Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Bkite, Dec 24, 2016.
Funny how so many "rules" and "orders" that violate the Constitution have been shoved into place in the last 6 weeks.
More of his "legacy" that will be reversed.
Current federal law does ban gun possession by anybody who's been declared incompetent.
No need for that person to be violent, or delusional, or a danger to himself or others. No need for any homicidal or suicidal thoughts.
Just having A.D.D. and being unable to concentrate long enough to sort out one's mail and write checks to pay one's bills is enough.
Compulsive hoarding and other O.C.D. could do it, if somebody were to keep making their home a dirty and cluttered place that's a health and fire hazard.
How about an addict? Not a drug addict or alcoholic (those mind-altering substances should disqualify somebody from having access to deadly weapons), but rather a gambling addict? Or a woman who is a shoe addict, and owns 90 pairs of shoes, spending all her money shoe shopping and letting her rent and car insurance go unpaid?
None of those reasons should disqualify somebody from gun ownership.
But they will, if the person is diagnosed as mentally unable to handle their own affairs and needs a "guardian" (really, in a role more like a mentor or big brother / big sister).
Congress made the law what it is today, and Obama is just doing as the NRA always urges: "ENFORCE THE GUN LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS ALREADY, BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY NEW ONES!"
Congress needs to rewrite the law on mental health disqualifications, both to address the situations listed above...
and to let people who were, in the past, truly mentally ill and properly disqualified from having weapons get their gun rights back easily, once they've regained enough mental health that they're not likely to be dangerous anymore.
My dad had a permit and was armed up until he moved into assisted living at 89 years old. Obviously, they don't allow guns in the assisted living facility (by the tenants, I've never had any problems carrying while visiting) and it was probably about time for him to give it up anyway. He could barely rack the slide, and when I took him to the range he couldn't hit the target 15ft away.
I took the car keys away several years before that though. Much bigger danger to himself and everyone else while driving than being armed.
Link to ATF's latest published RULES, filling-in the gaps left by Congress in their very short little writing on this topic in statutory law:
It amends 27 C.F.R. part 478 as to definitions for terms regarding metal defects, relating back to the GCA of 1968 and the terms used (but not defined) in that law. THe actual federal criminal law prohibiting mental defectives from owning guns is found at 18 U.S. Code, section 922(g)(4).
Frankly a Court needs to rule on whether someone is incompetent. Probate Courts do it every single day. If the Guvment wants to take away rights they need to appear before a Court and plead their case, just like everyone else.
And give the person they believe is incompentent a chance to contest it. And have the govt bear the burden of proof with the person being declared have a complete presumption of competence.
Just like its supposed to happen in a criminal trial.
Just like is supposed to happen in removing a persons personal liberty. Happens every day here in Georgia in Probate Court. We had to go through the process for my father-in-law about 2 years ago. Hard, but he got to state his piece to the Court himself (rambling and embarrassing as it was) and have the judge actually listen and take it into consideration before issuing a ruling.
I concur. What would more likely happen if things don't change is that the "power" to declare someone mentally unfit/incompetent/crazy as hell/etc.etc., will be given via some means to court appointed and/or "professional counselors" who have been trained up in today's far left universities and who have a particular world view predicated on that educational upbringing.
Licensed masters-level counselors in Georgia have the right to involuntarily commit someone (actually a new right, previously reserved to doctoral level psychologists and physicians) for time-limited observation and determination. If that is piggybacked on by bureaucrats through regulation then it is entirely possible.
Yessir...I work with them every work day...
Oh, medicated or unmedicated?
plenty of people CLAIM to be incompetent and BEG the VA and the Social Security Administration to give them disability benefits on that basis.
They'll sign-away any right to a trial or hearing on the issue.
But.... I still say that if their incompetency does not involve delusions, hallucinations, or violence, it shouldn't be a disqualifier for gun ownership.
The main one is significantly diminished capacity. Dementia in its many forms.
Both...I in the ER.
The NRA is asking pro-gun people to now contact their U.S. Senators and ask them to repeal this executive action by Obama.
Action Needed on Imminent Senate Vote to Repeal Obama's Social Security Administration Gun Grab!
You can follow the link to contact your US Senators. https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ama-s-social-security-administration-gun-grab
Thanks for the info..
So anyone have a problem with this restriction repeal?
No, but repealing the Social Security Administration's policy about notifying the feds about people's mental disabilities is only a temporary band-aid.
What we really need to do is revisit the mental competency laws found in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Back then people were still being lobotomized and involuntarily sterilized. Patients that could be treated with therapy were just sedated into droozling, shuffling, senile cattle that could be managed easily. The law didn't really give a crap about "the rights" of people with mental issues.
Now, it's a different era. And it's time to narrow the kinds of mental disorders that should strip somebody of their gun rights.
But, on the other hand, I would support broadening the mental illness disqualifier in some ways. People that are just hateful, antisocial, paranoid, and on the far fringes of political or religious extremism are probably people that could lose their gun rights in the name of public safety. Example: people affiliated with jihad, Christian anti-abortion terrorism (Remember Eric Rudolph, or James Kopp, both killers for the "Army of God"? Remember Dylan Roof, a neo-Confederate terrorist killer?) If such people can be identified before they start killing folks over politics or religion, all the better.