Gun Control issues

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9549
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Gun Control issues

#176

Post by GreatGrey » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:08 pm



I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26906
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Gun Control issues

#177

Post by Foggy » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:48 pm

GOOD.

Black Lives Matter. :madguy:


Welcome, seeker! There's a seeker born every minute!

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Gun Control issues

#178

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:04 pm

:like:


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Gun Control issues

#179

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:57 am

http://amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 23435.html
NRA’s spending is way down in the 2018 midterms. Does it have ‘a popularity problem?’

The National Rifle Association’s political spending is sharply down heading into the 2018 midterm elections, a shift that could reflect declining fundraising in the wake of a string of mass shootings and an FBI investigation into the group’s Russia ties.

That decline comes as the FBI investigates whether the group illegally received money from Russia to fuel its support of President Donald Trump during the 2016 election and as the group has seen a decline in dues that has deepened the group’s operating deficit.

And it comes in a year when more than half the states in the country have passed gun safety measures in the wake of protests following the February 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 students dead, and other deadly shootings before it. Monday marked the one-year anniversary of the nation’s worst mass shooting, in which 58 people died and several hundred were injured on the Las Vegas Strip.

“I think in a lot of places they have a popularity problem,” said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of The Cook Political Report. She said the shootings and the Russia inquiry could both be taking its toll.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28095
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Gun Control issues

#180

Post by Addie » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:13 pm

USA Today
Trump signs bill reversing Obama rule to ban gun purchases by mentally ill

WASHINGTON — President Trump killed a regulation that would have tightened gun background checks Tuesday, signing a bill to undo one of his predecessor's executive actions following the San Bernardino shootings in 2015.

The Obama administration rule required the Social Security Administration to submit records of mentally disabled people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the FBI database used to determine whether someone can buy a firearm under the 1993 Brady Bill.

The rule would have applied to about 75,000 people who were “adjudicated as a mental defective" and who had applied for Social Security benefits, and had a mechanism to notify those affected so they could appeal. But congressional Republicans said the rule could ensnare people who had mental health issues but otherwise were competent to own a gun.

The Social Security Administration finalized the rule last Dec. 19. But under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has 60 legislative days to disapprove of any new regulation on straight majority votes. The vote was 57-43 in the Senate and 235-180 in the House. ...

The bill signing fulfills a campaign promise for Trump. Even before Obama announced his executive actions before his State of the Union Address last year, Trump said he would "un-sign that so fast" once he becomes president.

Trump signed the bill without a public ceremony Tuesday, the last day to sign it into law under the constitution's 10-day requirement.



User avatar
Judge Roy Bean
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:26 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Occupation: Isn't it obvious?

Re: Gun Control issues

#181

Post by Judge Roy Bean » Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:25 pm

Sorry, but in what world is being mentally ill a crime?

There has to be a better way to determine firearm ownership potential than putting mental patients on a list of criminals.


“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9578
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Gun Control issues

#182

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:42 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:25 pm
Sorry, but in what world is being mentally ill a crime?

There has to be a better way to determine firearm ownership potential than putting mental patients on a list of criminals.
It's a federal crime to sell a gun to someone who you know or have reason to believe "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." 18 USC §922 (d) (4).

All that regulation would have done is added people who meet that definition to the background check database. In other words, what the Republicans have done is voted to keep gun dealers from having the knowledge needed to keep people who are already barred by existing law from purchasing guns.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Judge Roy Bean
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:26 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Occupation: Isn't it obvious?

Re: Gun Control issues

#183

Post by Judge Roy Bean » Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:25 pm

Two problems - the way the regulation was written you could be barred from buying a firearm simply because you weren't able to handle your own financial/social security issues without the help of some third party or your condition limited your ability to work in some way.

Neither of those should stop someone from being able to acquire a firearm to defend themselves.


“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9578
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Gun Control issues

#184

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:45 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:25 pm
Two problems - the way the regulation was written you could be barred from buying a firearm simply because you weren't able to handle your own financial/social security issues without the help of some third party or your condition limited your ability to work in some way.

