Kirata
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003
That said, I agree and have said all along that the laws that already exist need to be enforced more stringently, and that there needs to be more done about people with mental issues rather than to put more burden on law abiding citizens.
Question 11(f)
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
Failure to answer truthfully is a Federal felony, so the weapon was obtained by fraud.
I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm... I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law
But the law is not vigorously enforced...
During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.
Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 — required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm — is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and a judge’s discretion, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Baker, the NRA’s director of federal affairs, told TheDC that he was given five minutes to present the NRA’s concerns and the approach the group saw as being the most effective to prevent another massacre like the Newtown, Conn. shooting. During those five minutes, he said, he mentioned the need to prosecute existing gun laws. He pointed to the low number of prosecutions for information falsification and the relatively low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes. Biden was apparently unmoved by Baker’s concern. ~Source
Additionally, the automatic rejection may be unconstitutional because there is no opportunity on the form to indicate relief.
18 U.S.C.S. 925(c) Relief from Disabilities -
A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice...
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has already overturned such a denial:
The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights. The government at oral argument stated that it currently has no reason to dispute that Tyler is a non-dangerous individual. On remand, the government may, if it chooses, file an answer to Tyler's complaint to contest his factual allegations. If it declines to do so, the district court should enter a declaration of unconstitutionality as to § 922(g)(4)'s application to Tyler.
Additionally, there is no basis for assuming that a past involuntary commitment equates to a potential for present violence in the first place, and the restriction overlooks more dangerously ill individuals. Unfortunately, the APA has stated that "psychiatrists have no special knowledge or ability with which to predict dangerous behavior." In some mental illnesses and neurological impairments there is an increased likelihood of violence in certain conditions, but "the conditions likely to increase the risk of violence are the same whether a person has a mental illness or not" (link).
It's easy to look back at Facebook or forum posts and say, "Oh boy, somebody should have seen this coming," but a hour on Twitter suffices to demonstrate that there are thousands of idiots about whom the same could be said after the fact. So it seems to me that a more productive approach would be stiffer sentences for illegal possession of a firearm, and more resources invested in pursuing and prosecuting traffickers in illegal weapons.
K.
< Message edited by Kirata -- 7/25/2015 1:52:54 PM >
|
RE: 'Trainwreck' shooting in Louisiana - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread