Be respectful of others' views and choices.
 #93701  by Guard_Duck
 
phlydude wrote:Anything with "Dudley Brown" fills your inbox with tons of emails...I don't sign any of their petitions anymore

X2. While I like the approach NAGR is taking, it's taken me almost 6 months to get off all their mailing lists, for both e-mail and snail mail. Funny thing is I never gave my snail mail address.
 #93717  by stephpd
 
What so wrong with the current system of adjudication that we need a new law?

I'm not willing to accept the NRA compromises when it comes to our rights. They sold us out on this last year and seem to want to do it again next year. Without letting it's members know they had agreed to not oppose this bill when it was in the House. It was the grass roots folks that stopped this bad bill from coming to a floor vote in the Senate. And no amount of amendments can make a bad bill into good law.

For too long the NRA has compromised away our rights. That is their history. If it weren't for them we would be far better off then we are now. Every step of the way they 'compromised' away our rights.
They were instrumental in the NFA of 1934.
They were instrumental in the formation of the BATFE.
They were instrumental in many states adding multiple pages to the gun laws, including concealed carry (and the need for their training) and passage of 'shall issue' in many states and all the restrictions that came with those laws.

They basically drafted the 1968 Gun Control Act. It was because of their stance on this bill that for too long 'gun rights' was about 'hunting and shooting sports'. So much so that that phrase is still used today as what 'We the People' willingly accepted as what the 2A was really about.

They signed off on the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act that made new full autos illegal to purchase.
And they gave us NICS as part of the 'compromise' on the Brady Bill.

Best quote from the NRA came from their own magazine, The American Rifleman;


"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=3247
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/N ... 68_p22.jpg
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/N ... 68_p23.jpg


We don't need more compromises with our rights. Compromise, by definition, is a give and take. When it comes to our rights all I've seen is the government take, not give.
 #93719  by Cbmarine
 
stephpd wrote:What so wrong with the current system of adjudication that we need a new law?
That is a question that I'll be asking my senator. In any case, here's the scenario proposed in HB 88.
A credentialed mental health professional reports a person who is dangerous to others or self to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
The law enforcement agency investigates and makes a recommendation to Department of Justice.
The DOJ requests that the Superior Court issue an "order order prohibiting the purchase, ownership and possession of a deadly weapon".
At the hearing "The Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is dangerous to others or self as defined in Section 5122 of Title 16."
"Any proceedings pursuant to this section shall be in a closed and confidential hearing."
"The respondent shall have the right to present evidence and be heard in any such proceedings."
"In the event that the Court makes such a finding, the Court shall issue an order to relinquish respondent’s firearms or ammunition under this section."

"Any person subject to an order of the Court pursuant to this Subchapter may petition the Court for an order to return firearms or ammunition by procedures established by § 1448A of this Title.
(e) If the basis for relinquishment in 1448B(b) is removed by the Court, any firearms and ammunition taken from the person shall be restored in a timely fashion without the requirement of § 1448A.
(f) Any party in interest aggrieved by a decision of the Courts under this Subchapter may appeal such decision to Supreme Court. "

There are a number of amendments that need to be made to avoid misuses of this law. But we need something in place to catch the Aaron Alexis types before they do something like the Navy Yard or Sandy Hook here in Delaware. If that type of tragedy occurs here, I predict that we will get HBs 88, 58 and 67 plus SBs 23 and 37 rammed down out throats without recourse.
 #93722  by Kuntryboy816
 
Big problems I see.....
Cbmarine wrote:
A credentialed mental health professional reports a person who is dangerous to others or self to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Hopefully they're not some Anti-gun fanatic trying to "make a difference" by fabricating the 'truth' that everyone they 'diagnose' is a danger....
Cbmarine wrote:The law enforcement agency investigates and makes a recommendation to Department of Justice.
The DOJ requests that the Superior Court issue an "order order prohibiting the purchase, ownership and possession of a deadly weapon".
Since when are the DOJ and LEOs qualified to make a judgement on a persons mental health? How are they to "legally" investigate this claim? How many violations of the 4th ammendment will be swept under the rug when they "come to investigate?"
Cbmarine wrote:At the hearing "The Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is dangerous to others or self as defined in Section 5122 of Title 16."
"Any proceedings pursuant to this section shall be in a closed and confidential hearing."
"The respondent shall have the right to present evidence and be heard in any such proceedings."
I find this to be a joke! First off, the only evidence they will need is the say-so of the doctor who reported.... one person who now has the right to allow/deny you your 2A right!... who is above moral reproach and who's decision/testimony can not be swayed by any person or orginization... :roll: Secondly, aren't court hearings a matter of public record? Lastly, who in that courtroom is going to give any credibility to the respondent's evidence if the doctor has already deemed him "mentally unfit?"
Cbmarine wrote:"In the event that the Court makes such a finding, the Court shall issue an order to relinquish respondent’s firearms or ammunition under this section."

