NRA backs new BGC Bill

[ibewbull]

It would be too easy to register the adjudicated mentally ill and convicted felons.
But that would be politically incorrect.
Yes I use sarcasm as a weapon I guess
it is still legal as of today.

The confusion of the end times marches on.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

How does that burden the rest of us who haven't been diagnosed as being dangerous psychopaths?

I'm not a felon yet I am burdened with having to send guns to an FFL and pay fees as well as submit to background checks and pay fees. All of these laws, costs and burdens are on me.... felons still get guns. Same with mental illness.

Maybe there's a healthcare professional here that can speak up, but my guess is that a huge percentage of people suffering mental illness are not even diagnosed let alone adjudicated. And mental illness can strike anyone at different times in thies lives. So how do you deal with all of that?

If you are as serious about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill as you are felons, wouldn't it make sense that prior to a gun purchase the purchaser must undergo government mental testing to make sure thier mind meets government standards?

Be careful about do-gooder thinking...

 

[ladder13]

If we could only save one life............

 

[redlevel]

Be careful about do-gooder thinking...

Why do you hate the children?

 

[BC38]

The camels nose enters the tent.

LOL, the whole CAMEL is already in the tent man!

I'm not a felon yet I am burdened with having to send guns to an FFL and pay fees as well as submit to background checks and pay fees. All of these laws, costs and burdens are on me.... felons still get guns. Same with mental illness.

Maybe there's a healthcare professional here that can speak up, but my guess is that a huge percentage of people suffering mental illness are not even diagnosed let alone adjudicated. And mental illness can strike anyone at different times in thies lives. So how do you deal with all of that?

If you are as serious about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill as you are felons, wouldn't it make sense that prior to a gun purchase the purchaser must undergo government mental testing to make sure thier mind meets government standards?

Be careful about do-gooder thinking...

No Phil, I'm not advocating anything like that and you darned well know it. I'm saying that WHEN a person is diagnosed with mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others, and a reasonable burden of proof has been met, they should be added to the same NCIS database as convicted felons. It won't stop EVERY instance of this kind of massacre, but it would have stopped the one in Charleston. It would reduce the frequency - which as it is seems to be increasing.

Since you seem to favor there being NO regulation of firearms, what is your stand on minors being allowed to purchase firearms? Anything they want at any age? How about those whose mental age is a fraction of their physical age? Are you OK with a 26 year old who has the mental capacity of a 6 year old being able to walk into a gun store and buy whatever catches their fancy? If not then I fail to see why you view this any differently.

FWIW, I am not just talking out my backside here. My 16 year old has had some mental health issues. Less aimed at harming others, and more towards himself. If there were no gun laws at all - as you seem to be advocating - he would likely have walked into a gun store, bought a handgun, and killed himself a couple of years ago. I am glad that there are laws on the books that say minors can't legally purchase guns. Likewise I would be in favor of a law that says those adjudicated as mentally unstable and a danger to themselves or others shouldn't be able to legally purchase a gun either and - as stated before - for the exact same reason that minors can't legally purchase firearms.

Look guys, I hear a lot of people who are against this whole idea, but what I don't hear are any alternative proposals. I've asked this same question several times and none of you have answered. So let me frame it differently.

What do you think SHOULD be done? Nothing? Do you agree or disagree that our anti-gun opponents are standing on the bodies of those slain by these nutcases and using them as a soapbox to try to take away ALL of our gun rights?

WHAT do YOU propose be done about it? Nothing? Just let it continue status quo until the MAJORITY of people get so fed up with it that they start voting en masse to outlaw all private ownership of firearms?

Here in Washington state the voting public passed I-594 last December. The "I" stands for INITIATIVE - so this proposal was put on the ballot by gathering signatures on petitions, and then was enacted into law by a simple majority "yes" vote of the people. It put some very significant restrictions on gun sales and trading - to the point that it has all but killed private sales and gun shows in the state. It passed because WE the gun owners didn't do enough to counter it or propose a good alternative.

If we just continue to stubbornly dig in our heels and do nothing and propose nothing to stop this escalation of slaughter by nutcases then sooner or later the majority are going to turn against us, and something like I-594 is going to happen on a national level - and probably to a much more extreme degree.

