"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote in 
message 
news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>
>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the
>> prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic
>> violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the
>> effective date, any person who has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor
>> crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
>
> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
> unfair.

The Gun Loons and their NRA mouthpiece have no one to blame
but themselves for habitually endorsing policies that deny the RTKBA
to "other" people ... and then whine and complain when the definition
of "other" people is continually expanded until it includes THEM.

Their hypocrisy has come back to bite them in the ass.

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7fhib2F2kfahjU1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote
> in message 
> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com..
> . 
>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>
>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the
>>> prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer
>>> possess a firearm or ammunition. 
>>
>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>> unfair.
> 
> The Gun Loons and their NRA mouthpiece have no one to blame
> but themselves for habitually endorsing policies that deny the RTKBA
> to "other" people ... and then whine and complain when the definition
> of "other" people is continually expanded until it includes THEM.
> 

Yes indeed.  Millions of americans have lost RKBA for victimless non-
violent drug "crimes" that were classified as felonies and the NRA is cool 
with that.  NRA has been totally infiltrated by the govt.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
 wrote:

>
>"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote in 
>message 
>news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>
>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the
>>> prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic
>>> violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the
>>> effective date, any person who has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor
>>> crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
>>
>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>> unfair.

Not to mention unconstitutional. 

                                                   Bill Smith


>The Gun Loons and their NRA mouthpiece have no one to blame
>but themselves for habitually endorsing policies that deny the RTKBA
>to "other" people ... and then whine and complain when the definition
>of "other" people is continually expanded until it includes THEM.
>
>Their hypocrisy has come back to bite them in the ass.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bill Smith  wrote in
news:hk98955hukogc9t40v498pd35266hm5ubp@4ax.com: 

> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
>  wrote:
> 
>>
>>"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote
>>in message 
>>news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com..
>>. 
>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>
>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However,
>>>> the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer
>>>> possess a firearm or ammunition. 
>>>
>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>>> unfair.
> 
> Not to mention unconstitutional. 

Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most likely done 
via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of due process of 
law.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank
space between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."

Peter McWilliams, author, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> Bill Smith  wrote in
> news:hk98955hukogc9t40v498pd35266hm5ubp@4ax.com: 
> 
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote
>>> in message 
>>> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com..
>>> . 
>>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
>>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>>
>>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However,
>>>>> the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer
>>>>> possess a firearm or ammunition. 
>>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>>>> unfair.
>> Not to mention unconstitutional. 
> 
> Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most likely done 
> via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of due process of 
> law.
> 

The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one for 
the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a punishment 
to someone's conviction that was not part of the punishment when he was 
convicted?

The crux is if changing the punishment is ex post facto or not. Some 
think the only thing ex post facto is making an act itself illegal and 
then convicting someone for that act before it was illegal. This is 
definitely what was intended by the prohibition. But, does changing the 
punishment also come under the law? I do not think it is fair, and it 
definitely might have changed the original results if there was any type 
of plea bargain.

I think a plea bargain conviction could argue that this was not part of 
the bargain and therefore violates the agreement, resulting in a new 
trial. This might be a better argument than ex post facto since it is 
hard to argue the change in punishments breaks the agreement. A person 
convicted at a trial does not have nearly as good a claim for ex post 
facto or unfairness.

Steve Rothstein

Stephan Rothstein  wrote in
news:R_SdnUAoCsQj0wnXnZ2dnUVZ_hZi4p2d@earthlink.com: 

> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> Bill Smith  wrote in
>> news:hk98955hukogc9t40v498pd35266hm5ubp@4ax.com: 
>> 
>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" 
>>>> wrote in message 
>>>> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.co
>>>> m.. . 
>>>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦" 
>>>>> wrote: 
>>>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However,
>>>>>> the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>>>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>>>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>>>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no
>>>>>> longer possess a firearm or ammunition. 
>>>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>>>>> unfair.
>>> Not to mention unconstitutional. 
>> 
>> Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most likely
>> done via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of due
>> process of law.
>> 
> 
> The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one
> for the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a
> punishment to someone's conviction that was not part of the punishment
> when he was convicted?

I'm sure what's going on.......early alzheimers'?  I don't remember being 
tested for it and I still recognize all my friends.....although not all 
my relatives.  ;)   I missed the comment on retro-activity.  Yet, there 
it is plain as day.  Damn, guess I'll go have another beer or glass of 
wine......do you think that could be the problem?  A thousand pardons, my 
bad.  ;)

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank
space between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."

Peter McWilliams, author, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".

>> 
>> The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one
>> for the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a
>> punishment to someone's conviction that was not part of the punishment
>> when he was convicted?
>
>I'm sure what's going on.......early alzheimers'?  I don't remember being 
>tested for it and I still recognize all my friends.....although not all 
>my relatives.  ;)   I missed the comment on retro-activity.  Yet, there 
>it is plain as day.  Damn, guess I'll go have another beer or glass of 
>wine......do you think that could be the problem?  A thousand pardons, my 
>bad.  ;)

What he said.

                                    Bill Smith

Bill Smith  wrote in
news:2mm89555p3e86nkm75o4ifs6hhb4ekv7vq@4ax.com: 

> 
>>> 
>>> The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one
>>> for the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a
>>> punishment to someone's conviction that was not part of the
>>> punishment when he was convicted?
>>
>>I'm sure what's going on.......early alzheimers'?  I don't remember
>>being tested for it and I still recognize all my friends.....although
>>not all my relatives.  ;)   I missed the comment on retro-activity. 
>>Yet, there it is plain as day.  Damn, guess I'll go have another beer
>>or glass of wine......do you think that could be the problem?  A
>>thousand pardons, my bad.  ;)
> 
> What he said.

What was that?  I forgot...... 



-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank
space between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."

Peter McWilliams, author, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".

"Stephan Rothstein"  wrote in message 
news:R_SdnUAoCsQj0wnXnZ2dnUVZ_hZi4p2d@earthlink.com...
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> Bill Smith  wrote in
>> news:hk98955hukogc9t40v498pd35266hm5ubp@4ax.com:
>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"  wrote
>>>> in message 
>>>> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com..
>>>> .
>>>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
>>>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However,
>>>>>> the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>>>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>>>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>>>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer
>>>>>> possess a firearm or ammunition.
>>>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>>>>> unfair.
>>> Not to mention unconstitutional.
>>
>> Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most likely done 
>> via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of due process of 
>> law.
>>
>
> The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one for 
> the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a punishment 
> to someone's conviction that was not part of the punishment when he was 
> convicted?

Too bad revoking the RTKBA isn't a criminal punishment.

Now if they attempted to retroactively apply CRIMINAL penalties -- i.e. 
prison time --
for acts that occurred in the past that weren't illegal when they occured, 
THAT would be
unconstitutional ex-post facto law.



>
> The crux is if changing the punishment is ex post facto or not. Some think 
> the only thing ex post facto is making an act itself illegal and then 
> convicting someone for that act before it was illegal. This is definitely 
> what was intended by the prohibition.


> But, does changing the punishment also come under the law?

Revoking FUTURE RTKBA is not criminal punishment.


> I do not think it is fair, and it definitely might have changed the 
> original results if there was any type of plea bargain.
>
> I think a plea bargain conviction could argue that this was not part of 
> the bargain and therefore violates the agreement, resulting in a new 
> trial.

You conflate "agreement" with "criminal punishment".


> This might be a better argument than ex post facto since it is hard to 
> argue the change in punishments breaks the agreement. A person convicted 
> at a trial does not have nearly as good a claim for ex post facto or 
> unfairness.

Nor does a guilty party who only took the plea bargain to avoid a much 
harsher
prison sentence.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> Stephan Rothstein  wrote in
>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>> Bill Smith  wrote in
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" 
>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.co
>>>>> m.. .
>>>>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦" 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However,
>>>>>>> the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>>>>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>>>>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>>>>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no
>>>>>>> longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
>>>>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>>>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>>>>>> unfair.
>>>> Not to mention unconstitutional.
>>>
>>> Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most likely
>>> done via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of due
>>> process of law.
>>>
>>
>> The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one
>> for the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a
>> punishment to someone's conviction that was not part of the punishment
>> when he was convicted?
>
> I'm sure what's going on.......early alzheimers'?  I don't remember being
> tested for it and I still recognize all my friends.....although not all
> my relatives.  ;)   I missed the comment on retro-activity.  Yet, there
> it is plain as day.  Damn, guess I'll go have another beer or glass of
> wine......do you think that could be the problem?  A thousand pardons, my
> bad.  ;)

Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess firearms?

