POLITICS - NRA backed Gun Control goes to the President

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:24 pm

How long until they come knocking on my door?

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?ID=10407
Wednesday, December 19, 2007

After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation (since when did a NEW Gun Law become "pro gun"?!?!?) was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill (!?!?!?!?

) even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners. (But not for the Gun Owning Families of the "Adjudicated")

Late yesterday, anti-gun Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), failed to delay progress of this pro-gun measure. (Ted Kennedy + "pro gun" = oxymoron...) The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control and gun ban groups are opposed to the passage of this legislation because of the many pro-gun improvements contained within.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following to benefit gun owners:

Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a â€œuser feeâ€

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:46 pm

how does this apply to the families of someone who has ben adjudicated? Who is included in the "family"?

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:52 pm

OI, are you saying that certified nut cases should be able to own guns?

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:54 pm

Look up "constructive possession".

If ANY person in a home is a "prohibited person" then, by law, they cannot be "in possession" of firearms or ammunition.

If I am not in physical contact with my gun - or ammunition - it is, by default and by the legal fiction of "constructive possession" in the possession of anyone who could possibly get ahold of it.

That's how it works for narcotics, and that's how it works for firearms as well.

If my gun, or even one round of ammunition, is "accessible" to my wife, a "prohibited person", then I have "violated the law" by "supplying a firearm/ammunition to a prohibited person" and she has "violated the law" by "possessing it".

Of course, there is no guidance from the Fed on what constitutes "appropriate storage" to keep a "prohibited person" from "possessing" a firearm/ammunition through inadvertant "constructive possession", but that doesn't seem to matter.

I mean, it's not like Prosecutors cross-match databases like those of Hunting Permits and "prohibited person" lists to see ifa prohibited person might have bought a firearms-season hunting license then use it as Probable Cause for a Warrant.

Naah. Never happens.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:59 pm

Junior wrote:OI, are you saying that certified nut cases should be able to own guns?

Define "certified nut case". (ghod I just love the bias shown in these "arguments"... May as well say "******".)

Do you mean people with treatable, and treated, chronic illnesses?

Or do you mean people who are untreated and actively dangerous?

The law makes no distinction - and the law will not allow, even with the NRA's happy new rules, for stable, treated people to get "relief" - because that "relief" is based upon being "cured"/no longer under treatment.

Maybe Diabetics should be banned too because they can go sideways when they go off their meds.

Same same.

old goat · Post by **old goat** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:59 pm

...A long time ago, a man named Ballew (sp?) was shot down by ATF agents, at his home in Maryland. He survived, albeit crippled, and his wife was told she would be arrested if she did not get rid of HER small Luger collection. She was told no one could keep a gun in the house her husband lived in.
...Therefore, based on actual case history, anyone living in the same house would/will be "tarred by the same brush", and in effect, subjected to the same restrictions. To whit: no firearms.

...old goat

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:04 pm

So this is nothing new, mearly clearifying what is already there and forcing states to properly update this information. It also allows folks to fix errors in the database.

If I am understanding it correctly, if one goes in for treatment of their own free will and is not judged by a judge to have problems they are not effected. So if your teen gets a bit nuts and you call the police and they bring them in for a temporary treatmetn which theya re released from then they have not been adjudicated and are not on this list.

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:05 pm

>Do you mean people with treatable, and treated, chronic illnesses?

>Or do you mean people who are untreated and actively dangerous?

Let me put it this way: people like the V Tech shooter shouldn't have guns. Probably 99% of Americans agree with that.

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:10 pm

Treatable=new rule give ability to change the status in the NICS, not previousely availible.

Untreatable=Probably should be well away from guns

In Treatment=Excelent, hope things get better. But for now store the guns with your relitives.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:11 pm

old goat wrote:...A long time ago, a man named Ballew (sp?) was shot down by ATF agents, at his home in Maryland. He survived, albeit crippled, and his wife was told she would be arrested if she did not get rid of HER small Luger collection. She was told no one could keep a gun in the house her husband lived in.
...Therefore, based on actual case history, anyone living in the same house would/will be "tarred by the same brush", and in effect, subjected to the same restrictions. To whit: no firearms.

