TexasCHLforum.com

Article in paper I JUST GOT today

And I thought Texans had sense, but some "long-time politicians" living in an Austin Condo and in DC may be out of touch?

Background checks have to keep guns from troubled buyers
by John Cornyn

This is why I support ... Graham... that would "plug the holes in" ...

ohhhhh the Democrat's' "loophole" reworded for Republicans?

Loophole: synonym: freedom from govt control
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22john ... =firefox-a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People who purchase used dishwashers without govt intervention/taxation/registration/permission are exploiting a loophole. You can't get away with that with a used automobile, we need to plug the loopholes.


IMHO, We need to vote against loopholes next chance we get; some loopholes have been out of touch too long, like Bloomberg when he flies to his gunfree palace in Bermuda and carries a cop (ok, 2 cops, paid by NYC)

I can't carry a cop.

We HAVE laws about background checks. What we apparently lack is ENFORCEMENT and PENALTIES for those who break - or attempt to break - the law.
I guess Cornyn is showing his RINO colors...

John did vote against Shumer's bill though.
Guess I just got ticked at him placating the Libs in their language and "compromising" the Constitution more than it already has been... by supporting Graham's bill to "plug the holes" (loopholes) and infringe "just a weeee bit more"

Cruz isn't apologizing for doing right.

The GOP will save us.

Anygunanywhere

For those wondering what this is all about - http://texicantattler.blogspot.com/2013 ... check.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

‘Background checks serve a critical role in ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of those not responsible enough to use them…we must refocus our efforts to make sure the current background-check system works to screen out the dangerously mentally ill.’

Does anyone disagree with that?

Unfortunately, legislation proposed in the Senate, such as the so-called "assault weapons ban," focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns, but on the cosmetic features of certain firearms. I wasn't sent to Washington to pass another law that will not address the real root cause of mass violence. Recent tragedies across the nation confirm that we must improve mental health reporting for the background check program.

This is why I support legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would plug the holes in our background check system. Federal and state authorities alike have criticized ambiguous guidelines in the current system that fail to include many existing mental illness records. The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 would clarify outdated legal definitions so that we could more effectively screen out individuals who are prohibited from buying guns.

This is the bill Senator Cornyn is referring to. If you read the text of the bill it is very reasonable. It requires a judicial finding where the individual had counsel and a court order finding them incompetent. So the rights of the individual are protected by a legal process that honors all the usual rights of our system; innocent until proven guilty, the right against self incrimination, etc., etc. It explicitly excludes voluntary admissions to a psychiatric hospital or involuntary admission for observation, and it excludes people for whom judicial orders have expired, been set aside or expunged or have been fulfilled or completed. In my opinion, it's a very good bill.

baldeagle wrote:For those wondering what this is all about - http://texicantattler.blogspot.com/2013 ... check.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

‘Background checks serve a critical role in ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of those not responsible enough to use them…we must refocus our efforts to make sure the current background-check system works to screen out the dangerously mentally ill.’

Does anyone disagree with that?

Unfortunately, legislation proposed in the Senate, such as the so-called "assault weapons ban," focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns, but on the cosmetic features of certain firearms. I wasn't sent to Washington to pass another law that will not address the real root cause of mass violence. Recent tragedies across the nation confirm that we must improve mental health reporting for the background check program.

This is why I support legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would plug the holes in our background check system. Federal and state authorities alike have criticized ambiguous guidelines in the current system that fail to include many existing mental illness records. The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 would clarify outdated legal definitions so that we could more effectively screen out individuals who are prohibited from buying guns.

This is the bill Senator Cornyn is referring to. If you read the text of the bill it is very reasonable. It requires a judicial finding where the individual had counsel and a court order finding them incompetent. So the rights of the individual are protected by a legal process that honors all the usual rights of our system; innocent until proven guilty, the right against self incrimination, etc., etc. It explicitly excludes voluntary admissions to a psychiatric hospital or involuntary admission for observation, and it excludes people for whom judicial orders have expired, been set aside or expunged or have been fulfilled or completed. In my opinion, it's a very good bill.

Thanks for the link, but without taking time to read the reasonableness / degree of infringement in that bill, I'll just ask ...

If I meet you behind the Walmart to swap/trade/sell a Glock 17 and 500 capacity drum clippie thingy, do we have to run to town to do background checks and pay someone and create paper? I saw your CHL/I've known you since birth/you are my nephew etc.

If so, I'm against it

how do I know your mental adjudication without a background check and medical records release?

seems to invade privacy and deter private transactions both.

I have no intention of providing you a medical records release. How my hernia is is no business of yours nor the governments. My niece wouldn't want her medical records released to govt or me when I transfer a gun to her.

How is all that going to float with HIPAA ??

