more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended

[billwiese]

The NRA is getting tremendous political capital out of this.

No real change, except no crazies not having guns purchased at FFLs. And there are methods included for restoration of status - something that was a problem before with PTSD vets, etc.

In addition, on-the-fence legislators in tight districts can claim they voted for gun safety using this bill as a refuge in case some other antigun bills come up.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled NRA bashing by political nincompoops who haven't taken a 9th-grade civics/politics class, and to the GOA who needs to raise funds by bashing the NRA and who can't name a single accomplishment in their history.



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[camacho]

No, if the NRA acted like GOA we would all be living under H.R.10/22 type legislation.

Absolutely, I will even add that if it is up to those guys (GOA), the RKBA as we know it will vanish within few years.

 

[tmajors]

who has been diagnosed with ADD and thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult.

I was reading this to my wife and she says "how bad would it be that an ADD kid had a gun? He'd be like um what am I doing with this?"

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

The NRA hates our veterans.


Bet those with lifetime memberships feel good now.

 

[RealGun]

GOA who needs to raise funds by bashing the NRA and who can't name a single accomplishment in their history - billweise

Name an NRA accomplishment. How does a lobbyist measure accomplishments? If it is by passage or defeat of bills, GOA and NRA would both have a claim wherever they agree on a bill.

Just a reminder to those who think this bill is innocuous, Congress has no jurisdiction. They are blackmailing States into complying, relying on the power they acquired with the income tax amendment. NICS is no way in charge here. The tail is wagging the dog. There may need to be a way of coordinating State action, but it should be constitutional and above board, not a house of cards.

 

[JohnBT]

"that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis"

Would someone at GOA PLEASE proofread and edit this poor guy's writing.

Possible options:

-that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnose

-psychiatric or psychological diagnosis

-psychiatrist's or psychologist's diagnosis

heck, -psychiatrists' or psychologists' diagnoses

IOW, WTH is a psychiatrist diagnosis? I know he's trying to say a diagnosis by a psychiatrist, etc., but it's just horrible English. AND, being an M.D. a psychiatrist can diagnose a patient's broken leg, migraine or common cold and then write a prescription. They're medical doctors after all.

Thanks, now I feel better.

John

 

[Matt King]

The Democrats all thought that gun control was a loser going into an election cycle. That's why no one wanted to be on record for voting for this. If the NRA had not negotiated, there would not have been any gun control bill because of VT. Even the polls were on our side.

The pro-gun owners that believed the above quote got suckered. Unfortunately, every time you get suckered, we all lose.

No, after the VT tech shootings, there was going to be some type of gun control legislation passed. The difference between the NRA's approach to combating gun control, and GOA's; is that GOA stands outside capitol hill chanting "Hitler was for gun control", while the NRA actually works with our legislators to help strengthen the pro-gun agenda. Trust me, if the NRA had acted like GOA this time, we would be looking at something a lot worse than what we are now.

The NRA hates our veterans.

How is that?

 

[RealGun]

Psychologist - analyze and address behavior

Psychiatrist - analyze and address systemic causes of behavior. The end of the referral chain, short of a surgeon performing a lobotomy.

It seems to me appropriate to consider either qualified to determine if one is "a danger to himself and others". My concern would be to what level of risk. Is anyone ever absolutely benign? Is liability defined?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

John, there is nothing contextually or grammatically wrong with the snippet you pointed out. "Diagnosis" is the identification of a disease, what has been determined to be the cause of as problem, the name of the disease or disorder. It's not the process used to find the disease. That is "to diagnose".

What you've cut out to pick apart is out of context and it makes perfect sense when taken in its entire context.

While I disagree that anything that has not been adjudicated can be used to keep anyone from their arms or acquiring arms, there is nothing wrong with the way the sentence is written.

Woody

 

[HiroProX]

Makes one wish the NRA would apply their "no net loss" idea on sportsman access to the RKBA.

If this goes on we're gonna be compromised right out of our rights, because each compromise is sooo "reasonable".

 

[Tim James]

For me, the surprising revelation about HR 2640 is how many people prefer to be fed an opinion rather than going to the source and developing their own.

Actually, I find that it really frees up a lot of time in my day if I feed on others' trusted opinions, utilize racial and gender stereotypes, and ignore opposing viewpoints to my ideas!

 

[F4GIB]

JohnBt posted:

AND, being an M.D. a psychiatrist can diagnose a patient's broken leg, migraine or common cold and then write a prescription. They're medical doctors after all.

And a proctologist [rectum specalist] can diagnose and treat schizophrenia too! Knowledge is not a prerequisite to "playing doctor" outside your field.

A gynocologist [vagina specialist] can diagnose and treat brain chemistry disorders (what psychiatrists think causes insanity) too.

Doesn't that make you feel secure about NRA's "deal?"

 

[ForeignDude]

What If GOA Is Right and We're Wrong

There's a lot of fog in the air, and I think it's hard to know what's what. For my part, I'm going with GOA on this one. I give you four reasons.

First, I'm a psychologist by training (although I am not a practicing clinician). However, I know the research behind psychiatric diagnoses in DSM and the consensus process whereby syndromes are defined and included in, or excluded from, DSM. As an example: passive-aggressive personality disorder was removed from DSM-IV, although it had been a psychiatric diagnosis for years (DSM-I through DSM-III-R). Similarly, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder until "gay liberation" activists managed to get the designation removed in the 1970's.

