Snowflakes in Hell

Via David Codrea, .45Superman has discovered something interesting about Rudy’s schedule that I don’t think gun owners are going to like.

It’s time we had a serious debate in our society about why so many minor and trivial offenses are felonies.  Historically, felonies were reserved for only the most heinous offenses, and were typically capital crimes.

I would be much more open to the blanket idea that all felons lose their right to bear arms if it weren’t for the fact that so many minor crimes are felonies.

Supposedly it’ll pass the Senate tonight, and head to Bush for signature.  I’ve said before that I don’t believe this bill is a bad deal, and I remain unopposed to it.  I know a lot of people have concerns about this bill, some legitimate, some not so much.  I’m prepared to eat crow if this turns out to make things worse for gun owners, but for now, I think having a means for relief from mental health disability is a positive step.

… for Cam’s mother.

I continue to be baffled by GOA’s claims about HR2640. I can understand why some people are skeptical of any bill sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy, but some of this stuff just isn’t true:

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act — which has already passed the House — would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

Except it won’t. This is simply not true, and I can’t think of any plausible reading of the language of HR2640 that would make this true. The bill sets out standards for being added to NICS by a federal agency, and suffering from PTSD does not meet that standard.

One term relates to who is classified a “mental defective.” Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated “not guilty” in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, “mental defective” has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

Again, this is simply not the federal standard. A proper adjudication under federal law takes more than a mere psychologist saying you’re a danger to yourself or others. It must be a lawfully comprised court or board. You can’t end up prohibited because your shrink decides he doesn’t want you having guns.

In the past, one could only lose one’s gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court — meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one’s accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by “a court, commission, committee or other authorized person” (namely, a psychiatrist).

Larry is misunderstanding the standard here. Let’s review again what the actual regulation is:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include–
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

A psychiatrist is not a lawful authority under this regulation. They have no power, on their own, to make determinations. Other lawful authority is meant to cover bodies entrusted under state law with adjudications that are not courts, boards, or commissions. In no state, nor in the federal system, that I am aware of, do psychologists or psychiatrists have the sole power to declare someone mentally incompetent.

As I said, there are many good reasons I’ve heard from folks about why HR2640 is a bad idea, but I don’t think Larry Pratt’s concerns are among those.

Apparently Rudy claims that 9/11 changed his views about gun ownership.   If only he had come up with this explanation from the beginning, I might have bought it.  9/11 certainly changed my views on a lot of things, and I could have accepted that.

But seriously, if 9/11 was really an eye opener, wouldn’t it especially make sense to advocate that more law abiding people in New York City ought to be able to go about armed like they can in 3 out of the next 5 largest cities?  New York is the primary target, after all.   It seems to me that if 9/11 really changed Giuliani’s views on gun control, he would want to start with New York City, not make vague appeals to “states rights”, and suggest that New Yorkers somehow can’t be trusted with arms, while the rest of the country can.   Sounds like horse crap to me.

Hat tip: SayUncle

Thirdpower wants to know how many candidates are groveling before the Brady Campaign to beg for their support.  Good question.  If the answer is greater than zero, I’m not seeing any evidence of it.

… who was shooting skeet this weekend.