Sure. it benefits FFLs, and allows Govt to collect more personal info in the database, but it does not stop bad people from stealing guns or buying them on a street corner and going on mass shooting sprees or robbing stores or doing home invasions like has occurred commonly in the past.

So is it just me that finds it disturbing that as Americans we are seemingly "trading" one freedom for another-in essence compromising ? To get a Universal background check system place( all Progressives) for every gun sale, we compromise to keep what we have (the same background checks and no weapon bans-but possible bans on magazine size) and focus on mental health (YES-people SHOULD have an absolute opportunity to have mental health check ups, etc.) issues.
My biggest issue/concern is that even IF the states use the background system as it is meant to be used, people are going to be flagged falsely for things like PTSD, stress, taking a narcotic or pain medication which has a warning of some type of mental issue as a side effect. (I guess I have gone down the political crazy train already-sorry); with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) coming into effect over the next several years, unparalleled information will be shared with "insurance exchanges,providers, medical professionals and bureaucrats" allowing intellectual property (i.e-your personal information) to be released into the wild and stored for an undetermined period of time and potentially used to take away your weapon(s) when found to be a danger to one's self or others.

The other way to do it is just buy all of the ammunition like DHS is doing now and the average American is screwed....Just sayin'

I will keep my NRA membership and cling to my God and guns until someone takes them from my cold dead hands-that was for you Mr. Carrey.
Thank you all for letting me vent-my wife says I need a hobby that doesn't involve aggravating her....she ain't on here.

RPB wrote:

baldeagle wrote:For those wondering what this is all about - http://texicantattler.blogspot.com/2013 ... check.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

‘Background checks serve a critical role in ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of those not responsible enough to use them…we must refocus our efforts to make sure the current background-check system works to screen out the dangerously mentally ill.’

Does anyone disagree with that?

Unfortunately, legislation proposed in the Senate, such as the so-called "assault weapons ban," focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns, but on the cosmetic features of certain firearms. I wasn't sent to Washington to pass another law that will not address the real root cause of mass violence. Recent tragedies across the nation confirm that we must improve mental health reporting for the background check program.

This is why I support legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would plug the holes in our background check system. Federal and state authorities alike have criticized ambiguous guidelines in the current system that fail to include many existing mental illness records. The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 would clarify outdated legal definitions so that we could more effectively screen out individuals who are prohibited from buying guns.

This is the bill Senator Cornyn is referring to. If you read the text of the bill it is very reasonable. It requires a judicial finding where the individual had counsel and a court order finding them incompetent. So the rights of the individual are protected by a legal process that honors all the usual rights of our system; innocent until proven guilty, the right against self incrimination, etc., etc. It explicitly excludes voluntary admissions to a psychiatric hospital or involuntary admission for observation, and it excludes people for whom judicial orders have expired, been set aside or expunged or have been fulfilled or completed. In my opinion, it's a very good bill.

Thanks for the link, but without taking time to read the reasonableness / degree of infringement in that bill, I'll just ask ...

If I meet you behind the Walmart to swap/trade/sell a Glock 17 and 500 capacity drum clippie thingy, do we have to run to town to do background checks and pay someone and create paper? I saw your CHL/I've known you since birth/you are my nephew etc.

If so, I'm against it

how do I know your mental adjudication without a background check and medical records release?

seems to invade privacy and deter private transactions both.

I have no intention of providing you a medical records release. How my hernia is is no business of yours nor the governments. My niece wouldn't want her medical records released to govt or me when I transfer a gun to her.

How is all that going to float with HIPAA ??

Sure. it benefits FFLs, and allows Govt to collect more personal info in the database, but it does not stop bad people from stealing guns or buying them on a street corner and going on mass shooting sprees or robbing stores or doing home invasions like has occurred commonly in the past.

He is not proposing background checks for private transfers. He opposes private sale background checks.

The Schumer bill appears to be rooted in the belief that private buyers and sellers of firearms are not to be trusted.

We need to stay off the panic button every time "background check " is used. We have background checks now. What Senator Graham has proposed, and Senator Cornyn has endorsed, is a very limited expansion of the current sytem to mandate inclusion in NICS of certain mental records where a COURT OF LAW has determined someone mentally incompetent. I laud their efforrts.

RPB wrote:

baldeagle wrote:For those wondering what this is all about - http://texicantattler.blogspot.com/2013 ... check.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

‘Background checks serve a critical role in ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of those not responsible enough to use them…we must refocus our efforts to make sure the current background-check system works to screen out the dangerously mentally ill.’

Does anyone disagree with that?

Unfortunately, legislation proposed in the Senate, such as the so-called "assault weapons ban," focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns, but on the cosmetic features of certain firearms. I wasn't sent to Washington to pass another law that will not address the real root cause of mass violence. Recent tragedies across the nation confirm that we must improve mental health reporting for the background check program.

This is why I support legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would plug the holes in our background check system. Federal and state authorities alike have criticized ambiguous guidelines in the current system that fail to include many existing mental illness records. The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 would clarify outdated legal definitions so that we could more effectively screen out individuals who are prohibited from buying guns.

This is the bill Senator Cornyn is referring to. If you read the text of the bill it is very reasonable. It requires a judicial finding where the individual had counsel and a court order finding them incompetent. So the rights of the individual are protected by a legal process that honors all the usual rights of our system; innocent until proven guilty, the right against self incrimination, etc., etc. It explicitly excludes voluntary admissions to a psychiatric hospital or involuntary admission for observation, and it excludes people for whom judicial orders have expired, been set aside or expunged or have been fulfilled or completed. In my opinion, it's a very good bill.

Thanks for the link, but without taking time to read the reasonableness / degree of infringement in that bill, I'll just ask ...

If I meet you behind the Walmart to swap/trade/sell a Glock 17 and 500 capacity drum clippie thingy, do we have to run to town to do background checks and pay someone and create paper? I saw your CHL/I've known you since birth/you are my nephew etc.

If so, I'm against it

how do I know your mental adjudication without a background check and medical records release?

seems to invade privacy and deter private transactions both.

I have no intention of providing you a medical records release. How my hernia is is no business of yours nor the governments. My niece wouldn't want her medical records released to govt or me when I transfer a gun to her.

How is all that going to float with HIPAA ??

Sure. it benefits FFLs, and allows Govt to collect more personal info in the database, but it does not stop bad people from stealing guns or buying them on a street corner and going on mass shooting sprees or robbing stores or doing home invasions like has occurred commonly in the past.

actually it will fit within the Healthcare Insurance Portability Accountability Act just fine, nothing in the Hipaa disallows information to be given out for a legal reason to include to law enforcement authorities, healthcare professionals that have a need to know. and actually it doesn't apply to so many healthcare activities I really wish you wouldn't cite the HIPAA. read the thing before you try and cite something like this. Please don't take this as a personal attack, its not it is however coming from someone that is certified in the HIPAA as an administrator. I fight against this being cited all the time because its used incorrectly more often than not. The information being released may violate the Texas Health Care Information Privacy act but not HIPAA

RPB wrote:Thanks for the link, but without taking time to read the reasonableness / degree of infringement in that bill, I'll just ask ...

If I meet you behind the Walmart to swap/trade/sell a Glock 17 and 500 capacity drum clippie thingy, do we have to run to town to do background checks and pay someone and create paper? I saw your CHL/I've known you since birth/you are my nephew etc.

Then this bill wouldn't apply, because there is no NICS check involved.

RPB wrote:If so, I'm against it

how do I know your mental adjudication without a background check and medical records release?

seems to invade privacy and deter private transactions both.

Again, this bill does not address or propose private sales transaction background checks. All it does is try to improve the existing system to ensure that truly mentally ill people will be rejected during a NICS check. If they get a gun through a private transaction, they will have bypassed NICS and this bill would not apply.

RPB wrote:I have no intention of providing you a medical records release. How my hernia is is no business of yours nor the governments. My niece wouldn't want her medical records released to govt or me when I transfer a gun to her.

If you can get someone adjudicated in a court of law as mentally incompetent because they had a hernia, then NICS would reveal that fact. Otherwise they're in the clear.

RPB wrote:How is all that going to float with HIPAA ??

Sure. it benefits FFLs, and allows Govt to collect more personal info in the database, but it does not stop bad people from stealing guns or buying them on a street corner and going on mass shooting sprees or robbing stores or doing home invasions like has occurred commonly in the past.

Of course that's not its purpose either. But to say that Cornyn "calls for background checks" is more than a little misleading since the average person would immediately think universal background checks in the current environment, and that is not what this bill does at all.

So this does not increase the number of background checks, but makes background checks which are already required, more probative than they currently are ...to investigate into mental health adjudications?

I might read it later, but busy lately

RPB wrote:So this does not increase the number of background checks, but makes background checks which are already required, more probative than they currently are ...to investigate into mental health adjudications?

I might read it later, but busy lately

Then might I suggest you refrain from posting alarmist threads until you have informed yourself?

Not angry, just too much crying wolf.

The sky is not falling, yet.

OldGrumpy wrote:We need to stay off the panic button every time "background check " is used. We have background checks now. What Senator Graham has proposed, and Senator Cornyn has endorsed, is a very limited expansion of the current sytem to mandate inclusion in NICS of certain mental records where a COURT OF LAW has determined someone mentally incompetent. I laud their efforrts.

This is a very good bill I also approve of their actions this needs to be done.