Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/12/2002 4:30:38 PM EDT
Please go to the link and fill out the online letter to your Senator. The GOA system works, I get replies from my reps whenever I write. [url]http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm[/url] Millions More to Be Barred from Gun Ownership -- Immediate Action Needed Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org November 12, 2002 The House has passed H.R. 4757, the so-called "Our Lady of Peace Act." Its chief sponsor is the rabidly anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York. Not surprisingly, one of the other rabid anti-gunners from New York, Senator Chuck Shumer (D), has sponsored the companion bill in the Senate (S. 2826). The bill would require states to turn over vast numbers of sometimes-personal records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI for use in connection with the Instantcheck. These records would include any state record relevant to the question of whether a person is prohibited from owning a gun. This starts with a large volume of mental health records, but the FBI could also require that a state forward ALL of its employment and tax records in order to identify persons who are illegal aliens. It could require that states forward information concerning drug diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution, in order to determine whether a person was "an unlawful user of... any controlled substance...." The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors. You might remember the Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996? Because of this ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, even yelling at a family member have discovered that they can no longer own a firearm for self-defense. But the anti-gun nuts in Congress are upset because many of the states' criminal records are incomplete. As a result, the FBI does not access all of these records when screening the background of someone who purchases a firearm from a gun dealer. The McCarthy-Schumer bill would change all that and keep millions of decent, peaceful citizens from owning a firearm because of one slight offense committed in their past. The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3 million more Americans who have spent time in mental health facilities. This group has no more involvement in violent crime than does the rest of the population. But even assuming that those with (often minor and treatable) mental health histories are "bad" guys, this bill is NOT about keeping bad guys from getting guns. Bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get guns, no matter how many restrictions there are. This bill is all about control. Schumer and McCarthy want to keep pushing their agenda forward, making it impossible for more and more Americans to legally own guns! But if it is OK to ban gun ownership for certain people who have engaged in a shouting match with another family member, or who have stayed overnight in a hospital for emotional observation or who have been written a prescription for depression, then who will be next on the McCarthy-Schumer hit list? People who drink an occasional beer? People who take "mind altering" cold medicines -- Nyquil, TheraFlu, etc.? H.R. 4757 and S. 2826 are major, anti-self defense bills that will only make the country safer for criminals while opening the door to invading the privacy of all Americans. A near-total gun ban on the island of Great Britain has resulted in England suffering from the highest violent crime rate of any industrialized country. Why would a less oppressive form of gun control work when an outright ban has failed to keep guns out of the wrong hands? ACTION: Please contact your Senators and demand that this bill be stopped. A pre-written message is provided below. To identify your Senators, as well as to send the message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at [url]http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm[/url] on the GOA website. ----- Pre-written message ----- Dear Senator: I am shocked that the Senate has before it a bill (S. 2826) that would prohibit millions of Americans from owning a gun for self-defense. Those who would be banned present no greater risk of committing violent crimes than does the rest of the population. Are all the rest of us next? Please vote against this monstrosity (also known as the Our Lady of Peace bill) if it comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Gun Owners of America will be using this vote for their rating of Congress. I would like to hear from you about whether you support this massive increase in gun control. **************************** Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable. To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location. To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 5:59:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2002 6:05:09 PM EDT by 9divdoc]
On October 16, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by voice vote legislation authorizing funding to ensure that states and localities report the names of individuals "adjudicated as mentally defective" with the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIC). Sponsors of the legislation, known as "Our Lady of Peace Act" (HR 4757/S 2826), attempted to expedite Senate passage late last week but were blocked in their effort to achieve unanimous consent. Since then, both the House and Senate have recessed until at least the week of November 18 when members of Congress will return for a post-election "lame duck" session. It is expected that sponsors of HR 4757/HR 2826 will again attempt to push the bill through the Senate and on to President Bush's desk where it likely would be signed into law. During the current congressional recess, NAMI will be attempting to force changes in the current version of the "Our Lady of Peace Act" to address concerns raised about provisions in the bill that would erode the privacy of individual's mental illness treatment status and reinforce existingstigma