• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

MA House Bill H 3569 - Firearm background check bill

G

glide

Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
3,175
Likes
601
Location
North of MA
Feedback: 21 / 0 / 0
Does anyone have any details on this, or why GOAL is considering supporting this flaming turd?

Under the bill (H 3569) the state Department of Mental Health would be required to submit to the U.S. Department of Justice within six months the names of those “who have been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness within 20 years of the effective date.” The list, according to the bill, would be updated every three months.
Click to expand...

Translation: The state has found another way to steal people's private property and deny/revoke their LTC.

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, said the organization opposes the bill but would back it “minor concerns” were addressed.
Click to expand...

Huh? Let's stop playing the 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' game. It hasn't done much good up to this point. Any bill that looks to strip an individual of their rights and property should not be supported.


http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/politics/state_politics/firearm-background-check-bill-supported
 
Show me a GOAL backed or sponsored bill that does not have anti-constitutional language in it, or givebacks on our rights. If you can find one - I'd sure like to read it... I seem to remember a fairly recent GOAL sponsored bill which had language in it requiring people to turn their guns in to the police when arrested...My dis-ease with GOAL goes far, far beyond a newsletter... [thinking]
 
MassMark said:
Show me a GOAL backed or sponsored bill that does not have anti-constitutional language in it, or givebacks on our rights. If you can find one - I'd sure like to read it... I seem to remember a fairly recent GOAL sponsored bill which had language in it requiring people to turn their guns in to the police when arrested...My dis-ease with GOAL goes far, far beyond a newsletter... [thinking]
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of horse trading for rights, but at least with H2259 or whatever it was, we got a lot out of it in exchange for whatever was given up.

In this bill we get nothing. Nada. Zip.

-Mike
 
Public Safety Secretary Mary Beth Heffernan urged members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee to back legislation she said would enhance public safety as well as bring in millions of dollars in federal support.

The proposal, she said, would only be used to monitor firearm sales and is meant to protect individual privacy. “It’s not our intent nor do we wish to place a stigma upon individuals who are struggling with mental health issues,” she said.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The whole point of this is to deny rights to an entire category of free people. That will have two effects. First, it will stigmatize that class of citizens in much the same way as applied to prior felons or other denied classes. Second, it will cause people to avoid any formal mental health treatment with the understanding that accepting such treatment can only be done in exchange for forfeiture of liberties for life. Replace gun ownership with the right to vote or free speech and all of these meddling bureaucrats would come out screaming about the denial of fundamental human rights.

That GOAL is supporting this (with "minor" edits) is no surprise at all.
 
Follow the money.

In January, 2008 President Bush signed the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007" (NIAA) into law. It provides financial incentives for States to provide to NICS information relevant to whether a person is prohibited from possessing firearms, including the names and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as a mental defective or those committed to mental institutions.

I mentioned it in this thread last year...http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...Health-issues-Governor-Files-NICs-Legislation
 
Last edited:
... And for the bonus question, "The rights of what group of domestic terrorists is this most likely to restrict?"

Our combat veterans, some of whom have significant mental health issues, and all of whom are ENCOURAGED to seek counseling. Many of these veterans are able to work through their issues and resume a "normal" life.

See, it's a win-win! The "domestic terrorists" are both shunned AND deprived of their rights, after they've done so much for us.
 
Wa Sai said:
Not sure about this bill, schizophrenics with guns is not a great party tho..
Click to expand...

Unless you can clarify this with some sort of glowing reasoning, you need a good kick in the baby-maker.[rolleyes]

economist said:
Bullshit. The whole point of this is to deny rights to an entire category of free people. That will have two effects. First, it will stigmatize that class of citizens in much the same way as applied to prior felons or other denied classes. Second, it will cause people to avoid any formal mental health treatment with the understanding that accepting such treatment can only be done in exchange for forfeiture of liberties for life. Replace gun ownership with the right to vote or free speech and all of these meddling bureaucrats would come out screaming about the denial of fundamental human rights.

That GOAL is supporting this (with "minor" edits) is no surprise at all.
Click to expand...

You had me at "bullshit". [smile]
 
Heffernan added that the state’s Firearms Licensing Review Board would permit residents barred from purchasing firearms because of mental health issues to present evidence showing that they no longer suffered from a disorder that should preclude them from obtaining weapons.
Click to expand...

So, your Constitutionally protected rights are denied until you prove that you don't have a "mental health issue." Nice. I hope this type of thinking works its way into the court system. Every time a crime is committed, just arrest a few dozen suspicious people and hold them in lockup. As soon as they prove they're not guilty, let 'em go. Eventually you'll probably find the guilty party. Why put the burden of proof on the state?

The easiest way to defeat this bill is to change the language so that it requires anyone running for public office to prove they have no mental health issues. If it passes that should reduce the size of MA government by about 90%.
 
glide said:
Does anyone have any details on this, or why GOAL is considering supporting this flaming turd?
Click to expand...

Well, I'd say what I did back in November but then I'll get in trouble again.

Goal "Protecting Your Freedom Begins here" . . . somehow I can't believe that anymore.
 
In fairness, the NRA set the standard here. They have been supporting the police state and laws that deny rights to selected classes for decades.
 
Being mentally ill is a perspective, not a science and you can guarantee the perspective of antigunners is that all gun owners are mentally ill.
 
GOAL is derailed and needs to get back on track before it becomes a train wreck.

[thinking]

This isn't anything against Jim, Jon or the Staff. I hold them in the highest regard.

It goes at the people who are actually responsible for this mess.
 
And even if the FRB deigned to restore someone's rights taken away by such a system, what are the odds that the person would get a pass from NICS ever again anyway?

We need FEWER gun laws. GOAL needs to stop agreeing to making more of them.
 
Wa Sai said:
Not sure about this bill, schizophrenics with guns is not a great party tho..
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg
 
SullyMass said:
Does this bill break down what IS mentally ill? I wonder if a couple trips to the dry tank constitutes a mental illness.
Click to expand...

No, and that is more of the core problem. Seeing someone as mentally ill is a PERSPECTIVE. You view them as inferior to you in someway, whether in some IQ fashion or how the socially interact with their environment. Calling someone mentally ill in most cases is just another way of saying "I'm better than them, and so they must need my help to make decisions for them so they can lead their lives as I think they should."

Sadly in most cases this results in people being "committed" which is really just imprisonment without trial where you are put in the impossible position of convincing people who aren't like you that you can be enough like them to fit in and they should give you your rights back.
 
xtry51 said:
No, and that is more of the core problem. Seeing someone as mentally ill is a PERSPECTIVE. You view them as inferior to you in someway, whether in some IQ fashion or how the socially interact with their environment. Calling someone mentally ill in most cases is just another way of saying "I'm better than them, and so they must need my help to make decisions for them so they can lead their lives as I think they should."

Sadly in most cases this results in people being "committed" which is really just imprisonment without trial where you are put in the impossible position of convincing people who aren't like you that you can be enough like them to fit in and they should give you your rights back.
Click to expand...

Which will lead to many things bad.
 

Similar threads

Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
87
Reptile
Reptile
Sen. Joni Ernst Introduces Bill to Protect Firearm Dealers From Biden’s Weaponized ATF
Replies
6
Views
252
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
CT: HB-5467 An Act Concerning Firearms Background Checks (2024)
Replies
2
Views
218
sbhaven
S
Back
Top Bottom