Neither of those should stop someone from being able to acquire a firearm to defend themselves.
Yeah, that's bullshit.

Here's the actual reg:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... %89421.110

The way the regulation was written, in order to be reported to the database, you needed to BOTH be on disability due to mental health issues and have been found to also be unable to handle your own financial affairs.

So, no, it wasn't "limited your ability to work in some way," it was "made you completely unable to work at all" (which is the requirement for receiving Social Security Disability) AND ALSO leave you unable to handle your own affairs to such an extent that you were found to need to have the benefits paid to someone else because you couldn't handle it - not just need some help. (By the way, that's an adjudication of mental defect.) And it specifically did not cover those on Social Security who were of retirement age - it applied only to SSDI, not to regular Social Security.

Oh, and the regulation contained a requirement that anyone affected be given notice and an opportunity to appeal.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17710
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Gun Control issues

#185

Post by RTH10260 » Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:04 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:25 pm
Two problems - the way the regulation was written you could be barred from buying a firearm simply because you weren't able to handle your own financial/social security issues without the help of some third party or your condition limited your ability to work in some way.

Neither of those should stop someone from being able to acquire a firearm to defend themselves.
Wouldn't such a mental condition prevent someone to follow gun instructions and handle firearms in a competent and safe manner?



User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1464
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Gun Control issues

#186

Post by neeneko » Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:13 am

RTH10260 wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:04 am
Wouldn't such a mental condition prevent someone to follow gun instructions and handle firearms in a competent and safe manner?
Eh, I would not describe it as a very good test. Social security can be complicated, and all sorts of things could result in someone needing a 3rd party to handle the technical details for them. Handling a gun is a completely different set of skills that may or may not be impacted by whatever is making all the bureaucratic stuff difficult.

There is always a temptation to use some easy, already gathered metric in ways it was never intended to be used in order to not do any new work but get some arbitrary number down. It is rarely a good idea, esp when it might result in people avoiding the original service because now its usage is tied to new restrictions unrelated to the problems the service is intended to solve.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9578
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Gun Control issues

#187

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:43 am

Again, to make it onto this list, a person (or someone with the legal ability to make decisions on their behalf) would have to:
1. Be older than 18 but younger than retirement age.
2. Have applied for SSDI, with a primary diagnosis that meets the definitions for a mental illness or cognitive impairment.
3. Have been approved to receive SSDI.

Let's break there for a second and review. These are people who have come forward and declared - under penalty of perjury - that they are either so mentally ill or so cognitively impaired that they are unemployable. These claims have been investigated and found to be valid - meaning that they have very strong medical support.

In my view, if your mental illness or cognitive defects are so severe that you can't hold down even half-time employment, then it's really fucking likely that you shouldn't be handling deadly weapons. The idea that this is a controversial position boggles my mind. How is someone who is unable to cognitively function at the minimal levels needed to get a job in any way, shape, or form someone who is going to be a productive part of a well-regulated militia?

But even those already-narrow criteria were insufficient to qualify someone for inclusion on the no-guns list under the Regulation that the Party of Personal Irresponsibility just killed. Nope. The person also had to:

4: Be formally found to be unable to manage their own finances to such an extent that their benefits have to be paid into an account under someone else's control.

That's not "needs help to manage bureaucratic stuff." That's so damn incompetent that they can't handle their own money.

So, again, this is adding people to the background check list who are too incompetent, as a result of cognitive disabilities or mental illness, that they are unable to independently function. These are people who are working-age adults who cannot work and cannot handle their own money. Who the fuck thinks that these are people who should be allowed to purchase deadly weapons??

More to the point, these are people who are already forbidden to buy guns. Under regulations that are still in effect, the formal finding that someone is unable to manage their own funds is an adjudication of mental defect. And it's already a federal crime to knowingly sell a gun to someone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective. Literally the only thing this regulation would have done is add people to the background check list who are already barred by law from buying guns.

