>>>>>>>>>The SAFE Act, the gun control law hastily passed by the New York legislature in January, included a provision requiring physicians, psychologists, registered nurses, and licensed clinical social workers to report any patient they deem "likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to self or others." The report goes to a county mental health official, who, assuming he agrees with the clinician's assessment, passes it on to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), which determines whether the patient holds a firearms license. If he does have such a license, which is required to legally buy a handgun in New York, the DCJS must notify the local licensing official, who must suspend or revoke the patient's license and instruct him to surrender all of his firearms, including rifles and shotguns. If he fails to do so, police are authorized to seize them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Which is how David Lewis, a 35-year-old Amherst librarian, was stripped of his guns and his Second Amendment rights.
>>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Background checks database IS registration which leads to confiscation. Whether directly like during Katrina or "accidently" in this case or indirectly through changes in the defitition of mental capacity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>When one combines the idea of a national background database with the looming national medical record database from Obamacare it's not too hard for even the most innocent of believers in "common sense" to connect the dots. There are only 2 dots!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Have a great weekend all!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The problem here is that the law was misapplied. If everyone involved would of been doing their job correctly this never would of happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the meantime a law-abiding citizen's rights were taken away as he was guilty until proven innocent. If humans are involved the human error or deliberate malfeasence will occur. There have been several cases recently of databases being made public. Be it the hacking by Wikileaks & anonomous or the more aggregious cases where the data was just handed over by authorities to a news organization who published it. Cases like this serve to prevent people with perfectly treatable mental issues from accurately reporting their condition for fear of their rights being trampled. The idea of a national medical database is even more frightening than the gun registry, and make no bones about it, it IS a registry. Again, there's only 2 dots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nothing is 100% perfect. For example, innocent people are arrested every day - that is why we have this thing called a 'court system'.
>>>>>>Most Americans, at this point, feel that background checks should happen. As matter of fact I think the latest polls on that are showing something like 94% feel this way. There is a national database of automobiles and you don't seem to have a problem with that - so why not have a database of guns?
>>>>>
>>>>>1) There is no constitutional amendment protecting the ownership of a vehicle or getting a drivers license.
>>>>>2) What background check for drivers licenses?
>>>>
>>>>Well they check your driving record - make sure you don't have too many tickets or a DUI - don't owe back child support, validate your vision and driving ability, have to have insurance, meet the minimum age requirements - etc etc. I guess that is kinda a background check isn't it??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Having written those two items above, I am all for a criminal background check for gun ownership. However, there is a fine line between not allowing anyone on certain medications to own a gun and those not mentally or emotionally stable owning one based on doctors statements. Just the prescribing of certain medicines should not preclude ownership as neither should seeking counseling. The determination of a qualified doctor based on counseling or professional treatment could and should if the doctor deems the individual could be a danger to society. Otherwise, no. DEFINITELY NOT.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that if it's a medical reason for for precluding gun ownership that it should come from a doctor. Obviously the guidelines for that would have to be worked out and hopefully the lawmakers would actually listen to some medical pro's when they come up with those guidelines. None-the-less I still think it should happen.
>>>>
>>>>I like my idea of a database of all gun transactions AND a database that has all the ballistic data for each gun. W.K. seems unwilling to respond to that idea - what are your thoughts? To me it makes perfect sense. Heck if you had such data, if there was a shooting and a bullet in good enough shape was recovered it would be easy to connect it with a gun...then the gun with the owner. I see no valid reason why we should not have such a database. If you had proper background checks for ALL gun transactions and a database like this I really think it would solve a lot of problems. I just don't see what harm there is in having such data available to law enforcement. If anything it would sure as hell make solving some of these shootings a bit easier right?
>>>
>>>Unless I am misinformed the tracking of bullets could be easily implemented. I'm not sure what organization is standing in the way, hmmm, can't imagine.
>>
>>I have to admit that I'm just baffled on why anyone in their right mind would be against such measures (other than the manufactures of the guns and bullets of course). I mean if you can tell what gun fired the bullet, and then tell who own's the gun - sure seems like a lot of problems would be solved right there. (or at a least a lot of murders and shootings would be solved). This business where people jump up and down claiming that if everyone (aka - the government) knows what guns they have, then they'll come take them away from them makes no sense either...I mean besides the fact that people are not interested in disarming the whole country...one has to think that if you have something that everyone thinks you should not have..then perhaps it's time for some self-reflection here - like maybe that means you shouldn't have it in the first place. I understand that some people like to collect guns. Ok fine. But I suspect that some people might like to collect poisonous snakes too - but hey it doesn't mean it's a good (or safe) idea either. Just because some dillweed gets his jollys unloading a fully automatic AK-47 isn't a good enough reason for me. The 2nd Amendment argument, which was written when it took 5 minutes of effort to shoot one bullet, is bogus too. Hey times change. This is one of the great things about the way our laws are supposed to work - they can be changed/updated to reflect the current times. People are tired of this b.s. and with any luck at all the people won't let it rest this time.
>
>Just a few:
>http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-york-state-police-admit-wrongly-confiscating-guns-under-new-laws.html
>http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/see-police-confiscate-guns-from-americans/
>http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
>http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/02/14/missouri-democrats-introduce-legislation-confiscate-firearms-gives-gun-owners-90-days-turn-weapons
>http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/

riiiight - and I can point to just as many articles of wacko's on the other side of the debate too - like the place in GA that wants to make it a requirement to own a gun for example. If the cops are breaking the law by taking the guns then it sounds to me like it's the cops you should have a problem with.