View Single Post
Old April 20, 2013, 06:51 PM   #49
Romeo 33 Delta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2009
Posts: 313
Jimdandy.

"As I've already mentioned, there are more mental deficient records than felons."

So, if they have been properly adjudicated, what exactly is the problem? That there are too many instances? That is not an excuse not to report; if anything it makes it more important.

"With our dual sovereignty system, the Federal government has VERY limited ability to mandate the State government do anything. They can only offer money, and prevent grants/federal services in states that don't comply in an effort to cajole states into compliance, or shame their citizenry into demanding compliance from their state lawmakers. "

Then exactly how does the apparent complete reporting of felony convictions, DAs and ROs get regularly reported to the NICS database? Just put the mental health adjudications and involuntary committments under that same regulation. Is there a problem with that? If so, why?

Scrubcedar:

I fully understand that the effective outcome of any of these "prohibiting" laws is highly questionable. That is not a reason to ignore having them any more than the fact that we continue to have murderers that we should just recind laws against murder. Yes, it's reductio ad absurdum and intended as such.

We're stuck with the #4473; I don't ever see that going away. That given, I see no reason that the mental health component would be any less effective than the other "disqualifiers" in section 11 and to blow it off as being "non-productive" means that all of section 11 should simply be eliminated for the same reason.

Presently, the lack of provision for putting adjudications and committments on the same footing as the criminal convictions not only makes no sense, it serves to make an already weak system even more worthless. Simply put, if you not going to require the data be provided, what is the point of having 11f on the form?

I am adamantly opposed to using any other information of a medical nature as a disqualifier for a citizen to be able to freely exercise his/her individual, fundamental rights ... not without due process. If you are inclined otherwise I only suggest you substitute the right to vote for the right to own a firearm and ask yourself if you still fee the same way.

As to (Not Really) Universal Background Checks, before I jump on that bandwagon, I want to see the effect of vigorous investigation and serious prosecution of felony violations on the #4473. Willful and intentional falsification of information, straw purchases, attempts of prohibited persons to acquire a fiream, and the like. I also want to see serious consequences as well(read that as maximum sentences to be served consecutively).

Last edited by Romeo 33 Delta; April 20, 2013 at 07:33 PM.
Romeo 33 Delta is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05311 seconds with 7 queries