Jump to content

Conn. to require involuntary commitment for any rifle, shotgun, ammo p


Recommended Posts

I can't believe this is happening in my country.

 

http://www.wral.com/conn-reaches-deal-on-tough-gun-laws-after-newtown/12291898/

 

 

HARTFORD, CONN. — Connecticut lawmakers announced a deal Monday on what they called some of the toughest gun laws in the country that were proposed after the December mass shooting in the state, including a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the massacre that left 20 children and six educators dead.

The proposal also called for background checks for private gun sales and a new registry for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a compromise for parents of Newtown victims who had wanted an outright ban on them, while legislators had proposed grandfathering them into the law.

The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation's first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales and expansion of Connecticut's assault weapons ban.

A new state-issued eligibility certificate would also be needed to purchase any rifle, shotgun or ammunition under the legislation. To get the certificate, a buyer would need to be fingerprinted, take a firearms training course and undergo a national criminal background check and involuntary commitment or voluntary admission check.

The deal is "the most comprehensive package in the country because of its breadth," said Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Fairfield Republican whose district includes Newtown.

McKinney said people tend to focus on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, but he said "there's a lot here underneath the surface" addressing mental health, school security and other issues.

The proposal was revealed to rank-and-file lawmakers Monday after weeks of negotiations among legislative leaders. A vote was expected later this week in the Legislature, where Democrats control both chambers, making passage all but assured. The bill would then be sent to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who has helped lead efforts to strengthen the state's gun laws.

Connecticut is sending a message to Washington and the rest of the country "this is the way to get this job done," said House Speaker Brendan Sharkey, a Democrat from Hamden. Both Democratic and Republican leaders were expected to support the proposal, which had been in the works for about a month.

The shooting reignited the gun debate in the country and led to calls for increased gun control legislation on the federal and state levels. While some other states, including New York, have strengthened their gun laws since the shooting, momentum has stalled in Congress, whose members were urged by President Barack Obama last week not to forget the shooting and to capitalize on the best change in years to stem gun violence.

The gunman in Newtown blasted his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and fired off 154 shots with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle within five minutes. He went through six 30-round magazines, though half were not completely empty, and police said he had three other 30-round magazines in addition to one in the rifle. He gunned down 26 people, then shot himself to death with a handgun.

Six relatives of Newtown victims visited the Capitol on Monday, asking lawmakers to include a ban on existing high-capacity magazines. Some handed out cards with photographs of their slain children. They delivered a letter signed by 24 relatives that demanded that legislators include existing large-capacity ammunition magazines in the ban on the sale of magazines that carry 10 or more bullets.

Allowing such large-capacity magazines to remain in the hands of gun owners would leave a gaping loophole in the law, said Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting.

"It doesn't prevent someone from going out of the state to purchase them and then bring them back. There's no way to track when they were purchased, so they can say, 'I had this before,'" Barden said. "So it's a big loophole."

Jake McGuigan, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is based in Newtown, said he wouldn't comment on the proposal until he saw it in the writing, but he questioned the mechanics of a registry for magazines.

"How will they register a magazine? It seems a little weird," he said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way you're going to be labled CRAZY and no guns for you! Any committal in a mental health facility for any reason is a NO GO for the Form 4473.

 

I was right to fear this mental health push along with gun control! Most of those in the mental health field need to be IN the asylum!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are going to do a background check and also check to see if you've ever been in the "rubber room". The "rubber room" records aren't there with probably 95% of the states, so how are they going to make this one work. Oh Yeh, I've got it, you applied to purchase a firearm, NOPE, you're crazy, off to the funny farm with you.

They're coming to take me away, Ha Ha He He, to the funny farm where life is beautiful. Fuck these nut jobs, all this is about is taking the guns away. An unarmed person will soon become a slave.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't they just go ahead and tatoo serial numbers on the firearm owner's arm. Make easy work for them when the train pulls into town. Funny how history repeats itself. Demonize your enemies then exterminate them.

 

NUTS!!

Edited by SouthernOne
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the law that's already supposed to be reported but isn't. It doesn't really mean much, just that apparently due to the Newtown shooting they are finally going to do what was originally in the law? Seems about right, make laws to make sure the laws are followed booo.gif

 

And just so we have it here:

"has been adjudicated

as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

 

ii. ATF regulations define "committed to a mental institution" as: "A formal commitment of a

person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term
includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for
mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as
for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a
voluntary admission to a mental institution." 27 C.F.R. § 478.11."
So the only thing really changing for them is they are making people with mental illness not willing to seek help for it by admitting themselves to the hospital, as that is federally not adjudicated
Edited by VR6Shooter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all need to start buying 3-D printers.

