The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 7, 2013, 10:17 AM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,689
Sen. Graham Offers Alternative Background Check Bill Backed by NRA

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...h-nra-backing/

Basically, the bill says if you have ever pleaded "not guilty by reason of insanity" you are now added to NICS as a prohibited person. The bill also clears up a statutory definition of mentally incompetent to make it clear you must be involuntarily committed for being a danger to yourself and others.

Apparently the prospect of a bill that says "background check" on it and is also backed by the NRA is being welcomed by many Democrats like it was a miracle from heaven. They are eager to get on board a bill that they hope will please a majority of their constituents.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 10:23 AM   #2
Saltydog235
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2010
Location: Pawleys Island
Posts: 1,135
Graham is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, he'd be out of a job if that were not the case. It is also the lone reason he will win reelection from this state in 2014. We aren't real happy with a lot of his other decisions and compromises though.
Saltydog235 is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 11:05 AM   #3
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,399
Quote:
Basically, the bill says if you have ever pleaded "not guilty by reason of insanity" you are now added to NICS as a prohibited person.
Somebody thus adjudicated is already disqualified from owning a firearm:

Quote:
Adjudicated Mentally Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
So, is this bill simply tightening up the requirements for reporting such findings to NICS?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 11:28 AM   #4
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
Not QUITE correct Tom. I saw this little gem in this Op Ed piece. This woman was able to plead Not Guilty, but charges were dropped, so she slipped through the cracks. If the story referenced by the OP is accurate, this would now apply the Adjudicated Mentally Deficient test to this woman, and others like her where the system starts, but then quits before verdict is rendered.

Edit: Thought about it for a second, and decided to check for myself, however S.480 has no been received by the GPO yet, and the text is not available. Graham is from SC though, so maybe he is catching that little whoopsie, and maybe not.

Last edited by JimDandy; March 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 11:44 AM   #5
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,736
IIRC, the big background check fight is whether if one goes to buy a gun, will the check become a permanent federal report - thus a registration ploy.

Schumer wants that as a harmless, blah, blah ...

Tightening up on reporting those adjudicated is not a big deal as compared to a registry (or whatever by any other name).

Flipping news channels yesterday, I saw an MSNBC host (what else) reporting some survey that most of the country supports background checks. Of course, an analysis of the registration issue and the risks would never enter their minds.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 11:46 AM   #6
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
Nor is the concept of BG Checks leading to a registry usually brought up. Ask 1000 people if they favor ice cream, and you'll get a high positive. Ask them if they favor cyanide chunk (poison pill) ice cream, and the answer is going to change.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 7, 2013, 12:01 PM   #7
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,736
cyanide chunk (poison pill) ice cream

That flavor is available if you want to end up on a marble slab.

It's typical, vivid instance and surface validity politics.

Bah.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; March 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM.
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 04:57 PM   #8
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,671
Looks like it requires a finding by the court/jury of insanity which makes it palatable. Still, what about a true temporary insanity case?

Years ago, when I wore a different hat, I represented a woman who was borderline "intellectually challenged" and who became addicted to cocaine. She was manipulated and coerced by some violent, fairly big time drug dealers and was charged with conspiracy to traffic two to three kilos. We asserted an insanity defense. By the time of trial, she was clean and had regained her physical and mental health (obviously did not gain intelligence). At any rate, the jury found her not guilty by reason of (temporary) insanity (maybe some jury nullification going on as well). This was somebody who was not a danger to anyone at anytime, let alone after she rehabilitated herself. I would hate to think an important constitutional right would be taken away from someone in this kind of circumstance.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 06:08 PM   #9
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
Her temporary insanity was created by her lack of intelligence. Being a danger is not the criteria of stripping second amendment rights. Mental deficiency is. I am not so horrified at this person losing her second amendment rights. She is/was an unlawful/addicted user of illegal drugs. She was mentally deficient enough to be led down a criminal path- if the people controlling her had been less benevolent(not that the bar is all that high) would she have killed their rivals, stolen their cocaine, etc?

And I find losing 2nd amendment rights immediately upon pleading Insanity just as palatable as someone who is adjudicated so. No one forces someone to plead that way unless they still go through a hearing when they refuse to assist counsel.
JimDandy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07720 seconds with 7 queries