regarding people with mental illness. NAMI will also be urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to convene hearings on the bill to examine the potential impact on privacy rights of individuals with mental illness and likelihood that potential disclosure to the federal NCIC database might deter individuals from seeking treatment. To date, neither the House nor the Senate have held hearings on HR 4757/S 2826. In an E-News message circulated on October 2, NAMI outlined a range of concerns about HR 4757/S 2826. Included below is additional background material and a restatement of the impact this legislation could have on individuals with mental illness. During the current recess, NAMI advocates are encouraged to share these concerns with their U.S. senators and urge them to amend the current version of this legislation to ensure that the privacy rights of consumers are not unfairly compromised as part of the effort to ensure appropriate screening of individuals seeking to purchase firearms. All members of Congress can be reached by calling the Capitol Switchboard toll free at 1-800-839-5276 or at 202-224-3121 or online through www.congress.org. Background on "Our Lady of Peace Act" Since 1968, federal law has required state and local government agencies to report the names of persons "adjudicated as mentally defective" to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for conducting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIC) for people seeking to purchase firearms. However, most states and localities have never complied with this law. HR 4757/S 2826 authorize a set of incentive grants to state and local agencies to report these names. Although NAMI recognizes the importance of screening individuals who wish to purchase guns, there is mounting concern that this legislation contains overly broad language and has potential to reinforce stigma and compromise the privacy of individuals with mental illnesses. The term "adjudication as a mentally defective," as defined in HR 4757/S 2826, encompasses a variety of categories. While it is much narrower than all individuals diagnosed with a mental illness, it does include all individuals that have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, without regard to functional impairment, when the commitment occurred or the reason for the commitment. Additionally, [b]any determination (formal or otherwise) by [u]a governmental agency[/u] that a person is a danger to themselves as a result of a mental disorder or illness would serve as a basis for reporting their name to the FBI's NCIC.[/b] Likewise, a determination that a person lacks capacity to contract or manage their own affairs would also trigger a disclosure to the NCIC. Second, as currently drafted HR 4757/S 2868 is lacking adequate protections to safeguard the privacy of individuals whose names are reported to the FBI for maintenance in the NCIC system. Specifically, the bill directs the Attorney General to work with states, local law enforcement and the mental health system to establish regulations and protocols for protecting privacy. However, the bill contains no specific parameters or guidelines for doing so. Finally, in NAMI's view the very use of the language "adjudicated as a mentally defective" in S 2826 is outdated and highly stigmatizing of people with mental illness and would possibly deter some people from seeking necessary treatment.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 6:14:22 PM EDT
While most reasonable persons understand and accept that for obvious reasons severly mentally ill people should not have access to firearms...hell probably not even can openers..or paring knives.. The provision for Govt agencies to turn over all their health records to the FBI or other Govt agencies so designated bothers me.. It also bothers me that an unamed Govt. agency can arbitrary make decisions on who can and who cannot be allowed to own a firearms for the defense of their loved ones.. This has the potential of not allowing a traumatized rape victim to own or possess a firearm for protection from her assailents.. It also has the potential to keep any Combat Veteran who has had trouble sleeping at night or gone to an outpatient group to have his fundamental rights to self protection and family protection taken away because he expsosed himself to combat and then does the responsible thing in dealing with it after he is out of combat... Kinda like being spit on for your service only this time its Uncle Sam doing the spitting... Its interesting to me how those congresspersons who havent agreed on anything related to Homeland defense took only a few hours to ram this through in their lame duck session... Any returning combat vet from our new war on terror or Iraq that gets into some real shit and has to deal with it after returning from combat wont dare talk to any MD about it...or risks losing his right to keep and bear arms after returning to civilan life... Now aint that a kick in the shorts?
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 6:14:50 PM EDT
b-b-b-but re-pube-lick-ans aren't supposed to pass anti-gun laws!
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 6:31:03 PM EDT
and you poor saps thought the assault weapons ban would just go away.............
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 8:10:42 PM EDT
This is what MY representative (Jeff Flake) said about it on the floor:
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this forward and also the gentlewoman from Maryland for her hard work on this subject; also the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Michigan for their hard work on fashioning legislation here that protects the second amendment rights of all Americans, but also ensures that criminals cannot more easily get their hands on guns. And also, as the gentleman from Michigan mentioned, that law-abiding citizens are not denied or delayed their right simply because State officials have not the resources or the inclination to move ahead on this. I am proud to support this legislation. I urge support of it.