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>
> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
> firearms?

Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.

In Texas, and most states, the legally blind can obtain a concealed handgun 
license. The legless can vote. The deaf are entitled to a lawyer. Those who 
stutter can worship as they please (preferably in those denominations that 
are not big on responsive readings). And federal troops may not be quartered 
in the home of the Bald Jeeter without her consent.

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message news:7fk334F2kf5n9U1@mid.individual.net...
>

>
> Too bad revoking the RTKBA isn't a criminal punishment.
>

YOU may not consider a firing squad to be criminal punishment, but its effects last for eternity.

Start the revolution NOW.

John

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7fk35rF2ic2o0U1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> Stephan Rothstein  wrote in
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>> Bill Smith  wrote in
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" 
>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7-942a-eaf376bf3ed4@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.
>>>>>> co m.. .
>>>>>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦" 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect.
>>>>>>>> However, the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of
>>>>>>>> misdemeanor domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September
>>>>>>>> 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who
>>>>>>>> has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
>>>>>>>> violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
>>>>>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>>>>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think
>>>>>>> that unfair.
>>>>> Not to mention unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>> Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most
>>>> likely done via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of
>>>> due process of law.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one
>>> for the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a
>>> punishment to someone's conviction that was not part of the
>>> punishment when he was convicted?
>>
>> I'm sure what's going on.......early alzheimers'?  I don't remember
>> being tested for it and I still recognize all my friends.....although
>> not all my relatives.  ;)   I missed the comment on retro-activity. 
>> Yet, there it is plain as day.  Damn, guess I'll go have another beer
>> or glass of wine......do you think that could be the problem?  A
>> thousand pardons, my bad.  ;)
> 
> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
> firearms? 
 

I don't remember....what do you think?

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank
space between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."

Peter McWilliams, author, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".

"HeyBub"  wrote in message 
news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>
>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>> firearms?
>
> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.

Were you born stupid?

FFL Form 4473

Disqualification Questions -

f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having 
been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever 
been committed to a mental institution?

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:21:42 -0500, "HeyBub" 
wrote:

>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>
>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>> firearms?
>
>Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>
>In Texas, and most states, the legally blind can obtain a concealed handgun 
>license. The legless can vote. The deaf are entitled to a lawyer. Those who 
>stutter can worship as they please (preferably in those denominations that 
>are not big on responsive readings). And federal troops may not be quartered 
>in the home of the Bald Jeeter without her consent. 
>
Nnon-compos mentis means 'not of sound mind' in a legal context, or
drunk and/or intoxicated in a non-legal one.  Want to change your
opinion now?
-- 
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>
>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>> firearms?
>>
>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>
> Were you born stupid?
>
> FFL Form 4473
>
> Disqualification Questions -
>
> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED 
dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession of a gun.

Zombywoof wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:21:42 -0500, "HeyBub" 
> wrote:
>
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>
>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>> firearms?
>>
>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>
>> In Texas, and most states, the legally blind can obtain a concealed
>> handgun license. The legless can vote. The deaf are entitled to a
>> lawyer. Those who stutter can worship as they please (preferably in
>> those denominations that are not big on responsive readings). And
>> federal troops may not be quartered in the home of the Bald Jeeter
>> without her consent.
>>
> Nnon-compos mentis means 'not of sound mind' in a legal context, or
> drunk and/or intoxicated in a non-legal one.  Want to change your
> opinion now?

No, of course not.

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "HeyBub"  wrote in message 
> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>
>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>> firearms?
>>
>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
> 
> Were you born stupid?
> 
> FFL Form 4473
> 
> Disqualification Questions -
> 
> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
> have you ever been committed to a mental institution? 