...old goat

Exactly. No Firearms. For ANYONE in the house. And the 2640 creates a system by which even MORE people can get caught up by an anti-gun AG.

Oh, and here is what a BATFE aquaintance of mine said about this:

I remember a fellow, young and hypoglycemic, living at home with his parents. The fellow happened into a set of circumstances where a quantity of inventoried articles in his legal ownership might no longer be in his possession, where the court-rulings-definitions were then explained within my earshot as meaning that the articles could not be where he could access them, not even accidentally. The huge safe could stay, but his dad would have to get a locksmith to change the combination away from the combination the son knew. That conversation took place in California, but I've heard similar in other places, so I'm thinking it's one of those "whatever the judge says" kind of things. ... http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=3128
struck me as interesting, because pre-Clinton, when restoration of firearms privileges was easier, mental reasons was one of the things that was specifically not allowed for restoration of privileges. This nra/ila link seems to think that (as I suspect to be true) people can "get better"

Point 1: "Mental Illnesses" are mostly chronic neurochemical conditions. They can be treated, but do not get "better".

Point 2: The way 18CFR I - 44- 922 reads, NOT A SINGLE ROUND OF AMMUNITION can be left unsecured... and there is NO regulation on what "adequate" securing IS. "it's one of those "whatever the judge says" kind of things" - i.e. utterly arbitrary and up to the whims of whatever anti-gun prosecutor/judge/AG you happen to come across.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:12 pm

JollyWhiteGiant wrote:Treatable=new rule give ability to change the status in the NICS, not previousely availible.

Untreatable=Probably should be well away from guns

In Treatment=Excelent, hope things get better. But for now store the guns with your relitives.

Ah. So 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to me. Guilt by association.

I do not have the Right to defend my life because I'm married to a person who has a disease.

Thanks for showing me how much my life means to you.

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:17 pm

That is enough.

The law has been there for a heck of along time man, this is nothing new. Just clerification of certain processes that we not being followed before. There is no change to your status with reguards to firearms or having them in the home. You can't now, haven't been able to since what 1968? this law does not change this.

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:19 pm

sometimes you have to give up certain things either willingly or unwillingly for your loved ones. it sucks, but you do it because you love them.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:24 pm

JollyWhiteGiant wrote:That is enough.

The law has been there for a heck of along time man, this is nothing new. Just clerification of certain processes that we not being followed before. There is no change to your status with reguards to firearms or having them in the home. You can't now, haven't been able to since what 1968? this law does not change this.

No, it's not enough.

You either believe in the 2nd Amendment and RKBA or you don't.

Anyone woh believes a man should be disarmed for ANY reason other than his personal use of violence against innocents is a villian.

I have hurt no one. My wife has hurt no one. You say I should give up my RIGHT to self defense - and therefore my RIGHT to LIFE.

That is Villany.

I will NOT give up my RIGHT to defend the LIFE of myself or my loved ones. That is what you want me to do.

I will not Die for your belief in an Unconstitutional Law.

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:32 pm

If your wife has been adjudicated that means she is a danger to herself or others. dos not mean that she has done anything, but that she is considered by the courts to be of high danger of doing so. I did not say or sugest otherwise.
Now as I was saying this has been the law for sometime now. The new one does not change your or her ability to own guns. I am not trying to give an opinion on if you shoudl be able to have them or not. What I am trying to understand is why you are getting so upset about the new law? It does not at all change your situation. It will change your wifes because chances are that no records were given to the NICS system about her when they should have been. And yes they should be there period if she has indeed been adjudicated. The new law however does allow for her to reverse the information if her statuse or situation changes, before this was not possible.

old goat · Post by **old goat** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:34 pm

...No sir,
...Ballew was convicted(railroaded?) by a court of law. Old Ironsides' wife has not been convicted of any crime, by any court. Therefore, it's NOT the same. In fact, she, and others like her, are being denied "due process of law" by this law.

