HR 297 / HR 2064 (the VaTech fallout we've been expecting...)

[bsdaddict]

On the heels of the Virginia Tech shootings comes the first major piece of Gun Control legislation in 10 years, the "NICS Improvement Act of 2007", which is supported by the Brady campaign (no surprise there) and the NRA.  This bill aims to "streamline the system for keeping track of criminals, mental patients, and others barred from buying firearms" and also "provides $250 million a year for the central database and grants to states to contribute to it."  

http://gunowners.org/a061207.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850033/posts

This comment from the freerepublic thread sums it up...

And so, boys and girls, the moral of the story is this: When the State of Virginia fails to adequately enforce existing gun laws, then All of Congress immediately decides that, obviously, the only solution is for the Federal government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on a massively-expanded Federal database incorporating the legal records and private medical records of hundreds of thousands of American citizens. BUT DON'T WORRY if your name happens to get on the Disqualified Purchaser list by mistake (not that the Federal Government ever makes mistakes, that is); you can just spend thousands of dollars on psychiatric and legal fees overcoming the "Guilty until Proven Innocent" presumption and then maybe -- maybe -- your name and private information might be purged from the Federal Database.

Well, all of Congress feels that way -- with one exception. His name is Ron Paul.

The Brady gun-grabbers, the NRA, the Dems and the Reps all got behind this thing.  The voice vote in the House was 435 to 1, the lone defender of the Constitution being Ron Paul.  Dr. Paul called it "flagrantly unconstitutional" and says it "undermines the Second Amendment right to bear arms and violates privacy rights of those whose medical records go into the FBI database...."  It's funny (not!) how RP's lone opposition is now being censored from the main stream medias coverage of this...

(I've been trying to keep my RP evangelism confined to my "Who is Ron Paul" thread, but felt this bill deserved it's own thread...)

[JimBeam]

little by little the majority's rights will eventually be stripped away because of the actions of a few

[rpm]

Isn't this the bill(s) being backed by the NRA? It provides for a more rapid response to a background check so someone that is certified bonkers, like the VT shooter, will not be able to purchase weapons.

Wayne LaPierre loves it, why don't you?

[Maverick]

That is not a threat to either legal ownership of weapons or the constitution.

[john9001]

the law of unintended consequences, now someone that needs psychiatric help will not seek it for fear of being banned from gun ownership.

however, if you are a criminal and buy your guns out of a car trunk you need not worry about another law.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Maverick
That is not a threat to either legal ownership of weapons or the constitution.

tell that to the 83,000 veterans who have been banned from purchasing firearms since 2000 due to alleged mental health problems, or the citizens who get mistakenly added to the list now that there'll be increased incentives for the states to supply names for inclusion.  Feeling a little depressed or have just gone thru a messy divorce and see a therapist, only to have your name added to the list which includes axe murders and rapists?  Nah, there's NO WAY this could EVER have such a consequence...

[rpm]

I'd say the good far outweighs the bad in this.

[DYNAMITE]

This bill provides funding for courts to create a data-base  of people that already do not qualify for gun ownership, after they have been adjudicated by a court of law.  Thats it. This data is already collected... it just sits in piles of papers in boxes at every court house in the United States... unused.  It is not creating an additional means of removing gun rights.  It is a means of enforcing the gun laws that are already on the books.  That is why it is getting the backing of the NRA.  

the law of unintended consequences, now someone that needs psychiatric help will not seek it for fear of being banned from gun ownership.

  I think you're wrong here John... Voluntary MH treatment is not one of the exclusionary criteria for gun ownership at this time.  The only way MH treatment would be considered is if the individual in question is ever court committed to seek treatment, and the only way that would ever happen is if they are a direct threat to themselves or others.  And trust me, this is VERY hard to do.  I sit in my office every day with people that are floridly psychotic and REALLY need to be hospitalized, and can't do a thing about it because the courts hate committing someone.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Maverick
That is not a threat to either legal ownership of weapons or the constitution.

[john9001]

Originally posted by DYNAMITE

   I think you're wrong here John... Voluntary MH treatment is not one of the exclusionary criteria for gun ownership at this time.  The only way MH treatment would be considered is if the individual in question is ever court committed to seek treatment, and the only way that would ever happen is if they are a direct threat to themselves or others.  And trust me, this is VERY hard to do.  I sit in my office every day with people that are floridly psychotic and REALLY need to be hospitalized, and can't do a thing about it because the courts hate committing someone.

that's today, but what about tomorrow.

one click of the wheel, then another click, click, click.

[bsdaddict]

show me a determined criminal who has been successfully prevented from arming himself and I'll show you a constitutional gun control law.

[moot]

It doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional because it's good enough?

[DYNAMITE]

Originally posted by moot
It doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional because it's good enough?

Ummmm... I don't think it's unconstitutional.  But I suppose it will take a legal challenge to determine that.

Maybe we should let the judges decide that point?

[john9001]

i don't trust the SC judges.