JohnBT
Member
See if the GOA can get him on the phone.
more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended
- Thread starter F4GIB
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
"Most of this is covered by current laws "
Well, no it isn't. Only 22 states currently report the names of individuals who have been adjudicated mentally ill. The rest don't. Some of the 22 states don't report complete info or much of anything at all. That's why they're increasing the funding for entering the info.
Almost half of the mental health related info in NICS is from... Virginia.
The law is there, but the system to enforce it isn't, even after 40 years.
John
Well, no it isn't. Only 22 states currently report the names of individuals who have been adjudicated mentally ill. The rest don't. Some of the 22 states don't report complete info or much of anything at all. That's why they're increasing the funding for entering the info.
Almost half of the mental health related info in NICS is from... Virginia.
The law is there, but the system to enforce it isn't, even after 40 years.
John
Cosmoline
Member
While there's no standard for what mentally ill is, there is a standard for what "adjudicated mentally defective" means. Going to the shrink isn't sufficient, there has to be a court determination that you're bonkers.
Bart, I appreciate your clarification on what I half remembered. Though, even with your clarification, it was still an abuse by the alphabets.
But I hope you're not suggesting that our opposition to this latest legislation is due to some misunderstanding on our part. The concerns posted by people opposed to this legislation are legitimate concerns that should have been debated in the House prior to a vote.
gc70
Member
So? The purpose of the legislation is not to produce results, but to give the perception of Congress vigorously taking action. In fact, the less effective this type of legislation proves to be, the more opportunity Congress has to create the perception of action in the future.
My point exactly the law is there and they don't enforce it. So lets take the typical government stance and throw money at it. It still will make no difference and we will be out another 250 million.
If you want to trust the government to do whats "best" for you then go right ahead. As for me they have proven they can not handle a little responsibility why would I give them more.
Read this press release from the Illinois State Rifle Association and then tell me what you think about how information is handled by those in power.
http://www.isra.org/
We are from the government we are here to help.
madmike
Member
Blacks and Indians were added by law and Amendment. Argument fails of its merits.
Rumble
Member
Fortunately, this is true. Under this proposed legislation, state records can only include those individuals who meet the definition of "adjudicated mentally defective" as pertains to 922(g)(4). This is good--some states have lower standards to be barred the possession of arms for mental defect.
JohnBT
Member
"Of course, when the 2nd was written it didn't include everybody in the country, but you gloss right over that, don't you?" - me
"Blacks and Indians were added by law and Amendment. Argument fails of its merits." - you
Fails? You admit it didn't cover everyone and took "law and Amendment" to add some of those left out. I'd say my statement was a factual response to the assertion that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd to include everyone.
_____________
Quote:
Illegal aliens? Five-year-olds? Felons? Crack addicts? Speed freaks? - me
"If that is what it takes for me to keep my rights then yes every last one of them." - you#2
Good luck pushing your agenda at the local, state or national level. Meanwhile, there's real work to be done.
John
"Blacks and Indians were added by law and Amendment. Argument fails of its merits." - you
Fails? You admit it didn't cover everyone and took "law and Amendment" to add some of those left out. I'd say my statement was a factual response to the assertion that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd to include everyone.
_____________
Quote:
Illegal aliens? Five-year-olds? Felons? Crack addicts? Speed freaks? - me
"If that is what it takes for me to keep my rights then yes every last one of them." - you#2
Good luck pushing your agenda at the local, state or national level. Meanwhile, there's real work to be done.
John
madmike
Member
It included everyone considered human at the time, even those not eligible to vote (non-landowners). This means they considered it a universal right.
Actually, free blacks and Indians could own weapons, IIRC. Only slaves could not. But only white male landowners could vote. They would be in loco parentis of any slaves, so it was as close to a universal statement as one could get at the time.
Actually, free blacks and Indians could own weapons, IIRC. Only slaves could not. But only white male landowners could vote. They would be in loco parentis of any slaves, so it was as close to a universal statement as one could get at the time.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
It didn't include those the community had determined via a court to be mentally ill - even in the 1700s.
JohnBT
Member
The Militia Act provides a good look at the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Pay close attention to the words "free" "able-bodied" "white" "male" "citizen" & the age limits.
Now I'm off to find something similar by James Madison, father of the 2nd Amendment. Could be a delay, both phones are ringing.
John
_________
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
Pay close attention to the words "free" "able-bodied" "white" "male" "citizen" & the age limits.
Now I'm off to find something similar by James Madison, father of the 2nd Amendment. Could be a delay, both phones are ringing.
John
_________
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
madmike
Member
JohnBT: Don't waste your time.
It required those people to be armed. It didn't prohibit anyone else. That came along later, mostly postbellum.
