Analysis of S.2002: “Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015″ | Shall Not Be Questioned (Repost)

This bill really is an improvement. There are always going to be folks out there who will be satisfied with nothing less than total repeal of the Gun Control Act, and I don’t blame them. But guns for crazy people isn’t a hill I’m looking to die on.

Source: Analysis of S.2002: “Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015″ | Shall Not Be Questioned

 

Sebastian has a nice little write-up. Go check it out.

With what we have so far, I will agree with Sebastian’s analysis of the bill. And if Everytown is already bitching about it, it can’t be bad.  Let’s see if too many hands on the crock pot does not make a hash out of the thing.

5 Replies to “Analysis of S.2002: “Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015″ | Shall Not Be Questioned (Repost)”

  1. “But guns for crazy people isn’t a hill I’m looking to die on.”

    Sigh.

    This is what happens when you let the enemy define the terms of the debate.

    What’s the next hill Sebastian isn’t “looking to die on”?

    When the Left and their RINO minions define any veteran as crazy? Any Ron Paul voter? (Don’t laugh– we have already been defamed in the Feds’ “fusion center” reports.) Christians? (Again– don’t laugh. Remember Waco. The first one.)

    There is a direct linear path from “crazy people shouldn’t have guns” to “gun people are all crazy”. Pols like Schumer and Feinstein have already said it.

    Thing is, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is unconstitutional in its entirety. But lacking the courage to try to repeal or invalidate it through action at the state level, “reasonable” people on our side are just going to keep “compromising” until pretty soon, the Left will feel their power and control have reached a zenith, and that the time has come to just to pick up the last few guns down there in the South. Door to door. Don’t laugh– it’s been done in other countries (as you well know, Miguel).

    Registration and confiscation — now that’s a hill I’m willing to die on. And it’s visible from the hill called “guns for crazy people.”




    0



    0
    1. I would suggest you go back and read the text of the bill again. Just the part that goes by striking “as a mental defective” and inserting
      “mentally incompetent”
      is worth a ton of legislative gold alone.




      0



      0
      1. “Just the part that goes by striking “as a mental defective” and inserting
        “mentally incompetent””

        As defined by whom?

        You consider this an IMPROVEMENT? If anything, it should be “ADJUDICATED mentally incompetent,” so at least there would be mandated due process. But, really, all of this is just bad. States like New York are already taking guns away from people who take medications for depression.

        We must remember history, and how these people work. It’d be easy to take this Bill (after it inevitably becomes law), change a little wording in it, bury the deed in some Giant Omnibus Bill of Doom That Must Be Passed, and voila, my linear path from “guns for crazy people” to “gun people are crazy” is swift and painless for the Powers that Be.




        0



        0
        1. I guess I have to go pablum. Here is the FULL text and a part in bold that should interest you.

          TITLE III–NICS REAUTHORIZATION AND NICS IMPROVEMENT

          SEC. 301. REAUTHORIZATION OF NICS.

          (a) In General.–Section 103(e) of the NICS Improvement
          Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by
          striking “fiscal year 2013” and inserting “each of fiscal
          years 2016 through 2020”.

          SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO MENTAL HEALTH.

          (a) Title 18 Definitions.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United
          States Code, is amended–
          (1) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:
          “(36)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term `has been
          adjudicated mentally incompetent
          or has been committed to a
          psychiatric hospital’, with respect to a person–
          “(i) means the person is the subject of an order or
          finding by a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or
          other adjudicative body–

          “(I) that was issued after–

          “(aa) a hearing–
          “(AA) of which the person received actual notice; and
          “(BB) at which the person had an opportunity to
          participate with counsel; or
          “(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the
          opportunity for a hearing–
          “(AA) of which the person received actual notice; and
          “(BB) at which the person would have had an opportunity to
          participate with counsel; and

          “(II) that found that the person, as a result of marked
          subnormal intelligence, mental impairment, mental illness,
          incompetency, condition, or disease–

          “(aa) was a danger to himself or herself or to others;
          “(bb) was guilty but mentally ill in a criminal case, in a
          jurisdiction that provides for such a verdict;
          “(cc) was not guilty in a criminal case by reason of
          insanity or mental disease or defect;
          “(dd) was incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case;
          “(ee) was not guilty by reason of lack of mental
          responsibility under section 850a of title 10 (article 50a of
          the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
          “(ff) required involuntary inpatient treatment by a
          psychiatric hospital for any reason, including substance
          abuse; or
          “(gg) required involuntary outpatient treatment by a
          psychiatric hospital based on a finding that the person is a
          danger to himself or herself or to others; and
          “(ii) does not include–

          “(I) an admission to a psychiatric hospital for
          observation; or
          “(II) a voluntary admission to a psychiatric hospital.

          “(B) In this paragraph, the term `order or finding’ does
          not include–
          “(i) an order or finding that has expired or has been set
          aside or expunged;
          “(ii) an order or finding that is no longer applicable
          because a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or
          other adjudicative body has found that the person who is the
          subject of the order or finding–

          “(I) does not present a danger to himself or herself or to
          others;
          “(II) has been restored to sanity or cured of mental
          disease or defect;
          “(III) has been restored to competency; or
          “(IV) no longer requires involuntary inpatient or
          outpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital; or

          “(iii) an order or finding with respect to which the
          person who is subject to the order or finding has been
          granted relief from disabilities under section 925(c), under
          a program described in section 101(c)(2)(A) or 105 of the
          NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note),
          or under any other State-authorized relief from disabilities
          program of the State in which the original commitment or
          adjudication occurred.
          “(37) The term `psychiatric hospital’ includes a mental
          health facility, a mental hospital, a sanitarium, a
          psychiatric facility, and any other facility that provides
          diagnoses or treatment by licensed professionals of mental
          retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward
          in a general hospital.”; and
          (2) in section 922–
          (A) in subsection (d)(4)–
          (i) by striking “as a mental defective” and inserting
          “mentally incompetent”; and
          (ii) by striking “any mental institution” and inserting
          “a psychiatric hospital”; and
          (B) in subsection (g)(4)–
          (i) by striking “as a mental defective or who has” and
          inserting “mentally incompetent or has”; and
          (ii) by striking “mental institution” and inserting
          “psychiatric hospital”.
          (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.–The NICS
          Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is
          amended–
          (1) by striking “as a mental defective” each place that
          term appears and inserting “mentally incompetent”;
          (2) by striking “mental institution” each place that term
          appears and inserting “psychiatric hospital”;
          (3) in section 101(c)–
          (A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
          (A), by striking “to the mental health of a person” and
          inserting “to whether a person is mentally incompetent”;
          and
          (B) in paragraph (2)–
          (i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking “to the mental
          health of a person” and inserting “to whether a person is
          mentally incompetent”; and
          (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking “to the mental
          health of a person” and inserting “to whether a person is
          mentally incompetent”; and
          (4) in section 102(c)(3)–
          (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking “as a mental
          defective or committed to a mental institution” and
          inserting “mentally incompetent or committed to a
          psychiatric hospital”; and
          (B) by striking “mental institutions” and inserting
          “psychiatric hospitals”.




          0



          0
  2. “”(i) means the person is the subject of an order or finding by a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body–”

    Seem to me that’s just a bit broad. First thing the Marxist Mafia will do is create
    a “board, commission, or other (bogus) adjudicative body” to claim that anyone who wants or owns a gun just has to be wacko.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .