NRA backs new BGC Bill

[johngalt]

No, that is not an inescapable reality, it is taking the concept several steps further. Do some people think it should be taken that far? Certainly. Am I one of them? Most certainly not. One does NOT have to lead to the other - any more than GCA of 1968 requiring licensing of fully automatic weapons and suppressors has lead to complete elimination of private ownership of fully automatic weapons or suppressors. A lot of folks still have them, buy them, and sell them. It just makes them a little more difficult to get one, but anyone who isn't a felon can get one if they really want one.

Why are you nay-sayers dodging the main question I have asked you several times? Instead of throwing out straw man arguments, please give an answer to this one question:
Do you believe that underage children and mentally disabled adults should be able to exercise the right to keep and bear arms?

Could it be that you are not answering that question because it points to the flaw in your logic? Are you of the opinion that SOME restrictions on SOME people's rights to keep and bear arms are acceptable and justified? If so, then why is it OK in the case of the young and mentally disabled but not OK when someone has been diagnosed as having the impulse control level of a child?

If restricting children and mentally disabled people's 2nd amendment rights is not acceptable to you, then please present a logical argument why those restrictions should not exist. I have stated why I believe it is the same in principle as restricting the rights of the dangerously mentally disturbed.

Please explain your position on this closely related question.

Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, which you keep missing. Until someone forfeits their rights by committing a crime, no one has any authority to deny them their rights.

Do I WANT mentally ill people, who can arguably be shown to be a danger, to own guns? No. But until they actually DO something criminal. I can NOT deny them their rights.

Children? Denying them their right to own firearms is a recent thing since 1968. My dad used to carry his .22 to school with him, and go shooting at the creek on the way home in the afternoon. If you can set any arbitrary age, why not make it 25? 35? 75? Maybe we should automatically assume anyone who is over 80 is senile and deny them their rights too?

Before 1938, everyone had a right to own a gun, including felons.

In '38 it became illegal, but the right for everyone else was still upheld, there was still no permission required, a felon had to be caught with it.

in '68, the right for private citizens to engage in interstate commerce of firearms was outlawed, and brought national registration (form 4473).

in '94, the right for private citizens to buy from a license dealer was banned, and became a mere privilege (waiting periods/NICS). I can no longer buy from a dealer without permission. In some states, private sales are still a right.

I keep seeing comparisons made by others to driving licenses. Of course, a driving license is a privilege, not a right.

But you only need it to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Not to buy one. Not to drive on private property.

Owning a firearm has become even less a privilege than owning and operating a car.

But we should 'compromise' even further to appease the banners? Doing so has only resulted in losses for us, ownership has been downgraded to a privilege, and now we are fighting over the scope of 'reasonable restrictions', which shouldn't even be on the table.

 

[BC38]

You sort of contradicted yourself here.

The way I read it is that you wouldn't have any trepidation about
requiring me to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, either.

You say we need to capitulate to the anti-gunners so we won't
seem like radicals. I am tired of capitulating. Antis won't be
satisfied until there are no guns left in private hands. I believe
that is obvious. A question for you, BC38. Do you favor
universal background checks? Doing away with private
transactions? This is another 'nose under the tent' situation.
It is obvious that UBCs will not work without universal
registration. "Well, we can't be sure we are keeping the guns
out of the hands of the loonies if we allow these private
transactions, and we can't really keep up with the transactions
without knowing where all the guns are." Soon, I am a criminal
If I don't register the single shot .410 my Daddy bought in 1925
and left me.

No sir. I ain't buying it. No more capitulation for me.

No, you are still trying to say I said - or meant - something that I have explicitly said I do not. I am against the whole idea of psych evals to purchase a gun - for you, for me, for anyone. The comment about my not being afraid of such and examination myself was an attempt at a little humor - basically to say that that no, I'm not crazy, despite what you may think.