View Quote
[url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:2:./temp/~r107uYmi2q:e45176:]OUR LADY OF PEACE ACT -- (House of Representatives - October 15, 2002)[/url] I am writing my representative, Jeff Flake R-AZ, for an explanation of why he voted for this.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 9:01:37 PM EDT
Anyone who expected the return of Christ with the Republican party gaining control has got to be misguided. The only reason I voted Republican is because they will at least slow down the process so I can enlarge my stash. Dems go to far left, Repubs go to far left for me as well, just not nearly as much. The assault weapons bill is up to fate as far as I am concerned. Combine negative media coverage with "election 2004" and it doesn't look good. Gun owners like us are a stranded group. Repubs know they have us in their pockets, and dem's know they will never get us, so it is lose-lose P.S. I WILL still be writing letters tomorrow. Never know if things will change.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 9:42:28 PM EDT
Point of clarification please: Exactly WHO will this bill prevent from purchasing guns who is not already barred from owning guns? Exactly what form of "gun-owner registry" will be established by this bill? I read it and aside from the legalese, I need some clarification on exactly WHAT is in this bill that will either create a "Federal gun-owner database" or will bar previously legal gun-purchasers from owning guns?
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 10:04:07 PM EDT
[:(!]
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 11:28:05 PM EDT
GOA site is great for letters... sent them to WA and my home state of OH
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 5:04:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2002 5:09:00 AM EDT by edpmedic]
Let’s say if you were busted for possession of Marijuana about 5, 10 or 20 yrs ago. Let’s say it was a Misdemeanor, which was thrown out. You just lost your right to own a gun. Lets say you went into Rehab at any-time for any thing except over eating you just lost your rights to own a gun. If there are even records of rehab for physical therapy you COULD be given a hard time. REHAB is the key word. Lets say you are taking an anti depressant like Zoloft which is also given for nerve problems that cut electrical stimulus due to back injuries. You just lost your right to own a gun. Lets say you take an anti-depressant due to PTSD from things you witnessed at the WTC or other horrific scenes. You just lost your gun rights. Now with that said think about all those Fire/EMS/Police going to see a Doctor for what happened at the WTC and they are given an anti-depressant for their PTSD. Are those LEO going to lose their right to carry a gun at work or off duty. There are lots of reasons this is a bad law and if it goes through many many people are going to lose their right to have a gun. Or going to have to do a lot of paper work and get notes to prove different. We have not even talked about the affects it will have on people divorced with out there being any court orders given out. Or caught J-walking, littering, spitting on a subway track not even the platform. Give an inch they will take miles on miles of your right to own a gun. How about if you have a judgement for an outstanding parking ticket. Or are in default on a loan including student loans.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 5:15:01 AM EDT
The GOA is a great site for people "who don't want to get involved"
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 5:16:08 AM EDT
Emails away. Will pring and mail also.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 5:32:06 AM EDT
Reply from Sen. Nelson, FL: It's about the Money, Stupid! November 13, 2002 Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXX Po Box XXXX XXXXXX, Florida 326XX Dear Mr. XXXXXXX: Thank you for your correspondence regarding the Our Lady of Peace Act. This legislation seeks to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by requiring more reporting by states on the criminal and/or mental health status of its residents who are ineligible to purchase guns. The Federal Gun Control Act restricts persons who have been committed to a mental institution or convicted of a felony from purchasing a firearm, estimates show that over 10,000 felons have been able to purchase firearms due to faulty information from states that impeded the background check process. Among the provisions of the bill, are requirements for states to report persons who have been: under indictment, convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year, committed to a mental institution, or convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. States would receive $375 million in grants to facilitate electronic automation of their records for better access by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This measure has been forwarded to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for review. I understand your concern that this legislation may further affect gun owners' rights. I appreciate your letter and will keep your views in mind if this legislation comes before the Senate. Please do not reply to this message. The e-mail address senator@billnelson.senate.gov is no longer valid for incoming messages. If you would like additional information or would like to contact me in the future, please visit my website, http://billnelson.senate.gov, and click on the link marked "Contact Bill".