...old goat

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:37 pm

If she has not been committed by a court system or by a judge then what is the problem? Only those folks are prohibited from owning. Those seeking treatment on their own aren't prohibited from owning firearms. And your private mental health records are just that, private jsut like the rest of yoru medical records.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:41 pm

JollyWhiteGiant wrote:If your wife has been adjudicated that means she is a danger to herself or others. dos not mean that she has done anything, but that she is considered by the courts to be of high danger of doing so. I did not say or sugest otherwise.
Now as I was saying this has been the law for sometime now. The new one does not change your or her ability to own guns. I am not trying to give an opinion on if you shoudl be able to have them or not. What I am trying to understand is why you are getting so upset about the new law? It does not at all change your situation. It will change your wifes because chances are that no records were given to the NICS system about her when they should have been. And yes they should be there period if she has indeed been adjudicated. The new law however does allow for her to reverse the information if her statuse or situation changes, before this was not possible.

#1: she was adjudicated over 20 years ago, by a judge, at the request of her parents. She can never get "Relief" because she, like a Diabetic, must take her medication forever. Like Diabetes, there is no "cure" only treatment.

#2: It changes the situation by putting MY FAMILY into the NICS. Until this law passe(s/d) there was no way for an Anti-Gun Administration/Atty-General to decide whose door to kick in - other than those of Felons.

With the implementation of this bill, they will be able to cross reference not only Felons, but Stable, Honest Citizens with CCW lists and Hunting Permits to get Probable Cause for Warrants.

It happens already. Just think of how it can, and will be abused by an Anti Gun Administration.

This will allow Convictions for Guilt by Association with people who aren't guilty of ANYTHING but having a Judge commit them to medical treatment.

So remember, if your teenage daughter starts cutting herself, better not commit her, or you will give up YOUR government granted privelege to own a gun too.

It changes the situation dramatically.

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:56 pm

Not allowing for anything. The law is there, has been for a good long while.

Does this law change your ability to own a firearm from say 2 years ago? NO! You were under the same laws then about having firearms in the home as you would be with this new law. Not trying to say you can't defend yoruself or weather the law is wrong or right, but that part of the law does not change man!

And it does not change things if a teen daughter tries to commit suicide and her parents call an ambulance and she spends some time in treatment. Doesn't mean she has to be comitted by a judge. When the Virginia Tech Shooting happened there was a big todo in the local paper about it. I wrote to the law professor who wrote MN's CCW law asking just this question. His reply was no, if you go in for treatment you are not prevented from owning/having, only if you are forcefully committed by a court or deemed mentally deficient by a judge.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:04 pm

JollyWhiteGiant wrote:Not allowing for anything. The law is there, has been for a good long while.

Does this law change your ability to own a firearm from say 2 years ago? NO! You were under the same laws then about having firearms in the home as you would be with this new law. Not trying to say you can't defend yoruself or weather the law is wrong or right, but that part of the law does not change man!

No, what changed is the Government's ability to PROSECUTE/PERSECUTE people. This bill just made it easier. Isn't that bad enough?

And it does not change things if a teen daughter tries to commit suicide and her parents call an ambulance and she spends some time in treatment. Doesn't mean she has to be comitted by a judge. When the Virginia Tech Shooting happened there was a big todo in the local paper about it. I wrote to the law professor who wrote MN's CCW law asking just this question. His reply was no, if you go in for treatment you are not prevented from owning/having, only if you are forcefully committed by a court or deemed mentally deficient by a judge.

And in some States, that commitment is automatic if the patient stays in the hospital for more than 72 hours or is over 18 and refuses to stay otherwise.

Treatment is not Commitment, but many, many treatments end in commitment.

But apparantly, obeying and/or not fighting an Unconstitutional Law is more important than actually looking at the damage this bill does.

Bah. The concept of Freedom is obviously dead.

The Founders & Harlon Carter must be spinning in their graves.

pshort · Post by **pshort** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:32 pm

Howdy Folks,
Try this on for size: I subscribe to the Brady e-mail list and just got an announcement: They are mighty darn proud of their "VICTORY" in getting this bill passed. They even want me to phone the president to get him to hurry and sign to give the VT families this "Victory" before the New Year!

Paul

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:36 pm

OI, I'm hearing what YOU think can happen, but I'm not seeing it in the body of the news release....Could you please point to the part of the new law you think will affect you because your wife was adjudacated? What I'm seeing is that keeping arms and ammo out of your wife's hands and out of a minor's hands is the same thing as long as YOU are legal to own firearms......Yes? No? Are you reading too much into this? I'm not messin' with ya, I'm just not seeing it..help me out, please, Sir

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:46 pm

OI,

I hear you, it sucks in many ways. Maybe Mr Bush wont sign it & Hopefully once the supreme court decides that the Second Amendment counts this will be rendered unconstitutional.

