Newsweek.com -- President Obama to introduce new gun legislation in coming weeks.

...Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check...

Click to expand...

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

I pray this mess goes nowhere, but just in case I have all of my paid workers " politicians" info ready for mass email and photo calls.

My eyes WILL be Glued to THOMAS, The United States Federal Bill Tracking System.

Certainly gun ownership organizations will fight this proposal, but it will be mental health organization that will force their way to the front of opposition. Mental Health organizations do not want non adjudicated mental patients to have their records open to an untold number of enforcement agencies. Organizations that are at the forefront of rights for the mentally ill are not necessarily friends of firearms and their owners, but they would stand with us on this issue.

There is no telling who from what organizations, including employers and potential employers, that would have access to even the slightest history of mental treatment that someone would have. There is nothing new under the sun and O Bama is not the first to come up with this restriction, but as in the past ,there will be much resistance to this legislation and the NRA will not be in the front of the line.

c45man said:

Certainly gun ownership organizations will fight this proposal, but it will be mental health organization that will force their way to the front of opposition. Mental Health organizations do not want non adjudicated mental patients to have their records open to an untold number of enforcement agencies. Organizations that are at the forefront of rights for the mentally ill are not necessarily friends of firearms and their owners, but they would stand with us on this issue.

There is no telling who from what organizations, including employers and potential employers, that would have access to even the slightest history of mental treatment that someone would have. There is nothing new under the sun and O Bama is not the first to come up with this restriction, but as in the past ,there will be much resistance to this legislation and the NRA will not be in the front of the line.

Click to expand...

what are you talking about, the nra has already come out against the hi-cap mag ban.

... strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check...

Click to expand...

uhm... the laws didn't allow the alleged shooter to obtain anything. What ambiguous trash.

Newsweek. yawn. Here to sell advertising space by any means necessary.

detroit_fan said:

what are you talking about, the nra has already come out against the hi-cap mag ban.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about. If you bothered to read the subject matter, you would realize that the main subject deals with placing possible restrictions against mental patients ,not ajudicated as such, from obtainin guns.

Your a real master of the obvious. Everyone who has been associated with the firearms issue for more than 3 minutes knows the NRA has been monitoring the high cap mag. issue

The problem with Loughner was not a gun problem. The law has it just right: In order to remove the RKBA because of mental incapacity, there MUST be due process. That due process could be an adjudication or a commitment.

The removal of the right for anything less would be grossly unconstitutional.

The problem in Loughner's case was due solely to all the folks who KNEW he was nuts and did nothing about it. Shame on them. However, no law could force folks to take the action that simple morality would've dictated.

Their definition of due process when it comes to RKBA, as it relates to an alleged mental illness, is if someone or anyone thinks you are mentally impaired, your name goes into a data base. As such, you may be disqualified from owning a gun. It would be your burden to prove otherwise, which means lawyers and money.

I dont useualy post do to I cant spell . so anything i say is not lisend to becuse of people are to bussy laughing at my spelling and regarding me as an idiot. but in my life i live in a inner city area i chase prostituts and drug dealers out from my ally and street on a regurler basis. but in a nice way and yes i am all for open carrying but in this instince i do not becuse i dont want to seem intimidating so i conceal it. and my first gueastion is are you ok ? are you stuck? or do you need help ? and 9 times out of ten they give me a bs anser but they leave. once one threatoned me and he moved his car twords me and i pulled on him he corected his action and took of i called police and belive they picked him up. but i see alot of the young people. i have kids. so i saw it there to untill i took action in my own house. but i think the real isue is not guns but how we veiw them . asault weapons are bad we sould ban them. then we by saying this when we have somone who wants to rebell if i my use this term and want to be bad we have just told him bad people use this. but you see this in alot of areas drinking cusing steeling hitting ect. if i remember in germany they dont have a drinking age and they also dont have the problem with drinking by teens to act bad. but also you dont use a saw to comit armed robery mybe becuse our veiw on saws are corect. well we will forget the movie texas chain saw masicer. which brings me to the message we send in movies, music and games mean while they sould not be band but if we look and what we do and say what we alow and teach our kids they will grow up with good princibles. on mental issues most people wont get help before its to late and putting restrictions on people do to mental health reasons will make less people seek help out of fear of persicution becuse of there ilnesses. simple ones sleeplesnes or depretion . we have to change our veiw of curtin things as a society. its not a mental person getting a gun thats the tragity its how come the greatest nation and yes we are great becuse of ower belivf life liberty and persut of happyness note the word life and in tusscon all those who did not try to get and convince him to get help and just said what a crazy jerk are to blame. the school told him not to come back unless he is cleared by a doctor. what about hey we care about you and let us help you see a doctor and we will be with you all the way and give our suprt. the diffrence is night and day one way says get out the other says we care. but we as a society have to look and revew what is around is from everthing to look at that low life hooker what a peace of crap or wow how awfull that it is that drugs would reduce a person to that. but dont get me wrong im not a pacifist becuse the safty and defence of my family comes first. but how we do it is the key. if despet poeple do despret thing how do we help make people not despret? how do we give people the say so they dont feel the need to caus a seen to be heard ? well i can ramble all day so ill go but just some thoughts

The seed for this movement was planted after the Virginia Tech shooting and they are without a doubt going to push for whatever restrictions they feel has the potential of passing in the wake of a tragedy, while the emotions are still high from the American cattle. Anything in the name of security... Restrict, limit, regulate, and ban is the name of the game. As if anything they pass would have made any difference.

