Category: Gun Rights

GeekWitha.45 finds another Joyce funded Coalition of One.  Interestingly, CeaseFire NJ doesn’t list itself as raising any money recently.  Money is being raised by CeaseFire PA, however.  I notice Bryan Miller hasn’t been very active on his blog recently.

Via David Codrea, .45Superman has discovered something interesting about Rudy’s schedule that I don’t think gun owners are going to like.

I continue to be baffled by GOA’s claims about HR2640. I can understand why some people are skeptical of any bill sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy, but some of this stuff just isn’t true:

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act — which has already passed the House — would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

Except it won’t. This is simply not true, and I can’t think of any plausible reading of the language of HR2640 that would make this true. The bill sets out standards for being added to NICS by a federal agency, and suffering from PTSD does not meet that standard.

One term relates to who is classified a “mental defective.” Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated “not guilty” in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, “mental defective” has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

Again, this is simply not the federal standard. A proper adjudication under federal law takes more than a mere psychologist saying you’re a danger to yourself or others. It must be a lawfully comprised court or board. You can’t end up prohibited because your shrink decides he doesn’t want you having guns.

In the past, one could only lose one’s gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court — meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one’s accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by “a court, commission, committee or other authorized person” (namely, a psychiatrist).

Larry is misunderstanding the standard here. Let’s review again what the actual regulation is:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include–
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

A psychiatrist is not a lawful authority under this regulation. They have no power, on their own, to make determinations. Other lawful authority is meant to cover bodies entrusted under state law with adjudications that are not courts, boards, or commissions. In no state, nor in the federal system, that I am aware of, do psychologists or psychiatrists have the sole power to declare someone mentally incompetent.

As I said, there are many good reasons I’ve heard from folks about why HR2640 is a bad idea, but I don’t think Larry Pratt’s concerns are among those.

Apparently Rudy claims that 9/11 changed his views about gun ownership.   If only he had come up with this explanation from the beginning, I might have bought it.  9/11 certainly changed my views on a lot of things, and I could have accepted that.

But seriously, if 9/11 was really an eye opener, wouldn’t it especially make sense to advocate that more law abiding people in New York City ought to be able to go about armed like they can in 3 out of the next 5 largest cities?  New York is the primary target, after all.   It seems to me that if 9/11 really changed Giuliani’s views on gun control, he would want to start with New York City, not make vague appeals to “states rights”, and suggest that New Yorkers somehow can’t be trusted with arms, while the rest of the country can.   Sounds like horse crap to me.

Hat tip: SayUncle

I hope the reporter on this article got this bit wrong:

Giuliani, who is banking a large part of his campaign on public safety as well as defense of the Second Amendment, told the audience that he would protect the right to bear arms in the way he did as a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan administration and as mayor of New York.

“I’ll work to make sure that if somebody commits a crime, they go to prison. If somebody commits a crime with a gun, they’ll go to prison for even more time and for mandatory sentences. No plea bargains, no exceptions; you go to jail. That’s the way to reduce crime,” Giuliani said. “We need to have zero tolerance for crime committed with a gun. After all, it’s people that commit crimes, not guns.”

Emphasis mine.  If there’s anything Rudy did as Mayor of New York City, protecting the right to keep and bear arms was not among them.  In fact, I’m pretty sure Rudy actively pissed on it every chance he got as mayor.  A fact that I hope he’s not thinking we’ll just overlook.

Bitter gives us an update.  My main fear with this bill is that, if it gets stalled, and starts to be debated, that will provide opportunities for anti-gun amendments.  Fortunately, so far, it’s only provided opportunities for amendments that are unobjectionable.

An e-mail alert from PA Federation of Sportsman’s Clubs provided some more detail on Lynn Abraham’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Here’s her recommendations:

1. Permit the disclosure and examination of mental health records for individuals seeking to purchase firearms
2. Strengthen Section 6105 to prevent people previously convicted of any violation of the Uniform Firearms Act from buying another gun
3. Amend Section 6105 so that people awaiting trial on firearms offenses cannot possess firearms
4. Require the owner of a lost or stolen firearm to report the theft or loss within 24 hours of discovery and punish the failure to report as a misdemeanor of the first degree
5. Treat adult violations for convicted felons who possess firearms the same, regardless of whether the prior disabling offense was an adult conviction or a juvenile adjudication
6. Make sure that people convicted of illegally transferring a firearm cannot legally possess more guns in the future
7. Mare sure defendants convicted of lying on state or federal firearms forms are disqualified from owning a firearm
8. Prevent defendants convicted of filing false police reports for theft of a firearm from possessing firearms

One would be acceptable if proper safeguards and relief from disability mechanisms are in place.

Two and three are absolutely out of the question. There are many violations of UFA that are minor, and more than a few that are summary offenses. I have no problems with barring firearms ownership for people convicted of violent crimes, but not for UFA violations, which are not violent, and certainly not for anything less than a conviction.   These are rights, not privileges.  You don’t take away rights unless there’s been due process.

Four is absolutely out of the question. There is no reason to subject someone, who was the victim of a theft, to further punishment. At most, the very most, this should be a summary offense.

Five I’d be willing to talk about.

Six, no way. Just lending Bitter a handgun to carry is technically illegal in this state. I’d be willing to trade that for some significant changes in UFA’s transfer provisions.

Seven, no. Lying on a form is not a violent crime.

For eight, it seems to me that making false statements to police is already unlawful, but it’s not a violent crime. No go on prohibited person status for that offense.

Head over to Bruce’s for a must watch video.

Here’s what I sent along:

Greetings,

I’m writing in regards to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives continuing efforts to revoke a federal firearms license from an Twin Falls, Idaho dealer known as “Red’s Trading Post” for what amount of minor paperwork issues, that, from my understanding, amount to 0.4% paperwork.

As a taxpayer, I would prefer BATFE concentrate its efforts on pursuing criminal trafficking of firearms, and not spend limited resources fighting in court to revoke licenses of firearms dealers who are making an honest effort to navigate the admittedly complex maze of federal gun laws and regulations.

Sebastian
Langhorne, PA

Yes, I signed my real name, not my pseudonym. Basic, to the point, not to long. Let’s them know we’re concerned. As much as I would like to say “I’d prefer ATF go **** themselves” that approach doesn’t tend to work very well. Let them know we’re watching. If there’s anything bureaucrats don’t like it’s the spotlight shining on their activities.

If you make it too long, or just drone on about the second amendment, or something like that, they’ll just trash it.  I know this seems hard to believe, but government bureaucrats don’t generally tend to care too much about your constitutional rights.