I'm hoping in a big way that the law is upheld as it was intended. Mentally ill folks need care, not theyre families disarmed. Has little to do with what you enjoy. The Second Amendment isn't about hobby protection.
If my wife or kid is mentally ill I still have a right to provide them with protection.

Perhaps the Gov't should provide armed protection to the families this effects. Whats going to happen is most folks will ignore it, if they even realize theyre new catagory of citizenship & that will create a bunch more "criminals" for the anti's to rant about.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:05 pm

pshort wrote:Howdy Folks,
Try this on for size: I subscribe to the Brady e-mail list and just got an announcement: They are mighty darn proud of their "VICTORY" in getting this bill passed. They even want me to phone the president to get him to hurry and sign to give the VT families this "Victory" before the New Year!

Paul

People are behind this abomination because it doesn't affect them (yet), because they already have theirs and everyone else can go to hell, or because those people who see the world differently than the courts are willing to tolerate just frighten them to urination, and they need to exercise their fear under color of law.

They wish to oppress and to deny freedom to some subset of their countrymen for whom they have no concern. The truth is that they wish to feel superior to someone, so why not those whom the court has already darned?

Brady's endorsement pretty much says it all.

This is anti-gun and anti-gun owner legislation no matter how you spin it, and so is anyone who supports it.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:05 pm

So a law inforcment officer with a wife, judged incompetant would be dis armed?
Dave

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:09 pm

I, like every other thinking man, do not want insane people to
have guns. This bill puts us on the top of the slippery slope
where we let the gov't decide who is actually nuts. Let's
say I have a bout with depression, and the doc decides I
MIGHT harm myself. Well, whether he's right or wrong, he
is bound by law to report this to the State, and my rights are DONE.
Say he's made a misdiagnosis? I'm SCREWED and will have to sue the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to get my rights back. Trust me, they'll find a
way not to do it. The overwhelming majority of folks with mental
illness are not mass murderers. Watch - people with depression will be
found too dangerous to own a gun. The number of people who are
diagnosed with "depression" every year is astounding. They won't
be able to have guns, and they're are tens of millions of them
around the country who are not dangerous to anybody. This is the thin
edge of a BIG gun-control wedge.

The other bunch of folks it will absolutely screw are returning
veterans. If you've been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder - you can forget about going hunting as a civilian. I
served 4 years in the USAF and never saw combat. But what NORMAL
person who serves a few hundred combat days in-theater and
watches kids get shot or his buddies blown to hell ISN'T gonna
have a few bad dreams or need to talk some things out with a therapist?
He's no danger to anyone at home, yet his rights are GONE, and
he's got to sue to get 'em back.

No, this is gun control - pure and simple. This week it's anyone with
a mental illness, and next week it'll be inner-city black folks, or
poor, rural white folks.

And the NRA sponsored it. What a bunch of candy-a****d wimps are
running THAT organization now.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:17 pm

JWG, you sound like the guy at the NRA phone defending this. For once I agree with FW-If the enamy anti's like it ya just got screwed- another incramental step to loose your god given right guranteed by the second.
Amazing how we blind ourseves

Dave

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:34 pm

JWG -believe you and Hillary think the same-some thing about every body giving up something for benefit of all

Frustration

Dave

cutter · Post by **cutter** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:55 pm

I'm so confused.

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:00 pm

JWG -believe you and Hillary think the same-some thing about every body giving up something for benefit of all

OK, this is not ment to flame anyone please don't take it as such.

From what I am getting from him his wife's parents had her committed by a judge before they met. She had this prior to them getting married. this was less than 20 years ago they got together. the law banning her from having firearms was in place long before that. the laws (or procedures) about him having guns were in place before they got married. I am not trying to support the way the law is but simply stating that that is currently the law and he is in violation of it. Call your congress critter and get it changed if you don't like it. not trying to support the "guity by assoiation" law just not quite getting his point in the matter since the new rules don't change that portion of the law that he is and has been in violation of and is now upset that he might get in trouble for. There are many firearms laws that I don't believe in and think are unconsitutional but I still follow them.

he is upset that his wife's name will now be uploaded into the NICS system. It should be as she technically meets the definition of a banned person. right or wrong she meets that definition.