So instead of just pointing at my suggestion and screaming "CAMEL" and "DO-GOODER" lets hear some alternative ideas. Because if we don't come up with something, public opinion is going to turn against us and we're all going to end up disarmed. It has already happened to Australia and England. And with the media so aligned against us don't think for one minute that it can't happen here. That's just whistling past the graveyard...

 

[CoMF]

Defining which exact level of mental illness warrants being adjudiciated as undeserving of the basic human right to keep and bear arms is a dangerous subject fraught with many pitfalls (or slippery slopes, if you will). Blanket statements like "all nutcases should be denied the right to own firearms" fail to take into account the many shades of gray involved in mental illness. Ideally, we want reasonable safeguards in place to reduce the chances of a violent mental patient obtaining a firearm, but we also do not want to paint all mental patients with an overly broad brush, nor do we want to sacrifice the rights of the law abiding upon the altar of "public safety."

As far as I can tell, this bill addresses the very much existent "holes" in the NICS system while establishing a much-needed system of due process to ensure that the innocent have a means of restoring their rights in the event they're wrongfully stripped of them. On its face, it seems to keep who gets adjudiciated as "mentally deficient" within the sole domain of the legal system, but it potentially could get perverted if we're not paying careful attention to how this bill gets amended.

That being said, I do not wish for or desire a legal system like something out of Minority Report, where people are arrested and incarcerated for "precrimes." I accept that no system of safeguards is 100% effective. In fact, if memory serves correctly, a great many of these so-called "nutcases" have no previous criminal records or time in the mental health care system; they were completely "normal," law-abiding citizens until they "snapped." In other words, they "slipped through the safety net" before it could catch them. In a country with a population of over 300 million people, this should not come as a shock to us; it should be regarded as an inevitable consequence of a legal system that can never be "perfect." The fact that the number of victims in high-profile mass shootings by the mentally disturbed pales in comparison to the sheer number of deaths via other factors counters any hysteria proclaiming that this is an "epidemic" which requires drastic measures to correct.

"Fixing" the problem by eliminating due process and granting judicial powers to those who are not competent enough let alone worthy of wielding them is also not the answer. The system we have in place now isn't perfect, but it can be "improved" without screwing over innocent, law-abiding people with legislation like this. With luck, it won't be turned into a half excrement/half ice cream sandwich as it makes its way through Congress, assuming it ever makes it to the President's desk.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

No Phil, I'm not advocating anything like that and you darned well know it.

Of course not.

That's where do-gooder plans generally blow up. See, it's okay when it's the other guy but when it's YOU being required to submit to mental illness screening and approval to purchase a gun that's much different.

Careful what you ask for...

 

[BC38]

Of course not.

That's where do-gooder plans generally blow up. See, it's okay when it's the other guy but when it's YOU being required to submit to mental illness screening and approval to purchase a gun that's much different.

Careful what you ask for...

You are still arguing under the false pretense that I am advocating that people be required to submit to a mental health evaluation in order to purchase a firearm. I have already stated MULTIPLE times that I am NOT advocating or suggesting anything of the sort. I assume you are reading what I am typing so I have to wonder are you not understanding what I'm saying?

One more time...

I am advocating that people who are ALREADY under the care of a mental health professional and have ALREADY been determined to be dangerous to themselves or others be prohibited from legal purchasing a firearm - just like a convicted felon - or a child - or a mentally handicapped adult is prohibited from making the same purchase. If you are understanding me, then please address what I AM suggesting - instead of throwing up straw man arguments against what I have repeatedly said that I am NOT suggesting, and am in fact OPPOSED to.

Same thing applies to the "ALL mental illness" argument. I haven't said ALL mentally ill should be restricted. Some forms of mental illness are fairly benign. Again, I'm ONLY advocating restricting gun access for those who are judged to be a danger to themselves or others, and even then only after a high burden of proof has been met.

While it is true that some of the mass murderers WEREN'T previously diagnosed, I think the majority of people can accept that those are the types of situations no one can do anything to prevent. However, when we're talking about those who HAVE already been diagnosed as dangerous? Arguing that they should still be allowed unrestrained access to firearms sounds like the wrong position to take if you ask me. Trying to make that argument makes us on the Pro-2nd Amendment side seem unreasonable. That doesn't win anyone over to our side - it drive those on the fence over to the other side.