But, nope. Even making the background check database marginally more effective is a step to tranny for the ammosexuals. Can't threaten the rights of mentally ill people to buy guns, even though mentally ill people aren't allowed to buy guns, and every time someone with mental illness runs up a double-digit body count with the gun they bought we're told - by the same damn ammosexuals - that the problem is the mental illness, not the guns.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 5397
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Gun Control issues

#188

Post by pipistrelle » Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:46 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:43 am
In my view, if your mental illness or cognitive defects are so severe that you can't hold down even half-time employment, then it's really fucking likely that you shouldn't be handling deadly weapons. The idea that this is a controversial position boggles my mind. How is someone who is unable to cognitively function at the minimal levels needed to get a job in any way, shape, or form someone who is going to be a productive part of a well-regulated militia?

But even those already-narrow criteria were insufficient to qualify someone for inclusion on the no-guns list under the Regulation that the Party of Personal Irresponsibility just killed. Nope. The person also had to:

4: Be formally found to be unable to manage their own finances to such an extent that their benefits have to be paid into an account under someone else's control.

That's not "needs help to manage bureaucratic stuff." That's so damn incompetent that they can't handle their own money.
Or competent enough to make decisions about when to use a firearm.



User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2757
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Gun Control issues

#189

Post by Fortinbras » Thu Nov 01, 2018 9:05 am

It's clear that thoughts and prayers are inadequate for the problem.

Just this week people were shot, and several killed, while deep in thought and engaged in prayer.



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11579
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Gun Control issues

#190

Post by Whatever4 » Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:58 pm

pipistrelle wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:46 am
Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:43 am
In my view, if your mental illness or cognitive defects are so severe that you can't hold down even half-time employment, then it's really fucking likely that you shouldn't be handling deadly weapons. The idea that this is a controversial position boggles my mind. How is someone who is unable to cognitively function at the minimal levels needed to get a job in any way, shape, or form someone who is going to be a productive part of a well-regulated militia?

But even those already-narrow criteria were insufficient to qualify someone for inclusion on the no-guns list under the Regulation that the Party of Personal Irresponsibility just killed. Nope. The person also had to:

4: Be formally found to be unable to manage their own finances to such an extent that their benefits have to be paid into an account under someone else's control.

That's not "needs help to manage bureaucratic stuff." That's so damn incompetent that they can't handle their own money.
Or competent enough to make decisions about when to use a firearm.
:yeah: :yeah:


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Gun Control issues

#191

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:41 pm

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/us/n ... ctors.html

I saw this today. It is worth posting here.

Doctors Revolt After N.R.A. Tells Them to ‘Stay in Their Lane’ on Gun Policy
Over 25 years in Bronx hospitals, Dr. Marianne Haughey has lost count of how many people she has seen die from gun violence. It doesn’t stop — a child who found a gun at home, a teenager caught in the middle of a gang shooting, a store owner ambushed at work.
The toughest part comes afterward, Dr. Haughey said. She sheds her blood-soaked scrubs, makes a mental note of the victim’s name and goes to tell the family.
“It’s impossible not to bring it home,” said Dr. Haughey, an emergency physician and the director of St. Barnabas Hospital’s emergency medicine residency program. “I never get used to it. It’s tiresome.”
Those experiences fueled angry responses from her and other doctors in recent days to a tweet from the National Rifle Association aimed at their profession: “Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane.”

When Dr. Haughey saw it, she tapped out a reply on her cellphone. “I see no one from the @nra next to me in the trauma bay as I have cared for victims of gun violence for the past 25 years,” she wrote. “THAT must be MY lane. COME INTO MY LANE. Tell one mother her child is dead with me, then we can talk.”

:snippity:



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Gun Control issues

#192

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:48 pm

I've been watching this on Twitter. One doctor posted a picture of her bloody shoes after a gunshot victim surgery. So glad the NRA has decided to take on the other frontline of gun violence- doctors. The NRA is gradually imploding.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”