I still however do not see where in that press release it sais anything about having him come up as banned. As far as I can tell all it reads is that the NICS system will now have his wifes name in it.

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:05 pm

From the Violence Policy Center:

Gun Lobby Hijacks Bill Intended to Improve Gun Buyer Background Checks

Senate-Passed Legislation Would Revive Failed Multi-Million-Dollar Program to Restore Gun Privileges of Persons Currently Ineligible to Possess Firearms Because of Mental Health Disability

WASHINGTON, DC--Leading national gun violence prevention organizations the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence, and the Violence Policy Center today warned that a bill intended to improve the records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)--the national system used to screen gun buyers--has been hijacked by the gun lobby and would now do far more harm than good.

The â€œNICS Improvement Actâ€

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:10 pm

Personally I believe anyone who needs medication to maintain their mental health, shouldn't have acess to firearms or weapons of any sort. I think they should be kept away from the general population because the second they decide they don't need meds anymore and quit taking them they kill or injure someone.

Medication isn't good enough to prevent the constant danger these people present to me and my family.

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:11 pm

careful there swampman, you might get compared to hillary for comments like that.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:32 pm

I'm just tired of having to deal with people (everyday) that I really believe need to be locked up where they can't hurt someone. The doctors take people that need to be in a straight jacket, give them some pills and turn them loose on us. Of course in these last days, the inmates are running the assylum. I suppose it would be impossible to house all the insane folks I run into.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:47 pm

Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. -- DANIEL WEBSTER

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. -- THOMAS B. REED (1886)

The Lewis · Post by **The Lewis** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:54 pm

Swampman, Dispense with the fear bud. It is that exact thinking that is the root of all anti-gun bull. The right to bear arms is so you can defend yourself from a tyrant government or a crazed lunatic trying to kill you. NO LAW WILL KEEP A GUN OUT OF THEIR HANDS!!!!! It will only keep guns out of law abiding hands. That chump who shot up VT would have been gunned down fast and furiously if students had the right to carry. OI is simply trying to point out that this law will make it easier for the authorities to exercise their muscle on people (that means you) so take notice.

I feel sorry for people who are so afraid of the world they need to tramp on my/our freedoms

45-70marlin · Post by **45-70marlin** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:57 pm

Boy! Talk about who flung poo!! I have to agree with O.I. on this one. The NRA has been peeing away our gun rights for years now. where were they when the lead ban in CA.? A wacko will get a gun if they want one.when a wacko uses a car or a gallon of gas to do a dirty deed no cries to ban them is there? only when a gun is used. The system was in place when V.T. happened and it didnt stop him. This new law will only affect good people.

The Lewis · Post by **The Lewis** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:57 pm

EDUCATE DON'T LEGISLATE.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:58 pm

I'm not afraid of anything or anyone. I just want everyone that is on meds for their mental control, locked up. The problem is that it would be about 3/4 of the population of the country.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:58 pm

Any and all attempts at gun control have an ulterior motive. The eventuall banning of all firearms. All gun laws are bad, no matter what good they are purported to do, and they violate the spirit and the intentions of the writers of the Constitution, who felt it was important enough to spell it out in plain English

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

It does not say anywhere ever in any writings of the FF:

Shall Not Be Infringed, Except if....

...Your wife is crazy

...You've been to prison and paid your debt and are free

...You have PTSD from fighting in a war

...etc etc etc

Why is it so hard for supposedly intelligent people who claim to be Patriots to understand this?

Whatever happened to "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!"

Now it's give me my internet and microwave dinner and quit making a fuss.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:46 pm

Swampman wrote:I'm not afraid of anything or anyone. I just want everyone that is on meds for their mental control, locked up. The problem is that it would be about 3/4 of the population of the country.

Are you even thinking about what you write?
Do you know how many servicemen seek treatment when they come back from the chitholes we put them in? How many police seek counseling?
This isn't about crazy people. Its about people that a court recomends seeks counseling.

