Universal background checks Dems' top priority

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

My proposals for gun control is irrelevant to the points I am making, which stand on their own and not on my authority.

Agreed. But still, since you are obviously pushing for increased regualtions/restrictions/laws, I am curious if you have a line which you thing is too far.

Sorry, but your curiosity will not be satisfied in this case.

I have read an account of an older vet who voluntarily signed a DPOA and, after the VA got that, the PD suddenly arrived and removed his firearms. I don’t recall where I read that. Of course, like any story, there is likely to be much more to it than was published.

It could have been a gross misapplication of law, in which case those that ordered his firearms removed should probably be reprimanded and his guns returned.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Sorry, but your curiosity will not be satisfied in this case.

Then you will have to forgive me for assuming that you are one of the incrementalists…you want full gun confiscation but understand that is politically unpalatable, so instead you push for every single regulation/law/ban that you can get until we get there.

 

[Cathoholic]

I do not share the opinion of the writer of this blog . . . .

What about the quarter of a million of our Vets. that Obama removed the Second Amendment Rights with the stroke of a pen?

Do you share any of THEIR opinions?

---

To others reading this thread just IMAGINE if President Trump put out an executive order taking away people’s VOTING Rights. Say the 18, 19, and 20 year-olds. Or any other LIBERAL leaning voters.

Imagine the indignation.

LeafByNiggle would have a kitten (and so would I).

WHY does LeafByNiggle ONLY selectively follow that principle?

I can’t say, but almost certainly because this is a POLITICAL issue to LeafByNiggle.

Not a human rights issue for good law-abiding citizens who don’t want themselves being RE-DEFINED as "mentally unstable by virtue of needing accounting help.

LeafByNiggle seems to see the right of self-defense as coming from Government.

I see it as coming from God and protected by Government.

He could argue we don’t need firearms for self-defense.

To that I say, then OBEY the Second Amendment and (try to) change this via legal Constitutional measures in the meantime.

Respect LAW and ORDER.

Don’t ram this down good citizens proverbial throats by a political usurpation of political powers that leads to a PRINCIPLE of MORE USURPATION of powers by Government! (This would be self-destructive for our Country)

 

[Theo520]

Then you will have to forgive me for assuming that you are one of the incrementalists…you want full gun confiscation but understand that is politically unpalatable, so instead you push for every single regulation/law/ban that you can get until we get there.

Yet each increment will fail to rectify the problem, so we’ll need to keep tightening the belt.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I do not share the opinion of the writer of this blog . . . .

If someone is found to be adjudicated as a mental defective, their 2nd amendment rights are appropriately modified.

Do you share any of THEIR opinions?

I don’t know what their opinion is, do you?

WHY does LeafByNiggle ONLY selectively follow that principle?

Voting rights are not the same as 2nd amendment rights.

Not a human rights issue for good law-abiding citizens who don’t want themselves being RE-DEFINED as “mentally unstable by virtue of needing accounting help.”

According to the text of the regulation, that would not be the consequence. Here it is again:

Adjudicated as a mental defective, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), as amended, means 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: Is a danger to himself or others; or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

If someone needs help with their accounting or navigating the bureaucracy of the VA, that does not qualify as indicating they are “of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:” If the regulation is applied exactly as it is written it would not have the effect you claim. And of course no such effect has yet been observed because that regulation never went into effect. it is fear mongering.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

f someone is found to be adjudicated as a mental defective, their 2nd amendment rights are appropriately modified.

To be adjudicated should mean by a court, not by a “board or commission.”

Imagine if President Trump set up a “commission” to determine who was eligible to vote, and stacked it with right-wing lawyers. What criteria could they use?

Voting rights are not the same as 2nd amendment rights.

Correct. The Constitution clearly lays out that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Funny thing about bureaucracies…they always grab more power than they were intended to have.