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 5:47:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2002 5:52:20 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Just WHERE IN THE HELL does anyone see that simply taking an antidepressant automatically voids your RKBA under this bill????? Come on people - read the damn bill!!! WHERE IN THE HELL is it written in this bill that a person entering rehab or AA will forfeit their RKBA???? According to the bill:
(3) APPLICATION TO PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OR COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION- (A) For purposes of paragraph (1), an adjudication as a mental defective occurs when a court, board, commission, or other government entity determines that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease -- (i) is a danger to himself or to others; or (ii) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. B) The term `adjudicated as a mental defective' includes -- (i) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (ii) a finding that a person is incompetent to stand trial or is not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72bof the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b). (C) [red]EXCEPTIONS- This paragraph does not apply to[/red] -- (i) a person -- (I) [red]in a mental institution for observation[/red]; or (II) [red]voluntarily committed to a mental institution; or[/red] (ii) information protected by doctor-patient privilege. (4) PRIVACY PROTECTIONS- For any information provided under the national instant criminal background check system, the Attorney General shall work with States and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish regulations and protocols for protecting the privacy of information provided to the system. [red]In the event of a conflict between a provision of this Act and a provision of State law relating to privacy protection, the provision of State law shall control.[/red]
View Quote
According to GOA Website: [i]"The bill also reaches for a gun owning prohibition on nearly 3 million more Americans who have [red]spent tim[/red] in mental health facilities. But if it is OK to ban gun ownership for certain people who have... [red]stayed overnight[/red] in a hospital for emotional observation [red]or who have been written a prescription for depression,[/red]"[/i] As stated in the Bill: [b](C) [red]EXCEPTIONS[/red]- This paragraph does not apply to-- (i) a person-- (I) in a mental institution [red]for observation[/red]; or (II) [red]voluntarily[/red] committed to a mental institution; or (ii) information protected by doctor-patient privilege.[/b] GOA is WAY overreaching on this. Nearly ALL people who enter "rehab" or other behavioral health centers do it [u]voluntarily[/u] and are NOT covered by this bill. It's NOT just "spent time" in rehab or mental hospital - just those who were [u]involuntarily[/u] committed - "overnight observations" are exempted from - this and I don't see ANYTHING saying a mere prescription for antidepressant forefeits your RKBA! Sheesh!! Come ON - give me a break GOA!! What's with the exaggeration??? THIS is the exact same type of incorrect and hysterical rhetoric that the Bradyites use against us!!! They whip up their minions with over-reaching and baseless analyses and generally make themselves look like hysterical asses. Apparently GOA is doing the same thing here and is ruining their credibility. Can SOMEONE [b]PLEASE[/b] show me in this bill where it says that ANYONE in rehab, taking Zoloft, suffering from PTSD, depression, anxiety or any other behavioral health problem could forfeit their RKBA?????? If I'm wrong on this - PLEASE show me where!
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 5:49:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BustinCaps: Anyone who expected the return of Christ with the Republican party gaining control has got to be misguided. The only reason I voted Republican is because they will at least slow down the process so I can enlarge my stash. Dems go to far left, Repubs go to far left for me as well, just not nearly as much. The assault weapons bill is up to fate as far as I am concerned. Combine negative media coverage with "election 2004" and it doesn't look good. Gun owners like us are a stranded group. Repubs know they have us in their pockets, and dem's know they will never get us, so it is lose-lose
View Quote
Go to [url]http://thomas.loc.gov[/url]. Enter "H.R. 4757" in the search function, bill summary and status then check out the bills original co-sponsers. Along with the usual predictable cast of clowns: Blagojevich, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Barney Frank, etc, some of the names are very surprising: Ehrlich, Dingell... WTF?
