NRA-ILA email - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: NRA-ILA email

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    While I'd love to see many of the laws just outright scrapped, chipping away at them is also worthwhile.
    You lost me there. How is passing amendments (or "adding to") a law the same as "chipping away" at the same law?

    Aside from that, I don't think you understood my concerns with the 2007 amendments. It's kind of complicated, and I tried not to reargue what I was involved in arguing for several weeks back in '07, so my previous post was probably hard (if not impossible) to follow. My main concern with this revision is that I don't see where it fixes the deficiencies of the '07 revisions, at least not the ones I was most focused on. I'll try to be brief, but the problem is that the wordage used that I am concerned about is spread over multiple sections, so I have to cite those sections before I can distill it down to what I think is the offending wordage. So bear with me....

    The pertinent section that I'm referring to is:

    SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    If you refer to section 922(g)(4) of Title 18, US Code, you will see that this new legislation is not restricted by it, but rather, this legislation expands on the word "adjudicated" to include unspecified "boards," "commissions" and "other legal authority." Code as follows:

    US Code

    (g) It shall be unlawful for any person -

    (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
    been committed to a mental institution....

    (g, continued)
    to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
    in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
    any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
    interstate or foreign commerce.
    The makeup of the "board" or "commission" or "other legal authority" is not specified, but more importantly, not mandated to be made up of a body that adheres to the due process protections of The Constitution. It might be confusing seeing all that legalese when only a few words, distilled down to the text's real meaning, are pertinent, but that's the gist of my objections to this legislation.

    OK, that was an excerpt of a post I made at another forum back in '07. The language is wildly ambiguous as to what constitutes a board, commission or "other legal authority" sufficient to deem someone a mental defective. It leaves it wide open to local interpretation. Actually, it eliminates interpretation altogether and simply leaves the construct of these unspecified boards, commissions and other legal authorities just plain ol' wide open to almost any individual or group any government authorizes to function in such a capacity. No court or judicial entity is mandated to be a part of the determination of one's mental state under this revision. No agency, doctor or legal adviser is provided for the individual about to have his/her constitutional rights denied them.

    And don't forget, this revision was staunchly supported by the N R A and the Brady Bunch, just as the new 2013 revisions are supported by the N R A. Forgive me for being just a tad bit suspicious of such dubious couplings.

    So anyway, my concern about the 2013 revisions is that I didn't see in it where any of the above is even touched, other than exchanging "mental defective" for "mentally incompetent" and one or two other politically correct word-changes.

    Did you see anything that further defines, limits, authorizes or otherwise regulates the unspecified "boards, commissions or other legal authority" S&W645? Because if it doesn't, I fail to see how it could possibly fix or improve anything in the '07 revisions or the base law itself.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. #12
    Recently, a young veteran's home was illegally raided by DHS with authorization of local law enforcement. (Can't remember the post, but it is on this forum somewhere). They confiscated all of his legally owned weapons, and he still hasn't gotten them back. He was illegally arrested, and taken to a mental hospital. All because of exercising his right to think for himself and give his opinion of the ******** in the white house. He was not mentally ill nor incompetent, nor did he suffer from any other mental malady.
    According to this bill, he would lose his right to keep and bear arms.
    The whole thing is a farce, and should be ruled illegal, and scrapped... along with the ******** in the white house.
    JMVHO.
    Molon Labe.
    Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.
    The truth about the former Republic of the United States of America:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Ioz...ayer_embedded#

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast