They will do any thing to take your rights

[oscar615]

Starting with redefinition

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...sion-of-mental-health-institution-definition/

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Jack]

I scanned it, did they source where the ATF said they wanted to do this expansion?

 

[Vermiform]

It always worries me when Uncle BATFuk starts "redefining" things. However, in this instance the outpatient commitment still requires a Judge so nothing is really lost. In my experience, anytime a person is judicially committed to an outpatient program, it is because they do not want to take their meds. They are usually savvy enough to avoid inpatient commitment by "volunteering" at the last minute before a judicial commitment can be put into motion. They comply long enough with treatment to get stable then go home and throw their meds in the trash. Weeks go by, they get loony again and do something crazy enough to get them put back into the system. It is a revolving door and judicial outpatient is a stopgap to slow it down.

Bottom line, if they require a judicial commitment to do anything, chances are they don't need access to firearms until they appeal and a judge reinstates that right. The appeals process is majorly backlogged right now, but in this 1 case I think it is better than the alternative. Yeah, I know, if they are too dangerous to society, then they should be locked up until they are not....I get that. In a perfect world, that is the perfect solution. Unfortunately we can't even get the gov to keep criminals behind bars and we have even less room for the loons.

 

[oscar615]

Call me crazy, but I do not believe that any agency that has enforcement powers should have anything to do with defining or interpreting the laws or rules they enforce. Because you always end up with rouge agencies that do what they want. For example you have the ATF saying 80% lowers are no longer 80% lowers, the EPA telling people they can't build on their own property because a mud puddle is a wetland etc.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Vermiform]

Call me crazy, but I do not belive that any agency that has enforcement powers should have anything to do with defining or interpreting the laws or rules they enforce. Because you always end up with rouge agencies that do what they want. For example you have the ATF saying 80% lowers are no longer 80% lowers, the EPA telling people they can't build on their own property because a mud puddle is a wetland etc.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I hear you and I don't like BATF reinterpreting ANYTHING. As for the 80% lowers, we will have to wait and see. They may not have reinterpreted anything on that one and those lowers may in fact not be 80% lowers. We will know more when more info comes out.