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 6:32:23 AM EDT
The old soviet empire used the definintion of "mental patient" to wisk away political rivals and dissidents.. All they had to do is refine and re-define the rules under which one would be classified.. This law will be tweaked...the data base created will be used sooner or later to go after todays law abiding citizen.. who should have the right to protect themselves and their families from violent criminals and terrorists....and who should have the power to take away such God given rights...The State? This like the so called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill is a load of crap...finance reform is Orwellian speak for control of who and who cannot critisize our fearless gutless wonder leaders.. "Our Lady of Peace"... this bill is named after the Virgin Mary...and written by atheists what a hoot...it is incrementalism..of the same sort that took the Aussies weapons away...you go after the ammo ..then disalow a type of weapon...then you go after who can own them...where they can shoot them...then you go back after the type of weapon. ..constantly whittleing away at what you see as the problem...GUNS...and those who own them...until all are disarmed except the terrorists..murdereres...thieves ...rapitst and of course our saviors...the boyze in uniform...under control of the feds and eventually the new global govt... If this one gets signed...along with campaign finance reform..we are headed for the same govt as Australia and Britain..meanwhile we are crawling with terrorists and illegal aliens and violent criminals and thats just congress...its even worse out on the street
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 8:46:10 AM EDT
This is a clone topic and I demand it be locked! [:P] [url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=149066]Here's[/url] my thread on this I posted almost a month ago. I guess my subject line wasn't spiffy enough, no one seemed very concerned. Here's my opinion on this clap-trap: 1) The only reason this was passed was because Muhammed and Elmo were shooting up Maryland at the time. 2) It's wasteful spending. 3) NICS sucks. It should go away, not grow. 4) Will GWB sign this? Does he want to get elected in '04? Does a bear shit in the woods? Thanks fer listenin.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 9:16:40 AM EDT
dam i better get my bushmaster soon. i was told from my doctor before that i have panic attacks and i had to talk to a shrink. this was 5 years ago and i quit going because it didnt help in the least. so now i wont be able to get a gun? well if they tell me i cant get a gun then i musnt be able to work anymore also so they better be sending me a SS check in the mail every month.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 10:13:57 AM EDT
From Maria Cantwell (D)-WA
November 13, 2002 Mr. Brian XXXXX Censored Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Mr. XXXXX: Thank you for contacting me regarding S 2826, The "Our Lady of Peace Act" a bill to help states keep more accurate records of people not eligible to purchase guns. I appreciate hearing from you. S. 2826 was introduced on July 30, 2002, by a bipartisan coalition of supporters and opponents of gun control, including Senators Charles Schumer and Larry Craig. It is supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In 1994, Congress passed a law requiring a background check be performed of individuals purchasing firearms and created the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) to perform these checks. The NICS background check has prevented more than half a million people with criminal records from illegally buying firearms between 1994 and 1999. S. 2826 provides grants of $750 million over three years to states to improve database records of those not qualified to purchase guns. It also requires agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to improve its records of non-citizens who are ineligible to purchase guns. By improving the databases and background records, the National Instant Background Check can be performed more quickly and accurately. This legislation also requires that any person who has been involuntarily committed to mental health facility or who has been through an adjudication process and found to be a danger to themselves or others be included in the NICS system and be ineligible to purchase a gun. While I agree that the mentally ill should not be stigmatized by their illness, I also believe that it is appropriate to limit the ability of individuals who have been through a process that has judged them a potential danger to purchase guns. However, I also strongly support the need to create more effective diversions for the mentally ill from the criminal justice system. That is why I am an original cosponsor of S. 3147, the Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Act of 2002. While those suffering from serious mental illness represent approximately 5 percent of the population, they represent over 16 percent of the prison population. Nearly half were incarcerated for committing a nonviolent crime, and in some jurisdictions recidivism rates for mentally ill inmates can reach over 70 percent. This bill would fund programs to create mental health courts that monitor individuals to keep them in treatment and out of jail like ours in Seattle, provide much needed funding to mental health and substance abuse programs, and critical dollars for treatment of mentally ill people incarcerated in, or released from, prisons. As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws. However, like legislators and organizations across the spectrum, I support this legislation to make background checks for gun purchases faster and more thorough. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other issue. Sincerely, Maria Cantwell United States Senator
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 10:37:58 AM EDT
The Congressional list per area has to be updated. Distrcts in NYS have been completely uprooted because of redistricting. I sent the email to my senators for all that would do. Chuck and Hillery.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 12:14:24 PM EDT
The_Macallan...You are right it does not say that and I am the guy that said it...I have read the bill and I am saying this because that is the next step... Example...Ban certain guns in NYC...Then it was assault weapons. Then it was paint toy guns red...Now it's ban ALL toy guns..Now it's also Paint ball guns...SO do you see a pattern and this is only NYC right now...And I know it might not relate to this rule. My point is they say one thing now and soon it will be another right and another freedom. Do you know they expel children for playing cops and robbers or pointing a finger at another kid...Maybe those kids will never be able to own a gun because they have a record? FAR FETCHED I think not. Sure stand up for this bill and see what comes next. Do you know they tried to ban Holloween parties in my kids school. Because certain costumes promote a child to be violent or act out that person later in life....GIVE ME A BREAK. Still don't see a connection well it's the same people backing this new gun control law... Sorry it doesn't say that now in the bill, but like I said give an inch and they will plow you under.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 12:50:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2002 12:51:14 PM EDT by Jimno2506]
I also believe that it is appropriate to limit the ability of individuals who have been through a process that has judged them a potential danger to purchase guns.
