Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Flesh Wound

And more reasons to ditch your DD rifle.

Recommended Posts

Marty Daniel opened his pie hole wide today and let his brains fall all the way out by asking people to support the "Fix NICS" legislation.

 

Moron. The comments are brutal.

 

http://knuckledraggin.com/2018/03/moral-dont-bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NSSF and the NRA support it so do I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a moron supports something that gives legitimacy to an unconstitutional law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn shame. DD always supported our MI 2-gun match, it sucks to see this from the HMFIC of the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any changes in the NICS reporting needs to address the constitutional concerns on infringements of rights. If you are going to add people with a perceived mental disorder, you must include due process because mistakes will happen. WE cannot lump all people that seek professional help as dangerous to society and automatically remove their 2A rights.

 

The main issue I see is different Governmental agencies reporting cases of violent behavior to NICS. A prime example is the Texas Church shooter, The Cruz kid another. The Orlando night club guy another. Anyone who has committed a crime of domestic violence or interviewed by the FBI for perceived threat needs to be on a list. Again, due process should be addressed. Someone may say an off handed comment which would constitute a threat but wouldnt carry ourt any such violence. An interview with a mental health professional should be mandatory before permanent prohibition'

 

Age limits. Another slippery slope. While many 18-21 year olds are not mentally mature enough to buy firearms, there are many that have been raised in 2A households and know proper respect of firearms and the sanctity of life. Even that doesnt guarantee the individual is mature. My own case, I bought my first firearm within 2 weeks of my 18th birthday. I was raised in a conservative single parent home but not a firearm household and my mother would not have a firearm in the house. My firearm exposure came from the BSA along with a love of the outdoors. Hunting was just an extension of the two. It never entered my mind to shoot up my school or work place.

 

The other aspect to age limits are veterans and active service personnel. These people should be granted exemption but some cases should be examined further to make sure they discharged honorably. That is already on the Form 4473. These individuals have proper firearms training and hopefully are mature enough because of their service training. PTSD is a concern as well. Chris Kyle is an example of this. He was trying to help a veteran and didnt know the true depth to his killer's issues. While this man was probably not on a prohibited list anywhere, he would definitely meet my criteria for not being able to buy a firearm.

 

No changes to the laws will be perfect, its something that will have to be worked out. Mistakes will be made and hopefully corrected. We shall see what pans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any changes in the NICS reporting needs to address the constitutional concerns on infringements of rights. If you are going to add people with a perceived mental disorder, you must include due process because mistakes will happen. WE cannot lump all people that seek professional help as dangerous to society and automatically remove their 2A rights.

 

The main issue I see is different Governmental agencies reporting cases of violent behavior to NICS. A prime example is the Texas Church shooter, The Cruz kid another. The Orlando night club guy another. Anyone who has committed a crime of domestic violence or interviewed by the FBI for perceived threat needs to be on a list. Again, due process should be addressed. Someone may say an off handed comment which would constitute a threat but wouldnt carry ourt any such violence. An interview with a mental health professional should be mandatory before permanent prohibition'

 

Age limits. Another slippery slope. While many 18-21 year olds are not mentally mature enough to buy firearms, there are many that have been raised in 2A households and know proper respect of firearms and the sanctity of life. Even that doesnt guarantee the individual is mature. My own case, I bought my first firearm within 2 weeks of my 18th birthday. I was raised in a conservative single parent home but not a firearm household and my mother would not have a firearm in the house. My firearm exposure came from the BSA along with a love of the outdoors. Hunting was just an extension of the two. It never entered my mind to shoot up my school or work place.

 

The other aspect to age limits are veterans and active service personnel. These people should be granted exemption but some cases should be examined further to make sure they discharged honorably. That is already on the Form 4473. These individuals have proper firearms training and hopefully are mature enough because of their service training. PTSD is a concern as well. Chris Kyle is an example of this. He was trying to help a veteran and didnt know the true depth to his killer's issues. While this man was probably not on a prohibited list anywhere, he would definitely meet my criteria for not being able to buy a firearm.

 

No changes to the laws will be perfect, its something that will have to be worked out. Mistakes will be made and hopefully corrected. We shall see what pans out.

 

Oh my, where to begin...Bottom line is you seem to be putting a lot of faith in legislators to create a law to fairly and efficiently oversee mental illness as it applies to gun ownership.

