2nd Amendment updates

belvedere said:
I don't believe all the stuff in the internet but in this case it very well could be true. We are in a battle in Alabama now that wants BC to support a bill to pass a law that would establish a "safe holding" place for a person to take their gun and have it stored safely if they feel depressed or thinks they might use it to hurt themselves. They say they would let certain approved FFL's or Sheriff's offices hold the gun for 3 months and then return it to the person that had it stored if they feel like they no longer entertain thought of harming themselves. This is the biggest load of horseshit I have ever heard of. It is wrong on sooooooo many levels. What's y'all thoughts? I have to write a response to this today. We are supposed to sit in on a conference this week and submit our views. There is a JOINT committee now that is pushing the bill. The main sponsor is a democrat named Sinclair in the State Senate and the other sponsor is a Republican in the house. They are touting it as a "way to save mentally ill adults and save children." If y'all have any thought on this speak up. I need all the help I can get writing this thing this afternoon.
Click to expand...
 
I think it’s BS from the same people who don’t enforce the death penalty but believe abortion is ok
 
First off who would do that. If someone is really that depressed I don't think turning their gun in would even be on their mind. This is just another way of having a red flag law but on yourself. What percentage would actually follow through? .00001 %. But then they would come back and say "if we save one life, it would be worth it." It would also be subject to changing and changing into something that it wasn't meant to be.
Also, if someone has one gun fine, be stupid and turn it in and then prove that you can get it back. What if someone has 100 guns? Rent a u-haul to turn them in???
 
Last edited:
Any fruitcake doing that ? deserves to lose their firearms. Here's a thought, How about requiring mental health workers/professionals to report those who are in danger of hurting others, and don't give me the horse crap about Dr/patient privacy. That's a kick in the crotch to those killed and injured by the mentally ill.
My view on the criminally mentally ill ? They are humanities rabid dogs. Make sure you kill them faster. All these pointless feel good laws are a friggin joke. How about any of the idjits proposing these laws be run out of office. Or better yet, No new laws can be passed until the ones already in effect are enforced.....
And news flash !!! You have little chillruns ? YOU take care of them ! It's not the governments job to make laws to make up for your piss poor parenting. You spawned the obnoxious little vermin, Put the cell phone down and deal with em. The TV won't teach them ANYTHING of moral or usefull value.
This is all a way to disarm us, while the government does a poor job of enforcing law.
 
All valid points and all are basically the way I feel. Now I have to get this in a relatively concise paper response and with answers that may be posed to the presenter. Y'all have any points ( devils advocate) that the opposing side might counter these points with? Bear in mind they have invited BC ( Linda) to present the gun rights side of this. I don't want her to be left there with a "damn if I know" look on her face. I am going to have to make some note cards addressing their supposedly " good sense" views.

My first [point is going to be about the thing being an invitation for red flag infringements, I am working on a speaking point as to who in their right mind would store a gun of a person who has admitted they have suicidal thought, then return the firearm? If the person does off themselves who will be liable for all kinda of litigation? In the very first place the gun would have to go in an A&D book and a 4473 would have to be filled out and then the FFL would have to make a determination if the person was indeed "self cured" and if the 4473 were approved give firearm back. If the dumbass Sheriffs want to do this then let them hang themselves. This is NOT the governments job. They are putting FFL and elected office holders in a position of being mental health professionals. This is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Wk you make a point about the hypocrisy of the situation. You can't have it both ways. Protect life in one case and end it in another.
 
Last edited:
I don't see it as having any affect. Like you said, if no one ever turns a gun in on their own then this would just become a red flag law down the road so someone will do it for them. We have red flag laws in Va. and it has never been used. For three years. It's basically a waste of ink on paper.
so what if, I hate what ifs, but say a feller turns his gun in or maybe five guns in but he doesn't live by himself???????Does everyone in the house hold have to turn theirs in too?? That could become sticky. I agree about whoever takes control of the gun(s) is taking a big chance on returning it to the owner. So 3 months is the magic number. Who came up with that. Some people take years to get over their issues IF ever. It's not practical or even makes common sense. Too many variables involved to make it a one size fits all.
 