"Any person subject to an order of the Court pursuant to this Subchapter may petition the Court for an order to return firearms or ammunition by procedures established by § 1448A of this Title.
(e) If the basis for relinquishment in 1448B(b) is removed by the Court, any firearms and ammunition taken from the person shall be restored in a timely fashion without the requirement of § 1448A.
(f) Any party in interest aggrieved by a decision of the Courts under this Subchapter may appeal such decision to Supreme Court. "
Ah Dios Mio! Nothing about surrendering your firearms/ammo to your family or friends?? So, upon their mandate, now you'll have to relinquish our firearms and ammo to the government, trusting that they will responsibly hold and maintain them in the "when Hell freezes over" chance that you may win an appeal with the supreme court. Sure, I am willing to throw away $100k+ :roll: in court costs to get back my weapons and ammo worth a fraction of that. I'm sure that no firearms will be "lost/misplaced" during their absence. And if they do I'm sure the government will gladly re-imburse you for their "fair market value." And, I'm sure that when they seize your weapons they haven't inventoried them with SNs and your information into some database solely for inventory purposes....
 #93723  by Cbmarine
 
Thanks @kuntryboy816 for the constructive feedback.

One HB 88 sentence that I didn't include: "The Court MAY also include in its order a provision that allows such person to relinquish firearms or ammunition owned, possessed or controlled by said person to a designee of said person, provided that the designee does not reside with said person and is not a person prohibited pursuant to Section 1448 of this Title."

I want the above MAY to be SHALL.
 #93724  by Kuntryboy816
 
Cbmarine wrote:Thanks @kuntryboy816 for the constructive feedback.

One HB 88 sentence that I didn't include: "The Court MAY also include in its order a provision that allows such person to relinquish firearms or ammunition owned, possessed or controlled by said person to a designee of said person, provided that the designee does not reside with said person and is not a person prohibited pursuant to Section 1448 of this Title."

I want the above MAY to be SHALL.

Agreed! It's been a little while since I've read through them. Time to brush up on them again and send out letters and calls.
 #93725  by stephpd
 
Several problems with this law.

First what is a 'mental health professional'? What are their credentials? Are they going to be present at the 'hearing'? Can they be held accountable, or sued, in a civil court?

That's what's the difference between these type laws and adjudication. It allows far to many folks that aren't doctors to make calls about someone for something said to them. This includes most of the staff at a doctors office as well as school guidance councilors. It's all part of the slippery slope that bit by bit removes the rights of the individual. What you won't hear from the politicians is what is wrong with the current system, as far as adjudication is concerned. Because they believe that for every problem the answer is more government. Adjudication has been the standard for most of this countries history and worked well. But for some reason not good enough now. (never let a crisis go to waste) Or make laws based on emotions and not facts.

It also strips everyone in the house from owning any guns, not just the case of the person that would be deemed a danger, as would have been the case of the Sandy Hook incident. Not that the kid couldn't have acquired a gun any other way. As to the Naval yard incident there were already a history of shootings and police involvement but a lack of enforcement of current laws.

And that's the rub. When they take away all our guns only the criminals and government will have them. Look at the stories coming out of England and Australia. Gun violence is even worse now then before banning guns. As we've seen with the LA mass shooter, who was in the military and a cop, these folks can go off too.

Honestly, there's no way to prevent these type things. Ban all the guns and then you get the mass killings with knives, like the incident in China. Remember too that those pushing for taking our guns and rights count suicide by guns as no different then a serial killer or gang banger. But if you look at Korea or Japan where the civilians can't own guns the suicide rate is far worse then in this country.


By the same token this is the same reasoning for wanting to ban standard capacity magazines. It's all BS because according to all the stats the chances of being killed by a mass shooter, in school, is 1 in 2.7 million. Your more likely to die by poisoning, fire, suffocation, drowning or the big one cars accidents.

Random acts of violence,in a mass shooting, are the least likely way to be killed.

But what's worse is that all these new laws assume we're all guilty until proven innocent. Stripped of our right to privacy and we also lose the doctor/ patient confidentiality.