Both sides of US gun debate back new law

[Psycho4Bud]

THE US House of Representatives has passed the first significant change to gun laws in a decade, directing states to streamline the system for keeping track of criminals, mental patients and others barred from buying firearms.

The proposed change also provides $US250 million ($296 million) a year for the central database and grants to states to contribute to it.

The bill, which the House passed on Wednesday and which is expected to pass the Senate, was the product of rare co-operation between gun-control advocates and the National Rifle Association. It is aimed at tackling the problems highlighted by the mass shooting at Virginia Tech in April by a student with a history of mental health problems.

Carolyn McCarthy, a Democratic sponsor of the bill, said the state records system was so flawed "millions of criminal records are not accessible" by the national database that is supposed to notify gun dealers of disqualified buyers.
Both sides of US gun debate back new law - World - smh.com.au

With recent event I could see this coming..........

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 06-14-2007. Both sides of US gun debate back new law THE US House of Representatives has passed the first significant change to gun laws in a decade, directing states to streamline the system for keeping track of criminals, mental patients and others barred from buying firearms. The proposed change also provides $US250 million ($296 million) a year for the central database and grants to states to contribute to it. The bill, which the House passed on Wednesday and which is expected to pass the Senate, was the product of rare co-operation Rating: 5

[medicinal]

More laws = more lawyers, not necessarily a good thing. Just another step in finalizing the police state. If a criminal or a nutcase wants to get a gun, they're available on the street. This law may stop 1 or 2 shootings but will make the feds a little closer to having complete control over the citizenry. If you ever have been busted with a joint or two, in you go you criminal you. no more chance for you to get a legal gun. I'm glad I've got mine, I might get a ticket and in I go, LOL, national registry.

[Psycho4Bud]

More laws = more lawyers, not necessarily a good thing. Just another step in finalizing the police state. If a criminal or a nutcase wants to get a gun, they're available on the street. This law may stop 1 or 2 shootings but will make the feds a little closer to having complete control over the citizenry. If you ever have been busted with a joint or two, in you go you criminal you. no more chance for you to get a legal gun. I'm glad I've got mine, I might get a ticket and in I go, LOL, national registry.

I KNEW you'd love this one but really, after Virginia Tech you could see this one coming right?

Have a good one!:s4:

[mrdevious]

This isn't police state bullshit. All these criminal records are already in the system, all they're mandating is for gun-stores to be able to check them and not sell to mentally ill people. Oh the outrage, Mr. Bipolar who just got a divorce can't get a gun. I know they can get them on the street, but that doesn't mean anyone anywhere knows where to get one off the streets, it's mostly the people in gangs already on the streets that use this. People who generally go on mass shooting sprees aren't gansta's, they're usually disturbed middle-class folk.

[khronik]

So does this mean that confidential medical records are now available as a result of a background check? If someone has ADD, or dyslexia, or a history of depression, will this bar them from getting a gun? If someone acts a little strange, is that grounds for failing a background check?

Really, there are always going to be vengeful assholes in the world, and as much as we like to assign blame for every bad thing that ever happens, that's not realistic or healthy.

[Psycho4Bud]

So does this mean that confidential medical records are now available as a result of a background check? If someone has ADD, or dyslexia, or a history of depression, will this bar them from getting a gun? If someone acts a little strange, is that grounds for failing a background check?

Really, there are always going to be vengeful assholes in the world, and as much as we like to assign blame for every bad thing that ever happens, that's not realistic or healthy.

Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, should have been barred from buying the two handguns because a court had ordered him to undergo outpatient mental health treatment.

"The Virginia Tech shootings tragically demonstrated the gaps in the system that allowed a dangerous person to be armed," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Sign Up

I can't find the actual bill so I can't say for sure what the guidlelines are. From this article it kind of insinuates that a person would have to be court ordered to get treatment and deemed to be a dangerous. But who knows how deep it really goes.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Markass]

Wonder what's going to happen to our right to bear arms in the mere future

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I say we establish a right to bear swords. Can't say if it will be for better worse, but I'd like to give it a shot:jointsmile:

[Psycho4Bud]

I say we establish a right to bear swords. Can't say if it will be for better worse, but I'd like to give it a shot:jointsmile:

With the new avatar should come a new philosophy also. Picture Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Morgoth and "The Precious" as democracy!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

[GotWake88]

So does this mean that confidential medical records are now available as a result of a background check? If someone has ADD, or dyslexia, or a history of depression, will this bar them from getting a gun? If someone acts a little strange, is that grounds for failing a background check?

Really, there are always going to be vengeful assholes in the world, and as much as we like to assign blame for every bad thing that ever happens, that's not realistic or healthy.

I don't think people should be barred from owning a gun unless they are very mentally ill. ADD and dyslexia don't count. If this were enacted sooner, a fatal shooting by a severely mentally ill man at the state capitol building in my hometown would not have occured a year or two back. However, anyone who is not mentally ill and who has no record of violent crime should not be hassled in my opinion.

They need to change it from barring "convicted felons" to "people convicted of violent crime". Think about it. Possessing over 10 grams of cannabis in my homestate is a felony.