The three months seems to be the consensus of the ones sponsoring the bill but the actual language says an "agreed on specified time." The three months was what the sponsors were saying was a minimum. Who knows how long a state of mind last? Like you say it could be a lifetime and who determines that the person turning in the gun is "cured"? Do you get a physiatrist to give the ok? Is the FFL to say they are cured? Does the Sheriff call and say "this guy is good to go by the power vested in me as King of the county?" Maybe a note from his mother ? This thing is a load of crap. I'll try to get Linda to scan the thing so I can post the actual bill on here. It's just a couple of pages long.

Good point about other members of the family. Will they prosecute another member of the family if the person gains access to someone else's forearm and they arrest the family member for not securing the firearm sufficiently?
 
Who or how would anyone know how many guns that a person has. So the guy turns in a gun because he might be a threat on his own?????Then he has 5 more at the house. If they are that bad off the feller ain't thinking straight to start with. But he is in the right frame of mind to relinquish his gun on his own? No common sense here at all. Just trying to make it look like they are doing something to save lives and when it doesn't work they add variations to it. Ridiculous.......
 
This law is un-needed, What I see this is ? A stepping stone for some other backdoor law. Throw this in with the question about mental health on the 4473 ? RESTRICTED.....There's something else behind this....
 
Its just the start to expand it in other ways. It will grow like a cancer if they pass it. People will think it sounds like a good idea but it wont do squat so they will have to expand it later.
 
Exactly, They will further restrict our 2nd rights. But NOT require mental health officials to report a dangerous individual because it violates HIS rights ??? WTF !!! Something wrong here ???
 
So far so good. It's stalled for the next couple of days and there are only 5 more days in the session BUT they are getting it set up to be pre-filed for the fall session when they go back into session. She spoke to one state senator and has a meeting with another ( the republican that is actually signed on as a sponsor). His office has called and said the reason he is co-sponsoring the bill is because the VA called and asked him to do it. They claim that if veterans with PTSD had access to a program like this is would cut the rate of suicide by firearm rate. They have pretty much billed this as if you are against this you are against veterans and if you are for it then you are honoring the contributions and sacrifices that veterans have made for their country. At least that is the line the democrat that is the main sponsor has taken. She is trying to get the BC members set up to start a call in campaign the minute the second session starts if this thing gets assigned to the same committee or snuck into another committee with a more liberal set of members. The biggest problem the republican senator in the Judiciary committee, where it is now, is all about helping vets and we need to convince him that he is being conned. I am glad he wants to help vets but this is not the way to do it.
 
Ahhh.....PTSD........Yeah, if they get money for PTSD they aren't allowed to have firearms. Some deserve what they get for PTSD but they hand it out like candy anymore. I know a vet that has PTSD and just gets his wife to buy the guns. (hmmm). A lot of vets don't claim for PTSD so they don't lose their guns. It's a complex situation but I just don't see where anyone is going to turn ALL their guns in much less one.
 
Linda is sending out an email to all the senators. It has y'alls and a little of my ideas on it. I'll get a copy on here.
 
Years ago....people would make their own guns and for other people. The old flintlocks and such. Most of them were pretty much crap and didn't last long and didn't look all that good but were functional. Some builders turned it into an art and made some unique and quality items. Through the years machines helped make the process quicker and a whole lot better. Later....people could buy one off the shelf and making your own gun left by the wayside. Now people buy parts and put the puzzle together and say they built a gun.
OK....so now the ATF wants serial numbers on them. So if someone assembles parts to make a gun,do they need to transfer it to himself?? Or do they just REGISTER it to himself.? Are parts guns even considered homemade? I understand what they are trying to do but its just another attempt to get control over gun ownership. This is just one issue. Then they will come up with something else and else and else till there are 500 items that they will come up with and will be impossible for anyone to keep up with it. It already is.
, And what ever regulation they come up with wont change a thing.
 
You are exactly right. A prime example of this is "bump stocks." I never had any use for bump stocks because you can do the same thing with a belt loop on a pair of pants, but they were not, are not and never will be anything but a piece of plastic and yet the ATF writes a regulation banning them. Before long they are going to ban metal and flip flops, that makes as much sense as banning a piece of plastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

double
Backyard deer
2 3
Replies
48
Views
582
double
double
K
Krps Projects
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
892
belvedere
belvedere
Back
Top