 

First of all you have to define what is mental illness, how it is defined, who does the defining and assessing, , when is the mandatory Mental Health (MH) assessment triggered, where in the process are the firearms confiscated, and why do you believe that these laws will not trample all over our 2A rights?

 

-you stated that if people with a "perceived mental disorder" are added to the "no buy" list on the NICS you must include due process"...

Upon whose perception dose the diagnosis of mental disorder trigger the addition of a name to the no buy list?

When doe the due process kick in? Before or after the perceived mental disorder? When is the name added to the list? Are MH treatment providers

required to provide all records of anyone who has been treated for any kind of mental illness/disorder? Will there be a list of MH diagnosis that automatically get your name entered on the list? What will the list look like? Anyone with PTSD, depression, anxiety, ADD, ADHD. The possibilities are almost endless. Who decides what conditions earn you "no buy" designation? Again, where is the due process ? Is the person who has this "perceived mental disorder allowed to keep possession of their firearms while due process is carried out. Does a Judge issue an "emergency protection order" based on evidences presented by the County State's Attorney? Will everyone whp "perceoves" this mental disorder testify in Court ?

What kind of evidence is the person with the perceived mental disorder allowed to present. Who pays for it ? Must the State provide an attorney for the person with "perceived mental disorder" at no cost? How does the Court system and the taxpayer handle this burden. Wjo pays for all this?

The county, the State, or the Feds?

 

-You state that "we can not lump everyone who seeks professional [mental heath] help as dangerous to society and "automatically deny their 2A rights"

Just what is the process foe separating the mentally ill wheat from the mentally ill chaff, so to speak? .

 

- You Stae that anyone who has committed the crime of Domestic Violence "needs to be on a list"

Why is this ? Why is domestic violence a particular heinous crime ? Wait, I thought this was about mental illness. Is anyone who commits any level of

domestic violence automatically have a mental disorder ? Are you aware that in many States, unrealted roomates who have established a residence together can be and are charged under the DV statutes?

 

- You State that anyone who has been interviewed by the FBI for perceived threat "needs to be on a list."

Is this even if the FBI clears them since they have missed so much in the past. Is anyone who makes a threat mentally ill, or have we slid back into

mixing criminal charges with a history of "a perceived mental disorder" ? Sound like much of what you are speaking of is already covered under criminal law, so why do we need a mental health exclusion to the 2A ? Does threatening someone automatically make you mentally ill , thus forfeiting your 2A rights for life ? You again speak of due process, but if the above things should automatically get you put on a "no buy/no own list" must not the persons firearms be immediately confiscated, his name added to a list because this person is such a threat ?

 

You spoke of Kyle Lamb and the Veteran that murdered him needind to be on a list that prohibits him from buying a gun.

So how does this work? Anyone , veteran or civilian dignosed with PTSD gets put on the "no buy" MH list ?

Who takes the time to pour over stacks of mental health records and decides whih person with PTSD id "OK" and which person is not?

With the problems with care that the VA is having, where does ths army of mental health record auditors come from ? VA doctors and PA's ?

What about the auditing of every person who has been diagnose with a mental health issue. Who audits those private records? Who draws the line ? Who decides who wins and who loses?

 

You State that mistakes will be made and "hopefully they will be corrected"

At whose loss of time from work? At whose expense ? What system will handle this legal due process burden?

 

The reason I did this was to to pick on you. Idid this to try and make every gun owner who is ready to sign off on this guncontrol as a public mental health problem is not thinking this through. This has nothing to do with making people safer. Even if it did make people safer, it must not be done at the price of due process, and I submit to you that there can not be a Second Amendment "mental health qualification" to be able to enjoy your constitutional protections. It is unworkable while at the same ti,e preserve due process and our constitutional rights.

 

I would like to encourage everyone who supports this or is thinking about supporting a "mental health litmus test" for the 2A to please reconsider. It is a huge infringement on gun ownership that is ripe for inequity and abuse. These laws allow the Left to turn gun ownership into a public health issue, something we have been fighting against for decades. Please to not give in to the false narrative, and do not believe that this will only affect the profoundly mentally ill. We all know what happens when we give the gun grabbers an inch.

 

I appreciate your time.

John

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention some mental issues may be temporary due to environmental conditions. Loss of a spouse, child, family member. A medical condition that ultimately is cured. Depression due to some temporary condition. I have trouble accepting accepting a list to begin with however should one be created once put on the list there needs to be a time limit and assessment opportunities to be removed from the list. By no means should any one remain there without ample opportunities for recourse..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.