The Second Amendment and Mental Disorders
Eventually, we’ll all be crazy.
Via reader Tommy.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 20th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Except for the fact that a mental disorder isn’t sufficient to make one a prohibited person, this might have some merit.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:07 am
that site seems to be a bit, shall we say, “weekly world news-ish”, however, i do concur with the opinion expressed.
got prozac? a gram is better than a damn.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Wait, doesn’t the BATFE get to decide who is bat-shit, if H.R. 2640 becomes law?
But this is not a gun control bill. Oh, and the NRA got “major concessions”.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:33 am
[…] Via SayUncle […]
June 20th, 2007 at 11:36 am
The ATF wrote 27 CFR 478.11 long before HR2640 was a glimmer in Carolyn McCarthy’s eyes. GCA 68 gave the ATF that power, and HR2640 doesn’t alter that in any way.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
HR 2640 doesn’t mention 27 CFR 478.11 at all, only USC 18 Section 922, which is law, not federal regulation.
The key phrase here is “adjudicated as a mental defective.” That’s pretty precise terminology, and BATFE doesn’t have to power to adjudicate.
H$ 2640 only changes things to make it harder to get someone entered into NICS for being a mental defective, and easier to get all records (either criminal or mental) entered into the database. Oh, and provides objective criteria (for the first time) on how someone who was a mental defective, and is not one any longer, out of the database.
Stuter’s out to lunch on this. Like the GOA, she’s saying that a lot of stuff is in the bill that actually isn’t. Ignorance or deception, judge for yourself.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
It would have been nice to get 922(g)(4) replaced with something meaningful. I think the current ATF’s interpretation in 27 CFR 478.11 is reasonable, but that’s not to say it will continue to stay that way. If it’s law, they can’t so easily change it.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
the bill text says
says:
which is an indirect cite of 27 CFR 478.11 as written on the date of enactment. So if BATFE promulgates new regulations prior to the date that the law is signed, we get those, not what is in 27 CFR 478.11 right now. And I wouldn’t say that 27 CFR 478.11 as it stands right now is all that precise– it defines “mental defective” as “A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority” without defining what constitutes “other lawful authority.”
June 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
[[The key phrase here is “adjudicated as a mental defective.” That’s pretty precise terminology, and BATFE doesn’t have to power to adjudicate.]]
I beg to differ!!!
If you have been keeping up with the mess at Red’s Trading Post you will see that ATF agents are making up the law & regs as they go.
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/
The ATF is citing Red’s for things that are not in the Reg. book, but say they have the discretion to do so. You may win in the end but you will be bankrupt and out of business. AND, that is their aim anyway. Any government “official’ could put your name on a list of mental defectives and it would cost a small fortune & time to get it removed. AND, nothing would happen to the “official”. AND, if you will notice their past history the ATF is not very obiedent in following court orders against them. Look at lowly NOLA & Nagin: they don’t obey court orders either.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
It implicitly cites 27 CFR 478.11: “The terms ‘‘adjudicated as a mental defective’’, ‘‘committed to a mental institution’’, and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.”
And if BATFE promulgates new regulations prior to the enactment date, those new regulations would be the ones taking effect, not the current ones. This is probably unlikely, but still.