Look at your RICO prosecutions. Look at your Hate crimes prosecutions. “Or other” means whatever they say it means.

You have too much proof of that from the abuse of other laws.

I will have to disagree about the GOA’s reasons for opposing H.R. 2640. They are not doing this in order to bash the NRA. They are doing it, well, because they oppose H.R. 2640. People within the gun community can have genuine disagreements about matters such as this.

For example, I oppose H.R. 2640. Sabastian supports it generally. This in no way means that we are enemies or working against each other. We can disagree on single issues or individual bills while working together on the same goal to promote Second Amendment rights.

There is a place for the GOA and its no-compromise stand on the Second Amendment. Heaven knows in a climate such as ours today, we need such a group. This is also true of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They fulfill a nitch.

This in no way minimizes the importance of the NRA, which is even more important than ever, simply because people within the leftwing are actively courting the NRA’s input and opinions. This is worth more than its weight in gold.

Martyn
The Liberty Sphere

I dunno. The GCA of 68 alone would probably result in what the GOA’s claiming (and, as they pointed out, did already under Clinton). On the other hand, it doesn’t tend to do so in practice; while psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers have to be counted as being able to determine if an individual is “able to manage his or her own affairs” for the VA to be able to provide care (anything further than a diagnosis and a cup of coffee requires a % disabled), they overwhelmingly do not report these numbers to NICS or the FBI, and there aren’t many judges outside of “Reversable Jack” that would hold such a conviction.

On the other hand, HR 2640 seems to set aside a lot of funds specifically for this purpose; I can think of no better incentive to end up with places like the VA system simply dropping every record onto the FBI. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs already claims this ability, and does so without judges or trials. While you could already have had a sufficiently antigun attorney and judge get you for having guns against the GCA, this change would make it impossible to get new ones without exploiting the ‘gunshow loophole’ or other private sales.

Challenging false NICS returns is a pain in the backside.

I think the GOA’s blowing the threat out of proportion, and presenting it very poorly, but there is one. I just don’t think we can afford to oppose it.

Also, under current law, these folks are barred from firearms possession for life, with no possibility at all of removing that disability at a later date when they’ve gotten over their mental health crisis. HR2640 at least provides something to people who are looking to have their rights restored.

With those kinds of hearings, you may get your “adjudication” – but how secure would it be?

I agree with you completely. There needs to be due process. For the most part, there has to be in order to commit or adjudicate someone. I know under PA law, there are groups claiming that firearms disabilities can be declared under state law without sufficient due process, but I haven’t researched this enough to know for sure. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in this issue, it’s be careful what people claim is true. Not because everyone is necessarily trying to lie or deceive, but just because legislation is difficult to read sometimes, and without knowing all the case law that surrounds it, hard to understand in its application.