I haven't yet heard anyone try to make a strong argument that the increasing frequency of these kinds of shootings by people who are KNOWN to be mentally disturbed doesn't provide a bully pulpit for those who would take away all of our 2nd amendment rights. I think we all agree that it does. Soooo...

Lets hear some alternatives. The problem isn't going away or getting better. It's getting worse. Doing nothing but screaming "NO!" to every proposal anyone - including the NRA - comes up with just makes us look unreasonable and turns more people against our cause. So let's hear some more and better ideas.

And FWIW, I wouldn't have any trepidation about submitting to a psych eval. I had to have one in prep for my weight loss surgery. No big deal. But I guess having one could be a big deal for SOME people

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

And FWIW, I wouldn't have any trepidation about submitting to a psych eval.

Well there ya go.

How about have a system where a review board - say 5 mental health professionals, with at least 2 of them being Pro-2A and knowledgeable about firearms - have to declare the person as ineligible based on specific criteria and require a 4 out of 5 majority in agreement that a person should be restricted from firearms in order for a person's gun rights to be "suspended". Require an annual review by a different panel to continue the restriction.

No thanks. I'm not the slightest bit interested in setting up these mental health panels you suggest should be running around declaring people unfit to own a gun. No thanks.

 

[redlevel]

What could possibly go wrong when that camel gets his nose under the tent?

New Jersey Gun Buyers Might Face New Hurdle: Mental Health Tests

Mental Health Checks When Purchasing a Gun

Passing a psychological exam before purchasing a gun? – U N I V E R S E

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

What could possibly go wrong when that camel gets his nose under the tent?

New Jersey Gun Buyers Might Face New Hurdle: Mental Health Tests

Mental Health Checks When Purchasing a Gun

Passing a psychological exam before purchasing a gun? – U N I V E R S E

"Some Utah cops think lawmakers should impose a psychological exam before a person can buy a gun. People who buy guns currently only need to pass a background check, but if it was up to Utah police officers they would need to pass a lot more. Officers say that this extra step could potentially help with making Utah a safer place."

That's precisely what I was saying earlier.

If you truly believe that government should prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns then there is no escaping the ultimate conclusion that you must test prior to purchase. Some may complain that's not what they advocate, but that's the inescapable reality.

 

[BC38]

"Some Utah cops think lawmakers should impose a psychological exam before a person can buy a gun. People who buy guns currently only need to pass a background check, but if it was up to Utah police officers they would need to pass a lot more. Officers say that this extra step could potentially help with making Utah a safer place."

That's precisely what I was saying earlier.

If you truly believe that government should prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns then there is no escaping the ultimate conclusion that you must test prior to purchase. Some may complain that's not what they advocate, but that's the inescapable reality.

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.

 

[smokindog]

I believe your posted question is the strawman here - Do you believe that underage children and mentally disabled adults should be able to exercise the right to keep and bear arms?

No I do not, anymore than they should take on responsibilities like having children. HOWEVER, we are fortunate to have (or had) a system where you are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Allowing a bureaucrat the ability to determine your sanity is by definition insanity. I'd rather risk a bit of my safety than my liberty.

And yes, I oppose DUI checkpoints too AND procreation and driving don't have their own amendments!!!!

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.

 

[BC38]

I believe your posted question is the strawman here - Do you believe that underage children and mentally disabled adults should be able to exercise the right to keep and bear arms?

No I do not, anymore than they should take on responsibilities like having children. HOWEVER, we are fortunate to have (or had) a system where you are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Allowing a bureaucrat the ability to determine your sanity is by definition insanity. I'd rather risk a bit of my safety than my liberty.

And yes, I oppose DUI checkpoints too AND procreation and driving don't have their own amendments!!!!

I commend you for at least giving an answer. However, upon any kind of critical examination your arguments quickly break down. The fact is there is no government prohibition (laws) that prevent the underaged or mentally handicapped from having children. But YOU are qualified to say that they shouldn't have that responsibility? That seems rather arbitrary. So that comparison isn't valid in the context of this argument. And to address your other specious argument, children and mentally handicapped people are innocent until proven guilty too, aren't they? They have committed no crime, so that argument doesn't support your position either.