I'm not saying we need to capitulate to avoid seeming like radicals either. I'm saying something has to change or we are all going to loose all of our 2nd amendment rights. It seems that these mass shooting events are happening more and more frequently. How long do YOU think that can continue before the non-gun owning public - who outnumber us - decide they've had enough and take action to disarm us all completely? I'm trying to say that I think that day is getting closer now than you may realize and if we continue just saying "Nope, we can't do nuthin' about it" then the anti-gunners are going to convince the non-gun-owning public to do something about it.

I'm saying we have to come up with some kind of better alternatives and some more convincing arguments for our side. The simple statement that "its a God given, inalienable right" isn't reason enough in a society where the majority don't believe in God anymore, and eliminating risk is the highest good. That's the society we live in now, and we better come up with some more and better arguments and alternatives or we will surely loose this battle.

Do you really WANT a civil war? I don't. And FWIW I don't want to see all restrictions on firearms repealed either any more than I want to see ALL laws repealed. If the best argument we have is that the laws don't prevent all criminals from getting guns then by that logic we should do away with all laws - because they don't stop all robberies, rapes and murders from happening either.

For the record, I don't favor UBCs either, but that's what was put into place here in Washington, and it wasn't done by the legislature either. It was done by a vote of the people. Right around 55% voted for it. Guess what guys? The best estimates are that just about 45% of the households in the US have guns - which means that right around 55% don't. See the correlation? The non-gun owners out number us, and they can out vote us. And they will unless we can convince them otherwise.

Of course we all know that UBCs don't and can't work 100%, and they never will. But I think anyone with common sense will concede that a background check that prevents a criminal from making a legitimate firearms purchase at least makes it harder for them to get a gun. If they can't just walk into a store and buy a gun then they have to find someone to sell them one - and that at least delays their getting one, and in some instances it may prevent them getting one altogether.

Likewise, adding the names of those who are diagnosed as mentally ill and dangerous to the NICS will NOT prevent EVERY instance like the one in Charleston either. But it would have prevented that nut job from getting the gun that he committed his crime with so easily.

Sorry guys, I understand your arguments, but that's because I am a gun owner, and pro-gun too. Unfortunately the non-gun folks outnumber us and they don't understand. To them arguing that not even trying to prohibit the dangerously insane from purchasing guns is just plain crazy.

 

[redlevel]

"I'm saying we have to come up with some kind of better alternatives and some more convincing arguments for our side."
..........................

Right now, the only argument I am willing to make is
No sir! No more!

Unlike johngalt, I am not a 2nd Amendment absolutist. I
taught school, and I believe not allowing a 16 year-old
gang-banger to take his Glop Fawty to school is a "reasonable,
common-sense" restriction. The thing is, we approached, then
passed the line of "reasonableness" long ago.

This thread is about proposed legislation that would guarantee
Due Process for Veterans who are in danger of being declared
Unfit to possess weapons by an unelected, appointed
bureaucracy. I am in favor of that legislation.

I am not in favor of the kind of hand-wringing nonsense you
seem to favor. You might have been joking about the psych
evaluation. I didn't think it was funny. Maybe that makes me
one of the loonies.

 

[ladder13]

I know many people who don't own guns, but don't support confiscation or restrictions on other rights. They are smart enough not to step on the slippery slope.
Didn't Bloomber say 90% of gun owners support UBC's?
Figures lie and liars figure..

 

[johngalt]

"I'm saying we have to come up with some kind of better alternatives and some more convincing arguments for our side."
..........................

Right now, the only argument I am willing to make is
No sir! No more!

Unlike johngalt, I am not a 2nd Amendment absolutist. I
taught school, and I believe not allowing a 16 year-old
gang-banger to take his Glop Fawty to school is a "reasonable,
common-sense" restriction. The thing is, we approached, then
passed the line of "reasonableness" long ago.

This thread is about proposed legislation that would guarantee
Due Process for Veterans who are in danger of being declared
Unfit to possess weapons by an unelected, appointed
bureaucracy. I am in favor of that legislation.