Bartholomew is correct.
I'm done with this thread.
It required those people to be armed. It didn't prohibit anyone else. That came along later, mostly postbellum.
Bartholomew is correct.
I'm done with this thread.
JohnBT
Member
I've been reading some sites and ran across this one:
___________________________________
www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
_________________________________
"James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate..."
The 2nd Amendment passed by a VOICE VOTE.
___________________________________
www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
_________________________________
"James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate..."
The 2nd Amendment passed by a VOICE VOTE.
JohnBT
Member
It didn't prohibit anyone else. That came along later, mostly postbellum.
Bartholomew is correct.
__________________________________
Let's see, you say he's correct, but continue to assert that it didn't prohibit anyone else.
Yet Bartholomew said "It didn't include those the community had determined via a court to be mentally ill - even in the 1700s."
I'd say you really are through with this thread.
John
Bartholomew is correct.
__________________________________
Let's see, you say he's correct, but continue to assert that it didn't prohibit anyone else.
Yet Bartholomew said "It didn't include those the community had determined via a court to be mentally ill - even in the 1700s."
I'd say you really are through with this thread.
John
TheOtherOne
Member
The fact remains that it expands NICS and NICS is gun control is gun control is gun control.Al Norris said:
Al Norris
Member
So then, the fact that the law already says what this bill intends to help fund the States to do, expands it? On the contrary, it merely sets up a vehicle whereby the mandate is funded. That is not an expansion, merely a housekeeping detail.TheOtherOne said:
Please explain how narrowing the definition of a mental disability is an expansion. This is a restriction on what records may be transmitted and entered on the NICS database.
Since it also prohibits another Clinton style order to submit unauthorized records to NICS by a Federal Agency, how is this an expansion? Again, this is a further restriction.
Please also explain how bypassing § 925(c) by giving that power back to the States is an expansion? When was the last time that the Feds have given back an authority they "stole" from the States?
The devil is always in the details. Can you give us all the specifics of those details? Where's the Beef?
Considering the implications of the situation described in this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=283879
I am greatly concerned about this bill.
Jefferson
I am greatly concerned about this bill.
Jefferson
RealGun
Member
Well, how about this? Lautenburg comes along and says NICS may not remove a person's name...no such thing as "all better now". This is the guy that says if ever under a court restraining order re spousal abuse, valid or not, your gun owning days are over, period.
Those who want to say this bill doesn't really change anything would haver to first accept that the whole concept of NICS was illegitimate in the first place.
1) the Feds have no legitimate constitutional jurisdiction. It's all based upon precedents which abuse the Constitution and avoid amendments to it.
2) They will use ones Social Security number. The SS Act specifies that the number may not be used for identification purposes. Where did that change?
See how it goes? That's just a sample.
Those who want to say this bill doesn't really change anything would haver to first accept that the whole concept of NICS was illegitimate in the first place.
1) the Feds have no legitimate constitutional jurisdiction. It's all based upon precedents which abuse the Constitution and avoid amendments to it.
2) They will use ones Social Security number. The SS Act specifies that the number may not be used for identification purposes. Where did that change?
See how it goes? That's just a sample.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
There are no implications to that thread. The police officer in question didn't understand the existing law on involuntary commitment and firearms.
How do you figure? Also since this bill shifts the determination for relief to the states, wouldn't it actually bring hope to people who were unjustly denied rights under the Lautenberg bill instead of leaving them in limbo forever?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Let Us Not Forget This:
Without the NFA, without Brady, without all the state infringements; with violent criminals executed or incarcerated, the insane institutionalized, guardianship of the immature, and with - dare I say - secure borders; there'd BE no limbo for anyone to be in in the first place.
Let us not forget that.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
Without the NFA, without Brady, without all the state infringements; with violent criminals executed or incarcerated, the insane institutionalized, guardianship of the immature, and with - dare I say - secure borders; there'd BE no limbo for anyone to be in in the first place.
Let us not forget that.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
RealGun
Member
First, I meant to write that NICS was "illegitimate" and have edited my post.
How can States make the determination, if NICS actually acts as the supreme power, refusing to remove the record? This is not NICS acting on behalf of the States. This is or will be federal power in all its glory. Remove the income tax and state appropriations, and it's all talk, absolutely no jurisdiction.
I believe there needs to be a mechanism of coordinating States, but there is too much truth in the statement that the Constitution "is just a goddamned piece of paper". They have been making it up as they go along for generations, and the Courts support most of it, since a strict constructionist would find reality very inconvenient, and real justice in need of a constitutional amendment. The law is a joke, when the COTUS reads plainly enough but is ruled to mean something else more convenient.
- Status