In other words, old syndromes may be dropped and new ones defined. Therein lies the danger. Consider the possibility that in some future iteration of DSM, a new syndrome might be defined: "incipient aggressive personality disorder". The symptoms of this disorder may include: (1) unreasonable fear of crime or assault; (2) a strong desire to accumulate firearms in quantities greater than those needed for sport; (3) a stated willingness to utilize firearms for means other than sport (e.g., "self-defense", etc.); (4) dreams or nightmares linked to use of firearms (e.g., dreams of using a handgun to shoot another human being). The possibility is not so remote. Even now, it would not be difficult to diagnose us on this board as suffering from one or another anxiety disorder based on our careful study of crime, our decision to carry a gun, attendance at tactical defense schools, discussions of tactical scenarios, etc.

The second reason I'm going with GOA on this one is that I dare not trust Schumer or McCarthy (or Dingell, for that matter) on an issue so central to the core of our Republic.

Third, I'm going with GOA on this one based on a simple cost-benefit analysis. To wit, what if this bill expands into a monstrosity that renders half the population ineligible to even hold a gun? What do we stand to lose (if we're wrong)?

Finally (and this ain't easy for me to admit publicly like this), I have grappled with unipolar depression for decades. Only recently have I brought it under control, and only with the aid of medication. So, there is a deep measure of concern that motivates my decision: if this bill goes through and expands beyond its alleged purpose, my gun rights will be going under the bus very early in the game.

Be safe, and practice often!

 

[Art Eatman]

"It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers."

No. Not true. It does not expand; it merely funds a presently-inefficient system. The inefficiencies of the present records-keeping have allowed violent felons and court-adjudicated mental-problem people to get past the NICS.

And that's the "why" of the NRA cooperation. Without the NRA's efforts, the bill could well have wound up as the GOA would have us believe. And the GOA could not do anything about that, due to little or no influence or credibility with Congress. The GOA does have value in being able to get people to contact their legislators, but little beyond that.

Art

 

[Rumble]

Okay, so here's my question: isn't it already possible to add a diagnosis to the DSM, such as the "incipient aggressive personality disorder," and then have people adjudicated mentally defective anyway? It's a scary scenario; but it was possible before HR2640 as well, was it not?

What about this bill has enhanced that possibility? Is it that now states are being encouraged to submit their own records, which may have different standards?

That the bill was sponsored by notable anti-gun politicians, and the fact that I doubt the NRA can stop this train is sufficient reason to be worried, but I don't see what this actual bill does to enhance the danger that we all end up being diagnosed with some mental defect simply because we like weapons.


Edit. Okay, wait. I see something I've been misreading, and that may be the crux of the GOA's issues: there's nowhere in here saying that a finding of disability + danger to self and others must be issued by a court. Technically, it appears that a medical professional's findings of mental disability will be considered sufficient if they also include a finding of danger to self and others. Is that true? Or is "danger to self and others" already something only a court can declare?

 

[jselvy]

Art,
The systems inefficiency was its only saving grace.

Jefferson

 

[tmajors]

It's actually a fairly short bill to sift through. Not bad at all, unlike that 1000page novel of an immigration bill.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

The systems inefficiency was its only saving grace.

Oh? And that same inefficiency which prevented people from gaining back their rights is a saving grace, how?

 

[Noxx]

there's nowhere in here saying that a finding of disability + danger to self and others must be issued by a court.

Yes there is, that's the very definition of the word "adjudicated", the legal process by which a judge reviews evidence by opposing parties and reaches a binding decision.

 

[jselvy]

The new additions still won't allow those who have lost their rights get them back if Schumer defunds it like he did with the last one. The state courts may be the first stop but the BATFE still has to change the database. If he has done it once he'll do it again. But they won't touch the new reporting requirements, so we'll end up with more reporting and still no hope in hell of ever getting your rights restored.

Jefferson

 

[RealGun]

it merely funds a presently-inefficient system. - Art

I believe it's true that legislation does not include actual appropriations. HR2640 would not "fund" in any true sense. I think in this case the bill is actually "forcing" States to comply if they want all other State appropriations from big daddy purse strings. REAL ID Act, same thing. Submittals to NICS rely upon the fed paying States to cover the expenses, as opposed to "an unfunded mandate".

 

[Rumble]

Yes there is, that's the very definition of the word "adjudicated", the legal process by which a judge reviews evidence by opposing parties and reaches a binding decision.

That's a good point; however, they appear to distinguish adjudications, determinations, and commitments as separate entities in the text of the bill. I assumed that a "determination" was not necessarily a court-issued finding.

This may be wrong (certainly not my first time being wrong); it may also be meaningless, since the 4473 only covers adjudications and commitments, not determinations, in which case, I stand corrected.

 

[ancient_philosophy]

the original post is an utter lie

NOBODY who sought mental help///was-is on pills, will be denied a gun


this ONLY affects those, at COURT LEVEL, are AJUDICATED (ie JUDGE) mentally ill , etc.


nobody who was 'depressed' etc at an early age is anyone subject to denial of a gun.

 

[Knucklehead2]

Oh? And that same inefficiency which prevented people from gaining back their rights is a saving grace, how?

This bill does nothing for the people denied by NICS unless it is for mental reasons. How many of the over 600,000 denied are for mental reasons, how many of those will have the finances to restore their rights?

 

[Sage of Seattle]

The new additions still won't allow those who have lost their rights get them back if Schumer defunds it like he did with the last one.

Okay. I'm still kinda on the fence about this particular bill, but a question which I brought up before in a different but related thread is to all of those who support this bill: why then didn't the NRA push to have mandated funding for restoration of rights or a repeal of this Schumer amendment or whatever it was that de facto defunded the original bill, which had provisions already to have one's rights restored?