PDA

View Full Version : Gun control measure debated


Outlaw Josey Wales
02-24-2009, 5:23 PM
Gun control measure debated
By BRENDAN RILEY, Associated Press Writer

Friday, February 20, 2009

(02-20) 12:51 PST CARSON CITY, CA (AP) --

Lawmakers were asked Friday to back a bill stepping up state record-keeping to help keep guns away from the mentally ill, but were told by a critic of the plan that it's a "stacked deck" targeting Nevadans' constitutional rights.

Assembly Judiciary Committee members were told by Deputy Attorney General Kerry Benson that AB46 is required under a 2007 federal law change and that federal funds could be lost if it's not approved.

Benson said Nevada must make a "reasonable attempt" to comply with the federal law, approved after the 2007 mass shootings at Virginia Tech that left 33 people dead, including the gunman whose prior psychiatric treatment wasn't listed in records checked by gun dealers who sold him weapons.

Under AB46, any court records on mental competency, insanity pleas, forced admissions to mental health facilities or appointments of a guardian for someone deemed to be incompetent would have to be forwarded to the state's central repository for crime records.

The state repository in turn would transmit the court records to the federal criminal background database, which gets queries from gun dealers when someone attempts to buy weapons.

Benson said AB46 includes a way for someone to petition a court to determine whether there's still a basis for prohibiting gun ownership, but an American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada representative said the protections in the bill aren't enough.

Rebecca Gasca of the ACLU said the bill "presents a stacked deck against Nevadans and their constitutional rights" by making it easy for them to lose their constitutional rights to own weapons and creating "a huge uphill battle" to get those rights restored.

Gasca said full due process rights are mandated when constitutional rights are at stake, and that due process requirement isn't met in the bill. She added there's no requirement on the state to update a record submitted to the federal database, and there's even a provision giving them immunity from lawsuits for errors or inaction.

Because Nevada officials couldn't guarantee that the federal database would be corrected in the event of an error or a restoration of rights, Gasca said Nevadans entitled to have weapons could instead wind up with "a lifelong gun ban by the feds."

Assembly Judiciary Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, questioned whether Gasca was suggesting that the state should have some sort of control over the federal government.

Gasca said that's not what she was suggesting, but added, "Our state does have a long history of questioning overarching federal rules and keeping a wary eye and being very careful in considering the individual rights" under the federal and Nevada constitutions.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/20/state/n122141S33.DTL

AlexBreya
02-24-2009, 5:29 PM
the "metally ill" argument is just a way for them to advance to more bans. next it will be the handicapped. No one should be denied the right to have a gun, so long as they're citizens, and not criminals.

vladbutsky
02-24-2009, 7:01 PM
ACLU is fighting for 2A?!
Usually they pretend it doesn't exist...:cool:

Kid Stanislaus
02-24-2009, 7:10 PM
ACLU is fighting for 2A?!
Usually they pretend it doesn't exist...:cool:


Maybe Heller was the wake up call?

Glock22Fan
02-24-2009, 7:14 PM
the "metally ill" argument is just a way for them to advance to more bans. next it will be the handicapped. No one should be denied the right to have a gun, so long as they're citizens, and not criminals.

Within the law and the Constitution, and completely correct in my view, "The People" includes legal residents (legal aliens).

As someone who has been in that position, I hope that you mispoke rather than mean that someone such as myself (with a completely clean record over half a century long) should be denied the right of self-protection.

Of course, anyone who is "metally ill" should be restricted to tupperware guns :D

F-2_Challenger
02-24-2009, 7:21 PM
Or maybe the ACLU is fighting 1/2 arsed to help get rid of the 2nd.

AlexBreya
02-24-2009, 7:58 PM
Within the law and the Constitution, and completely correct in my view, "The People" includes legal residents (legal aliens).

As someone who has been in that position, I hope that you mispoke rather than mean that someone such as myself (with a completely clean record over half a century long) should be denied the right of self-protection.

Of course, anyone who is "metally ill" should be restricted to tupperware guns :D

I think you misunderstood my post, i said so long as you're a citizen. and if you're a legal immigrant, you're a citizen, right? if you are a legal citizen, than yeah, you should have a gun. Illegal immigrants shouldn't have a gun.

by criminal, i mean a robber, rapist, drug dealer, hippie, murderer, gang member, etc.

not dumb stuff like a a DUI when you were a kid or anything like that.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 8:11 PM
I think you misunderstood my post, i said so long as you're a citizen. and if you're a legal immigrant, you're a citizen, right?

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Legal immigrants are residents, but they are not citizens unless they go through a naturalization process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_citizenship#Naturalization), which is lengthy and arduous. Only citizens may vote; legal residents are also excluded from a number of government benefits programs and security clearances and sometimes treated somewhat differently under the law (such as in Washington State, where an "alien firearms license" is required under state law for a non-citizen to own any firearm).

tankerman
02-24-2009, 8:45 PM
I think the ACLU is involved because this same type of bill could be used to restrict other types of individual rights.

DDT
02-24-2009, 9:07 PM
For whatever reason. The more the merrier. They do some very good stuff wrt the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. They also do some really stupid crap. Let's reward the good and beat down the bad.

MP301
02-25-2009, 2:12 AM
ACLU is fighting for 2A?!
Usually they pretend it doesn't exist...:cool:

Yeah, kind of diffeent from them supporting the one amendment that they didnt like. But remember that NEVADA ACLU came out after Heller and publicly stated they were now in the "support the 2nd amendment" game. I think they are now the black sheep of the ACLU.


For whatever reason. The more the merrier. They do some very good stuff wrt the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. They also do some really stupid crap. Let's reward the good and beat down the bad.

Your correct. They sure would get more general support if they were to support the 2ndA as a rule. I hope they feel stupid for thinking that somehow the framers somehow tossed in one collective right with those 9 individual rights! And for that matter, I hope the SCOTUS desenters on Heller feel as retarded as they proved they were when coming to this conclusion...

hvengel
02-25-2009, 1:35 PM
ACLU is fighting for 2A?!
Usually they pretend it doesn't exist...:cool:

This is in Nevada and the Nevada ACLU is officially supportive of 2nd amendment rights post Heller.

newtothis
02-25-2009, 7:37 PM
I think you misunderstood my post, i said so long as you're a citizen. and if you're a legal immigrant, you're a citizen, right? if you are a legal citizen, than yeah, you should have a gun. Illegal immigrants shouldn't have a gun.

by criminal, i mean a robber, rapist, drug dealer, hippie, murderer, gang member, etc.

not dumb stuff like a a DUI when you were a kid or anything like that.

What's wrong with hippies owning? :confused:

KWA-S
02-26-2009, 1:18 AM
I think that over the next few years, we will see some significant change in many fields...the ACLU may begin fighting for 2A, the power of the federal government will be restricted, etc, etc. It'll be interesting, either for better or worse, to see how things play out in the next four (or if we are less fortunate, eight) years.

Also, go Nevada ACLU!