• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

House votes to roll back Obama rule states on gun background checks

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theaface

Member
So the playbook is basically do the opposite of everything Obama did out of petty spite? Well, Obama didn't shoot himself in the face whilst in office so your move, Donald.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Amory said:
At this point I'm just glad I live in Massachusetts.

I'm not naive enough to think we'll be completely shielded from all this horse shit, but we'll weather it better than a lot of other states.
Click to expand...
Yup. My take on gun control is that what we have here is fine, and it should be the federal standard.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
The same party that would rather scrub white supremacy and instead blame mentan illness as a reason for mass shooting is rolling back backgrounds for mentally ill people owning a gun?

Color me surprised.
 
Z

Zen Aku

Member
Next time we have a mass shooting committed by a mentally ill citizen. Guess people can just link them this article.
 
M

Marty Chinn

Member
I find it extremely ironic that they push for gun freedom in the name of not punishing legal good law abiding people because of a few bad cases but on the other hand create a blanket ban on immigration because of a few bad cases.
 
tfur

tfur

Member
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-02/obama-gun-rule-among-first-regulations-targeted-by-gop-congress

Widespread Opposition

Several gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, opposed the Social Security Administration rule, arguing that it violates the constitutional rights of those affected.

“The NRA has been fighting this unconstitutional government overreach since it was first discussed and we look forward to swift congressional action,” Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, wrote in a statement last week.

The Social Security Administration reporting rule also was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and several mental-health advocates, who were critical of the standard it uses to determine which beneficiaries are reported. The rule calls on the Social Security Administration to report beneficiaries who require a “representative payee” to manage their finances, while opponents argue the administration should focus on people who pose a danger to themselves or others.

The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities argued in a Jan. 26 letter to Congress that “current public dialogue is replete with inaccurate stereotyping of people with mental disabilities as violent and dangerous, and there is a real concern that the kind of policy change encompassed by this rule will reinforce those unfounded assumptions.”
Click to expand...

Looks like ACLU agrees it was originally a bad rule. I am glad people are donating to the ACLU.
The ACLU were also against the terrible secret "no fly list" bills that the Democrats tried to pass last year.

I hope they finish repealing things, and move forward with the Hearing Protection Act soon.
 
P

Piggus

Member
Fucking gross, and I say that as a "gun nut" or whatever who has a lot of guns. This literally helps nobody except criminals.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
tfur said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-02/obama-gun-rule-among-first-regulations-targeted-by-gop-congress



Looks like ACLU agrees it was originally a bad rule. I am glad people are donating to the ACLU.
The ACLU were also against the terrible secret "no fly list" bills that the Democrats tried to pass last year.

I hope they finish repealing things, and move forward with the Hearing Protection Act soon.
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this. It's definitely helped change my mind.
 
M

mike6467

Member
EdibleKnife said:
B) To fellate the NRA
Click to expand...

So much this. Gun manufacturers have to be ecstatic right now. More people on the left are considering guns now, this after the right started hoarding the second Obama got into office and never stopped. Now, they're loosening restrictions.

War economy indeed.
 
S

Shadybiz

Member
Amory said:
At this point I'm just glad I live in Massachusetts.

I'm not naive enough to think we'll be completely shielded from all this horse shit, but we'll weather it better than a lot of other states.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm in NJ, where the gun laws have a good level of sanity (i.e., if you've been convicted for a violent crime, or have ever been checked in to a mental health facility, you can't get one). As a gun owner, I think that these types of laws make perfect sense.
 
G

Glix

Member
Shadybiz said:
Yeah, I'm in NJ, where the gun laws have a good level of sanity (i.e., if you've been convicted for a violent crime, or have ever been checked in to a mental health facility, you can't get one). As a gun owner, I think that these types of laws make perfect sense.
Click to expand...

If I am not incorrect, in some states when you finish serving you jail sentence, you cannot vote but you can buy a gun.

So lets review. You cannot be trusted to vote. But you can be trusted to own a deadly weapon.

This makes sense.

#nrasense
 
H

Horns

Member
Can't manage basic things about yourself, you can own a gun. No brainer. A reminder of how crazy Republicans and gun owners have become. This has been done to Veterans for nearly 20 years, Bush Sr and republicans passed that law.
 
S

Seth Enosh

Member
Horns said:
Can't manage basic things about yourself, you can own a gun. No brainer. A reminder of how crazy Republicans and gun owners have become. This has been done to Veterans for nearly 20 years, Bush Sr and republicans passed that law.
Click to expand...
So crazy that they repealed a regulation opposed by the ACLU.