 

[niceatheist]

You do understand that in most jurisdictions, a finding of mental incompetence IN GENERAL does not require a court, but usually some sort of a panel of mental health professionals. In fact, in many jurisdictions a temporary involuntary commitment can occur without court involvement if the individual is viewed as a danger to himself or others. In Florida, for instance, this can be instituted by law enforcement, doctors, or mental health professionals. So if due process in the case of a temporary involuntary commitment can be accomplished in this way, and this affects the freedom of the individual, then how can be restricting the access to guns of those deemed as mentally unfit be some egregious violation of civil liberties. Providing the individual has a right to appeal such a finding, what can the possible complaint be?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle:

If someone is found to be adjudicated as a mental defective, their 2nd amendment rights are appropriately modified.

Nobody is “adjudicated” by the stroke of a pen LeafByNiggle.

We ALREADY had “mentally defective” people in a situation where they CANNOT own guns when Obama (without Congress) WROTE this “law”.

What we didn’t have was if they need accounting help, they should LOSE their Constitutional Rights (or at least ONE of them).

If I showed you Vets who objected, would it change your mind?

(If so I’ll try to do it. I’ve gotten the emailings and seen some of the citizens complain about losing their Second Amendment Rights.

But it’s still NOT OK to USURP their rights . . . . IF THEY DIDN"T COMPLAIN!)

 

[Boatswain2PA]

You do understand that in most jurisdictions, a finding of mental incompetence IN GENERAL does not require a court, but usually some sort of a panel of mental health professionals. In fact, in many jurisdictions a temporary involuntary commitment can occur without court involvement if the individual is viewed as a danger to himself or others. In Florida, for instance, this can be instituted by law enforcement, doctors, or mental health professionals. So if due process in the case of a temporary involuntary commitment can be accomplished in this way, and this affects the freedom of the individual, then how can be restricting the access to guns of those deemed as mentally unfit be some egregious violation of civil liberties. Providing the individual has a right to appeal such a finding, what can the possible complaint be?

I am intimately familiar with this as I practice Emergency Medicine (although not in Florida as that state has horrendous malpractice environment.

I have absolutely no problem with a temporary bureaucratical/professional declaration of mental incompetence, followed quickly by judicial review. I think states should implement a Gun Violence Restraining Order program. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

 

[Boatswain2PA]

If I showed you Vets who objected, would it change your mind?

I’m a vet who objected. Unfortunately I doubt anything will change Leaf’s mind.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thanks for the insightful (name removed by moderator)ut Boatswain2PA.

And thanks for your service too.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Cathoholic:

If I showed you Vets who objected, would it change your mind?

I’m a vet who objected. Unfortunately I doubt anything will change Leaf’s mind.

Were you personally denied the right to own a gun, or are you just speaking for other vets who you think would be unfairly denied? Remember, the regs never went into effect, so no one was denied anything yet.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If someone is found to be adjudicated as a mental defective, their 2nd amendment rights are appropriately modified.

No, and they weren’t.

We ALREADY had “mentally defective” people in a situation where they CANNOT own guns when Obama (without Congress) WROTE this “law”.

What we didn’t have was if they need accounting help, they should LOSE their Constitutional Rights (or at least ONE of them).

You claim this would happen, but have given no evidence. It does not seem like it would, since the standard for “mentally defective” does not say this.

If I showed you Vets who objected, would it change your mind?

Not one or two, but maybe at least 40% of all vets.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Were you personally denied the right to own a gun, or are you just speaking for other vets who you think would be unfairly denied? Remember, the regs never went into effect, so no one was denied anything yet.

No, I just objected.

You would require 40% of people to object to having their rights taken away before you would change your mind? How about we lock up 39% of innocent people. Enslave 39% of blacks??

This is the problem with democracy, goes back to the 2 wolves and a sheep thing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Were you personally denied the right to own a gun, or are you just speaking for other vets who you think would be unfairly denied? Remember, the regs never went into effect, so no one was denied anything yet.

No, I just objected.

You would require 40% of people to object to having their rights taken away before you would change your mind? How about we lock up 39% of innocent people. Enslave 39% of blacks??

99.999% of people would object to that.