A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word "committed"?   
Those folks have been through due process.  Your statement above shows no 
such limitation. 



-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank
space between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."

Peter McWilliams, author, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".

"HeyBub"  wrote in 
news:3Mmdne2lcpmAYgjXnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>> firearms?
>>>
>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>
>> Were you born stupid?
>>
>> FFL Form 4473
>>
>> Disqualification Questions -
>>
>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
> 
> Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED 
> dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession of a gun. 

While true, if they were adjudicated or committed via due process, they 
are considered a prohibited possessor.  The fact that they can get around 
that check doesn't change it.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank
space between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."

Peter McWilliams, author, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:35:56 -0500, "HeyBub" 
wrote:

>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>> firearms?
>>>
>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>
>> Were you born stupid?
>>
>> FFL Form 4473
>>
>> Disqualification Questions -
>>
>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>
>Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED 
>dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession of a gun. 
>
There are even firearms that aren't "guns" or require a 4473.  There
is a guy in NYC being given the living hell because he refuses to
register a Flintlock Pistol.
-- 
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:38:38 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:

>"HeyBub"  wrote in 
>news:3Mmdne2lcpmAYgjXnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>> firearms?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>
>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>
>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>
>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>
>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>> 
>> Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED 
>> dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession of a gun. 
>
>While true, if they were adjudicated or committed via due process, they 
>are considered a prohibited possessor.  The fact that they can get around 
>that check doesn't change it.
>
Unless what they are trying to purchase isn't a "gun".  Sportsman's
Guide is selling pre-1989 Mausers right now in .308 that they claim
are in "shootable" condition.
-- 
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:37:26 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:

>"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net: 
>
>> 
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message 
>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>> firearms?
>>>
>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>> 
>> Were you born stupid?
>> 
>> FFL Form 4473
>> 
>> Disqualification Questions -
>> 
>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution? 
>
>A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word "committed"?   
>Those folks have been through due process.  Your statement above shows no 
>such limitation. 
>
I'm not 100% sure, but I think you can be committed to a Mental
Institution without "full adjudication", just for not all that long.
-- 
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

Zombywoof  wrote in
news:o6sd95teu0nhemlvlinrri3umg5js122lm@4ax.com: 

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:37:26 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net: 
>>
>>> 
>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message 
>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>> firearms?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>> 
>>> Were you born stupid?
>>> 
>>> FFL Form 4473
>>> 
>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>> 
>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution? 
>>
>>A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>"committed"?   Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>statement above shows no such limitation. 
>>
> I'm not 100% sure, but I think you can be committed to a Mental
> Institution without "full adjudication", just for not all that long.

You can for sure if it is voluntary.  Involuntary is where I don't know 
the answer for sure.  I assume it would depend on the term "full 
adjudicated" and what it means.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.

"Zombywoof"  wrote in message 
news:03sd95paefo4dr253vncf1vng0gpfsh5gj@4ax.com...
>
>>
> Unless what they are trying to purchase isn't a "gun".  Sportsman's
> Guide is selling pre-1989 Mausers right now in .308 that they claim
> are in "shootable" condition.
>

Don't see it on their web site
    Do you have a URL ?

Zombywoof  wrote in
news:03sd95paefo4dr253vncf1vng0gpfsh5gj@4ax.com: 

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:38:38 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>"HeyBub"  wrote in 
>>news:3Mmdne2lcpmAYgjXnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>>> firearms?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>>
>>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>>
>>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>>
>>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>>
>>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which
>>>> includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
>>>> affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>> 
>>> Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM
>>> LICENSED dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession
>>> of a gun. 
>>
>>While true, if they were adjudicated or committed via due process,
>>they are considered a prohibited possessor.  The fact that they can
>>get around that check doesn't change it.
>>
> Unless what they are trying to purchase isn't a "gun".  Sportsman's
> Guide is selling pre-1989 Mausers right now in .308 that they claim
> are in "shootable" condition.

