OT - Finally, a gun law...

...that actually makes sense.

formatting link

Reply to
witfal
Loading thread data ...

Now, if Bush signs it..... Next, enforce the gun laws on the books.

Reply to
F.H.

That Reuters article is worthless.

From the NRA:

"Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today.  The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act.   These changes make a good bill even better.  The end product is a win for American gun owners.    The NICS Improvement Act does the following:  ? ? Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for NICS checks.  ? ? Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for "relief from disabilities."  Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed "strong concerns" over this aspect of the bill-surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.  ? ? Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.  ? ? Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.  ? ? Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.  ? ? Prevents use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.  ? ? Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.  ? ? Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.  The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:  ? ? Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.  ? ? Requires agencies to create "relief from disabilities" programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.  ? ? Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year-for any reason, including lack of funds-the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.  ? ? Allows awards of attorney's fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency's denial of relief in court.  ? ? Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health "adjudication" or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.  ? ? Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state "relief from disabilities" programs.  ? ? Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans' mental health.  Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress."

Reply to
dbu.

Waaaay overdue.

I'm cryin' in my beer.

I'd like to read more about these details, and reserve judgement.

The potential for abuse within the scope of the law is very high. All it takes is one vidictive spouse filing a restraining order, for no reason other than he/she knows the spouse is a firearm owner, and they then must turn in their gun(s).

All excellent.

I love this one. Surely stupid government bureaucrats (but I repeat myself) are going to hate it.

As long as the adjudication is thorough and independent. I know of two people who can have a gun in their home that really shouldn't be near anything more than a slingshot.

Works for me. Thanks for the info.

Reply to
witfal

Uh oh. That's the end of Sot's gun collection.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

And the problem with that would be...?

Reply to
witfal

Oh...nothing at all. The question is whether all mental health practitioners will agree with the law and report the sick clients. Without that, the law will have no teeth.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

They're required to report patients who've threated violence during therapy sessions. Not doing so would leave them liable. I can't imagine one not keeping better records now. ;-)

Reply to
witfal

Speaking of guns: Read the rules (the fine print) at a large shopping mall today, here in Rochester NY. Paraphrased: "No firearms allowed unless you have the appropriate NY State permit to possess one everywhere else. If you break this rule, we'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law blah blah blah...thank you from the Wilmorite Corporation blah blah blah".

In other words, those of us who can carry legally in public can do the same at that mall, and probably all the others in this county, since they're owned by the same company. Next time you notice someone whining about gun free zones, tell them to shaddup until they check the specifics of the mall(s) where they shop. Otherwise, they're just spreading rumors.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Speaking of guns, anyone who hates 'em ought to read the newest stats, from the FBI no less, for 2006.

EVERY, repeat EVERY state in which concealed carry laws are passed sees a drop in crime. The average of all states sees murder drop 27% within the first two years. The highest crime states have the most restrictive laws.

So much for guns causing crime.

Reply to
witfal

In my town/state, regardless if you have a permit to carry or not (licensed peace officers or company security exempt), if they have the sign posted that you are not permitted to carry a firearm in that place, you are not permitted to carry a firearm in that place. State law.

Reply to
dbu.

Assuming you are doing a PROPER JOB of carrying concealed, I wonder how a mall employee or police officer would find out you had the gun. I can think of two way, both as likely as being hit by lightning.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Slight problem with proof and personalties of therapists. Do you think therapy is recorded?

Reply to
F.H.

Another question is..., as we evolve more and more toward an Orwellian society will the diagnosis become a political tool?

Reply to
F.H.

If it's properly concealed and would not be exposed to security unless there were metal detectors, which the malls don't have (yet, that I know of). You could get away with it. For me, I would not carry a firearm anyplace in public, malls, etc, no way, even if I had a permit to carry, which I don't and don't want. It exposes the carrier to liabilities beyond comprehension. I've never in my lifetime ever had a situation in public (except in RVN) that I needed a firearm to protect myself or others. I know there's always the first time, but highly unlikely. The best defense is to get away. I always have a plan. We have a very good PD and security in our major malls. I let them do the dirty work.

Reply to
dbu.

Worse things happen to crazy people than not being able to easily get a gun. If they commit a crime, they may end up in a special type of prison, for instance, based on the diagnosis from a psychiatrist. Where are the privacy issues with that?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Exactly. And unless the city/town/whatever had a law specifically written to address the "crime", you'd be guilty of nothing but trespassing.

Not true for everyone, though. And anyway, it's not really relevant to the discussion.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

In Kalifornia you have to be *really* crazy to wind up in a mental hospital. If you register a 9 on the 10 scale of loony you just wind up in jail. Separated, in most cases, but still in jail.

Reply to
F.H.

Meanwhile, back in the world of the sane, I wonder what will happen to the stepfather who allowed the Omaha shooter to steal his rifle. At the very least, people who fail to properly secure their guns should be required to be present for all the steps involved in handling the dead victims. Maybe even help with the embalming. That guy knew the kid was unstable, and still, he participated in the disaster, for all intents and purposes.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Are you 100 percent positive about that?

Why is it not relevant?

Reply to
dbu.

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.