Bailey Holt. 15. Say her name NRA.

On post #191 you said (capitalization for emphasis), "Without a concealed carry permit, in MOST states you have to carry them securely locked until you get where you will be shooting them. Like on hunting land or at a gun range."

That is simply not true. At best count, 23 states have what is called permissive open carry. In those states, to OPEN CARRY, there is no permit or license required. OPEN CARRY means on foot or in a MOTOR VEHICLE.

So much for your claim of MOST states requiring they be locked until you get where you're going.

So 23 states have open carry laws. And 27 do not. My mistake. It still applies more often than not.

And there is still no state that I know of that allows a 15 year old to buy a gun.
 
So 23 states have open carry laws. And 27 do not. My mistake. It still applies more often than not.

And there is still no state that I know of that allows a 15 year old to buy a gun.

That's 23 that have permissive open carry. Far more allow open carry in some form or fashion than not. Guess you were wrong about that.

Since the shooter didn't buy a gun, your point there, while true, does not apply.
 
That's 23 that have permissive open carry. Far more allow open carry in some form or fashion than not. Guess you were wrong about that.

Since the shooter didn't buy a gun, your point there, while true, does not apply.

Since the person who did the shooting did not buy the gun he used, the suggestions of "cures" for school shootings by adding restrictions of who can buy a gun do not apply.
 
That's 23 that have permissive open carry. Far more allow open carry in some form or fashion than not. Guess you were wrong about that.

Since the shooter didn't buy a gun, your point there, while true, does not apply.

I guess I was wrong about how most states require non-CWP holders to carry guns. My mistake.
 
Since the person who did the shooting did not buy the gun he used, the suggestions of "cures" for school shootings by adding restrictions of who can buy a gun do not apply.

I agree. I also add that very few, if any restrictions, will stop someone intent on using a gun in this manner from doing so regardless of age.
 
I guess I was wrong about how most states require non-CWP holders to carry guns. My mistake.

Perhaps you should do your homework before making such foolish statements. One would think since you made such a bold statement you would have done that beforehand.
 
Perhaps you should do your homework before making such foolish statements. One would think since you made such a bold statement you would have done that beforehand.

Since I was responding to a foolish comparison of drivers license requirements v. a constitutional right, I wasn't particularly worried. The point I made was that the license is so you can drive on public roads, and has nothing to do with buying or owning a car, or even driving it on private property. That point was made, even if I was wrong about carrying firearms in public in many states.
 
No, it was not a formal process. That was why the ACLU opposed it. The EO said that anyone drawing a disability check for any mental disability and who had someone else manage their affairs was reported to the NCIS system. Which meant they would be refused the sale of a firearm. They could appeal it, and hire a lawyer to fight the placement on the NCIS. But that would be at their expense. I listed several mental illnesses before that should not remove a person's constitutional rights.

Wrong.

In order for an individual to be reported to NICS, they have to meet the five (5) criteria.

The individual must have filed a claim for disability benefits, AND
The individual must be awarded disability benefits with a mental impairment that is on the Listing of Impairments-Mental Disorders, AND
The mental impairment must be the primary reason for the disability benefit, AND
The individual must be at least age 18, but not yet full retirement age, AND
The individual must require that his or her benefit payments be made through a representative payee because we have determined that he or she is mentally incapable of managing benefit payments.
 
Since I was responding to a foolish comparison of drivers license requirements v. a constitutional right, I wasn't particularly worried. The point I made was that the license is so you can drive on public roads, and has nothing to do with buying or owning a car, or even driving it on private property. That point was made, even if I was wrong about carrying firearms in public in many states.

The two of us weren't discussing that issue, therefore, addressing it to me is meaningless. Whether it was made or not made is no concern to me.

What is of concern to me is that you made multiple mistakes related to how a gun can be carried. In the discussion between the two of us, that's all that matters.
 
No, it was not a formal process. That was why the ACLU opposed it. The EO said that anyone drawing a disability check for any mental disability and who had someone else manage their affairs was reported to the NCIS system. Which meant they would be refused the sale of a firearm. They could appeal it, and hire a lawyer to fight the placement on the NCIS. But that would be at their expense. I listed several mental illnesses before that should not remove a person's constitutional rights.

Plus it seemed to put the onus on the person that they should be able to purchase a firearm, instead of someone proving they shouldn't.
 
Wrong.

In order for an individual to be reported to NICS, they have to meet the five (5) criteria.

The individual must have filed a claim for disability benefits, AND
The individual must be awarded disability benefits with a mental impairment that is on the Listing of Impairments-Mental Disorders, AND
The mental impairment must be the primary reason for the disability benefit, AND
The individual must be at least age 18, but not yet full retirement age, AND
The individual must require that his or her benefit payments be made through a representative payee because we have determined that he or she is mentally incapable of managing benefit payments.

