On Jan 11, 8:24*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" *wrote in message

...

* Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument.

But there have been changes, as a result of the Virginia Tech massacre the
Dem Congress passed a law which Bush signed in his last year in office
rewarding/punishing the states for keeping the NICS updated or failing to do
so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/06/09/AR200...

"Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have
to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases,
mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not
been filed with the instant-check system. The federal government would then
pick up 90 percent of the cost for the states to get up to date within 180
days of the audit.

Once the attorney general determines that a state has cleared its backlog,
the federal government would begin financing all the costs of keeping the
system current. If a state's compliance lapses, the attorney general would
be authorized to cut federal law enforcement grants, with more draconian aid
cuts mandated if noncompliance stretches longer than a year."

I have been a Psych RN for about 25 years now. Violence prediction
has pretty much always been an area of intense research. Yet, we still
can't predict which individual will get violent. Heck, we can't even do
that with any precision on the in-patient until where a person is under
24 hour watch by trained professionals.

We trust the courts to determine the outcome of a great many things in our
lives. *At the point where a judge orders someone to undergo psychiatric
treatment because of threatening behavior the person should *be barred from
purchasing firearms--with the right to be removed from the list if they
later get a clean bill of mental health. *Judges get to decide if we go to
prison, or get divorced, or have to pay other people tons of money, or lose
our homes, and so on. *So it seems reasonable that a judge can say that
someone who appears to be a danger to himself and others should not be able
to purchase firearms. *It's supposed to work that way anyway, but the states
were doing a poor job of keeping the system up to date.

I'd also suggest that uniformity between the states on background checks
would be a good idea, and as I said elsewhere, schools should have to report
students (or staff) kicked out for threatening behavior. *We're never going
to stop all those with mental health problems from getting ahold of guns,
but just reducing the number who do is worth pursuing if we don't have to
infringe on the rights of sane, sober, law-abiding citizens in the process.

Toothless sop. How do it help Ms Green/Giffords?