RE: Feinstein's Bill

RE: Feinstein's Bill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/1/2013 11:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 [image]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/269295_227159504087495_1900740810_n.jpg[/image] And I see you again attempt to avoid the issues I have raised...that I am not surprised. Yes I did, before your last post, please look here. As for the reporting of people with mental health issues, please read the following. quote: Between November 1999 and November 2007, the number of disqualifying mental health records in the NICS Mental Defective File increased from about 90,000 to about 400,000.3 However, the U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that there should be at least 2.7 million such records in the database.4 Hence, the total number of records currently reported to NICS is still a small fraction of the number of persons prohibited from purchasing firearms due to a history of mental illness. In 2005, of the total number of prospective purchasers who were denied following an FBI background check, only 0.5% were denied for mental health reasons.5 Mental Health Reporting Policy Summary Please not the bold text, and then tell me that the reporting of people who should be denied firearms do to mental illness is working. I have seen numerous sources which I failed to memorize the link for thinking it was common knowlege that 30 states do not inter mental health information. Virginia had passed a law prohibiting the shareing such information which is what allowed the VA Tech shooter to get his guns.

Nosathro -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/1/2013 11:43:30 PM)
have seen numerous sources which I failed to memorize the link for thinking it was common knowlege that 30 states do not inter mental health information. Virginia had passed a law prohibiting the shareing such information which is what allowed the VA Tech shooter to get his guns. Information is guarded but in case where life is at risk, i.e. a danger to self or others it has to be reported. And in Cho he was reported Generally there are laws that protect such information however it can be shared with other agencies if a release of information is signed by the patient, Cho refused to sign. Cho was in counseling by order of VA Tech after an incident and a Professor has also expressed concerns about Cho. A State panel reviewed the incident and noted the VA Tech officials were aware of Cho behavior and did not act as they should have. Also changes in laws now make reporting easier.

BamaD -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/1/2013 11:52:05 PM)
Systems is going to work great if we allow the nutcases to determine if thier information would be intered, guess which ones would be least likely to allow it to be shared? Hint the ones most likely to belong in the system. quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro have seen numerous sources which I failed to memorize the link for thinking it was common knowlege that 30 states do not inter mental health information. Virginia had passed a law prohibiting the shareing such information which is what allowed the VA Tech shooter to get his guns. Information is guarded but in case where life is at risk, i.e. a danger to self or others it has to be reported. And in Cho he was reported Generally there are laws that protect such information however it can be shared with other agencies if a release of information is signed by the patient, Cho refused to sign. Cho was in counseling by order of VA Tech after an incident and a Professor has also expressed concerns about Cho. A State panel reviewed the incident and noted the VA Tech officials were aware of Cho behavior and did not act as they should have. Also changes in laws now make reporting easier.

LizDeluxe -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 7:54:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro one or one hundred, the point is the Republicans lost The GOP took control of Congress in 1994. I have idea to what you are referring. quote: Brady has not changed is political party membership, which for me takes an amount courage on his part, since he has taken up the gun control issue. Conjecture. Perhaps it did take great courage. I know he was very courageous to face the struggle he faced after being shot. Maybe it wasn't courage that made him retain his political party affiliation. Maybe he realized that the Dems are still just as fucked up as he thought they were before the assassination attempt. quote: By your rationalization are you also saying Gabrielle Gifford is no longer a Democrat? That's not what I said. I never mentioned anything about Giffords. I never said that Brady was no longer this, that or the other. I said that given what he had been through his political affiliation was no longer relevant. I don't expect you to read that now since you did not read it when I first wrote it. quote: You left out an important part of the oath you state.... The oath says "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution", it goes further on "from all enemies foreign and domestic" No, it does not. US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." quote: "If we let them take out guns we deserve what happens next" you something against a reduction in the death rate? No. My problem is with people who lack a basic sense of respect for the US Constitution. They don't deserve to live here.

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 7:59:26 AM)
Yeah, that defend against all enemies foreign and domestic is part of the military oath.

Yachtie -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 8:21:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, that defend against all enemies foreign and domestic is part of the military oath. Makes "posse comitatus' an interesting thing, as the military cannot be used against domestic enemies (those who subvert what the military has taken an oath to defend).

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 8:25:25 AM)
Not so. You are incorrect about that. The posse comitatus act pretty much says they cannot act as law enforcement; an ad hoc federal sherriffs posse. Says nothing about military used to quell riots or fight at home and any of that sort of junk. They can be used to get James Merideth into College, but can't be used to patrol the border. They cannot be used without the express approval, or an act of congress as law enforcement. That's why it usually falls to the national guard.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 8:43:28 AM)
Pure nonsense. Check out all the words in that oath sometime, it doesn't say what you think it says... and neither does posse comitatus. quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, that defend against all enemies foreign and domestic is part of the military oath. Makes "posse comitatus' an interesting thing, as the military cannot be used against domestic enemies (those who subvert what the military has taken an oath to defend).

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 8:47:37 AM)
Which one, and who? I took that military oath. And I know the posse comitatus act and what posse comitatus means. I flunked ninth grade latin, but I took away a little something. Must be to Yachtie. 18 USC P. 1385: Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Nosathro -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 8:57:17 AM)
The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress (which it currently does not except under the Insurrection Act).{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons. The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission. It can be done...

Yachtie -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 9:05:15 AM)
fr I stand corrected.

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (2/2/2013 9:06:56 AM)
It is commonly believed out there that way though, Yachtie.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 11 [12]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125