View Quote
. Do the words "judged them a potential danger" scare anyone else like it does me?? Who will be doing the judging? Jimno
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 1:11:05 PM EDT
The damn Republicans run the house! Why did they let this pass??? Two-faced assholes! I think Rep. Ron Paul is the only guy I like.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 2:53:42 PM EDT
(3) APPLICATION TO PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OR COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION- (A) For purposes of paragraph (1), an adjudication as a mental defective occurs when a court, board, commission, or other government entity determines that a person, [RED]as a result of marked subnormal intelligence,[/RED] or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease -- (i) is a danger to himself or to others; or (ii) [RED]lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.[/RED]
View Quote
Oh, I am SOOO screwed......
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 5:52:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), an adjudication as a mental defective occurs when a court, board, commission, or other government entity determines that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease -- (i) is a danger to himself or to others; or (ii) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
View Quote
This Macallan is the part which causes some of us to feel sick in the stomach. It can be very easily argued that I am a danger to myself and others based on my knowledge and opinions. A "board, commission, or other goverment entity" gets to decide whether my disagreement with Israel means i'm a anti-American terrorist, or my knowledge of where to drill a hole in a receiver means I'll eventually shoot up preschools, or... well you get the point. And that doesn't include those who have genuine mental health issues which aren't serious enough to justify depriving them of gun ownership rights. Ever been arrested at 3am because you got totally drunk and decided to walk down Frat Row naked with your best friends? If you communicate very poorly with the arresting officer, I could imagine him choosing to send your ass to the Shady Pines Center instead of detox. You'd be out the next day, but it would have been a involuntary stay.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 7:20:51 PM EDT
I got the same form letter from Bill Nelson. He always votes straight dem party line. This law opens the door, and when slowly tweaked this is how it will work: If you own or want to own a deadly firearm, you must be mentally ill. Since you are obviously mentally ill, you are not allowed to own a firearm. This is the same Catch-22 scenario of all gun laws.
Link Posted: 11/13/2002 8:00:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sesat_ram:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), an adjudication as a mental defective occurs when a court, board, commission, or other government entity determines that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease -- (i) is a danger to himself or to others; or (ii) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
View Quote
This Macallan is the part which causes some of us to feel sick in the stomach. It can be very easily argued that I am a danger to myself and others based on my knowledge and opinions. A "board, commission, or other goverment entity" gets to decide whether my disagreement with Israel means i'm a anti-American terrorist, or my knowledge of where to drill a hole in a receiver means I'll eventually shoot up preschools, or... well you get the point. And that doesn't include those who have genuine mental health issues which aren't serious enough to justify depriving them of gun ownership rights. Ever been arrested at 3am because you got totally drunk and decided to walk down Frat Row naked with your best friends? If you communicate very poorly with the arresting officer, I could imagine him choosing to send your ass to the Shady Pines Center instead of detox. You'd be out the next day, but it would have been a involuntary stay.
View Quote
Thank you.
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 6:08:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2002 6:08:51 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 7:56:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2002 8:02:27 AM EDT by AR15fan]
Sorry dopers and nut cases, I dont want you buying guns. Existing federal law already makes it illegal for abusers of illegal drugs to buy guns. It one of the questions on the yellow form. Yet lots of dopers, including many who post here, just lie (commit perjury) when filling out the form. What this bill will do is make records, which can demonstrate that illegal drug abuse, available. I would even support retroactively prosecuting every doper who ever lied on the federal form.
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 8:07:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By edpmedic: Let’s say if you were busted for possession of Marijuana about 5, 10 or 20 yrs ago. Let’s say it was a Misdemeanor, which was thrown out. You just lost your right to own a gun.
View Quote
That's not what the law says. A person who is arrested for drug possession, but is found not guilty at trial would not be prohibited. A person who is arrested for drug posession, pleads guilty and attends a diversion program instead of jail or prison, will be prohibited. Current law says illegal drug users cant purchase guns. A drug user is a drug user whether he is sentanced to jail or sent to diversion. Its not the misdemeanor conviction prohibiting him from buying the gun, its the DRUG ABUSE.