I am not in favor of the kind of hand-wringing nonsense you
seem to favor. You might have been joking about the psych
evaluation. I didn't think it was funny. Maybe that makes me
one of the loonies.

I guess we did get a little sidetracked from the original post about the legislation...

I am all in favor of replacing the arbitrary ability of bureacrats to deny rights with one that enforces due process, as long as it is an 'innocent until proven guilty' process and really is a replacement, and not just an additional avenue.

My issue is that it strengthens NICS, when we should be fighting to do away with it.

 

[johngalt]

...eliminating risk is the highest good. That's the society we live in now...

You've hit the nail on the head there. However capitulating to them isn't going to solve the problem. This is the trend we need to break.

 

[johngalt]

Unlike johngalt, I am not a 2nd Amendment absolutist. I
taught school, and I believe not allowing a 16 year-old
gang-banger to take his Glop Fawty to school is a "reasonable,
common-sense" restriction. The thing is, we approached, then
passed the line of "reasonableness" long ago.

I consider the 'keeping' and 'bearing' of arms to be separate issues.

As was pointed out, one person's right to swing his fist stops at end of the others nose.

One of the proper functions of government is to define the boundaries between one person's rights and anothers. This is where the 'reasonable restrictions' come into play.

For example, a person does not have the absolute right to carry a weapon any place he wants. His right to carry does not trump anothers property rights to exclude weapons. Your example of students carrying guns in school is another example. I was just using my Dad as an example where children did indeed have the right to own and carry guns in the past.

The owning of weapons is where I am more absolutist. Owning weapons is a special case of the general right to own property. I have yet to see a case that convinces me that that simple possession (a person buys a gun and takes it home) can violate anothers rights.

 

[BC38]

Yes we got a little off track, but it has been a good discussion. I hope that everyone recognizes that more than anything I have been playing devil's advocate here. I could have just as easily made all of the same arguments my "opponents" have made in this little debate, because we'vea ll hear d them before. I hope I haven't offended anyone, but I really do think we need to develop more and better arguments to oppose the anti's than just the simple "we've compromised enough" and "no slippery slopes" statements - because those arguments are NOT working in the current political climate. The majority opinion seems to be going against us lately and if we can't come up with some better ideas to reduce the frequency of these tragic events and some more persuasive arguments, I fear that in a very few years our cause will be lost.

In the end guys I think most of us are more on the same page than not. I also am in agreement with this proposed legislation since it opposes current trend to arbitrarily restrict veteran's 2nd amendment rights. Though the headline quoted in the original post would seem to mislead us into thinking the NRA sold us out by backing this proposal - when the exact opposite is in fact true.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I really do think we need to develop more and better arguments to oppose the anti's than just the simple "we've compromised enough" and "no slippery slopes" statements - because those arguments are NOT working in the current political climate. The majority opinion seems to be going against us lately and if we can't come up with some better ideas to reduce the frequency of these tragic events and some more persuasive arguments, I fear that in a very few years our cause will be lost.

Not working?

Several anti-gun laws have been proposed and fought for by the Feds. Everything from reinstating the AWB to universal background checks. Even floated the idea of banning M855 ammo. All killed. Even in the wake of Sandy Hook... all squashed. What we're doing isn't working? What would be considered working? Pass all these laws to preserve the balance of the 2A as gun control advocates chirp every time they try to pass anti-gun legislation?

I totally reject the notion that we must give up more 2A rights to protect them. It's true that some gun owners have been brainwashed into the idea of appeasement. The solution is not to join the brainwashed but rather to oppose their brainwashed thinking.

With few exceptions, most all states in America have been marching forward with pro-gun legislation over the past quarter century to date. We have been and are winning. Certainly no indicator to adopt a defeatist attitude.

