President Obama's latest gun control effort

[Dagga Boy]

It will be interesting to see what the progressives on the medical side think, as it is really that group that gets hung up on reporting and privacy issues. I would also be interested in if the left will be okay with say hospital information showing drug positive tests, including marijuana being reported as that is another question on the 4473. Personally, I have stated often that I think part of getting a "medical marijuana" card in California should have come with a NCIS report. What do we now do with Colorado and Washington? Should those states not have to even have people do 4473's because there questions are contrary to state laws?

These are scary times and liberty and justice are being determined by what individuals in Washington say you are allowed to have. Trust me, vets with any kind of remote inkling of PTSD will be pinged, and Billy Bongload will be just fine.

[GardoneVT]

It will be interesting to see what the progressives on the medical side think, as it is really that group that gets hung up on reporting and privacy issues. I would also be interested in if the left will be okay with say hospital information showing drug positive tests, including marijuana being reported as that is another question on the 4473. Personally, I have stated often that I think part of getting a "medical marijuana" card in California should have come with a NCIS report. What do we now do with Colorado and Washington? Should those states not have to even have people do 4473's because there questions are contrary to state laws?

These are scary times and liberty and justice are being determined by what individuals in Washington say you are allowed to have. Trust me, vets with any kind of remote inkling of PTSD will be pinged, and Billy Bongload will be just fine.

The wrinkle with "State Marijuana Legalization" is that it's still banned as far as the Feds are concerned.Which makes the idea of getting a Federal BG check for a weed card a bit tough, as you can't get a BG check to do an illegal act.

Fortunately for folks now, DC isn't interested politically in enforcing that particular statute.Of course, that's subject to change without notice-a fact folks in Colorado will find out the hard way if the DEA is directed to crack down.The subsequent cases will be easy to prove in Federal court, with the defendants being card carrying violators and all.

[joshs]

It will be interesting to see what the progressives on the medical side think, as it is really that group that gets hung up on reporting and privacy issues. I would also be interested in if the left will be okay with say hospital information showing drug positive tests, including marijuana being reported as that is another question on the 4473. Personally, I have stated often that I think part of getting a "medical marijuana" card in California should have come with a NCIS report. What do we now do with Colorado and Washington? Should those states not have to even have people do 4473's because there questions are contrary to state laws?

As far as I know BATFE's position is that having a medical marijuana card triggers the 922(g)(3) prohibition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[feudist]

This could well have a chilling effect on individuals who might seek medical help for mental issues.

Which could then lead to even more untreated mentally ill persons.

I swear, the "magical thinking" that the left has surrendered to is a danger to everyone.

[Joseph B.]

Just about anyone who gets jacked up and put through the warrior transition unit process get rated with some form of PTSD, well at least that’s how it was 2 years ago. I was tagged with PTSD several years before being medically retired (I was not retired due to PTSD), but anyway, I am not on any medications, not seeing a pysch-doc or anything. But I’ve wondered for a while now, when and how it my effect me regarding firearms. It seems that since Obama was elected everything that I believed in and the things I enjoy have all been under attack.

[Kyle Reese]

This could well have a chilling effect on individuals who might seek medical help for mental issues.

Which could then lead to even more untreated mentally ill persons.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

[Suvorov]

Report to the NKVD, Tovarish. Those who have seen the Imperialist West must be reeducated.

Oops. Wrong veterans, wrong era.

But correct ideology driving those making the calls.

[UNK]

I'm wondering how PTSD will fit in the scope of this, especially with his administrations constant focus on the "veteran terrorism threat".

This apparently is how they are responding...and it is very disturbing



http://michaelconnelly.jigsy.com/ent...n-rights-issue

[Drang]

...{T}he "magical thinking" statists employ is a danger to everyone.

FIFY

[cclaxton]

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the vast majority of mass murders involved mental/emotional defects. There are exceptions, of course.

And, we all have reservations about (or objections to) allowing any government or institution determine which mental/emotional defects would disqualify a person from possessing a firearm (Myself included).

But are we really going to sit around and do NOTHING about it?

My opinion is that if WE, the shooting community, don't recommend a solution to the problem, then the gun controllers will impose their solution on us. And, frankly, public opinion is with gun control on this one. Congress/Legislatures may not go along with sufficient lobbying and "incentives," but the potential is there.

My way of looking at this is: If I know a person who is mentally/emotionally disturbed and I know they own firearms and, based on their behavior and speech, would I take action to try and protect others (and protect him/her as well)? I am no psychiatrist, but I know enough to assess that there is *some* risk. I have known only one person who I would put in this category of illness, but he didn't own firearms. Here's another way to look at it: If you had a person come to the range to get training and was obviously mentally/emotionally ill, would we ask them to leave for our safety and theirs? I think we would all agree...there is a threshold above which we would act.

If we bring our own experts to the table, we can help to define the criteria for evaluation. If we sit back and do nothing and object to ANYTHING, we won't have the opportunity to influence the resulting regulations/laws. Anyone who has read the DSM-5 (or it's predecessor DSM-IV) knows there are objective criteria for things like psychosis and schizophrenia and others. On the other hand, most of that has to be evaluated and that is where subjectivity comes in. If I were responding to these new policies, I would be hiring experts who can protect the regulations from becoming subjective or misdiagnosed and whittle down the criteria so that we are truly disqualifying only those that are the most severely mentally/emotionally ill. And, we should ensure that a judicial process exists to regain their firearms if they are cured. Another way to address the regulations is to ask for a delay in enforcement until a multi-year research is conducted using the proposed criteria to validate the efficacy of such a program.

Just my opinion... and for stimulating some thoughts on what we COULD do to define the public debate and do the right thing.
Cody