The first new federal gun control legislation since 1994

[RonPaul4President]

NRA has sold out, it seems, to the neocons.

BINGO!!! I could elaborate but I've already said my piece about the NRA here.

 

[mdh]

All this talk of military *men and women*... real human beings? Has no one else seen the rapid advances in autonomous/remotely controlled un-manned air and land vehicles being deployed by the DoD all around the world? Who needs humans.

 

[Carbine556]

It is in using the phrase "mentally ill" that gets their foot in the door. Even when loosely applied within reason, anyone who's taking anti-depressants is suffering from mental illness. Some reports have indicated this to be over 50% of adults.

However, there are FBI handbooks and other government documents that are beginning to expand the definition of mental illness to include, of all things, making repeated reference to the "constitution" or having "constitutional rights". "Nationalism" is being defined as a social disease (i.e. people who refuse to accept the new global government).

Keep in mind that they employ a technique called "gradualism". The federal income tax was introduced as "harmless" because it was only 1% or so. It got as high as 70%! Give them an inch...

Precisely. I think that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is a fine gun law.

 

[Therion]

This law wouldn't have stopped the VT gunman anyway, so what's the point? This is nothing but feel-good infringement.

 

[qednick]

Slippery Slope indeed. That's exactly how the Brits lost their right to bear arms - one "reasonable" law after another.

 

[hambone1982]

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

This bill is another expansion of Federal Authority over the States. Gun-Control is a State issue, period. The Federal government has no authority to dictate to the States who they allow to have guns and the process which people go through to purchase those guns.

My litmus test for any federal legislation is as follows:

1. Is it Constitutional?
2. Does it promote individual liberty or hinder it?
3. Does it expand the Federal Government or shrink it?
4. Does it violate State's Rights?
5. Does it cost tax payers more money?
6. Is the bill absolutely necessary?

If I come up with an answer that I don't like on any of those questions, I do not support the bill. I do not support this gun-control bill. I'll be writing my Congressman and Senators to encourage them to vote down this bill.

 

[angrydragon]

With the Second Amendment, the states can't have gun control laws can they? Whatever is left out of the Constitution, is left up to the states and individuals.

 

[mdh]

With the Second Amendment, the states can't have gun control laws can they? Whatever is left out of the Constitution, is left up to the states and individuals.

Correct. The bill of rights are the enumerated rights of all citizens of the union, and may not be abridged or violated by any federal, state, or local government.

 

[Bossobass]

Add in the fact that a large portion of those soldiers would probably JOIN the civilians in defiance of orders to ATTACK THEIR OWN POPULATION.

This is why they'll use UN forces, once we've become the NAU.

I think that Bush would declare all RP supporters to be mentally ill. The FBI handbook on terrorists encourages to suspect anyone who recites the US Constitution as a possible terrorist, and aren't those terrorists ALL mentally ill?

I have grown to despise this government. I just finished my first read of the Patriot Act and I see most of it as Rockefeller protecting his precious Fed, as well as allowing for shut down of the internet. Here's a peach that caught my interest:

SEC. 364. UNIFORM PROTECTION AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL RESERVE FACILITIES.

Section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(q) UNIFORM PROTECTION AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL RESERVE FACILITIES-

`(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect and safeguard the premises, grounds, property, personnel, including members of the Board, of the Board, or any Federal reserve bank, and operations conducted by or on behalf of the Board or a reserve bank.
`(2) The Board may, subject to the regulations prescribed under paragraph (5), delegate authority to a Federal reserve bank to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect and safeguard the bank's premises, grounds, property, personnel, and operations conducted by or on behalf of the bank.
`(3) Law enforcement officers designated or authorized by the Board or a reserve bank under paragraph (1) or (2) are authorized while on duty to carry firearms and make arrests without warrants for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States committed or being committed within the buildings and grounds of the Board or a reserve bank if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony. Such officers shall have access to law enforcement information that may be necessary for the protection of the property or personnel of the Board or a reserve bank.
`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `law enforcement officers' means personnel who have successfully completed law enforcement training and are authorized to carry firearms and make arrests pursuant to this subsection.
`(5) The law enforcement authorities provided for in this subsection may be exercised only pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Board and approved by the Attorney General.'.

Bosso

 

[hambone1982]

With the Second Amendment, the states can't have gun control laws can they? Whatever is left out of the Constitution, is left up to the states and individuals.

Correct, the 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

My point is that if it is possible to legislate gun-control without violating the 2nd Amendment, then that legislation should take place at the State or even Local level.

My understanding is that the 2nd Amendment applies to "Arms" which implies weapons that can be carried by a single individual, thus States or Local municipality (the people) would have the right to legislate the ability of an individual to purchase and own weapons larger than small arms (i.e. - Tanks, Howitzers, Bombs, etc.).

 

[beerista]

Bad Idea

I read the article, and on the surface it looks ok.
It sounds like the bill actually improves the ability of people to "audit" their status if they're on the list, and focuses mainly on the idea of the mentally impaired being kept from guns. What are we missing that's "dangerous"?
Why would Dr. Paul have a position against this?

