Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

I have a long history of training and experience with firearms, building and some unique designs, working with gun builders, and am well qualified in any discussion of smart guns and their applications in personal defense.

 

That opinon is a lie, and having served in the N.R.A.
I can personally attest that your statements are a complete fabrication and contrary to the N.R.A. mission statement and objectives, is libelous and contrary to applicable Federal laws and statutes as far as Prohibited persons acquisition and ownership of firearms.

You are the only nefarious and mendacious person here telling outright lies, both slander and libel by Legal definition.

 

Here are the FACTS supporting what I posted;

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/319859-nra-the-mentally-ill-have-gun-rights-too

So are you claiming that the Executive Director of the NRA ILA is making "libelous and slanderous fabrications" under his own name?

 

Actual Article you did not read or post.
And as a Health care professional,
I will attest to accuracy of statements.

****************

When the House voted to overturn a last-minute Obama-era gun grab in early February, the mainstream media ran stories so incorrect that it could be considered "fake news.”

The reporting was based on mischaracterizations that would lead anyone who follows current events to believe the House voted to exempt mentally ill people from undergoing background checks for firearm purchases. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Senate passed the measure this week and it's headed to President Donald Trump’s desk, who is expected to sign it. Given the widespread inaccuracies in news reports, It's important to explain the facts. Despite what you read in the media the rule in question has nothing to do with who undergoes a background check.

Everyone who buys a gun from a licensed dealer has to go through a background check, period.

Several years ago, the Obama administration ordered its agencies to identify large groups of people it could unilaterally ban from owning guns.

Under that directive, the Social Security Administration (SSA) chose its most vulnerable and misunderstood group – those who are on disability and use a representative payee to help them manage their finances.

The SSA would enter the names of those individuals into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and thus they would be prohibited from possessing firearms.

Under this scheme, these folks would lose their constitutional rights without due process and with no finding that they are a danger to themselves or others — the standard that the government must meet before banning people from gun ownership.

And contrary to media reports, these individuals are not severely mentally ill — qualifying conditions for Social Security disability are eating disorders, anxiety and insomnia.

All too often, those who struggle with mental illness are stigmatized by society.

Not all mental illnesses are alike. In addition, there has not been a demonstrated correlation between mental illness and violence.

The government should not lump large groups of people together and tell them, collectively, they’re losing constitutional rights because of conditions for which they’re seeking treatment.

That only serves to further stigmatize people who are already unfairly stigmatized.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress is allowed to review, and revoke, any action an outgoing administration initiates in its final 60 legislative days. The Obama social security rule was adopted during that time frame. Congress is now acting within its authority to reverse this rule.

It's also important to note that this rule is opposed by not just the NRA, but also the ACLU and at least a dozen mental health organizations.

That's because taking away constitutional rights without due process is fundamentally un-American, more importantly, Illegal ?

Congress is right to repeal the unconstitutional Obama Social Security rule.

*********************
Chris W. Cox is the executive director for the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
***********

 

No, I accuse you of editing an article, and perverting it to suit your Anti Gun Agenda and have posted it in its entirety and true context.

 

Are you denying that the Executive Director of the NRA ILA wrote this statement;

Explain how that is any different to what I posted here?

And are you also denying that mentally unbalanced people with guns have committed suicide and killed other people?

 

And I accuse you of making fallacious allegations that I have an "Anti Gun Agenda" when I have NEVER advocated taking away the guns of any law abiding gun owner.

The onus is entirely on YOU to prove your own "libelous" accusation against me.

 

To recap, there are no proposed changes to statutes concerning Mentally ill people prohibited from owning firearms.

There are classification of people that do suffer from disorders such as bulimia, eating disorders, anxiety, various non Violent types of post traumatic stress disorder, etc, and since every case is different, and severity varies, a Psychiatrist must determine if a Patient is indeed a danger to themselves and others and thereby should be adjudicated as such before a Judge with evidence of such and due process.

And not just a blanket rule that can be used to bar firearms possesion from a Patient suffering from social anxiety or insomnia or an eating disorder such as bulimia....

 

You are purposely conflating issues here for the purpose of deception, and I did not spend a tenure in healthcare to let your deception go unchallenged as anyone that can read and discern will see your false Agenda.

I have never advocated those People already adjudicated and prohibited from owning firearms to be allowed firearms access.

