General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Mitch McConnell joins Senate gun filibuster
AAllen:
--- Quote from: whatsit on April 09, 2013, 08:19:54 AM ---I got an email from the NRA ILA, yesterday:
Does anyone know more about S. 480?
--- End quote ---
I am part of a National Firearms Rights Leaders discusion group and we have been hotly debating this bill, I am going to share two of the posts that show the dificulties with this issue:
A) I have independently investigated this issue, and have consulted with two gun rights attorneys. This is not a sellout, but a protection.
Right now, there is no definition in U.S. Code of "... adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution...," as used in 18 USC 922(d)(4).
That means that the definition can be changed by mere rulemaking, as in "President Obama's Executive Order."
Here is what is currently in the CFR, and subject to change by the Obama Administration:
27 C.F.R. § 478.11
-----------------------
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include—
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a , 876b .
Committed to a mental institution
-----------------------
A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
-----------------------
S. 480 makes it HARDER for the ATF to deny gun ownership, and it locks in that tougher definition against unilateral change by the Obama administration.
We should be strongly supporting, not opposing, this legislation.
B) Here is my position on S.480:
Now is not the time to be bringing it forward. It just muddies the waters and sets the stage for some sort of "deal" that I don't think any of us want.
We have been supportive of similar language in the past, specifically Richard Burr's Veteran's Protection Act.
Current law (as adopted the last time NRA "fixed" NICS) has been interpreted to be completely open ended, and has snagged over 100,000 veterans - many just trying to get a little extra in their disability check (in my opinion).
Fixing that would be a good thing. The concern about the even for "drug rehab" line raises some concern, but it looks to me like it is more than adequately covered by the strong language above stipulating courts, hearings, and representation.
All of that said, I think the pro's and con's of S.480 is a discussion for another day.
It is STUPID to bring forward something that "we want" when we're in the middle of a big pile of "we won't tolerate." The natural course of things would be to move directly to a lot of "I'll vote for yours if you'll vote for mine" BS. We get screwed, Schumer uses some trick to castrate S.480, and everyone claims to be "strong supporters of the Second Amendment.
This is just a side door to getting screwed.
We need to demand that Graham and NRA get this the Hell off the table immediately, and tell Graham that if he doesn't support the filibuster he could be facing early retirement - and the NRA can't save him because our members are the people the NRA depends on to make things happen on the ground in the states.
AAllen:
Last post got long so I am starting a new one. As you can see S. 480 is not a bad bill, and in fact would help to protect your rights. Unfortunately if it comes to the floor of the Senate it will be amended, and in the end all the good will be removed, watered down, and put off because it will not be funded; and a lot of anti gun stuff will be put in all in the name of compromise.
This is a very tough climate right now, and pushing for legislation to protect your rights is only going to be taken over by the anti's. What position should you take, well at this time I am very guarded about supporting any firearms bill that comes out.
FarmerRick:
Text of bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s480/text
RedDot:
Agree timing is wrong. The drug use portion seems open to exploitation. What drugs? Taken for what purposes? Listen to the lists of possible side effects for drugs in TV ads, how many list "possible depression, or mood changes"? Could taking something for Restless Leg Syndrome end up being used as a disqualifier for gun ownership? Who makes that call?
Phantom:
--- Quote from: RedDot on April 09, 2013, 06:08:01 PM ---how many list "possible depression, or mood changes"?
--- End quote ---
Isn't that listed as a possible side effect in all drugs issued today?
And several over the counter medications as well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version