While I don't think that Jefferson's words are the strongest case when arguing original intent, he does have my favorite quote on the right to keep and bear arms: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Now, obviously such a defense is rendered meaningless if the government gets to decide who is a “criminal” and who is “insane” and thus may not have firearms. As to the first, the argument of efficacy is probably enough; a criminal, by definition does not obey the law. Again, Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria):
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime.”
If all else fails, I guess we could read all 27 words (and that includes articles) of the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nope, nothing in there about “except for crazy people and criminals.” As with the whole Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is a restriction on federal government power. An absolute restriction. “Shall not be infringed,” the phrase which establishes the restriction, is pretty unambiguous.
We should also probably not forget that the document in question was written by people who recently had taken up arms against those who claimed to be their rulers. It's hard to imagine a group of people who would be considered more “criminal” than that.
The counter productivity of gun restriction in preventing gun crime, as it has the net effect of only disarming the victims, is not a point I feel I have to belabor on a forum full of conservatives and libertarians (but if this is unfamiliar, let me know and I'll be happy to direct you to some good material).
As to the second group, those judged by government to be “insane,” has it escaped anyone's attention the number and variety of fairly normal behaviors deemed to be mental illnesses over the last several decades? In totalitarian states, disagreement with the government (or its basic premises) is enough to declare mental unfitness. But I'm not worried; handing the government small amounts of unconstitutional power always ends well and never in abuse or expansion of that power. ;^)
Don't get me wrong, I don't relish the idea of truly insane people having guns. But I advocate strongly against the obvious conflict of interest of having the institution which has the most to gain from a disarmed populace being the same that decides who may bear arms.
Jefferson's admonition regarding the reasons to retain the right to keep and bear arms, combined with the wording of the Second Amendment, along with the none-too-subtle fact that those with a vested interest in maintaining a population unarmed against tyranny are the same as they who will decide who is a “criminal” and who is “insane,” is reason enough for me to be against ANY federal gun control legislation. Personally, I'd be against any gun control legislation at any level of government for similar reasons, but that is a somewhat harder Constitutional argument to make, so you can just leave it at that. Since the law in question is a federal law, we don't have to decide the issue of states and counties exercising gun control powers.
Personally, the Second Amendment is not the way I would choose to argue this point, but the question was why should Dr. Paul (“Defender of the Constitution”) be against such a law. There are also strong arguments to be made against this law from the “Forgotten Amendments” of the Bill of Rights (i.e., IX and X) but I wanted to keep this brief. ;^)
Hope this doesn't come across as directed at you, Quantumystic. I quote you because you're the one who first brought up the very relevant question of Dr. Paul's potential position. Hell, maybe he's for it. What do I know?
-
-
P.S. Nothing above should be construed as advocacy of armed conflict. I am entirely peaceful by nature.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Lets remember that this legislation would be a twofold violation of rights - it restricts the rights of many to bear arms, but also violates their privacy by putting them in an FBI database which is not obligated to clear out names on a regular basis (what the previous data collecters under the Brady Act were obligated to do), so essentially its private info that the FBI has on you, in the name of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, or WAR VETERANS!!!!! with post-tramatic stress. And its being considered "reasonable"? Hah...

 

[CurtisLow]

Governments definition of mental illness: When a citizen does not agree with the U.S. Government.

 

[SeanEdwards]

The notion that insane people have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate lunatics running around with deadly weapons.

The question becomes, who is a lunatic? I think it's reasonable to entrust that decision to an impartial jury. Let the court present a case for why an individual should lose their second amendment rights, and a jury can decide.

As an aside, I'm not convinced that blind people should have second amendment rights either. The second amendment's primary purpose is to support the notion of militia. Since blind people are completely unsuitable as members of a militia, it follows that they don't have a constitutionally protected right to firearms.

 

[mdh]

The notion that insane people have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate lunatics running around with deadly weapons.

The notion that people who oppose the current administration have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate people who oppose the current administration running around with deadly weapons.

 

[hambone1982]

I'm an Iraq War Veteran with minor Post Traumatic Stress symptoms. The VA could identify me as being mentally ill or unstable and they could deny me my 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms. That is just absurd.

 

[mdh]

The notion that insane people have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate lunatics running around with deadly weapons.

The notion that people who oppose the current administration have a constitutionally protected right to free speech is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the first amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate people who oppose the current administration running around speaking out against its policies.

 

[IRO-bot]

Bravo MDH. Slam dunk.

 

[mdh]

The notion that insane people have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the second amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate lunatics running around with deadly weapons.

The notion that US citizens who are suspected of terrorism have a constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial is insane. The founders recognized this fact, but didn't bother to enumerate it in the wording of the sixth amendment because it is self-evident. No community can tolerate US citizens who are arrested on terrorism charges not being held indefinitly at Gitmo.

 

[mdh]

I could keep going for hours...

When we start interpretting the constitution, we stop adhering to its' most basic principles. - Me, just now.