Congress OKs Va Tech-inspired gun bill

[FMRAM]

Not sure what to think about this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns

 

[raptor10]

Not sure what to think about this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns

The NRA is behind it

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The NICS Improvement Act does the following: [/FONT]

• [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
  [*]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including: [/FONT]

• [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
  [*]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.[/FONT]

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Not sure what to think about this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns

I'm for it. Who wants carzy people running around with guns?

 

[JIMC5499]

I'm for it. Who wants carzy people running around with guns?

Depends on the definition they use for "crazy". Personally I think this is a bad idea.

 

[MasterBates]

I'm for it. Who wants carzy people running around with guns?

That's all well and good until somebody in the govt decides that you are crazy because you:

Went to Marriage Counseling
Talked to a doc about possible PTSD, perhaps "mandatory" counseling/screening.
Saw a counselor when you were a kid because you saw your best friend die

etc...

Don't think the Brady-ites won't try to use this as backdoor gun control, just like Lautenburg.

 

[vicariousrider]

See, what I'm wondering is this: what about the guy who has no history who suddenly snaps?
And, last time I checked, you can still buy rifles, shot guns, and cross bows, all of which would do some serious harm.

I agree that I don't want a crazy guy running around with handguns, but this type of legislation can only do more harm than good, IMO. If a person wants a firearm, they'll get a firearm.

 

[raptor10]

Are you guys basing your opinions of the bill based on what the AP has to say about or what the NRA has to say about? Because by the looks of the NRA fact sheet, this piece of legislation is a home run, especially since it addresses everyone of your aforementioned concerns...

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

That's all well and good until somebody in the govt decides that you are crazy because you:

Went to Marriage Counseling
Talked to a doc about possible PTSD, perhaps "mandatory" counseling/screening.
Saw a counselor when you were a kid because you saw your best friend die

etc...

Don't think the Brady-ites won't try to use this as backdoor gun control, just like Lautenburg.

Understood. I agree there definitely has to be a reasonable, set standard for what they call "crazy". And no, I don't think marriage counseling or any other minor things you listed should determine that a person is crazy. However, in cases where qualified people conclude that a person is mentally unstable and potentially a threat to themselves or others, I think this is a good idea.

I am not one for the government taking away our rights to own guns, I have one. But perhaps something like this will prevent the next VA Tech or Omaha, NE shooting. I understand that people can get guns off the streets, illegally and this won't stop everyone. I know it won't eliminate the risk, but if you can help the cause, lets do it.


-Ken

 

[NozeMan]

Are you guys basing your opinions of the bill based on what the AP has to say about or what the NRA has to say about? Because by the looks of the NRA fact sheet, this piece of legislation is a home run, especially since it addresses everyone of your aforementioned concerns...

So does this mean that every Psychiatrist office now has to go through their records and report the "dangerous" people to the government? I like the idea that a simple diagnosis does NOT meat the criteria for being deemed ineligible for ownership, but who makes the final call on this? Further, how is it reported?

Bates brings up an excellent point about the every day average joe getting therapy/counseling. The situations he mentioned happen every day to normal people in this country, it'd be a shame for something like that to potentially restrict someone from buying a gun. On the other hand, I'd that psychiatrists may deal with more "serious" patients a bit differently from someone who came in for learning to cope with stress or for marriage counseling.

 

[Herc_Dude]

Understood. I agree there definitely has to be a reasonable, set standard for what they call "crazy". And no, I don't think marriage counseling or any other minor things you listed should determine that a person is crazy. However, in cases where qualified people conclude that a person is mentally unstable and potentially a threat to themselves or others, I think this is a good idea.

I am not one for the government taking away our rights to own guns, I have one. But perhaps something like this will prevent the next VA Tech or Omaha, NE shooting. I understand that people can get guns off the streets, illegally and this won't stop everyone. I know it won't eliminate the risk, but if you can help the cause, lets do it.


-Ken

I know that every time there is some tragic event Congress has to jump on the opportunity to look like they are in control and "stop this from ever happening again".

IMO I don't think this is a gun issue at all. Did the anti-gun folks take every step to make everybody believe it is? You bet your ass.

I believe this all brings to light that we have a serious issue concerning what to do when someone is identified as mentally ill. I know that no one wants to hurt anyones feelings by calling them 'crazy' and its not nice to put them in supervised care until they are better (which may be never). Crazy people do crazy things everyday that harm others - some guys wander the streets pissing in doorways and yelling obscenities at people. Other guys get their hands on guns and shoot people. Both issues need to be addressed. To piggy back off of our UHC thread, this is an area where I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being spend on - care for the mentally ill, which unfortunately may involved removing them from society.

What the talking heads on TV need to ask when these things happen is not "ooo, ooo, where did they get that evil gun" but "why were these people, who gave plenty of warning signs that they were not healthy, not helped before they went out and hurt others."

