1. #1
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Apr 07
    Location
    Bluegrass Region
    Posts
    6,417

    Default That 2nd Amendment bill that passed cloture vote - no one has read the bill

    The PJ Tatler サ Gun Bill Passes Senate Cloture, Despite the Fact that No Senator Has Actually Seen It

    Sound familiar?

  2. #2
    Guide Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    Just call me Nicky Flash... Why? Because Nicky rhymes with Flash!
    Posts
    19,571
    They had to pass it to see what was in it...

  3. #3
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    May 01
    Posts
    17,411
    Deja vu all over again?

  4. #4
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    3,086
    This bill won't get out of the House. Complete waste of time.

  5. #5
    Premium Member Content1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 13
    Location
    A Celestial Plain
    Posts
    1,939
    They should be focusing on mental health and parenting. But that would make way too much sense!
    Lawnboy13 likes this.

  6. #6
    Premium Member jvdfc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 06
    Location
    By the Lake
    Posts
    7,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Content1 View Post
    They should be focusing on mental health and parenting. But that would make way too much sense!
    This

  7. #7
    Premium Member Run To State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 03
    Location
    的've got a strong urge to fly. But I got nowhere to fly to."
    Posts
    24,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Content1 View Post
    They should be focusing on mental health and parenting. But that would make way too much sense!
    I agree, they should. Unfortunately, all that matters to them is their agenda to grab guns.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 00
    Location
    Louisville, Ky USA
    Posts
    4,163
    They voted to allow discussion of the bill. What is there about discussing the bill that scares people? Could it be that they are afraid that there is absolutely NOTHING in the bill that would allow the government to "grab guns"? I ask the fear mongers on this board to please show us what in the Manchin - Toomey bill allows the government to "grab guns".
    mcpapa, Twotoplace and truthbtold like this.

  9. #9
    Premium Member Run To State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 03
    Location
    的've got a strong urge to fly. But I got nowhere to fly to."
    Posts
    24,384
    The way I understand it, the proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System without ever telling the patient he or she has been added. No due process requirement. What if there is a mistake and your doctor flags you as having mental illness without your knowledge? You may very well see the state come collect your previously purchased guns in some states. That's one reason for some to fear it.

  10. #10
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 10
    Posts
    1,295
    The Obama Administration is strong arming D's and R's behind the scenes. One lawmaker has even suggested some are being blackmailed.

    Color me not shocked.

  11. #11
    Premium Member Habib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    I listen to bands that don't even exist yet.
    Posts
    9,053

  12. #12
    Premium Member cammando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 01
    Location
    Beautiful Lake Cumberland
    Posts
    4,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity alum View Post
    They voted to allow discussion of the bill. What is there about discussing the bill that scares people? Could it be that they are afraid that there is absolutely NOTHING in the bill that would allow the government to "grab guns"? I ask the fear mongers on this board to please show us what in the Manchin - Toomey bill allows the government to "grab guns".
    The fact that our 2nd amendment rights are even being debated at all is in a word, ridiculous. The only reason folks have any rights is because of guns. Our leaders are sworn to protect these rights. Not try to take them away.

  13. #13
    Premium Member Run To State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 03
    Location
    的've got a strong urge to fly. But I got nowhere to fly to."
    Posts
    24,384
    BUFFALO, N.Y. — Thursday, a state Supreme Court Judge ruled guns seized from David Lewis, 35, must be returned to him after he was incorrectly identified as violating the mental health provision of the SAFE Act.

    “We know that from the health care agency to the State Police, there was some kind of breach,” said Lewis’ attorney, Jim Tresmond.


    Why were they taken?

    Tresmond says his client was ordered to turn in his weapons last week because he was once on anti-anxiety medication, which is a violation of the SAFE Act. Wednesday, State Police informed the Erie County Clerk’s Office that it made a mistake when it said Lewis was in violation of the state’s new gun law.

