Senate wants to require NICS checks on internet gun sales

[YugoRPK]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... -gun-bill/

Does this mean I will get to buy guns over the internet soon as long as I pass a background check? Because its ILLEGAL to do that right now. Idiots.

[L1A1Rocker]

No, that's just what the media is reporting. They want a LOT more. . .

Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.

But that’s not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you’re “dangerous” and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.

Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been added into the NICS system because they’d seen a VA shrink about their PTSD? Well guess what? Now it’s going to happen to the rest of the population ... by the millions!

And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that don’t send every single patient’s name to the Instant Check system, and to make sure that their lives are ruined if they don’t send a patient to NICS and anything goes wrong.

http://www.gunowners.org/a04102013.htm

This would let the Feds do what NY is doing RIGHT NOW to anyone on anti depressants - confiscating all their guns.

[YugoRPK]

Well there is a the rest of the Senate and of course the House to fall back on.

[doubloon]

Eithe ...

They are stupid bastards who don't understand what they're asking for because they don't understand the existing laws or even understand the existing problems.

Or ...

They are fascist f#@%s who don't actually give a s--t about the laws or the problems and only want civilian disarmament so there will be less meaningful resistance to their socialist agenda.

[Abiqua]

Eithe ...

They are stupid bastards who don't understand what they're asking for because they don't understand the existing laws or even understand the existing problems.

Or ...

They are fascist f#@%s who don't actually give a s--t about the laws or the problems and only want civilian disarmament so there will be less meaningful resistance to their socialist agenda.

Or both.

[YugoRPK]

I'm assuming at some point they will bring someone into the discussion from the BATFE to explain how internet sales actually work.

[chrismartin]

I'm assuming at some point they will bring someone into the discussion from the BATFE to explain how internet sales actually work.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! That's some funny stuff right there!

[doubloon]

I'm assuming at some point they will bring someone into the discussion from the BATFE to explain how internet sales actually work.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! That's some funny stuff right there!

A liberal going on a fact finding mission is about as likely as Rosie O'Donnel passing up cheeseburger nyotaimori.

[Bendersquint]

There is going to be alot of PTSD, suicidal thoughts and depression amongst a myriad of other issues that will go untreated.

Noone wants to be on a list of have freedoms taken away, only the extremely severe may go for treatment.

[Dweezil]

I work at a VA hospital...and treat a LOT of PTSD patients. Some of them are, in fact, a danger to themselves and others and probably shouldn't have ready access to firearms. HOWEVER, I'm really worried that if we lower the threshold too much for taking away weapons rights for mental health problems, MY patients will no longer feel they can be candid about their problems...and then we truly will have a problem. I don't know the answer to this but this is a concern.

[TROOPER]

I work at a VA hospital...and treat a LOT of PTSD patients. Some of them are, in fact, a danger to themselves and others and probably shouldn't have ready access to firearms. HOWEVER, I'm really worried that if we lower the threshold too much for taking away weapons rights for mental health problems, MY patients will no longer feel they can be candid about their problems...and then we truly will have a problem. I don't know the answer to this but this is a concern.

The answer to this is to not tie mental health records to an inherent right.

A suicidal person is no more or less likely to be subjected to despotic rule as a 'normal' person.
A suicidal person is no more or less likely to need personal self-defense as a 'normal' person.
A suicidal person that you are seeing is already in treatment - the law would have no effect on the people at most risk.
A suicidal person and a homocidal person are two mutually exclusive categories. They may overlap, but statistically, they don't.
A suicidal person seeking help loses their right permanently regardless of how long ago they sought treatment.
A 'suicidal person' isn't the target of this bill - it is targeted against people who don't want to be depressed.

This law overides a recognized, codefied, natural law - one not given by the government. It does so without regard to due-process. It does so capriciously, because it the length of time for which someone loses a right isn't tied to the length of time that they may be a danger.

[YugoRPK]

Watching stuff like this unfold is fascinating and disturbing at the same time. I know they are trying to ban face to face sales that do not go through a dealer. The internet thing is hyperbole but I do find interesting the hype from gun side too. Some of it is way over the top. Best thing that can happen now is Feinstein will attach a few amendments like magazine restrictions and an assault weapons ban and it will die on the floor. I dont see it having any viable pulse in the House in any case.

[starlingstalker]

Failure to perform the REQUIRED background check makes you a criminal felon so by default you have disqualified Your 2nd Amendment Rights!
A true literal Poison Pill for owning a firearm.
Beware!
starlingstalker

[Dweezil]

I work at a VA hospital...and treat a LOT of PTSD patients. Some of them are, in fact, a danger to themselves and others and probably shouldn't have ready access to firearms. HOWEVER, I'm really worried that if we lower the threshold too much for taking away weapons rights for mental health problems, MY patients will no longer feel they can be candid about their problems...and then we truly will have a problem. I don't know the answer to this but this is a concern.

The answer to this is to not tie mental health records to an inherent right.

A suicidal person is no more or less likely to be subjected to despotic rule as a 'normal' person.
A suicidal person is no more or less likely to need personal self-defense as a 'normal' person.
A suicidal person that you are seeing is already in treatment - the law would have no effect on the people at most risk.
A suicidal person and a homocidal person are two mutually exclusive categories. They may overlap, but statistically, they don't.
A suicidal person seeking help loses their right permanently regardless of how long ago they sought treatment.
A 'suicidal person' isn't the target of this bill - it is targeted against people who don't want to be depressed.

This law overides a recognized, codefied, natural law - one not given by the government. It does so without regard to due-process. It does so capriciously, because it the length of time for which someone loses a right isn't tied to the length of time that they may be a danger.

The "suicidal" ones don't worry me as much as the "homicidal" ones. And no, suicidal and homicidal are NOT "mutually exclusive categories. As it stands, most mental health issues do not cause one to be a risk to the community...and our communication with patients is confidential,more so at the VA than in the community. We take privacy seriously. There's actually a very high threshold for adjudicating someone mentally defective. There's a LOT of bothersome paperwork involved and we HATE doing paperwork. Trust me. The ones that do make this "cut" are not folks even the most ardent 2nd amendment advocate would want armed. Not exactly "well regulated"...you wouldn't want them in your militia.

[TROOPER]

Some of what you said isn't true. If there are paper records, then there is the potential for loss of right due to what's written on that paper. This is more true of veteran/active duty than it should be.

I actually mispoke regarding mutually exclusive - because clearly these to maladies can coexist. I should've been more clear and less blanket-statementy. What I was driving at is this; the number of people who commit suicide without murdering someone else in the process versus people who do. Vice versa; the number of people who commit a murder without then killing themselves. Based on these, statistically they're two different things.

What I have never understood is removing a gun from someone who might kill themselves. At that moment - ok... but indefinitely? If they are that big of a risk to themselves, then why are they allowed to be free in the first place? Makes no sense.

Whatever. You're fighting the good fight, so me armchair quarterbacking isn't aimed at you in particular. It's just easier to be idealistic since I'm not involved.