Read the bill, not the press release, If you trust the press maybe your unfit.

Its a slippery slope, all the slipperier with horse stuff smeared on it.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:49 pm

Swampman wrote:Personally I believe anyone who needs medication to maintain their mental health, shouldn't have acess to firearms or weapons of any sort. I think they should be kept away from the general population because the second they decide they don't need meds anymore and quit taking them they kill or injure someone.

Medication isn't good enough to prevent the constant danger these people present to me and my family.

A whole bunch of interesting facits here. Before these "needed" medications were available what percentage of the population needed them to live? Yes going off them is dangerous, but from my meager knowldge, it is to themselves. Previous to the meds was shock therapy- possibly viewed today as inhumane, and not as profitable to the drug companys. You remember reading about blood letting as a cure for desease in the long past? The day will come when drug therapy will be recognized for what it is DRUGS and a new understanding of how the mind works will be understod and used.
Lock em up and put em away?? They don't even want ya to do that to terorists

As of lately to my understanding mass shooters have not ben officialy judged incompatant BEFORE the deed. So how would you control them.-lock everybody up untill proven sane an responsible??
How many people know how to use a household knife or a vehicle better and handier than a gun?
Meanwhile we squander the gunious of our founders in the wording of the constitution and bill of rights to protect our freedoms from powermongers. The language applies to human frailties and cunningness and is timless as far as technology.
The constitutionality of this goes beyond the second amendment.
Yup hillary will limit ya -tax ya -and let ya breath approved air for the benifit of all

You still have to recognize the step by step errosion of your rights.
O yes and when it sounds like her--well--at least think about it

Apologies for my tone-can't do it in latin, but in wine there is truth

Dave

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:06 pm

BlaineG wrote:OI, I'm hearing what YOU think can happen, but I'm not seeing it in the body of the news release....Could you please point to the part of the new law you think will affect you because your wife was adjudacated? What I'm seeing is that keeping arms and ammo out of your wife's hands and out of a minor's hands is the same thing as long as YOU are legal to own firearms......Yes? No? Are you reading too much into this? I'm not messin' with ya, I'm just not seeing it..help me out, please, Sir

It's not in the news release, and never will be. That's because what I'm talking about is based upon a Legal Principle (Legal Fiction) called "constructive possession".

I've explained it many times.

Until this bill (well, the FIRST version last spring) came out, I did not KNOW I was "violating federal law" by keeping boxes of ammo on my workbench in the basement or by having a gun by the bed while I sleep.

But the fact of the matter is, acording to the 1968GCA as codified in 18 CFR I-44-922 it IS illegal because "proximity is possession".

I.e., if it's in the house and not secured in such a way as deemed "secure enough" by the Govt, then it is in the "possession" ofmy "prohibited person" wife.

That is the Law. That is how it was explained to me by a BATFE agent. It's basically like "community property". I own it, so she owns it but the Fed won't allow it. And that's BS.

I've been fighting THIS BILL because I can - or at least had a chance at - stopping it.

What needs to happen is to dump the 68GCA... but that won't happen either since the NRA helped write that one too.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 pm

I'm glad to see SOME sense being posted.

JWG: How many Fed gun laws have actually done any "good"?

How many have stopped a dangerous person from being dangerous?

Untill I started researching this abortion I did not know I was "violating the law".

And suddenly I am NOW, after 14 years just supposed to give up my guns because the Fed has decided to come up with a way to identify and disarm the families of non-criminal "prohibited persons"?

Not a chance.

THis law won't stop dangerous people from gettng guns. It wouldn't have stopped That Stupid Git at VT from getting guns. The ONLY thing this law will do is make it easier for the Government to harass innocent people.

Just like the 34 GCA only kept machine guns out of the hands of honest folks.

Just like the 68 GCA only made guns more expensive and harder for honest folks to buy.

Just like Brady and the Ugly Gun Ban and every other Gun Law ever hatched by the Constitution Hating cretins in DC has done NOTHING to prevent crime, but has caused untold misery and consternation to Honest People.

If the NRA really wanted to protect PTSD Veterans from getting caught up in this, if they REALLY wanted to give honest, stable people relief, they would be trying to REPEAL the 68GCA.