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 8:35:45 AM EDT
Where and how do I find out what my Rep(DEMOCRAP) voted?[peep]
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 8:50:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2002 8:52:51 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 9:00:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2002 9:05:49 AM EDT by sesat_ram]
Straight off the 4473:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
View Quote
Almost every weed smoker in America is doing so unlawfully, so these people are already out. Coffee and alcohol are stimulants and depressants, so anybody with an addiction to them is also out. Hmm is nicotine considered a depressant in this case? If so, then out goes the ciggy smokers too. Edited to add... following the wording of this question on the yellow form, I guess it is okay to consume non-controlled hallucinogens as long as they have no stimulant/depressant/narcotic quality.
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 9:23:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sesat_ram: Straight off the 4473:
[red]Are you[/red] an unlawful user of, or [red]addicted to[/red], marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
View Quote
View Quote
[Clinton/Liberal Logic Mode] QUESTION: "Are you..." (Question is asking in the [u]present tense[/u]). ANSWER: No. I am not [u]RIGHT NOW[/u] smoking pot. [:)] QUESTION: "addicted to..." (addiction is a diagnosis made by medical professionals). ANSWER: No. I've never been [u]DIAGNOSED[/u] by a trained medical professional as having an addiction to pot, tobacco, beer, XTC, LSD... [:)] [/Clinton/Liberal Logic Mode]
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 9:40:41 AM EDT
Such logic should be thrown right out. 'Drug user' I take to be in the present continuous tense, so even if you were not on drugs then but you use regularly you are a drug user. If you used it when you were younger or tried it once yesterday, you used drugs but are arguably not a drug user. Also it asks you whether you are addicted. It doesn't ask whether you've been diagnosed. Being addicted is absolute, you either are or you aren't regardless of what you believe or a doctor said. That said, this information is voluntary in the sense we fill up the 4473's ourselves, and have to interpret the questions ourselves. There are probably alot of people who would use such logic to say they aren't using/addicted, but there are many more who are just plain addicted but deny it and fill NO on the form. There must be tons of people from middle america who have drinking issues and buy guns.
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 9:48:07 AM EDT
It's not a lie... if you believe it's true.
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 2:03:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: Yup, the GOP is the gun owners only hope........ oh wait [rolleyes] And you guys seriously expect the same bunch to let the AW ban die without a new bill. Wake up, reality is calling.
View Quote
Garand_Shooter, this just sound like "reasonable gun-control"... it sure is a good thing we have Republicans controlling the Presidency, House, & Senate, or we'd be in trouble..... Republicans will give us a domestic spying network: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?ex=1037854800&en=3778829e1bec3dc2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE "Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database." But the Repubicans are our friends :-)
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 3:37:52 PM EDT
Please accept my appologies for sounding like an ass. But for those of you that do not have a problem with this bill,I would like to know if you have ever heard the term "STEALTH LEGISLATION" ?...... This is an act where the Senators and Congressmen read a bill and agree to it,prior to the final vote.......Then low and behold after the vote that passes it, they get to read the version that passed,and then they see the changes that were made , that only changed a few words........Does any of this sound familiar? It has happened in the very recent past and continues to happen. And i am sure it will happen to this bill since the original composers of the bill actually produce the final version for release. Flame away......
Link Posted: 11/15/2002 12:19:26 AM EDT
Hi all new to the boards. Great site !!! So let me get this straight. When I was young and stupid I got poped for possesion of a controled substance. I did the drug derversion and completed it. This was 10 years ago. I have been clean and not had any negative contact with LE since then. Will this disqualify me from having guns. If so how much time do I have to get an AR beore this passes and goes into affect. By the way the dervision was done in Kali.
Link Posted: 11/15/2002 2:48:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mouse_Killer: Hi all new to the boards. Great site !!! So let me get this straight. When I was young and stupid I got poped for possesion of a controled substance. I did the drug derversion and completed it. This was 10 years ago. I have been clean and not had any negative contact with LE since then. Will this disqualify me from having guns. If so how much time do I have to get an AR beore this passes and goes into affect. By the way the dervision was done in Kali.
View Quote
I don't want dopers like you armed.