    Link

    As I said, you may very well see the state come collect your previously purchased guns in some states and that's why some fear it. And, here is another part of the problem.

    The NY SAFE Act requires “mental health professionals, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, to report if an individual they are treating is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to him- or herself or others.”

    If such a determination is made, “the Division of Criminal Justice Services will determine whether the person possesses a firearms license and, if so, will notify the appropriate local licensing official, who must suspend the license. The person’s firearms will then be removed.”

    The law has come under fire from gun-rights advocates as well as mental health professionals, who fear the new law discourages people from seeking professional help for mental health issues.


    Could Prescription Meds Result in Gun Confiscation?

  14. #14
    Premium Member jvdfc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 06
    Location
    By the Lake
    Posts
    7,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity alum View Post
    They voted to allow discussion of the bill. What is there about discussing the bill that scares people? Could it be that they are afraid that there is absolutely NOTHING in the bill that would allow the government to "grab guns"? I ask the fear mongers on this board to please show us what in the Manchin - Toomey bill allows the government to "grab guns".
    See post #13.

  15. #15
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Apr 07
    Location
    Bluegrass Region
    Posts
    6,417
    The ATF Wants 'Massive' Online Database to Find Out Who Your Friends Are | Danger Room | Wired.com

    "The ATF doesn’t just want a huge database to reveal everything about you with a few keywords. It wants one that can find out who you know. And it won’t even try to friend you on Facebook first."

    "Many other specific requirements are also to be expected for a federal law enforcement agency: searching names, phone numbers, “nationwide utility data” and reverse phone searches. The data will then be collected to help out during investigations and provide “relevant information and intelligence products.” There’s no hint the database is to be used to track gun sales, which is a big part of the ATF’s job, as the bureau is prohibited by law from establishing a centralized electronic database for gun purchases."

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 00
    Location
    Louisville, Ky USA
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by jvdfc View Post
    See post #13.
    Uh, post 13 is about a state law. I repeat my question.

  17. #17
    Premium Member Run To State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 03
    Location
    的've got a strong urge to fly. But I got nowhere to fly to."
    Posts
    24,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity alum View Post
    Uh, post 13 is about a state law. I repeat my question.
    The state law is a prefect example of what many fear will happen on a grander scale with federal law. It's a legitimate concern.
    jvdfc likes this.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 00
    Location
    Louisville, Ky USA
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Run To State View Post
    The state law is a prefect example of what many fear will happen on a grander scale with federal law. It's a legitimate concern.
    Then read the proposed legislation. If it mirrors the state law, fight it. If it is a reasonable proposal, support it. Paranoia is not a legislative strategy.

  19. #19
    Premium Member Run To State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 03
    Location
    的've got a strong urge to fly. But I got nowhere to fly to."
    Posts
    24,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity alum View Post
    Then read the proposed legislation. If it mirrors the state law, fight it. If it is a reasonable proposal, support it. Paranoia is not a legislative strategy.
    How about you answer a couple of questions if you can. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? Call it paranoia if you will, but even you has to know that the government is anything but honest about it's intentions at times.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 00
    Location
    Louisville, Ky USA
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Run To State View Post
    How about you answer a couple of questions if you can. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? Call it paranoia if you will, but even you has to know that the government is anything but honest about it's intentions at times.
    I don't know much about the state law, but my understanding is that there is nothing in the proposed federal law along those lines. I have not read the proposed federal law, but my understanding is that mental health exclusions require that the individual be adjudicated as mentally ill. That seems reasonable to me. We do have a much different opinion of the government. I think that in general, the government is well intentioned. That doesn't excuse the times when some government employees or elected officials are incompetent, lazy, bureaucratic or overreaching. They should be called on it when it happens, but I don't think that those instances are sufficient to distrust all government action. I feel the same way about business. Most business are looking to provide a reasonable product or service at a reasonable profit. When they lie, cheat or otherwise abuse the public they deserve to be called on it, but that doesn't tar all business.