 

[MasterBates]

Not to drag my ex into this, but she is a great example of showing warning signs..

Her Psychiatrist (when we were still married) told me that she probably actually IS Schizophrenic, but was afraid to diagnose her as such, as that combined with her multiple (5 that I know of) suicide attempts, and nervous breakdowns may be to the point where she would be locked up for life. So as a result, he diagnosed her as "Severe Manic Depressive/Schizophrenic Tendencies, possible Borderline/Partial Personality Disorder "

He was afraid that if he diagnosed her Schizo, and she had another episode where she threatened police or other people that she may be locked up and it would be out of his control.

I'm not sure she needs to be locked up, and as much as I hate the woman, I also don't like judges making arbitrary decisions. If I had reported her stabbing me in the chest one night when she snapped (to other than her shrink when I brought her back to the asylum) she probably would be locked up permanently. She damn near got that when she was taken into custody after she assaulted two cops that were sent to do a wellness check.

Should she own guns? HELL NO. I had to keep mine locked up like there were kids in the house once I knew how messed up in the head she is.

 

[Cate]

Understood. I agree there definitely has to be a reasonable, set standard for what they call "crazy". And no, I don't think marriage counseling or any other minor things you listed should determine that a person is crazy. However, in cases where qualified people conclude that a person is mentally unstable and potentially a threat to themselves or others, I think this is a good idea.

I am not one for the government taking away our rights to own guns, I have one. But perhaps something like this will prevent the next VA Tech or Omaha, NE shooting. I understand that people can get guns off the streets, illegally and this won't stop everyone. I know it won't eliminate the risk, but if you can help the cause, lets do it.

Well, not to come off as a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but if something as clinically subjective as sanity is can be used to take away guns, what prevents the government from abusing that mechanism should they choose to? If (insert government entity here) decides that you need to be unarmed, and all they need is the testimony of one questionably ethical psychologist to make it happen, what makes you think they won't? When it comes to issues like this, I'm a much bigger fan of objective requirements like those laid down in your standard background check.

I just think that this law seems ever-so-slightly reactionary. As scary a thought as it is, the law worked the way it was supposed to in the Virginia Tech incident. The reason the law was written the way it was was to remove any penalties for voluntarily seeking treatment; if someone feels that they need psychological attention but knows that, by actually seeing a therapist, he's going to get his guns taken away, he's far less likely to get the help he might need. If Master wants to have his guns and get checked for PTSD, I'd much rather he do that than have his guns and not get checked for PTSD.

There were a whole lot of factors that broke down leading up to the Virginia Tech incident; that particular law just wasn't one of them. Why did every single student in every one of his classes know that he was a nutter, but nothing was ever done about it? Why was the administration aware that he'd been writing crazy, quasi-threatening English compositions and scaring the crap out of his professors, but it was a complete surprise to his parents? The problem in this case wasn't that he was able to legally buy a gun; it was that he was a freaking loony, and nobody adequately addressed it, and he decided that he wanted to kill a lot of people.

 

[JIMC5499]

My concern is that this is going to be like Pennsylvania's law that prohibits someone accused of domestic violence from owning a gun. A good friend of mine was a township police officer until his divorce. His ex stated that he abused her and threatened her with his service weapon in their house. When this was investigated by the State Police, it was found to be pure BS, but because of the accusation he's not allowed to posess a weapon and had to find another career.

I don't care what this law says right now, I'm more concerned about what it can be interpreted to say later. I'm rooting for a veto.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

I just think that this law seems ever-so-slightly reactionary. As scary a thought as it is, the law worked the way it was supposed to in the Virginia Tech incident. The reason the law was written the way it was was to remove any penalties for voluntarily seeking treatment; if someone feels that they need psychological attention but knows that, by actually seeing a therapist, he's going to get his guns taken away, he's far less likely to get the help he might need.

Well, that seems to be a perfect example of why this should go into effect. The gunman at VA Tech got psychological treatment throughout his life. They knew he was depressed and suisidal. He received his "treatment", then he walked into a VA TECH building and shot and killed 23 people. What good was that treatment, voluntary or not?

If a person voluntarily walks in and is psycologically evaluated and says, "I want to kill myself and others", you think they should be able to keep their guns simply because you don't want to deter others from voluntarily coming in, for fear of loosing their guns?? I mean seriously, how many people that have that mentality admit they have a problem and want help anyway?

-Ken

 

[MasterBates]

JIM,

I lost ALL firearm rights and damn near my career due to DV Accusations. If the judge granted a permanent restraining order (and we know the standard of evidence is not that high, just accusations work in FL) I would NEVER be able to own guns and would have been Ad-Sep'd from the Navy.

Gotta love the penalties of a Felony conviction with none of that pesky trial!

Lautenburg Act is FEDERAL. There is no escaping it. You get a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) you don't have guns anymore. Period. NON-NEGOTIABLE.