 

[johngalt]

Yes we got a little off track, but it has been a good discussion. I hope that everyone recognizes that more than anything I have been playing devil's advocate here. I could have just as easily made all of the same arguments my "opponents" have made in this little debate, because we'vea ll hear d them before. I hope I haven't offended anyone, but I really do think we need to develop more and better arguments to oppose the anti's than just the simple "we've compromised enough" and "no slippery slopes" statements - because those arguments are NOT working in the current political climate. The majority opinion seems to be going against us lately and if we can't come up with some better ideas to reduce the frequency of these tragic events and some more persuasive arguments, I fear that in a very few years our cause will be lost.

In the end guys I think most of us are more on the same page than not. I also am in agreement with this proposed legislation since it opposes current trend to arbitrarily restrict veteran's 2nd amendment rights. Though the headline quoted in the original post would seem to mislead us into thinking the NRA sold us out by backing this proposal - when the exact opposite is in fact true.

Why is it that every time a gun control bill is introduced, we must always debate it from a position of weakness?

We accept the anti position that ownership is not a right, but a mere privilege subject to man's whims. We then accept the burden of justifying our position, as if they are automatically in the right unless we can successfully defend ourselves. We are doing exactly what they want.

Instead, we need to hammer home that it is a natural inherent right and not a privilege subject to their whims, and we require no justification to exercise our rights. The burden is on them to prove that their 'reasonable restriction' corrects some deficiency in the law defining the boundary between two persons' rights, without that restriction there is a conflict, and the restriction itself does not violate any other right. Without any hypothetical 'coulds', 'mights', and 'maybes'. For example, 'we must ban xxx, because someone MIGHT do yyy'.

 

[johngalt]

The proposed law would be more agreeable with the following clarifications:

* It is assumed the person in question is not a felon, but has fallen ill through no fault of his own. Therefor he has done nothing to forfeit his rights. Any person ruled ineligible to possess a firearm after all due process has been followed, and subsequently found in possession of a firearm, SHALL NOT be charged with a criminal offense. The firearm will be confiscated, a receipt given, and held until the person is declared competent, at which point the firearm will be immediately returned in the same condition in which it was seized.

* Since the government has taken the power to deny a law abiding person their rights, it accepts the responsibility for providing whatever treatment is necessary to resolve the issue.

* A person who is found to be competent after an accusation of mental illness will be fully compensated for costs incurred for his defense.

 

[BC38]

The proposed law would be more agreeable with the following clarifications:

* It is assumed the person in question is not a felon, but has fallen ill through no fault of his own. Therefor he has done nothing to forfeit his rights. Any person ruled ineligible to possess a firearm after all due process has been followed, and subsequently found in possession of a firearm, SHALL NOT be charged with a criminal offense. The firearm will be confiscated, a receipt given, and held until the person is declared competent, at which point the firearm will be immediately returned in the same condition in which it was seized.

* Since the government has taken the power to deny a law abiding person their rights, it accepts the responsibility for providing whatever treatment is necessary to resolve the issue.

* A person who is found to be competent after an accusation of mental illness will be fully compensated for costs incurred for his defense.

All good suggestions IMO.

Phil, on a national level you are right. The ATF has lost a few lately, and the increase in SHALL ISSUE states, legalization of open carry, and even constitutional carry laws in more states is encouraging.

On the other hand UBGC legislation is also cropping up - and getting passed - in more and more states. I fear that the next step leading is universal registration, and we all know historically where that will end. I also think we need to get out in front of it.

 

[ladder13]

Found this interesting incident out of Idaho, neighbors and patriots coming to the aid of a veteran.

Neighbors Surround Home of Veteran to Stop Feds from Taking His Guns! - Eagle Rising

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Found this interesting incident out of Idaho, neighbors and patriots coming to the aid of a veteran.

Neighbors Surround Home of Veteran to Stop Feds from Taking His Guns! - Eagle Rising

Great example of... Family and local community to deal with these type mental health questions...

 

[ladder13]

More signs of the anti's "compromising" towards our position. And we need to come up with solutions? Looks they have gotten out in front, maybe we should just follow their lead.

