| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding NICS changes |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 6/13/07 10:31:10 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read HR 2640 yet, so I'm not taking a definite stand one way or another. All this talk about it has me thinking about it though.
First, there must be an appeals process to expedite corrections of mistakes in the NICS system.
Second, if you are a marked as a
"prohibited person" there should be a process for requesting that your rights be restored, preferably via the court system. Of course, that would mean your right to own a gun would be in the hands of the court, but isn't that better than in the hands of the BATFE or FBI? You can supposedly do it now in some places, but nobody seems to know how, and I've never heard a case of someone doing it successfully.
The NICS system pools together all kinds of data regarding a person's criminal history, and all of that is fine with me. But when they start including non-criminal mental health issues, due process is lost. Therefore, the law must be written carefully to ensure that only court-ordered commitments make it into the system. In addition, the court should be asked to set a re-evaluation date, which would set a limit on the denial of the individual's rights. There are a lot of people who go through a one-time crisis, where they should be denied access to guns during that time. Still, many of these people get healthy, and live normal lives. If someone is not a current danger, or likely to become one, why should their rights be denied forever?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| | < "Fred Thompson's VP" | | "More on Fred Thompson" > |
|
|
|
|