Do you have a list of the impairments and mental disorders??

As for my being wrong about what the EO ordered, no.

I said they must be drawing a disability check for a mental impairment. (that takes care of #1, #2, and #3)
Unless they were 18 they would not be buying a gun thru a dealer. (#4)
And I said they must be using a payee. (#5)


I have listed a number or mental illnesses, such as Anxiety Disorder, that pose no threat. And the fact that the person uses a payee is meaningless because that may well be part of their illness, like having anxiety issues when going and doing their banking or paying bills.

There was no consideration in the EO that allowed a person to defend themselves from being placed on the list to the NCIS. They could only fight it AFTER they were in the system.
 
Plus it seemed to put the onus on the person that they should be able to purchase a firearm, instead of someone proving they shouldn't.

That is one of the reasons the ACLU opposed the EO. Funny that domer doesn't seem to have an issue with the ACLU or with the various mental health advocacy agencies that fought to have the EO rescinded.
 
Wrong.

In order for an individual to be reported to NICS, they have to meet the five (5) criteria.

The individual must have filed a claim for disability benefits, AND
The individual must be awarded disability benefits with a mental impairment that is on the Listing of Impairments-Mental Disorders, AND
The mental impairment must be the primary reason for the disability benefit, AND
The individual must be at least age 18, but not yet full retirement age, AND
The individual must require that his or her benefit payments be made through a representative payee because we have determined that he or she is mentally incapable of managing benefit payments.

One of the biggest complaints was that this EO made every person with a disabling mental illness and a payee into someone deemed mentally incompetent.

from:https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama

"Disability advocates are concerned with setting the precedent that needing help with financial matters implies a lack of capacity to exercise other rights. These concerns are rooted in discrimination people with mental disabilities face in other areas of life, such as parenting and voting rights. On these issues, people with mental disabilities often face an assumption of incapacity, forcing disability and civil rights advocates and attorneys to fight to overturn assumptions that a diagnosis or determination of support need in one area should lead to a loss of rights in an unrelated area. Many of the same groups active in defending the voting and parenting rights of people with mental disabilities chose to weigh in against the Social Security rule for similar reasons; they feared that using the representative payee database for prohibiting gun purchases might constitute a “thin end of the wedge” for loss of more important rights down the road."
 
Do you have a list of the impairments and mental disorders??

As for my being wrong about what the EO ordered, no.

I said they must be drawing a disability check for a mental impairment. (that takes care of #1, #2, and #3)
Unless they were 18 they would not be buying a gun thru a dealer. (#4)
And I said they must be using a payee. (#5)


I have listed a number or mental illnesses, such as Anxiety Disorder, that pose no threat. And the fact that the person uses a payee is meaningless because that may well be part of their illness, like having anxiety issues when going and doing their banking or paying bills.

There was no consideration in the EO that allowed a person to defend themselves from being placed on the list to the NCIS. They could only fight it AFTER they were in the system.

You said, and highlighted, ANY mental disability.

Read it yourself:

20 CFR Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404, Listing of Impairments

The bottom line is this. Trump made it easier for those who are mentally ill to obtain firearms. Then you barrel-strokers hypocritically claim that mental health is the reason for these crimes, not guns.

Pathetic.
 
Wrong.

In order for an individual to be reported to NICS, they have to meet the five (5) criteria.

The individual must have filed a claim for disability benefits, AND
The individual must be awarded disability benefits with a mental impairment that is on the Listing of Impairments-Mental Disorders, AND
The mental impairment must be the primary reason for the disability benefit, AND
The individual must be at least age 18, but not yet full retirement age, AND
The individual must require that his or her benefit payments be made through a representative payee because we have determined that he or she is mentally incapable of managing benefit payments.

That is still a violation of due process.
 
One of the biggest complaints was that this EO made every person with a disabling mental illness and a payee into someone deemed mentally incompetent.

from:https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama

"Disability advocates are concerned with setting the precedent that needing help with financial matters implies a lack of capacity to exercise other rights. These concerns are rooted in discrimination people with mental disabilities face in other areas of life, such as parenting and voting rights. On these issues, people with mental disabilities often face an assumption of incapacity, forcing disability and civil rights advocates and attorneys to fight to overturn assumptions that a diagnosis or determination of support need in one area should lead to a loss of rights in an unrelated area. Many of the same groups active in defending the voting and parenting rights of people with mental disabilities chose to weigh in against the Social Security rule for similar reasons; they feared that using the representative payee database for prohibiting gun purchases might constitute a “thin end of the wedge” for loss of more important rights down the road."

Too many "mights" in the article. Pure speculation.
 
That is still a violation of due process.

Wrong again, idiot. The process to have a person diagnosed with these mental disabilities is long and arduous. Experts and the courts are involved all along.

Chronically wrong, cretin.
 
Back
Top