Hmmmm, I bought an 1891 Argentine Mauser years ago at Monkey Wards for 
$19.95.  My brother in law still has it and uses it for a guest gun if 
someone goes deer hunting with him and doesn't have one.  I 
"sporterized" the stock and glass bedded the barrel but it still has open 
iron sights.  Bet it will be a long time before I find another deal like 
that.  ;)

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.

Zombywoof  wrote in 
news:10sd9510i1aoh0ak2tskdqqgshndbk5f68@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:35:56 -0500, "HeyBub" 
> wrote:
> 
>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>> firearms?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>
>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>
>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>
>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>
>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>
>>Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED 
>>dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession of a gun. 
>>
> There are even firearms that aren't "guns" or require a 4473. 

Black powder for one.  Anyone facing most of these would have a rough go 
of it:

http://www.cabelas.com/black-powder.shtml

> There
> is a guy in NYC being given the living hell because he refuses to
> register a Flintlock Pistol.

;)

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.

"SaPeIsMa"  wrote in message 
news:LK-dneDC8tNMagvXnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@posted.cpinternet...
>
> "Zombywoof"  wrote in message 
> news:03sd95paefo4dr253vncf1vng0gpfsh5gj@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>> Unless what they are trying to purchase isn't a "gun".  Sportsman's
>> Guide is selling pre-1989 Mausers right now in .308 that they claim
>> are in "shootable" condition.
>>
>
> Don't see it on their web site
>    Do you have a URL ?
>
>

Found it
    http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/pre-1898-mauser-rifles.aspx?a=532481
    $399

"HeyBub"  wrote in message 
news:3Mmdne2lcpmAYgjXnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>> firearms?
>>>
>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>
>> Were you born stupid?
>>
>> FFL Form 4473
>>
>> Disqualification Questions -
>>
>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>
> Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED 
> dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession of a gun.

Stay ignorant, fool.

Somewhere there's a prison cell with your name on the door.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C746C0E889FFhopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>> firearms?
>>>
>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>
>> Were you born stupid?
>>
>> FFL Form 4473
>>
>> Disqualification Questions -
>>
>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>
> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word "committed"?
> Those folks have been through due process.  Your statement above shows no
> such limitation.

The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because of a 
disability."

If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be a 
disability, "due process" or not.

Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not. The 
"rights" would be
denied based upon the disability.

"Zombywoof"  wrote in message 
news:o6sd95teu0nhemlvlinrri3umg5js122lm@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:37:26 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>> firearms?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>
>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>
>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>
>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>
>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>
>>A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word "committed"?
>>Those folks have been through due process.  Your statement above shows no
>>such limitation.
>>
> I'm not 100% sure, but I think you can be committed to a Mental
> Institution without "full adjudication", just for not all that long.

Quite true, depending on the State.

¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>
>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>
> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
> of a disability."
>
> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be
> a disability, "due process" or not.
>
> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not. The
> "rights" would be
> denied based upon the disability.

Stevie Wonder can still buy a gun in Texas and he can qualify for a 
Concealed Handgun Permit (here and in Tennessee, to name two states).

My ex-wife was as insane as the third monkey on Noah's gangplank, but I bet 
she could hold it in long enough to buy a gun or get a CHL.

So far as I know, there is no physical or mental disability that prevents 
one from owning a gun.

In the case of mental disability, it has to be an adjudicated one. There are 
plenty of crazy people walking about that have not been found loco in a 
court and there are some that are as sane as the judge that committed them. 
It's the adjudication that counts, not the condition.

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7fu6kgF2mt6vlU1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C746C0E889FFhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>> firearms?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>
>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>
>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>
>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>
>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>
>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>> statement above shows no such limitation.
> 
> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
> of a disability."
> 
> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be
> a disability, "due process" or not.

IOW, you feel that someone should be denied the right to have a gun 
simply because his neighbor thinks he is mentally incompetent?

> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not.

However, it is not an official disability until it has been adjudicated.

> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.

Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because 
*someone* thought they were mentally incompetent.  IOW, you don't feel 
you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your neighbor.

The point is that they don't fit your cite.  The 4473 specifically states 
"adjudicated".  Learn what that means.


-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.

