>>>>>>>>>>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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Most" Americans supported the Patriot Act. "Most" americans supported invading Iraq. "Most" colonists didn't support the American Revolution. I find that given the proper "crisis", "most" Americans are willing to exchange nearly any liberty for the mere appearance of security. I am reminded of this everytime I enter an airport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Update : As for the "court system", what happens while you wait for your day in court?
>>>>>>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345714/free-cj-grisham
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I still don’t have my guns back and they took my concealed-carry license. I’m not accused of a gun crime, so there’s no reason for them to have my guns right now and the problem is that, what’s happened in the past with other soldiers is that the prosecutors will try and get the soldiers to agree to the police dropping the charges if they confiscate the gun — to have the charges dropped at the expense of their gun. This is a workaround loophole for gun confiscation.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Reminds me of Katrina. The seizures were ordered 9/8/2005. They were ordered halted on 9/23/2005. The city didn't admit to seizing any firearms until March 2006 under threat of contempt. They were to return the firearms in April 2006. That's 7 months that lawful gun owners were unconstitutionally stripped of their protection, during the very breakdown of society scenario in which protection is most warranted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I know all about getting "one's day in court" when one's rights are violated. If they weren't still pending I'd bring up a couple of cases close to me where the citizens' rights were violated in a malicious manner. The violations occurred between 2008-2010. The days in court have been numerous yet there is still yet to be a resolution. It's not expected before 2014.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok while all that's very interesting, two points. A) What does this have to do with the database I'm talking about? You're avoiding the real questions...
>>>
>>>>I thought I was quite clear, I am against the gun database, the national medical database, and you'd be very hard pressed to find a national reqistry of any kind that I agree with. Passports come to mind as acceptable but please note they are voluntary.
>>>
>>>I guess we strongly disagree on that one. Keep in mind that a person voluntarily buys a gun, gets a drivers license, and gets a passport - so I don't see the distinction here.
>>
>>Only one of which is a constitutional right which "shall not be infringed" so I do see a distinction.
>
>Riiight - so we need a new amendment to take care of that. Besides we have laws already on who can own a gun and who can't so it's already been "infringed".

Yes it has and mistakes should be corrected not compounded.

>>>>>and B) If you have a problem with the speed of the court system - then that is a different issue.
>>>>
>>>>Two critical staples of our judicial system are :
>>>>Innocent until proven guilty
>>>>Justice delayed is justice denied
>>>>
>>>>You mentioned "innocent people are arrested every day - that is why we have this thing called a 'court system' " as a way to justify that "Nothing is 100% perfect". It seems a logical extension to examine some of the actual cases where confiscation has happened and determine how the law truly worked. In the case of Katrina, the registered gunowners had their firearms seized and not returned for a minimum of 7 months and it took a district court level decision to even get that. Many others were still waiting after 2 years. These people had broken no laws.
>>>
>>>>In the case of the soldier near Temple he has had his firearms and concealed carry license seized. He too has not been charged with a single firearms related crime.
>>>
>>>Ok now I will agree with you on those examples - there was no valid reason for them to have their guns taken away. But this isn't a problem with gun-control - it's a problem with cops not doing their job and a flawed court system that continued to screw them around.
>>
>>Correct. I am not one to reward those who abuse their authority with further authority over my liberty. Especially when that restriction on my liberty has a direct correlation to my ability to uphold my responsibility as protector and provider for my family.
>
>...except that having a gun in your house makes your family LESS safe that not having one.

I'm not certain what you are using to justify that belief but if it's the study I'm thinking of you better look closer.

Even if I was to take that claim seriously, we could apply the same faulty logic to other items :

Having children in cars makes them and you less safe.
Having stairs and tall furniture in your house makes your family LESS safe then not having them.
Having cleaning products in your house makes your family LESS safe then not having them.
Having bathtubs in your house makes your family LESS safe then not having them.
Having fireplaces, ovens and gas furnaces in your house makes your family LESS safe then not having them.

Each of these are more common causes of accidental death for children than firearms.

Now, those blanket statements take no individual family dynamics into account they are simply broad brushstrokes to prove a false premise. While collectively people with pools will have more children drown in them then people without, that doesn't mean no pools should ever be built. It's called managing risk. A gun is no different, except that it's less likely to cause an accidental death.

>>>>Update : As to "avoiding the real questions", I only saw one question which was about the database.