You stated that you are in favor of the restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights, despite their not being guilty of anything, but you give no justification for that position - except not wanting them to have that responsibility. I too am in favor of this existing restriction, but I've given details of my reason for that, and it is more than just my judgement that they shouldn't have that responsibility. I favor the restriction because they lack the judgement to responsibly exercise those rights. Over and over again the dangerously mentally ill have clearly demonstrated that they lack that same qualification. That is why I feel the same restriction should apply. Please explain why you don't.

You've raised yet one more straw man. Did I ever say anywhere that I thought some individual bureaucrat should be able to make an arbitrary determination on ANYONE'S sanity? No, I suggested that the determination should only be made by a GROUP of qualified mental health professionals, that to be binding it should require a majority decision, and that making the determination should require a high standard of proof. That's just about as far removed from advocating an arbitrary determination by an individual bureaucrat as night is from day. So again, you're claiming I'm advocating something I am not - in fact something that I have explicitly stated that I don't advocate - not once but several times.

That my friend is the textbook definition of a straw man argument.

 

[smokindog]

Ya, you pretty much missed the point and took a page to do it.

I commend you for at least giving an answer. However, upon any kind of critical examination your arguments quickly break down. The fact is there is no government prohibition (laws) that prevent the underaged or mentally handicapped from having children. But YOU are qualified to say that they shouldn't have that responsibility? That seems rather arbitrary. So that comparison isn't valid in the context of this argument. And to address your other specious argument, children and mentally handicapped people are innocent until proven guilty too, aren't they? They have committed no crime, so that argument doesn't support your position either.

You stated that you are in favor of the restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights, despite their not being guilty of anything, but you give no justification for that position - except not wanting them to have that responsibility. I too am in favor of this existing restriction, but I've given details of my reason for that, and it is more than just my judgement that they shouldn't have that responsibility. I favor the restriction because they lack the judgement to responsibly exercise those rights. Over and over again the dangerously mentally ill have clearly demonstrated that they lack that same qualification. That is why I feel the same restriction should apply. Please explain why you don't.

You've raised yet one more straw man. Did I ever say anywhere that I thought some individual bureaucrat should be able to make an arbitrary determination on ANYONE'S sanity? No, I suggested that the determination should only be made by a GROUP of qualified mental health professionals, that to be binding it should require a majority decision, and that making the determination should require a high standard of proof. That's just about as far removed from advocating an arbitrary determination by an individual bureaucrat as night is from day. So again, you're claiming I'm advocating something I am not - in fact something that I have explicitly stated that I don't advocate - not once but several times.

That my friend is the textbook definition of a straw man argument.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

After all the forms, government checks into our lives, fees and taxes we burden everyone with to buy a gun, felons still get guns if they want one. So do unlawful users of controlled substances... on and on and on... And after all your suggested big government mental panels running around declaring who can and can't buy a gun, a criminal psychopath, schizophrenic or or or or... will still get a gun if they want one.

My solution?
Read the Constitution.
Dismantle the entire FFL system.
Family and local community to deal with these type mental health questions.

It's not a perfect world. Stuff happens. More big government, anointed experts judging our worthiness to exercise Constitutional rights, more laws, surrendering more 2A rights... is not the path to liberty. The convoluted rationale that we must do these things else lose all our 2A rights as gun control advocates love to suggest is poppycock.

No thanks.

 

[ladder13]

Maybe we can tax our way to safety

Seattle passes gun-violence tax bill - Washington Times

“Gun violence is a public-health crisis in our city and our nation,” Council President Tim Burgess told the Seattle Times on Monday."

Health crisis? That sounds familiar.

 

[redlevel]

You are still arguing under the false pretense that I am advocating that people be required to submit to a mental health evaluation in order to purchase a firearm.



And FWIW, I wouldn't have any trepidation about submitting to a psych eval.

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.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Maybe we can tax our way to safety

Seattle passes gun-violence tax bill - Washington Times

“Gun violence is a public-health crisis in our city and our nation,” Council President Tim Burgess told the Seattle Times on Monday."

Health crisis? That sounds familiar.

Wait a minute. Didn't Washington pass a law that everyone must submit to a background check when purchasing a gun even if it's a private sale? Criminals still getting guns? Still committing crime? How can this be?

No doubt the tax revenues will help pay for a panel of experts to investigate and get to the bottom of this puzzling issue.

Universal mental health checks...

 

[ladder13]

I have no problem with mental health checks...........................................................................






for politicians.