"HeyBub"  wrote in
news:kfmdnSQRtY-VKAfXnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink.com: 

> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>
>>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>
>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
>> of a disability."
>>
>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be
>> a disability, "due process" or not.
>>
>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not. The
>> "rights" would be
>> denied based upon the disability.
> 
> Stevie Wonder can still buy a gun in Texas and he can qualify for a 
> Concealed Handgun Permit (here and in Tennessee, to name two states).
> 
> My ex-wife was as insane as the third monkey on Noah's gangplank, but
> I bet she could hold it in long enough to buy a gun or get a CHL.
> 
> So far as I know, there is no physical or mental disability that
> prevents one from owning a gun.
> 
> In the case of mental disability, it has to be an adjudicated one.
> There are plenty of crazy people walking about that have not been
> found loco in a court and there are some that are as sane as the judge
> that committed them. It's the adjudication that counts, not the
> condition. 
 

Exactomundo!!

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.

"HeyBub"  wrote in message 
news:kfmdnSQRtY-VKAfXnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink.com...
>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>
>>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>
>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
>> of a disability."
>>
>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be
>> a disability, "due process" or not.
>>
>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not. The
>> "rights" would be
>> denied based upon the disability.
>
> Stevie Wonder can still buy a gun in Texas and he can qualify for a 
> Concealed Handgun Permit (here and in Tennessee, to name two states).
>
> My ex-wife was as insane as the third monkey on Noah's gangplank,

ROTFLMAO!

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C777102F9FA5hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7fu6kgF2mt6vlU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C746C0E889FFhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>> news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>>> firearms?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>>
>>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>>
>>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>>
>>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>>
>>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>>>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>>>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>>
>>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>
>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
>> of a disability."
>>
>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be
>> a disability, "due process" or not.
>
> IOW, you feel that someone should be denied the right to have a gun
> simply because his neighbor thinks he is mentally incompetent?
>
>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not.
>
> However, it is not an official disability until it has been adjudicated.

Bullshit. It's a disability as soon as diagnoses by a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.

>
>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>
> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent.  IOW, you don't feel
> you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your neighbor.

You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being denied
based upon THE disability.

Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified to make 
MEDICAL
determinations. Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS are the ones who make 
MEDICAL diagnoses.

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7g196rF2mge25U1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C777102F9FA5hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7fu6kgF2mt6vlU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9C746C0E889FFhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>> news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>>>> firearms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>>>
>>>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>>>
>>>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>>>
>>>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which
>>>>> includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
>>>>> affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>>>
>>>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>>
>>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
>>> of a disability."
>>>
>>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still
>>> be a disability, "due process" or not.
>>
>> IOW, you feel that someone should be denied the right to have a gun
>> simply because his neighbor thinks he is mentally incompetent?
>>
>>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not.
>>
>> However, it is not an official disability until it has been
>> adjudicated. 
> 
> Bullshit. It's a disability as soon as diagnoses by a MEDICAL
> PROFESSIONAL. 

Not as far as the loss of rights and the 4473 are concerned.  There is a 
tad more to it than your family doctor simply saying, "Yep, he is 
insane."

>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>
>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
>> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent.  IOW, you don't
>> feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your
>> neighbor. 
> 
> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being
> denied based upon THE disability.

Yep.  That evidence is presented to the court.  It may be a full court 
(rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who removes the 
right, not the medical authorities.
 
> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified
> to make MEDICAL determinations.  Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS 
> are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses. 

No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which removes 
the right, not the doctor.  The doctor simply testifies just like he 
would in a murder trial.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C7879534C160hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
> news:7g196rF2mge25U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C777102F9FA5hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>> news:7fu6kgF2mt6vlU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9C746C0E889FFhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>>>>> firearms?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which
>>>>>> includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
>>>>>> affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>>>>
>>>>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>>>
>>>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
>>>> of a disability."
>>>>
>>>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still
>>>> be a disability, "due process" or not.
>>>
>>> IOW, you feel that someone should be denied the right to have a gun
>>> simply because his neighbor thinks he is mentally incompetent?
>>>
>>>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not.
>>>
>>> However, it is not an official disability until it has been
>>> adjudicated.
>>
>> Bullshit. It's a disability as soon as diagnoses by a MEDICAL
>> PROFESSIONAL.
>
> Not as far as the loss of rights and the 4473 are concerned.  There is a
> tad more to it than your family doctor simply saying, "Yep, he is
> insane."

