Senate passes HR2640

[Sebastian]

The NRA's press release is accurate in terms of what the law contains. The reason the gun controllers are throwing a party over this is because they are on the ropes and have to declare something as a victory. Getting the feds to fund making the NICS data more accurate is being declared a victory for them. They are hoping people will forget that they fought the NICS system tooth and nail in favor of waiting periods back when it was originally proposed as an alternative to the waiting periods the Brady Act called for.

The Violence Policy Center, which is the gun control lobby's "no compromise" group isn't buying the Brady line on this one. Neither is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and Legal Community Against Violence. Both those groups see this for what it is, which is a bill that benefits gun owners.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

Because it is pro-gun legislation, on balance. It's not making anyone who isn't already prohibited from purchasing a firearm prohibited once this bill is law.

but, it will be the case that people who were previously not denied their 2nd amendment rights because of lack of state reporting to NICS will now be denied. so, while it may not add to the legal list of prohibited persons, it is adding to the effective list of prohibited persons.

this bill also calls for greater expenditure of tax dollars to deny people their 2nd amendment rights.

therefore, i still don't see how it is pro-gun.

i am happy that it provides those who have been denied their rights an avenue to have those rights restored, but it is a long and expensive road to restore a right that the constitution guarantees for free.

i'd really rather people with serious mental issues (not just a bout of anxiety or depression) did not have guns also. but, the 2nd amendment says what it says...and does not include any exceptions for people with mental issues. the same is true for the PA constitution's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

rule of law is more important than preventing people with mental issues from having guns. and, frankly, i fear the day is near when many people on this forum will be judged to have mental issues just because we believe in limiting government to its proper role and speak out against government abuse of power.

if people want to deny those with mental issues the right to keep and bear arms, the constitution needs to be amended to allow for it.

This is true. Except that they did pretty much stop it, and managed to channel the debate in the direction of NICS improvement, then hijacked McCarthy's bill with the help of Dingell and Baucher, and turned it into something that actually benefits us.

benefits who? it does not benefit me. it uses more of my tax dollars to deny more people who are not convicted of any crime their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

it benefits law abiding people who have been denied their second amendment rights if, and only if, they happen to have enough money to hire a good enough lawyer to get their rights back for them...assuming they don't end up with an anti-gun judge that just never restores anyone's rights.

It's an under appreciated bit of political maneuvering on NRA's part that this turned out the way it did.

actually, i do appreciate it. i just wish the NRA would be more forthright about what they did instead of trying to spin it into something it is not.

given the political climate and the events at VT, i actually think the NRA did about as good of a job with this as they could have. but, this is not pro-gun legislation.

the net effect of this legislation will be that more (law abiding) people will actually be denied the right to keep and bear arms. and more tax dollars will be spent to stop more law abiding people from owning guns. that is not pro-gun legislation.

[Sebastian]

It does add them to NICS, but they are still prohibited persons, and are liable for a felony conviction if they are caught in possession of that firearm. Passing NICS doesn't clear you of liability for the felony.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

It does add them to NICS, but they are still prohibited persons, and are liable for a felony conviction if they are caught in possession of that firearm. Passing NICS doesn't clear you of liability for the felony.

that is true...but i'm not sure i understand your point.

[Sebastian]

The point I suppose would be the argument is against the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is what created this class of prohibited persons. Your argument, as I understand it, is that criminals and the mentally ill still have a constitutional right to bear arms that can't be infringed. I don't really agree with that, because our constitutional system provides that people can be denied life, liberty and property through due process of law.

I also have issues with the Gun Control Act of 1968's prohibited persons provisions, but I don't think it's unconstitutional to take someone's liberty away from them after due process. I don't really agree with the Gun Control Act's approach, but I also think that this bill that was just passed is a step closer to addressing many of the problems I have with the GCA.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

The point I suppose would be the argument is against the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is what created this class of prohibited persons. Your argument, as I understand it, is that criminals and the mentally ill still have a constitutional right to bear arms that can't be infringed. I don't really agree with that, because our constitutional system provides that people can be denied life, liberty and property through due process of law.

i see. well, we are getting off on a tangent, but what the heck...

i think you have to separate criminals from mentally ill.

i would agree that people can be denied life, liberty, and property through due process of law if they are convicted of a crime and the sentence specifically mandates that they be so deprived of life, liberty, and/or certain property for a certain length of time (which may be perpetuity).

however, i have two issues:

1. i don't believe in any legislation that imposes blanket sentencing. blanket sentencing short circuits the concept of due process. sentencing is the responsibility of the courts who are supposed to look at each unique situation and hand down a sentence that befits the circumstances of that case. the blanket sentence of automatically being prohibited for life from carrying firearms for being convicted of certain crimes is, imho, unconstitutional and wrong.

2. i don't see how due process can ever deny any rights to someone who has committed no crime. to me, that is, for lack of a better term "undue process".

but, yes, i have serious issues with the GCA of 1968. it is, imho, patently uconstitutional...and any legislation which allocates money to enforce it is not "pro-gun" imho.

[Sebastian]

I don't really disagree with you. One of the big problems I had with The Lautenberg Amendment is it basically enhanced the sentence of people who had been convicted years ago by depriving them of liberty ex post facto. I don't think that ever should have been permitted. But whether or not GCA 68 and its provisions are unconstitutional is a bit of an academic exercise, because the courts aren't liable to give GCA 68 the heave any time soon, and because most people support this level of gun control, we're not going to have much hope of a legislative remedy either. Most of the provisions of the NFA, GCA and Brady Act are probably not going to go away any time soon, and we have to deal with them now.

The question I asked when I read HR2640 was "Does this get me farther to mitigating the things I don't like about the Gun Control Act or does it take me farther away?" My answer to that was it fixed more things in a way I liked than created more issues I don't like. I understand the point of view that it's adding more to a body of law that is of questionable constitutionality, but given that we're not likely to repeal it, I'm happy with chipping away at some of it's provisions.

[Shawn.L]

I have a question for you guys who obviosly know more of the ins and outs of this than I do. I read it a while ago when it first came up, and the way I remeber it reading it seemed to me that, lets say my son gets in trouble in grade school. typical kid stuff. Gets sent to the counselor, counselor suggests a psychatrist, cause thats what they do. shrink trys to prescribe drugs, cause thats what they do, and "diagnoses" my kid whatever the made up mental disorder of the day is. When he grows up is he then a prohibiited person?

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by Shawn.L

I have a question for you guys who obviosly know more of the ins and outs of this than I do. I read it a while ago when it first came up, and the way I remeber it reading it seemed to me that, lets say my son gets in trouble in grade school. typical kid stuff. Gets sent to the counselor, counselor suggests a psychatrist, cause thats what they do. shrink trys to prescribe drugs, cause thats what they do, and "diagnoses" my kid whatever the made up mental disorder of the day is. When he grows up is he then a prohibiited person?

No. He's not. A medical diagnosis is not considered an adjudication under federal or Pennsylvania law. I've written about this in the past both here and here if you want to take a look.

[Shawn.L]

What if (as is the case with a relative of mine) you where committed involuntarily to an institution as a juvinile?

So that you know, this person was committed becacuse she was an unruly teen that her mother could not control, and the mother abused the system instead of parenting.