But they won't - because they helped write that one too.

And I'm supposed to be happy that, with the NRA's help, Massa only beats me a little every day rather than beating me bad enough I may fight back.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:59 pm

constructive possession".

To repeat myself, I'm not messing with ya........But, that term only applies to something in the house that is illegal like drugs, vice, etc..... Not legally owned items. Your firearms would only be illegal if they were allowed to fall into control of your wife.....I suspect that under your control, she might even be allowed to target shoot under your supervision....... Don't get me wrong, I don't care for new gun laws more than the next guy.......You might be over reacting, though.....

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:44 pm

Guys -

I admit, I did not read all of the posts. I got on the site too late tonight, and I'm too tired.

One question to ponder. With the "gun community" at one another's throat over this issue, who do you think is smiling up a storm?

I'm not saying the law is good or bad. I'm saying we can't let the anti's split us over anything. It has been their strategy for years. Please let's not give them the satisfaction.

Dirty Dan · Post by **Dirty Dan** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:45 pm

Lots of wrong-headed thinkin' going on here. All laws concerning guns are illegitimate. I operate from that position, just as all taxes are bad.

Think about it- would Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison petition the government for a Concealed Carry Permit? Don't think so. Amendment II merely affirms a God given right (of self defense against all things, especially the govt) and the most efficient means of protecting that right.

The RIGHT to keep (own, have, possess) and bear (carry) arms (guns of any and all types), SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It can not be stated more plainly. I don't ever intend to ask permission of anybody to keep a gun around the house or in the truck or in my pocket. Suppose for a moment that you need to defend yourself or your children from your mentally unstable spouse. What then?

I figure we will all be outlaws before too many years, or at least our children will. If they want you, they will come. How many yellow sheets have you signed where you have sold the gun and have no receipt, or traded it or given it away? Probably on the wrong side of some regulation somewhere. I realize that in the real world I must pay taxes, but I pay the least I can get away with and in order to purchase a new gun I have to fill out the "required" paperwork, but I do not need to volunteer for more paperwork or abide by illegitimate laws. It is, in fact, my duty and responsibility to ignore those laws. Nuff said.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:53 pm

Nope Blaine.
Its just like shes a felon. If he lets her hold a gun he's committing a crime. Of that I'm sure. The house part is fuzzy but I'd imagine, since she lives there, guns are or can be considered illegal in the house.

When I was going thru my pardon stuff because a similar law/trap like this.
Mine was considered domestic violence even tho no violence happened, but I pled guilty to breech of peace so it was my fault.

Anyway my lawyer told me I should move all my guns out of the house until I was cleared. I asked him if I could just give them to my wife & he said nope, not unless they were all locked up where I couldn't get them & the courts would buy it. Same as OI, if I had got caught with ONE round of ammo it was a felony & just like him I lived like that for over 15 years without knowing I was commiting a crime every single day. They even sold me many guns passing me thru NICS without troubles. My state pistol permit attempts brought it to my attention, otherwise I still wouldn't know.
If I had got caught, just like him, it would be a felony charge & everything would be over. Only difference is he knows the laws going into effect.
The only way I can see out for him is if he gets his wifes rights restored.
They might never figure it out anyway, but what if they do?

It just sucks IMO. Criminally insane is one thing. This is another.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:29 am

They might never figure it out anyway, but what if they do?

Good thing it hasn't been advertised Internationally on a site no doubt looked over by the anti-crowd

Yer still guessing....ain't nothing like what happened to you.......Even you just said that maybe you could keep them at home if the court was convinced you couldn't get 'holt of them.........And, dammit

, I'm not for the law, I'm just sayin' that don't get all wound up til it's time to......And stop advertising out loud, for pete's sake

JollyWhiteGiant · Post by **JollyWhiteGiant** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:46 am

JWG: How many Fed gun laws have actually done any "good"?

There are many firearms laws that I don't believe in and think are unconsitutional but I still follow them.

Dude, read the whole post not just parts of it. Never said which was good or bad. But sincew we are asking, I do think ones banning fellons from having guns are good ones.

OI all of your posts in this thread have been so charged it isn't funny. You really need to take a breath man and calm down. Sorry for the situation you are in but calm down just a touch please.