Prove it, liar.

>
>>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>>
>>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
>>> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent.  IOW, you don't
>>> feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your
>>> neighbor.
>>
>> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being
>> denied based upon THE disability.
>
> Yep.  That evidence is presented to the court.  It may be a full court
> (rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who removes the
> right, not the medical authorities.

Nope, it's the diagnosis from the MEDICAL EXPERTS that determines
the MENTAL DEFECT.

>
>> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified
>> to make MEDICAL determinations.  Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS
>> are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
>
> No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which removes
> the right, not the doctor.  The doctor simply testifies just like he
> would in a murder trial.

WRONG AGAIN. The hearing isn't criminal.

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7g3scvF2nqbdfU1
@mid.individual.net:

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C7879534C160hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>> news:7g196rF2mge25U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C777102F9FA5hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>> news:7fu6kgF2mt6vlU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9C746C0E889FFhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>>>>>> firearms?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which
>>>>>>> includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
>>>>>>> affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>>>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>>>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights 
because
>>>>> of a disability."
>>>>>
>>>>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still
>>>>> be a disability, "due process" or not.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, you feel that someone should be denied the right to have a gun
>>>> simply because his neighbor thinks he is mentally incompetent?
>>>>
>>>>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not.
>>>>
>>>> However, it is not an official disability until it has been
>>>> adjudicated.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. It's a disability as soon as diagnoses by a MEDICAL
>>> PROFESSIONAL.
>>
>> Not as far as the loss of rights and the 4473 are concerned.  There is 
a
>> tad more to it than your family doctor simply saying, "Yep, he is
>> insane."
> 
> Prove it, liar.

Due process.

>>>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
>>>> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent.  IOW, you don't
>>>> feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your
>>>> neighbor.
>>>
>>> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being
>>> denied based upon THE disability.
>>
>> Yep.  That evidence is presented to the court.  It may be a full court
>> (rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who removes the
>> right, not the medical authorities.
> 
> Nope, it's the diagnosis from the MEDICAL EXPERTS that determines
> the MENTAL DEFECT.

Never said different, oh, illiterate one.  I said it was the judge (or 
the court) who removes the right. Do you understand the difference or am 
I talking to a stump?

>>> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified
>>> to make MEDICAL determinations.  Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS
>>> are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
>>
>> No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which 
removes
>> the right, not the doctor.  The doctor simply testifies just like he
>> would in a murder trial.
> 
> WRONG AGAIN. The hearing isn't criminal.

Didn't say it was.  Again, your reading diability is rearing its ugly 
head.  


-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C7977B6C9FD1hopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7g3scvF2nqbdfU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C7879534C160hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>> news:7g196rF2mge25U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9C777102F9FA5hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>> news:7fu6kgF2mt6vlU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9C746C0E889FFhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>>>>>>> firearms?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which
>>>>>>>> includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
>>>>>>>> affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>>>>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>>>>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights
> because
>>>>>> of a disability."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still
>>>>>> be a disability, "due process" or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, you feel that someone should be denied the right to have a gun
>>>>> simply because his neighbor thinks he is mentally incompetent?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it is not an official disability until it has been
>>>>> adjudicated.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. It's a disability as soon as diagnoses by a MEDICAL
>>>> PROFESSIONAL.
>>>
>>> Not as far as the loss of rights and the 4473 are concerned.  There is
> a
>>> tad more to it than your family doctor simply saying, "Yep, he is
>>> insane."
>>
>> Prove it, liar.
>
> Due process.

Medical or Psychological diagnoses by MD's need no such legal process.


>
>>>>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
>>>>> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent.  IOW, you don't
>>>>> feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your
>>>>> neighbor.
>>>>
>>>> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being
>>>> denied based upon THE disability.
>>>
>>> Yep.  That evidence is presented to the court.  It may be a full court
>>> (rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who removes the
>>> right, not the medical authorities.
>>
>> Nope, it's the diagnosis from the MEDICAL EXPERTS that determines
>> the MENTAL DEFECT.
>
> Never said different, oh, illiterate one.  I said it was the judge (or
> the court) who removes the right. Do you understand the difference or am
> I talking to a stump?

