Bill passed in response to Va. Tech attack

[Lasher]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help.

The bill, which was passed on a voice vote, would improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to stop gun purchases by people, including criminals and those adjudicated as mentally defective, who are prohibited from possessing firearms.

<snip>

If it moves through the Senate and is signed into law by the president, the bill would be the most important gun control act since Congress banned some assault weapons in 1994, the last year Democrats controlled the House. In 1996, Congress added people convicted of domestic violence to the list of those banned from purchasing firearms.

The bill was the outcome of weeks of negotiations between Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the most senior member of the House and a strong supporter of gun rights, and the NRA, and in turn, with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun-control advocate.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-13-house-guns_N.htm?csp=34

---

I was hoping we could manage to avoid getting involved in gun control for awhile. I fear this will lose us some votes, regardless of the NRA's involvement.

[underpants]

1. It won't lose any votes-this is a much needed change

There will be some "they are coming to take YOUR guns" stuff but that wouldn't be too wise IMHO. The counter, which should be avoided too, is to say that all the fear of any gun control helped lead to this not being done.

The best thing to do is to take make a point on this. The first side/person who does--loses.

[Lasher]

5. I wish I had the same comfort level as you, Underpants.

Of those who favor gun control there are few who will vote based on this one issue. There are many on the pro-gun side, however, who will. And there are few of them who would be receptive to the discussion you have outlined.

These things are what makes this a dangerous issue for Democrats.

[AndyTiedye]

8. It Will Cost Us The Votes of All the Crazy People With Guns!

There goes the election. :crazy:

[underpants]

9. Damn! We were *this close* to winning them over too

THIS CLOSE!! :grr:

[Lasher]

11. What the heck, those 12 years of Congressional exile were fun! Wheeeeeeee!!!!

I'm already sick of seeing Democrats chair all those stupid committees. Subpoena authority and control of the agenda? What's with that anyway? I miss Speaker Jabba the Hastert. It seems like it was just yesterday when Republicans made all of the decisions while they locked Democrats out of their meetings. Remember when nothing was brought up for consideration unless a majority of the Republican majority first agreed? Those were the good ol' days!

Particularly being from Richmond, Underpants, you should know that the pro-gun vote is not insignificant.

[jobycom]

2. Lots of things lose votes but are the right thing to do. Why else do we vote?

[Lasher]

6. But we should count the cost.

I didn't say this was good or bad legislation. Frankly I don't know yet. I'm just saying we should consider the potential ramifications. I don't think it's more important than making sure we don't have another neocon administration on our hands in 2008. And there just might be an either/or scenario.

[tigereye]

3. people who are referred to OP therapy are not necessarily "mentally defective"

that is a very old and inaccurate term.

Although I support stricter gun control,I bet there will be a lot of debate about what level of mental illness constitutes a need for that type of restriction.

[glowing]

4. Like PSTD... labeling of many returning irrate vets. to keep guns

out of their hands.

[Lasher]

7. Heh. I saw your Moderator icon and your reference to OP therapy.

I thought I was going to be consigned to remedial OP training as punishment for some infraction.

[tigereye]

18. guilty conscience, eh?

;)

nah, I just happen to be a mental health prof. as well as a mod, so laws that assume that everyone who is depressed or in therapy is the same as the VT shooter.... irk me a bit. Many times the lawmakers have little knowledge of mental health issues.

[benEzra]

19. OP therapy isn't really an issue...

the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits gun ownership by anyone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court, or who has been involuntarily committed to inpatient therapy. The prohibition is for life, unless their rights are restored, and a person so barred cannot so much as touch a single round of ammunition.

There are those in the gun-control community who might want to extend the GCA '68 prohibitions to include people struggling with depression, etc. but at this point the laws are pretty rational, and only block the truly incompetent or dangerous from gun ownership (at least with the fixes this law makes, like removing PTSD vets from the automatically-prohibited-for-life list).

[Kagemusha]

10. Sad the propaganda will be bad but, yeah, it is an actual good law

Improved state reporting is a Big Deal and failure to have it creates an awful lot of problems in the real world by letting people who the law says should not have guns, who the law says are not legitimate safe law abiding owners, have guns anyway.

[Lasher]

12. This legislation seems intended to promote better enforcement of the 1968 Gun Control Act

By encouraging better reporting by the states, it is intended that firearm purchase and ownership will be denied the following people, pursuant to the 1968 GCA as ammended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986:

Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.

Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.

Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.

Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.

Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa.

Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.

Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship.

Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.

Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Anyone who is under the age of 18 for a shotgun or rifle, or under age 21 for a handgun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968#Prohibited_Persons

[Kagemusha]

17. Yes, it seems intended to do that. Whether that matters, I don't know.

Whether it will be allowed to matter.

[benEzra]

13. I think I can speak for most gun owners that this isn't a problem.

What we have HUGE problems with are restrictions on the right of law-abiding adults with clean records to own and use NFA Title 1 civilian guns lawfully and responsibly without being unduly hassled. That's why the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is such a big deal, because it's aimed squarely at us, not at criminal misuse.

People adjudicated mentally incompetent cannot legally possess a gun under current law, so fixing the holes in the background check database to ensure those records are in there gets no complaints from me.

FWIW, for non-gunnies interested in understanding the gun issue, this essay (written in '04) may be of some help, I hope.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[slackmaster]

14. Seconded

I doubt that many of us have a problem with better enforcement of that provision of the Gun Control Act.

[Speaker]

15. What this law will accomplish

is to get people to refrain from seeking help with mental health issues. You can be barking at the moon insane and still by a gun, as long as you don't seek help for your mental health issues.

Over 80,000 veterans are in the NICS because they sought help for PTSD.

This law will help ensure that vets of the current conflict won't seek help for their PTSD.

[beevul]

16. As a gun owner and defender of the Second Amendment...

I also have no issues with this, and support it.


This IS a reasonable regulation.