<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Breaking News on NICS Deal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/</link>
	<description>Firearms Policy and Politics in Pennsylvania</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:43:35 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Sebastian</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/#comment-5311</link>
		<dc:creator>Sebastian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:35:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=831#comment-5311</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think the current regulation is necessarily bad, and I actually have little issue with the Iowa deal as long as it requires a formal commitment order.  The problem with these being regulations, though, is that regulations could change on a whim.  If an anti-gun president were to take power (Obama or Hillary, take your pick), they could order the ATF to make these requirements more stringent, so they could apply to a broader set of people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think the current regulation is necessarily bad, and I actually have little issue with the Iowa deal as long as it requires a formal commitment order.  The problem with these being regulations, though, is that regulations could change on a whim.  If an anti-gun president were to take power (Obama or Hillary, take your pick), they could order the ATF to make these requirements more stringent, so they could apply to a broader set of people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/#comment-5305</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:43:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=831#comment-5305</guid>
		<description>Crap, bad link. I&#039;ll see if I can find the original cite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Crap, bad link. I&#8217;ll see if I can find the original cite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/#comment-5304</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=831#comment-5304</guid>
		<description>Okay, so according to this interesting case,

http://www.abanet.org/disability/publications/lawreporter/caselaw.shtml

the ATF defines “adjudicated as a mental defective” as “a determination by a court that a person, as a result of a mental illness, condition or disease (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” Well, that’s not so bad.

Here’s the bad part. In that particular case, the court ruled that according to Iowa law, “committed to a mental institution” INCLUDES outpatient treatment, because “[u]nder Iowa law, a formal order of commitment is a prerequisite to outpatient treatment, outpatient treatment continues only while the patient is under such an order, and the treatment does not end absent a court order terminating the commitment. See Iowa Code §229.13.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, so according to this interesting case,</p>
<p><a href="http://www.abanet.org/disability/publications/lawreporter/caselaw.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.abanet.org/disability/publications/lawreporter/caselaw.shtml</a></p>
<p>the ATF defines “adjudicated as a mental defective” as “a determination by a court that a person, as a result of a mental illness, condition or disease (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” Well, that’s not so bad.</p>
<p>Here’s the bad part. In that particular case, the court ruled that according to Iowa law, “committed to a mental institution” INCLUDES outpatient treatment, because “[u]nder Iowa law, a formal order of commitment is a prerequisite to outpatient treatment, outpatient treatment continues only while the patient is under such an order, and the treatment does not end absent a court order terminating the commitment. See Iowa Code §229.13.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sebastian</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/#comment-5238</link>
		<dc:creator>Sebastian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:28:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=831#comment-5238</guid>
		<description>I think that refers to the regulations implemented by the ATF on how the term applies.  Those regulations are certainly there, but regulations can change.  My desire is to see it spelled out in statute rather than in the code.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that refers to the regulations implemented by the ATF on how the term applies.  Those regulations are certainly there, but regulations can change.  My desire is to see it spelled out in statute rather than in the code.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gringo_Malo</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/#comment-5236</link>
		<dc:creator>Gringo_Malo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=831#comment-5236</guid>
		<description>The bill decidedly does not clarify the meaining of &quot;adjudicated mentally defective.&quot; It says that the term will have the &quot;meaning given in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.&quot; You and I will probably be unable to find those regulations, and neither could the idiots who wrote this bill.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bill decidedly does not clarify the meaining of &#8220;adjudicated mentally defective.&#8221; It says that the term will have the &#8220;meaning given in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.&#8221; You and I will probably be unable to find those regulations, and neither could the idiots who wrote this bill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SayUncle &#187; Another NICS in the wall</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/#comment-5232</link>
		<dc:creator>SayUncle &#187; Another NICS in the wall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=831#comment-5232</guid>
		<description>[...] is basically what I said about it. Sebastian breaks it down further. He says it clarifies the definition of adjudicated mentally defective, however, I have not seen [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is basically what I said about it. Sebastian breaks it down further. He says it clarifies the definition of adjudicated mentally defective, however, I have not seen [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Countertop Chronicles &#187; McCarthy Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/06/12/breaking-news-on-nics-deal/#comment-5222</link>
		<dc:creator>The Countertop Chronicles &#187; McCarthy Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=831#comment-5222</guid>
		<description>[...] Sebastian reported, it looks like McCarthy (Bigot-NY) is the lead sponsor of COngresses latest gun control scheme. No [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Sebastian reported, it looks like McCarthy (Bigot-NY) is the lead sponsor of COngresses latest gun control scheme. No [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
