Dreier makes regular appearances on Larry Elder's radio talk show in Los Angeles. Larry is a Libertarian. Every time Dreier comes on he talks about how Republicans are working hard to reduce government. But, I've been watching Dreier's voting record for a couple of years. He votes for nearly every increase in government. When Larry confronts him about it Dreier's response is that Republicans kept government from growing less than Democrats. That is unacceptable.
Also, it was a DEMOCRAT dominated court that saw the line I have searched my copy of the Constitution for. Try as I might, I just can't find that line about "SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE". It should be easy to find since, according to Democrats, Athiests and Lawers, it is the entire foundation of the Constitution.
It is immoral to force people to finance the advancement of ideas which may be inconsistent with their own values or beliefs.
It was a DEMOCRAT court that discovered a woman had a god-given right to kill her unborn baby any time she chose. Again, I just can't find that in my copy of the Constitution (or the bible for that matter).
Abortion wasn't the calamity that it is today until after the Great Society programs. Abortion was virtually unheard of 50 years ago. Sure, it still happened. But, we were in a far better position to do something about it. The socialist Welfare State subsidizes lifestyles which encourage the kind of behavior that results in unwanted pregnancies. Republicans have increased funding for the socialist Welfare State decade after decade.
And of course you finally resort to the typical ad hominem attacks with insinuation of drug use and whatnot.
Obvious. These Marxists are using the Marxist definition of peace: Everybody under their control
FMCDH
However, a direct answer to direct questions would be nice.
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.