I believe this is all part of the plan to eventually render most or all citizens mentally unhealthy to possess firearms. We are over-medicated and diagnose everything with a "disorder" of some sort..

The magazine restriction is just incompetent fear-mongering with no basis in fact, on bahalf of the leftist, anti-second amendment bigots.

flintlock said:

the seed for this movement was planted after the virginia tech shooting and they are without a doubt going to push for whatever restrictions they feel has the potential of passing in the wake of a tragedy, while the emotions are still high from the american cattle. Anything in the name of security... Restrict, limit, regulate, and ban is the name of the game. As if anything they pass would have made any difference.

I believe this is all part of the plan to eventually render most or all citizens mentally unhealthy to possess firearms. We are over-medicated and diagnose everything with a "disorder" of some sort..

The magazine restriction is just incompetent fear-mongering with no basis in fact, on bahalf of the leftist, anti-second amendment bigots.

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this

c45man said:

Their definition of due process when it comes to RKBA, as it relates to an alleged mental illness, is if someone or anyone thinks you are mentally impaired, your name goes into a data base. As such, you may be disqualified from owning a gun. It would be your burden to prove otherwise, which means lawyers and money.

Click to expand...

Lots of money, and probably never, the way they're pushing the issue.

As for my take on the Virginia Tech issue, as a Tech grad myself, I feel very sorry about what happened, but a little angry, as it didn't haveto happen. If just one nearby student had been armed to counter Cho, there would have been a lot less than 32 dead.

c45man said:

Their definition of due process when it comes to RKBA, as it relates to an alleged mental illness, is if someone or anyone thinks you are mentally impaired, your name goes into a data base. As such, you may be disqualified from owning a gun. It would be your burden to prove otherwise, which means lawyers and money.

Click to expand...

The federal law is quite clear on what would constitute due process. To be barred by the federal law, one must have "been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution."

Obama and the left don't have the votes to pass anything like this

This stuff will never get past the House and probably not the Senate either.

I almost hope they do try to ram something through. I don't think it has a chance at passing and the backlash against any gun control push would likely force a few more gun control zealots OUT of office. It would force elected officials to go on record on the issue as well. No downside that I can see.

Additionally..., President Obama, being a Member of The Executive Branch of Government, Lacks The Authority to Introduce Legislation for Consideration before The United States Congress.

Such Subject-matter of Legislation Introduction is Reserved Exclusively to The Legislature.

All of this is beurocrats trying to pass the blame because they didn't do their jobs.

What is needed is simply a law that requires Universities, Schools and other agencies who notice that someone who is exhibiting agressive signs of a mental condition such as those exhibited by Jared to refer them for mental evaluation.

Had the school done it's job and tried to refer him for mental evaluation....instead of simply washing their hands of the incident by just saying "don't come back and your not our problem"

His bizarre and disruptive behavior should have afforded him a mental evaluation. The problem is not guns......its the same lack of communication between schools, agencies and other social services that has and continues to cause these shootings.

I'm not saying he should not have been given due process to determine just how sick he is. But the signs of serious mental illlness should have been reported so that the process could have been started.


The beurocracy needs to do their job and not punish law abiding gun owners.

aadvark said:

Additionally..., President Obama, being a Member of The Executive Branch of Government, Lacks The Authority to Introduce Legislation for Consideration before The United States Congress.

Such Subject-matter of Legislation Introduction is Reserved Exclusively to The Legislature.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the legislature has ceded to various agencies in the executive branch the authority to write regulations that have the force of law--and those agencies are being busy little beavers.

That Obama is not being successful in getting these regs published and adopted and in getting his treaty through Congress doesn't make his efforts any more palatable or him any less objectionable as anti-gun.

eye95 said:

Unfortunately, the legislature has ceded to various agencies in the executive branch the authority to write regulations that have the force of law--and those agencies are being busy little beavers.

That Obama is not being successful in getting these regs published and adopted and in getting his treaty through Congress doesn't make his efforts any more palatable or him any less objectionable as anti-gun.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is a HUGE point. The legislature has been giving away its authority to the agencies under the control of Executive Branch for decades. Big mistake. You can bet that there are those within the Obama Administration who believe that, through all the laws already passed by the legislature, the agencies of the Executive Branch can now pretty much "regulate" almost anything they want to without need for further legislation. See this article ( http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/06/nation/la-na-obama-staff-strategy-20101007 ) and note the comment by David Axelrod:

"It's fair to say that the next phase is going to be less about legislative action than it is about managing the change that we've brought," White House senior advisor David Axelrod said in an interview.


The Devil, will be in the "details".