Bloomberg, Dems push Cabela's, Bass Pro, to ignore FBI rules, slow gun sales | Washington Examiner

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Sounds like the retailers are doing the "just say no" routine. Don't they realize that unless we capitulate to these "common sense" BGC efforts we risk losing all our 2A rights?

 

[GatorFarmer]

Of course it is a right. But do those who are mentally ill and homicidal have that right?.

Yes, they do, though few like to admit it. Being armed is as fundamental a right as breathing or existing. To deny that right to someone for what they "might" do is troubling and problematic. It makes one wonder if the next step is not "Ya know, if we just killed the defectives, they would not cause problems..." Which has happened before, in living memory, in Western first world nations that had elected governments. Deny one fundamental right, why not take it further?

All the homicidal lunatics, half wits, morons and so forth lumped together and armed to the teeth will still kill fewer people than do governments.

An armed populace is the final check in the checks and balances. Look at it this way...having an Air Force protects us. Yet a certain number of people will be killed each year in crashes, accidents, etc. Some the result of simple negligence. This is part of the price of freedom. Similarly, a number of people will be killed every year by misuse of firearms. Unfortunate, but so be it.

Then there is the simple matter of free human will. Just because X might want to kill people, he can simply choose not to. That was why Dahmer was found sane in the end. He could have just said "You know what, killing and eating people is not what I want to do." That is the other unspoken factor. That part of freedom is the option and possibility of doing...bad. The alternative is penalizing what amounts to thought crime.

 

[finesse_r]

Part of the problem is defining what mental illness is. Almost 98 percent of the population is neurotic to some degree. Are we talking about any mental disorder or just those that could lead to violence. If someone is compulsive they have a mental disorder. Most serious joggers and weight lifters are compulsive to some extent. No doubt many anti-gun people believe owning a large collection of guns is proof of a mental disorder.

There is a major difference between a psychotic suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and some neurotic who has a fear of heights or is afraid of open spaces or any of 100 other every day neurotic mental disorders.

Even psychotics with major mental problems vary greatly in their potential danger. Most are a greater danger to themselves than to others. So using vague ill-defined terms like mental disorder opens the door to massive abuse of the laws. It also gives authorities an easy way to harass anyone. The costs of defending themselves in court, could force fairly normal people to sell their firearms, even if they are found mentally competent. Any time this type of invitation to abuse is put in place you can bet it will be abused.

So if you go to the doctor and you are feeling a little depressed, which most people feel from time to time, you open yourself up to becoming a victim of any aggressive law enforcement agency that may have a desire to do away with guns.

Also on felons. Once a felon has served his time he should have his rights restored. If he is too dangerous to own a gun he is too dangerous to be out of prison. If he is still on probation, no problem, he is still serving his sentence. But once his sentence is up he should have his rights resorted, unless the jury make that part of his sentence. It should be jury decision on every individual, not some generic law or regulation.

 

[HorizontalMike]

Don't scapegoat the mentally ill, you might be next

This is a long read, but very informing. Bottom line is that the mentally ill are much LESS LIKELY to commit violent crimes/shootings than the SANE POPULATION.

In other words, the mentally ill are being scapegoated.



US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
Am J Public Health. 2015 February; 105(2): 240–249.
Published online 2015 February. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242

"...At the aggregate level, the vast majority of people diagnosed with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts—only about 4% of violence in the United States can be attributed to people diagnosed with mental illness..."

 

[CoMF]

This is a long read, but very informing. Bottom line is that the mentally ill are much LESS LIKELY to commit violent crimes/shootings than the SANE POPULATION.

In other words, the mentally ill are being scapegoated.

Yup, and this is precisely why sweeping generalizations and witch hunts are not the answer. Those few who are mentally ill and violent will more than likely end up in the court system and be adjudicated as "prohibited persons."

It's possible to incentivize reporting these court decisions (NOT confidential medical information) to the NICS while still maintaining due process and upholding the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."