Original <false> premise asserted by poster: "We don't deny one their rights 
because of a disability."

So have you been chasing your tail around again, Ardy?


>
>>>> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified
>>>> to make MEDICAL determinations.  Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS
>>>> are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
>>>
>>> No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which
> removes
>>> the right, not the doctor.  The doctor simply testifies just like he
>>> would in a murder trial.
>>
>> WRONG AGAIN. The hearing isn't criminal.
>
> Didn't say it was.  Again, your reading diability is rearing its ugly
> head.

Original <false> premise asserted by poster: "We don't deny one their rights 
because of a disability."

"¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
news:7g6i6tF2oe25qU1@mid.individual.net: 

> 
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C7977B6C9FD1hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in news:7g3scvF2nqbdfU1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9C7879534C160hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>> news:7g196rF2mge25U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9C777102F9FA5hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>> news:7fu6kgF2mt6vlU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:Xns9C746C0E889FFhopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:7flipnF2k2uchU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "HeyBub"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to
>>>>>>>>>>> possess firearms?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which
>>>>>>>>> includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your
>>>>>>>>> own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental
>>>>>>>>> institution? 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A key point here.  See the word "adjudicated"?  And the word
>>>>>>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process.  Your
>>>>>>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights
>> because
>>>>>>> of a disability."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would
>>>>>>> still be a disability, "due process" or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, you feel that someone should be denied the right to have a
>>>>>> gun simply because his neighbor thinks he is mentally
>>>>>> incompetent? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it is not an official disability until it has been
>>>>>> adjudicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit. It's a disability as soon as diagnoses by a MEDICAL
>>>>> PROFESSIONAL.
>>>>
>>>> Not as far as the loss of rights and the 4473 are concerned.  There
>>>> is 
>> a
>>>> tad more to it than your family doctor simply saying, "Yep, he is
>>>> insane."
>>>
>>> Prove it, liar.
>>
>> Due process.
> 
> Medical or Psychological diagnoses by MD's need no such legal process.

That depends on what you are trying to do with that diagnosis.  If it is 
to incarcerate someone or remove their rights, yes, it does.

>>>>>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply
>>>>>> because *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent.  IOW,
>>>>>> you don't feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the
>>>>>> whims of your neighbor.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are
>>>>> being denied based upon THE disability.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.  That evidence is presented to the court.  It may be a full
>>>> court (rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who
>>>> removes the right, not the medical authorities.
>>>
>>> Nope, it's the diagnosis from the MEDICAL EXPERTS that determines
>>> the MENTAL DEFECT.
>>
>> Never said different, oh, illiterate one.  I said it was the judge
>> (or the court) who removes the right. Do you understand the
>> difference or am I talking to a stump?
> 
> Original <false> premise asserted by poster: "We don't deny one their
> rights because of a disability."
> 
> So have you been chasing your tail around again, Ardy?

Two points...

One, that wasn't my premise.  I responded to that same statement with 
yes, we can under due process.  That is where you fell apart.

Two, I am not chasing my tail.  I have stated the same thing throughout 
this thread.  If you have trouble or can't understand that, it isn't my 
problem. 

>>>>> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even
>>>>> qualified to make MEDICAL determinations.  Licensed PHYSICIANS /
>>>>> PSYCHIATRISTS are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
>>>>
>>>> No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which
>> removes
>>>> the right, not the doctor.  The doctor simply testifies just like
>>>> he would in a murder trial.
>>>
>>> WRONG AGAIN. The hearing isn't criminal.
>>
>> Didn't say it was.  Again, your reading diability is rearing its ugly
>> head.
> 
> Original <false> premise asserted by poster: "We don't deny one their
> rights because of a disability."

Not my premise.  Your turn.


-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

Those with the biggest mouths about taking guns away, also seem to have
the smallest balls since they will have to have someone else do it for 
them.