Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have noted how one does not sell to someone mentally deficient.
You have NOT noted how one determines if someone is mentally deficient.
THAT is the problem.
You are incorrect, sir! It says there crystal clear. Let me quote it again for you "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."
One of the two conditions that needs to be met: 1) either the person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or 2) has been committed to any mental institution.
Now what "adjudicated" means "is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved."
So yes, it's crystal clear.
Adjudication is the way how our rights can be legally removed. What the administration is proposing is to bypass that legal process.
The process has been in place since GCA of 1968. Here, I'll save you a Google search:
Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
What more do you want?
A note to further explain what that means, for the legally challenged anti-gun types (the pro-gun types already understand this)...
Being "adjudicated as a mental defective" means that a judge, in a court of law, has found you to be mentally incompetent. The key things there are "judge" and "in a court of law." In other words, if you are adjudicated as mentally incompetent, then you have not had your rights removed from you without due process.
Most of the proposals I've seen coming from anti-gun types or semi-anti-gun types include having some version of a "mental health screening" or other test given to a prospective gun purchaser prior to the purchase. The problem with these proposals is that you're potentially stripping a person of their civil rights without due process. And the kicker? The determination would be made by a doctor, and doctors are generally very anti-gun.
The other major flaw with this concept is that there's no definitive test that you give someone which can accurately indicate whether or not a person will go off the deep end. These are psych exams, and all results are subjective.
I don't want a weapon (I don't care if it's a gun, knife, crowbar or automobile) in the hands of someone who intends to do people harm with it. I also don't claim or pretend to have a solution which will solve all the world's problems and make everybody happy. That's not my job. My job is that of every citizen - to do everything I can to ensure that my rights - and your rights - aren't stripped from us. Finding that perfect solution, if it's even possible, is what we elect and pay our representatives to do. If they can't do it, then maybe it can't be done, but politicians don't get to take away our rights out of convenience simply because they failed to come up with a reasonable alternative.
Here's what NRA wants to do and what the administration wants to do:
Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”[LEFT]
Read more: VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller
[/LEFT]
You are incorrect, sir! It says there crystal clear. Let me quote it again for you "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."
One of the two conditions that needs to be met: 1) either the person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or 2) has been committed to any mental institution.
Now what "adjudicated" means "is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved."
So yes, it's crystal clear.
So the Sandy Hook shooter and the Colorado theater shooter had every right to play with guns. Oh, OK, Sandy Hook shooter was too young. But a lifetime of treatment for mental illness wouldn't disqualify him if he was of age.
I know I'll sleep better tonight now that you've pointed that out to me.
Sounds like I hit a hit too close to home for you.
Nope, not really...cause it's the same broken record from the left...it's all the right's fault, or the NRA, or the ___________________ (fill in the blank), it's everyones fault except the left...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