Link Posted: 11/15/2002 3:42:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2002 8:45:53 AM EDT
Hey! 1_153_370_371_407 didn't you read my post! I said that I have been clean and have not had any negative contact with LE! and just because I got busted at a party when I was younger does not make me a "doper"!!! Nor should it disqualify me from owning a gun. You only typed a few words "I don't want dopers like you armed" but from what you typed I can tell more about you than you think! Your a self righteous SOB!!! Say guys I'm new to the boards so can someone tell me is this guy a asshole or what? He seems pretty judgmental, and has a hard time reading the facts posted by other members. He has a lot of posts so I know he has been around here for sometime, who else doesn't like him.
Link Posted: 11/15/2002 8:50:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By edpmedic: Let’s say if you were busted for possession of Marijuana about 5, 10 or 20 yrs ago. Let’s say it was a Misdemeanor, which was thrown out. You just lost your right to own a gun.
View Quote
That's not what the law says. A person who is arrested for drug possession, but is found not guilty at trial would not be prohibited. A person who is arrested for drug posession, pleads guilty and attends a diversion program instead of jail or prison, will be prohibited. Current law says illegal drug users cant purchase guns. A drug user is a drug user whether he is sentanced to jail or sent to diversion. Its not the misdemeanor conviction prohibiting him from buying the gun, its the DRUG ABUSE.
View Quote
Partially, and there is part of the problem. The yellow form says "are you addicted" not "have you ever used". An arrest 15-20 years ago, and attendance of a treatment facility as a way to get out the sentance reduced, is not proof soemone is currently addicted.
Existing federal law already makes it illegal for abusers of illegal drugs to buy guns. It one of the questions on the yellow form. Yet lots of dopers, including many who post here, just lie (commit perjury) when filling out the form. What this bill will do is make records, which can demonstrate that illegal drug abuse, available. I would even support retroactively prosecuting every doper who ever lied on the federal form.
View Quote
You got it partially right here, ABUSERS are prohibited, but not someone who once had a problem and ahs since been clean. This bill would ban them as well. Once one is clean, there is no prohibition as long as they are clean... as it should be.
View Quote
So George W. is a past abuser of alchohol, does that mean he will no longer be able to own a firearm if this is passed ?
Link Posted: 11/16/2002 12:24:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mouse_Killer: Hey! 1_153_370_371_407 didn't you read my post! I said that I have been clean and have not had any negative contact with LE! and just because I got busted at a party when I was younger does not make me a "doper"!!! Nor should it disqualify me from owning a gun. You only typed a few words "I don't want dopers like you armed" but from what you typed I can tell more about you than you think! Your a self righteous SOB!!! Say guys I'm new to the boards so can someone tell me is this guy a asshole or what? He seems pretty judgmental, and has a hard time reading the facts posted by other members. He has a lot of posts so I know he has been around here for sometime, who else doesn't like him.
View Quote
I forgot to include the smiley faces. Scroll up the thread away and look for a post by AR15Fan. I was imitating him.
Link Posted: 11/16/2002 1:08:22 PM EDT
Thanks for clearing that up for me. If I had seen the smiley face I would have known you were joking or being sarcastic. Sorry for the stab at you. I thought you were my enemy or putting me down. It would be a tragedy if I could not get an AR for getting a slap on the wrist for having a joint in my breast pocket when a keger I was at more than 10 years ago got "raided" But anyhow if anyone has been in a similar situation and is afraid of not being able to get a gun, you may find this bit of info that I found on the definition of a drug abuser useful. I know I was set at ease. National Instant Criminal Background Check System Persons Who Are Unlawful Users of or Addicted to Any Controlled Substance As proposed in Notice No. 839, the terms ``controlled substance'' and ``unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance'' are defined as follows: Controlled substance. A drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802. The term includes, but is not limited to, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, and narcotic drugs. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in Subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of the controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year, or multiple arrests for such offenses within the past five years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year. The DOJ Office of Policy Development inquired whether the proposed definition includes persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year. In response, ATF agrees that this information would give rise to an inference of unlawful drug use. Accordingly, the final regulations are being amended to identify these persons in the definition as an example of unlawful drug user. DOD commented that the examples should be expanded to include illegal drug use as evidenced by nonjudicial or administrative proceedings. DOD believes that it would be helpful to add the following at the end of the proposed definition: For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court- martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure. ATF finds that the Defense Department's proposed language helps to clarify the definition with respect to the military and is adopting the proposed amendment into the final regulations.
Link Posted: 11/18/2002 1:11:54 AM EDT
Top Top