 

If you distrust the Govt, believe in God, or are interested in dangerous weapons (as a hobby), you could fall victim to the mental health clause.

 

They really are doing a great job of controlling the argument, thanks the media.

 

On a side note: I just scored a perfect condition set of military issue Extreme Cold Weather Gear (Pants and parka) from my local thrift store for $40. If I ever need it, I'll have it. You never know where they might take this fight.

 

I've already told my wife, I draw the line at my guns. She said she would grab one too (this woman is NOT into guns). That said a lot.

 

The folks in Connecticut need to sue on every aspect of every one of these laws where they can. Fight these fucking gun-grabbers at every turn.

Edited by Sim_Player
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way you're going to be labled CRAZY and no guns for you! Any committal in a mental health facility for any reason is a NO GO for the Form 4473.

 

I was right to fear this mental health push along with gun control! Most of those in the mental health field need to be IN the asylum!

+1

Takes one to know one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means they check whether you've been admitted to a mental hospital, regardless of if you did it to yourself or it was forced on you.

 

Its a pretty dodgy way to avoid the privaleged confidentiality of patient and doctor, since it doesn't actually ask if you were an actual threat. It'll only be a matter of time before someone sues over this since it unduely shifts the burden of proof on to the gun buyer to show justification to the contrary.

Edited by Mythos
Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with it is that people go through problems from time to time and may seek help. Seeking professional help would make you a pariah and IMO, could reduce people who need short term help from seeking it.

 

I mean if we go to these lengths, shouldn't there be some sort of criteria for keeping people from owning a firearm other than just being admitted to a mental facility.

 

I read this to mean that if someone is having a rough time when they are 20 due to a parent dying, combined with a sick child and they become mentally stressed/depressed for a short time and seek help for example, that they would be excluded from purchasing or owning a firearm when they are 40 and haven't had any other issues for 20 years. Just seems like a slippery slope....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't they just go ahead and tatoo serial numbers on the firearm owner's arm. Make easy work for them when the train pulls into town. Funny how history repeats itself. Demonize your enemies then exterminate them.

 

NUTS!!

 

 

Ooohhh... or make gun owners wear a yellow "II" because we believe in the 2A.

 

 

 

VOTE THEM OUT!

Link to post
Share on other sites
My issue with it is that people go through problems from time to time and may seek help. Seeking professional help would make you a pariah and IMO, could reduce people who need short term help from seeking it.

 

I mean if we go to these lengths, shouldn't there be some sort of criteria for keeping people from owning a firearm other than just being admitted to a mental facility.

 

I read this to mean that if someone is having a rough time when they are 20 due to a parent dying, combined with a sick child and they become mentally stressed/depressed for a short time and seek help for example, that they would be excluded from purchasing or owning a firearm when they are 40 and haven't had any other issues for 20 years. Just seems like a slippery slope....

 

But that is exactly what they want. Just think of the number of people who would be almost instantly denied. Military veterans, people who as you have said seek help after a family members passing, rape victims (often seek counselling and require serious psychological help) just to name a few. Think of what those categories entail. That's a large percentage of voting gun owners instantly removed from the ability to possess a weapon. They know if they get rid of those people, over time they will be able to spread the legislation even further. I have a feeling this proposed law will be struck down due to the ADA, but the SJC has already said Obamacare is ok, so I have little faith in that garbage now

Edited by VR6Shooter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they sign this bill into law, then every one of the officers/deputies that were involved in the response can kiss their careers goodbye as well. A very large portion of them had to seek help for what they had witnessed inside of the school after responding. You don't have to be admitted to a hospital for it to be considered a voluntary admission. You just have to be/have been in the care of a psychiatrist.

Edited by GeorgiaPD
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
If they sign this bill into law, then every one of the officers/deputies that were involved in the response can kiss their careers goodbye as well. A very large portion of them had to seek help for they had witnessed inside of the school after responding. You don't have to be admitted to a hospital for it to be considered a voluntary admission. You just have to be/have been in the care of a psychiatrist.

 

This is why its a danger to all of us in the gun community. The medical field needs to stay just that, and not become involved in having a say on who can own guns. We are starting to see a lot of this in the community of our returning vets. Its only going to continue downhill from there. Sadly.

 

It wont be long and any normal feeling that we all exhibit on a daily basis will become grounds for termination of ownership of our weapons.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...