Category: Gun Rights

Lynn Stuter is worried that we’re all going to be diagnosed with mental disorders, and it makes the H.R.2640 dangerous.   It may be true that we’ll all be diagnosed with some kind of mental disorder, but the fact is that’s not sufficient for a person to have a firearms disability.  Remember that you actually have to be committed to a mental institution against your will, which isn’t going to happen unless you’re as nutty as a fruitcake (and even then, it’s hard).   The only other conditions that suffice for a firearms disability are outlined in 27 CFR 478.11, which we covered on Monday:

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.

This is far less encompassing than just being diagnosed with something from DSM IV.   I am quite open to arguments against H.R.2640, but I’m seeing quite a lot of opposition out there that’s based on poor information and bad facts.  When I see them, I’m going to keep pointing them out.

Via SayUncle

… only Hamas will have guns.

The company that fired this guy is called Village Green Companies, and no, they don’t care, despite what their web site says.   They sure don’t seem to care about their employees.   This is true of most corporations, to be honest.   There are two things that companies fear most.   The first is being sued, and the second is bad publicity.

All laws aimed at employees are designed to address the former.   They don’t really care if you die, as long as they don’t get sued for it.  One of the primary functions of the HR department is to prevent the corporation from being sued.   It isn’t to look out for you and your well being as an individual.  Laws disarming employees have nothing to do with workplace safety, and everything to do with keeping the company from being sued.

I’m glad that  Village Green Companies is taking a black eye over this.  Remember the second thing that corporations fear is bad publicity, and that’s the only thing that’s going to make them reconsider these types of policies.

Australia’s National Coalition for Gun Control wants to put a 10 year ban if a licensee “attempts self harm”:

The National Coalition for Gun Control has called for a mandatory 10 year cancellation of a firearm licence if a licensee attempts self-harm.

The call comes after a coroner’s inquest into the murder-suicide of a family at East Gresford, in the New South Wales Hunter Valley, three years ago.

Michael Richardson, 32, killed his wife and children before shooting himself – he had previously attempted suicide, but had been reissued with a gun licence.

I guess the whole licensing scheme was insufficient to stop someone from going nuts.   So a 10 year ban should do just fine?  I’ve never bought the suicide risk argument for applying a disability.  If someone wants to off themselves, that’s their own business.  The fact that sometimes they decide to take others with them is also not compelling.  Would the National Coalition for Gun Control feel better if the suicidal pop drove the wife and kids off a bridge or into a lake?

I have no problem contributing to this cause.  Their pizza sucks anyway.

My friend Jason mentioned a .22LR semi automatic he used when he was a kid called the J.C. Higgins Model 29:

It’s got a 17 round tubular magazine. These were sold through Sears back in the days when Sears actually sold firearms. But “What?” You say, “That doesn’t look like an assault weapon.” Oh but it is! The State of New Jersey defines an assault weapon as any firearms with a magazine capacity greater than 15 rounds, or any detachable magazine that’s greater than 15 rounds. It’s not just a mere technicality. There have been people sent to prison in New Jersey for possessing one of these or similar firearms.

The powers that be in New Jersey are not kidding. They do not like gun owners, and do not believe you should own a gun. If my friend Jason were to take his model 29 over the river, they’d send him up the river. Next time The Brady Campaign, or anyone else tells you all they want are “reasonable gun control laws”, kick them in the nuts.

UPDATE: Thanks to Jason for providing a better picture than the one I was able to find online!

Looks like the bill has passed on a voice vote. Now it’s on to the senate. Given the speed at which it moved through the house, I don’t expect the senate to take long on it at all.

The NRA did win some concessions in negotiating the final product.

It would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.

“It was necessary to make some accommodations to address the concerns of gun owners,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., adding that he would be closely monitoring the provision on restoring gun rights to veterans judged to have mental disabilities.

Ron Paul, as would be expected, was the lone dissenter. Like I said, I would like to have gotten more out of this deal, but I’m not going to cry too much that it’s passing. In the big picture, it doesn’t really change much.

SayUncle says he can’t find where the language of adjudicated mental defective is clarified in the bill.  After reading it again, I think I may have been mistaken.  The following section is what I was reading as clarification:

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

This is limited though, in that this only applies to federal agencies.  This section details the circumstances under which a federal agency may NOT submit a mental health record to the AG for addition into NICS.  This language is probably intended to head off a repeat of the incident in 2000 where the VA submitted 83,000 veterans to NICS.  Under this rule, the person has to have been ruled a danger to himself or others, or a found unable to manage her or her own affairs.

After reading this again, this does not really clarify the GCA ’68 language, and leaves in tact the ATF’s interpretation of adjudicated mental defective.

The NRA has a blog entry up in regards to H.R.2640:

The NICS bill, as written, wouldn’t expand the definition of a prohibited person. It wouldn’t disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm. In fact, it would provide an opportunity for people who’ve been disqualified to clear their name. Right now, folks don’t have that ability. Gun owners lose nothing in the bill as it’s currently written, and in fact the bill improves the system for those who’ve been caught in the bureaucratic red tape.

I understand that, and I agree, that a good deal was worked out, but:

So why is this being called a gun-control bill? In part because one of the bill’s authors is anti-gun Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. It’s easy to call any piece of legislation from McCarthy anti-gun, even if it’s not. But the biggest reason the media’s calling this “gun-control” is because they’re desperate to report on a gun-control victory in Congress.

Do you guys have any idea how much harder it makes explaining this bill to other gun owners because Carolyn McCarthy has her name on it? What efforts were made to get her off it? Did you guys even try? Sure the media is desperate to report this as a gun control victory, and by not getting McCarthy away from this legislation, you just made that a whole lot easier for them to do.

Here’s the simple truth: If this bill turns into a piece of gun-control legislation, the NRA will withdraw its support. We won’t stand idly by while the bill is amended by the anti-gunners in the House or Senate. This is a bill that’s designed to improve the reporting by states to the NICS system, as well as provide an opportunity for people to clear their names once they’ve completed treatment for an illness, and that’s it. The addition of any anti-gun provisions will turn this piece of legislation into a poison pill, and the NRA will actively oppose its passage.

I’m glad the NRA has stated this, but I’m still nervous. Fire is being played with here. I do not trust the leadership of this Democratic Congress on the gun issue any farther than I can throw them, and I certainly don’t trust the loon from New York who is sponsoring this. I do hope NRA has its ducks lined up, and this will go through smoothly without any special additions. I do think it’s a good deal, but I still think NRA has screwed up by letting Carolyn McCarthy have any part in it. I’d really like an explanation for how that happened.

I am rather nonplussed at Carolyn McCarthy’s sponsorship of H.R.2640. I would have sincerely hoped that any deal that could be worked out would have sidelined her, and relegated her to a co-sponsorship, rather than being sponsor.

I don’t really like personality politics. I’d much rather judge a bill according to its merits, rather than by the person sponsoring it, but there are important political considerations at work in wanting to keep McCarthy sidelined, and out of the process.

McCarthy is rabidly anti-gun. She doesn’t have a modicum of trust with gun owners. Any political deal with her is automatically suspect. Her pet issue is gun control. To date, she’s accomplished exactly nothing in regards to getting any major gun legislation passed. This is good for us. If she gets a reputation for getting things done, she’ll gain more political clout.

With McCarthy out there as the leader on this legislation, even if that leadership is entirely symbolic, the media and anti-gun groups will spin this as a big victory for gun control, even though it’s no such thing in the current form. This is a net loss for our cause, because the NRA will be seen as complicit in it, and folks won’t bother to check on the details.

I do think Dingell, Boucher, and the NRA have worked out a favorable deal with this bill, but I think they’ve made a big error in letting Congresswoman McCarthy take possession of it. It’s certainly making me reconsider my decision to not oppose the bill, based on the information I have now. Tomorrow I may contact the NRA, and see if I can get an explanation here.