However, anxiety and eating disorders or insomnia under qualified Psychiatric evaluations and ongoing treatment should not bar people from ownership of firearms if they are not determined a danger to themselves and others, all applicable laws and regulations still in force.

 

Your fallacious attempts at flamebaiting are duly noted.

You have not and can not prove that I have any "Agenda" when it comes to "taking away guns".

Yes, I do have a serious problem with the NRA obstructing all SANE and REASONABLE measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable because people, some of the children, are DYING!

But until you can PROVE that I am trying to "take away guns" I am going to demand that you cease and desist from any further flamebaiting allegations in that regard.

 

The above is flame baiting and taunting. Reported.

 

Again the same lie,
N.R.A. has never opposed those prohibited persons, from owning firearms,
Only professional standards that will prevent people with minor illnesses from being also barred firearms ownership.

 

Are all "mentally unstable" people dangerous to themselves and other?

 

Directly quoting the NRA is now a lie?

How many people have DIED from firearms in the hands of the mentally unstable?

 

So now you are conceding that there are mentally unstable people who ARE danger to themselves and others?

When did this epiphany come about?

 

I've always felt that way. That's why we have the clause in 18 USC 922g regarding adjudicated mentally incompetent and those who have been institutionalized.

You seem to be implying that all mentally unstable people are too dangerous to own firearms? Is that your opinion, or is there a nuance I'm missing? If someone is too "mentally unstable", which isn't medically defined, to own a gun because they are a danger to themselves and other, should they also not be allowed to own knives, ropes, gasoline or cars? Filicides by mom's of toddlers and infants don't usually involve guns, but weapons like pillows and bathtubs.

 

Would you take away guns from the mentally unstable?

Why did all of these groups also support getting rid of the SSA rule?

ADAPT, which “urged Congress to use the Congressional Rule Act to repeal this rule“; from the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pressed Congress “to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to disapprove the Final Rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA)”; from the ACLU, which pushed “members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration”; from The Arc of the United States, which asked “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule”; from the Association of Mature American Citizens, which exhorted “Congress to quickly pass this Joint Resolution and restore the basic Second Amendment rights this rule has abridged”; from the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, which implored “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule and prevent the damage that it inflicts on the disability community”; and, in addition, from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Association for Rural Mental Health, the National Council on Disability, the National Council of Independent Living, the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery, the National Disability Leadership Alliance, the National Disability Rights Network, the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, and Safari Club International. All of them — every single one — urged that the rule be killed.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...round-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill/

 

Thank you for being willing to actually get into this issue in some depth.

First let's look at the studies.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...drugs-and-violence-review-fda-data-finds-link

What I am advocating is for UNIVERSAL background checks to be linked to a Pharma database to identify individuals who are prescribed these drugs.

While not everyone on them is going to commit violence the connection is strong enough that if anyone on them applies for a gun they would be required to produce some kind of assurance from their medical doctors that they are NOT a threat to themselves and/or others.

That is NOT an onerous burden to meet provided you are not a danger.

 

I would have a lot more respect for those institutions if they were willing to admit that there are mentally unstable people who are dangerous and who should be prevented from owning firearms.

The problem exists and denial is only going to result in more innocent people dying needlessly.

 

These are the preeminent mental health organizations in the country. Of course they admit that there are mentally ill people who should be prevented from owning firearms. They just don't support that all "mentally unstable", whatever the medical definition of that is, are dangerous to themselves and others, and they support due process in removing the 2A rights of those who are mentally ill.

 

Why don't you tell us, and since you have that data, tell us what the percentage of mentally unstable people killing someone to the population of the mentally unstable, and how that compares to the homicide rate in general?

 

Universal background checks are not enforceable on private firearm sales.

The database would violate HIPAA privacy protections.

 

Are all people who commit suicide mentally stable in your opinion?

 

More NRA nonsense! There is no legal basis for that allegation.

Being a danger to others is a violation of the rights of We the People to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. HIPAA can be amended to protect We the People.

 

No, it's the DOJ position:

[on universal background checks]

"Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process". We don't have and never will have comprehensive gun registration.

https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt

No, actually attacking someone is a crime, not a rights violation, and since nearly every adult male has the physical power to kill any child or most women with just their hands, they could be considered a threat to others. Merely having the power to affect "life, liberty or pursuit of happiness" is not a violation of rights.