Let's Close The Loophole! - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Let's Close The Loophole!


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-04-2013, 02:27 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mosin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,550
Liked 4701 Times on 2344 Posts
Likes Given: 1111

Default

I hate this crap. I'm a fighter... Well, not recently.

But we've got our guards up, blocking blows, thinking 'I could stand a few rib shots, but not one on the chin right now.'

I think we need to get out of the defensive mode and start ****ing fighting. Throwing blows, dirty boxing.

Slipping **** into these stupid bills, fighting for repeal of the NFA, etc.... Put those slimy communists twinkle toes on the defensive.

They should be using their focus, their energy, and their stamina fighting stuff we don't currently have.

Screw your assault weapons ban, I want a bill voted on that allows citizens to buy explosives without a tax stamp.

Chew on that, commie.
__________________
Arbitrary enforcement of the law is the mark of tyranny. Citizens will always fight against it.
Mosin is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:02 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4795 Times on 2681 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

The people in California who elect Nancy have done all those things. The citizens have for years given into these liberals. It would seem that California has lost the gun rights battle.
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:57 AM   #23
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9081 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitestalker View Post
The people in California who elect Nancy have done all those things. The citizens have for years given into these liberals. It would seem that California has lost the gun rights battle.
For the moment yes. But there are still some rebel holdouts here.
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:12 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4795 Times on 2681 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

There are many fine people in California. I used to shoot winter matches in SoCal. I really miss some of those shooters. The laws on firearms made shooting too much of a problem. I stay in Arizona or Texas these days.
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:28 AM   #25
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9081 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitestalker View Post
There are many fine people in California. I used to shoot winter matches in SoCal. I really miss some of those shooters. The laws on firearms made shooting too much of a problem. I stay in Arizona or Texas these days.
Well, if Pelosi has her way y'all will be under the same restrictions we are. Don't blame me! I apologize for my state though.
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:35 PM   #26
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 18,181
Liked 10771 Times on 4662 Posts
Likes Given: 1758

Default

Warning! Thread Drift! Man the lifeboats!

Back to the original post- when a person has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent- the authority doing that is SUPPOSED to make an entry into teh NICS system. Problem is NOT the system, it is the courts that have not done what they are ALREADY supposed to have been doing.

And no, this is not an issue of privacy of medical records- seeking counseling or mental health help is NOT the same thing as being adjudicated as mentally incompetent. That is not a medical issue, but a legal one.

Example- your dad is in a coma. You apply to the court to be appointed his guardian and to manage his affairs for him. That is a LEGAL action- while brought on by a medical condition, it is a legal proceeding. It is far beyond having one Doc that thinks you are not right.
__________________
What we have here is... failure- to communicate.
c3shooter is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:16 PM   #27
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5738 Times on 3362 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

C3, i think there is an additional problem of SOME parents/guardians/therapists who don't notify anyone of their child's condition so it can be evaluated/reviewed by the courts and the lack of a system to address those who probably are not fit for firearms but who haven't been involuntarily committed YET.

After the Connecticut shooter was said to be mentally limited by a disorder like Aspergers (or something similar), my first thought was "what about the grandson of my parents' friends?". The young man has pretty serious Autism that causes him a great deal of difficulty in communicating with other people. His grandmother has expressed concern about the amount of time he spends playing video games and the type of games he likes (grand theft auto for example). I don't know if he would be capable of buying a firearm without assistance in communicating with the seller. I have very little doubt that he would pass the background check; his contact with people outside his family is extremely limited. He seems like a "good kid" with a problem, but i don't know anybody who would think he should have access to firearms (maybe supervised plinking with a BB gun). How are the courts to know about his limitations to notify NICS?

Is his doctor supposed to notify an officer of the court that he shouldn't pass the NICS check? Can we trust the doctor and the courts to get that done? Is it morally right to deny him his 2A rights preemptively, or should we wait to see if he does something that would have him involuntarily committed? How mentally limited is too mentally limited to be considered safe with a firearm?

Tough situation! The "greater good" argument would say that his parents or doctor should take preemptive action to protect him and others from his potentially poor judgement or lack of understanding of mortality and its relationship to firearms misuse.
__________________
Dead Bears, the only good kind.
orangello is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:44 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,624
Liked 2220 Times on 1525 Posts
Likes Given: 820

Default

C3 is correct a lot of states are not reporting people that have been adjudicated. I don't know if the courts lack the resources or what the problem might be but it is happening. There are many reasons a person can be adjudicated, alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental illness. I am sure there are many other reasons a person can be adjudicated so a loved one can handle their affairs.
John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:50 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4795 Times on 2681 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

It sounds like a good idea? The Brady Check was set up to end gun violence. How did that work out in Chicago?
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:56 PM   #30
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 2,057
Liked 842 Times on 529 Posts
Likes Given: 257

Default

[quoteThere really is no reliable check on mental health. As it was stated, there are usually signs but people ignore them thanks to political correctness and our naturally non-confrontational nature][/quote]

They manage to do the checks here. Part of a firearms certificate application form bellow. To me checking for mental health problems is common sense.

A13 Do you currently suffer from any serious medical condition including any alcohol or drug related condition, which is controlled by prescription medicines?
No Yes If yes give details below
A14 Do you currently have, or have you ever had, Epilepsy?
No Yes If yes give approximate dates of last two episodes
A15 Do you have a physical disability including sight related conditions (excludes normal spectacle use)
No Yes If yes give details below
A16 Have you attended a medical professional in the last 5 years for treatment of depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder?
No Yes If yes give details below
A17 Please give details of your current General Practitioner
A18 I give my consent for the police to approach my GP, consultant or other medical authority to obtain factual details of my medical history if necessary.
Condition:
Condition:
Dates: From
Dates:
To:
Date 1
Date 2
GP’s Name & Address inc Postcode
Usual Signature
Date
manta is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
So-called Gun Show Loophole GunLover1969 Gun Shows 103 01-23-2013 01:46 AM
Loophole? MichaelBarton AR-15 Discussion 27 02-01-2012 04:46 PM
Loophole in NC castle doctrine closed!!! vincent Legal and Activism 10 12-07-2011 03:04 AM
Close the Car Show Loophole! canebrake Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 03-10-2011 01:14 AM
Illinois Loophole??? Chuck Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 05-21-2008 12:50 PM



Newest Threads