<sigh> The NRA was part of the problem this time, they accepted the text as is. I don't know where you got the 'it was all fixed, yay!' idea, citation please. The bill was, as far as I know, passed intact with a provision that had an incredibly vague definition of what constituted a disqualifying condition. ADD/ADHD, anyone with alzheimers or PTSD diagnosis in their history, etc. Under it, the government can confiscate the gun collection of grandpa when he moves in with family to care for his alzheimers.
The enthusiasm with which you strip your children of possible future careers is sad, and I can only surmise from your lack of response on my questions about how confident you were in the diagnosis that you may not, in fact, be confident that the proper diagnosis was made. Parenting your kids by medicating them into malleability isn't something I'd do, and I hope it's not what you're doing.
Indeed. The language "adjudicated to be mentally defective" is fairly specific but thanks for the legal lesson.
As far as Uncle Sam goes, by no means unless one is deemed by their attending physician to be a "mental defective" or a danger to society, all health records are protected by a patients HIPPA rights. In plain English, ones medical history, unless dangerous to ones self, others, or proof of said medical condition is or has been found to be linked to criminal activity in that particular individual, does not show up on a NICS check. Not many things, short of a court order, can violate these HIPPA rights.
The verbiage from the (NICS) site for persons disqualified from obtaining firearms (in this context anyhow) is as follows:
• "A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial."
Adjudicated means by court's (Judge's) formal determination and that is the key word. Only a judge can formally put this black mark on your record and only then will it show up on a background check. The courts are pretty specific on violating a private, non-criminal, citizens' medical privacy, hence the initial enactment of these HIPPA laws. Speculation, rhetoric, and hearsay about which particular medical conditions are included won't cut it. The judicial system does not normally make a habit of reading between the lines.
Most of this new law's language was revised to require states and governing bodies to give quarterly, expedited ( email, fax, or by other electronic means and not snail mail) reports or changes in disposition of any persons that fail the requirements under the terms of the law. It also updated and stiffened the penalties for non-compliance with these new standards. The actual verbiage and definition of who falls into the category of non-eligible persons has not changed. Basically the NICS people were tired of taking the heat for not screening well enough, when it wasn't completely their fault. They were not being given current, updated information in a timely enough manner. Under the former legislation, certain necessary information may not have posted for 6 months to a year on a NICS report. In essence, these changes have not re-defined who is disqualified from the possession, etc of firearms, but rather how expeditiously any pertinent information on a particular individual is reported.
It's also very noble of you to defend my children's' rights to fly an aircraft, my friend. I'm fairly certain, though, that there will be plenty of other career choices in their future. With a good education that they will be able to pay attention to, it will broaden those choices more, even if it strips them of a few select others. But, for now, they have no choices. They are children, not consenting, educated and mature adults. They will not be afforded any choices either until they have proven that they have the intellect, maturity, and wisdom to make them on their own. They may express a desire to make particular choices or decisions in life, but parenthood is in no way a democracy and some things are not up for discussion. I have absolutely no obligation to my children to furnish reasons for the decisions that I may make for them, nor do I need to explain the logic of any decisions to them. I am not running a debate team, I am raising children. So hang on to your knickers for this one...... I DON"T CARE IF MY CHILDREN LIKE MY DECISIONS. I am not their friend, pal, confidant, nor am I their colleague or peer. I am their FATHER. When they grow up, reach adulthood and move out on their own, then the dynamics of our relationship will change to one of social equality. I know this philosophy is quite alien, dictatorial, or old-school to some, but thats the way it works here. I'm also OK if they don't like me. I'm not having a popularity contest here. It sits very well with me if they have a healthy fear of the consequences of behaving or acting in an inappropriate manner.
As far as lack of response to your questions is concerned, I apologize for not addressing it clearly enough. You may consider the following my final answer. I guarantee you with the utmost certainty that I have an unerring confidence in the the diagnoses of ADD for my children. I lived with it for many years wondering if there was some medical condition I was suffering from. They, however, will not. I can also assure you that it wasn't a lack of parenting on my parents part.
As for the fact of medicating my children into malleability, thank you for your repeated, unsolicited opinions. In fact, as a former NCO in the US Army's Airborne Division, I'm fairly confident that I have a firm grasp on what the definition of discipline is, and how to make use of the many ways to impart these concepts into the though processes of my children. Medication is used sparingly and as a tool to help them better absorb and retain life lessons, as they were unfortunately not born with all the same tools as others posses.
As for your opinions on raising children? It's admirable for you to have a firm stance. If you don't have any children yourself, find a good and proper spouse (if you don't have one already), inject them with your half of the genetic code in whatever manner suits you, squeeze out a few pups, and raise them as you see fit. If you do have offspring, then carry-on, sir. In the meantime, I will do as I see fit in my house. If I feel the need for reinforcement, encouragement, or approval for the manner in which I run things in my own household, take solace in the fact that I will not look to these forums for it.