Edit: here is a piece that explains the issues with this regulation

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...hould-rescind-social-security-regulation-that

There is no link between gun violence and the types of disability targeted by the new regulation. In fact, a 2009 study of over 34,000 people showed that psychiatric disability alone did not increase the risk of any sort of violence, after controlling for factors such as past history of violence or substance abuse. Nor is there any evidence that other mental disabilities—such as intellectual disability or traumatic brain injury—are associated with violence. Rather, people with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, with a victimization rate of up to 11 times that of the general population. This rule is premised on the unfortunate and antiquated stereotypes that persons with a disability are dangerous, and they must be further isolated from civil society.

Critically, the appointment of a “representative payee” in no way reflects on an applicant’s propensity to harm others. [. . .]​

Some very interesting stuff there. The piece was co written by three authors: "Samantha Crane is an attorney and Director of Public Policy at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Dara Baldwin is the Senior Public Policy Analyst at the National Disability Rights Network. Josh Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, Houston, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Each filed a comment opposing the Social Security Administration’s proposed rule."
 
C

Caja 117

Member
UberTag said:
It still boggles my mind that Trump's initial response to the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando was to congratulate himself.
Click to expand...

Because, as Jhon Oliver correctly said, he is a
Damaged, sociopathic narcissist.

But, Republicans are just looking to undo everything Obama did, they want to erase him from history or relevancy.
 
P

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
More crazy people out on the streets with guns?

House is giving you an out of all this, America.
 
Maximus.

Maximus.

Member
yanipheonu said:
They're sure going to be popular during the next mass shooting.

Oh god. Trump is going to eventually have a speech about a mass shooting. I don't even want to know what that looks like.
Click to expand...

I can't see the man show leadership or empathy. I feel it would be a situation of playing the blame game.
 
V

Vilix

Unconfirmed Member
As a gun owner I find this very unfortunate. We need to keep guns out of the hands of those who are severely mental disabled.
 
H

hobozero

Member
plagiarize said:
Yup. My take on gun control is that what we have here is fine, and it should be the federal standard.
Click to expand...

There was a previous thread where they were interviewing some Trump supporters. One guy was a single-issue voter, bigly gun fan. He wants his concealed carry permit from his state to apply in other states.

Should the NRA ever decide to push for that (and assuming the SCOTUS doesn't smack it down like the unconstitutional BS it is), your state's gun control laws might not mean diddly squat anymore :(
 
B

Back-In-Black

Banned
Seth Enosh said:
Not just the NRA.

Here's the ACLU explaining why this rule needed to be overturned by congress to protect civil liberties: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
Click to expand...

I know I'm a bit late to this but the ACLU's opposition to this makes no legal sense. I'm a bit too tipsy and tired right now to go into their arguments but they are essentially trying to have it both ways. They want the government to be able to enact more strict gun laws but at the same time don't want individuals with mental illness to be affected by tighter gun regulations. It's honestly kind of laughable. This is the short paragraph which boggles my mind:

ACLU said:
We recognize that enacting new regulations relating to firearms can raise difficult questions. The ACLU believes that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation, since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. We do not oppose regulation of firearms as long as it is reasonably related to these legitimate government interests.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm too tired to get into it now but it's nonsense for two reasons: 1) Rational basis has NEVER been the standard when it comes to reviewing gun regulation. The right to bear arms is an enumerated right and as such would never allow the government such a low deferential standard. While the Supreme Court has yet to actually specify which standard should be used they absolutely made clear in Heller the standard was not rational basis. 2) If we accept their argument that rational basis is the correct standard of review then the regulation is perfectly legal. The added security checks for individuals suffering from a mental illness is rationally and reasonably related to the legitimate government interest of public safety. You can't have it both ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
US Senate votes to block rule preventing mentally impaired from buying guns
2 3 4
158
9K
Ray Wonder replied
67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump
2
98
9K
GrizzleBoy replied
  • Locked
Trump signs bill revoking gun checks for people with mental illnesses
2 3 4
177
22K
Subpar Scrub replied
A background check before voting? Kobach-led commission will consider proposal
2
1K
Mortemis replied
  • Locked
GOP votes to end rule stopping coal mining debris from being dumped in streams
2 3 4 5
247
28K
Ludovico replied
Top Bottom