The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 21, 2013, 07:55 PM   #76
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Senator Reid tells Feinstein there's not enough support for her BILL to pass so it will not be presented for vote on the floor.
I haven't heard that said. I heard he will submit it to the floor on its own, and not as a small(ish) part of a larger gun control package bill.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 21, 2013, 08:13 PM   #77
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,807
Last I heard, it was going to come up for a vote, but only as an amendment to the main bill.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 21, 2013, 09:28 PM   #78
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,195
It seems to me they will fore go the AWB so they can get Universal back ground checks that will be no less than national registration with records kept on every gun sale so they know who has what when they are setup for confiscation.
If we give up our guns, we will loose every right we have. We cannot disgrace our fore fathers and our veterans by allowing this to happen. Continue to write your reps and make your voice heard.
rebs is offline  
Old March 21, 2013, 11:35 PM   #79
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,656
Reid has announced the formal Bill will include expanded background checks (Schumer’s Bill, but maybe Manchin’s), school safety and gun trafficking. The AWB, magazine capacity restrictions and mental health will be handled as amendments.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP98d6...9ffdbb22c.html
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 07:39 AM   #80
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,475
While we have not given it much attention, I think it is unfortunate that an issue as obvious as mental health is also excluded from the core bill because consensus could apparently not be achieved about how it should be addressed.
gc70 is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 10:40 AM   #81
BumbleBug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2013
Location: Near Heart of Texas
Posts: 423
A friend of mine had a seizure & blacked out. The Dr. put him on some special med's & for safety, invalidated his drivers license for 6 mo.

You can see the comparison I'm making here. Suppose your Dr. prescribed an anti-depressant or other mood drug. Perfect excuse to confiscate your guns & then the burden to prove your ok again is on you. Good luck with that...

Sad days in America...

Last edited by BumbleBug; March 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM.
BumbleBug is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 10:46 AM   #82
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
I friend of mine had a seizure & blacked out. The Dr. put him on some special med's & for safety, invalidated his drivers license for 6 mo.

You can see the comparison I'm making here. Suppose your Dr. prescribed an anti-depressant or other mood drug. Perfect excuse to confiscate your guns & then the burden to prove your ok again is on you. Good luck with that...

Sad days in America...
We can play "what if" all day long, but the key point is that your friend wasn't involuntarily committed for treatment or declared to be mentally defective by the courts. That's the bar we have right now before someone becomes a "prohibited person", and it's pretty darned high, just as it should be.

We can push for better reporting from the states to the NICS database without wanting everyone who's ever been prescribed Xanax to lose their gun rights.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 01:35 PM   #83
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
We can play "what if" all day long, but the key point is that your friend wasn't involuntarily committed for treatment or declared to be mentally defective by the courts. That's the bar we have right now before someone becomes a "prohibited person", and it's pretty darned high, just as it should be.
Actually, the bar is only that high in part of the country. In the First, Second, and Sixth Circuits, even a temporary hearing for observation can cause you to lose your rights. There is a case in the Second Circuit where a man lost his Second Amendment rights forever just on the word of two doctors. No hearing.

S.480 by Senator Graham actually corrects the law so that the high standard you mentioned applies across all of the United States.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 09:25 PM   #84
A Rdnek
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Posts: 4
We can push for better reporting from the states to the NICS database without wanting everyone who's ever been prescribed Xanax to lose their gun rights.


Isn't that a violation of the existing HIPA rules?
A Rdnek is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 09:54 PM   #85
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
There are exceptions in HIPAA for reporting things like involuntary commitment, or being adjudged mentally defective. Disclosure on the part of the states is voluntary, not mandatory, and many states update very few records (in some cases, none at all).

Here's an article about the subject, with links to the individual states' laws.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 10:09 PM   #86
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,350
Yeah the records totals in NICS are terrifyingly low. Of course the carrot and stick are relatively laughable as well. Barely more than if the state participates the feds pay them back the cost of participating, and if they don't incur the cost by participating, the fed will not reimuburse their zero cost. It's a LITTLE more than that, but not much. If the feds came out and said any TSA funding, FBI lab work, and DHS material grants require a minimum participation thresh hold we'd see a lot more cooperation from the states. No TSA means no airports.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 23, 2013, 05:24 PM   #87
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
The last midterm election the good common sense of the american people rose up and placed a giant pipe wrench in the agenda of our current President. But the question is, do any of you understand, there will be no AWB coming from this congress?

It makes no difference what the Senate does on this issue. I personally hope they vote on it.
eldermike 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 06:41 PM.


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 0.10048 seconds with 7 queries