Sen. Cornyn - Official Portrait

“A+”-rated* Sen. John Cornyn has the National Rifle Association’s backing for a “modest” bill “that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers,” Fox News is reporting. The legislation is generating no small amount of debate among gun rights advocates, with some supporting it as a pragmatic move designed to thwart more draconian proposals, and others characterizing it as a preemptive surrender (and worse).

Without getting into that debate, because there will be plenty of others weighing in on both sides, I’d instead like to just ask a few questions that all who are interested in due process ought to be interested in seeing answered. By way of disclosure, my longstanding contention is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, but that’s not likely to be reflected in social policy anytime soon, so it’s not the focus here.

Backers of the bill tell us “due process” protections will be increased for veterans and others under Cornyn’s bill. Per his spokesman, “This bill codifies into law that individuals must get their day in court they’re entitled to, and no agency or state can make their own determination without that.”

It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial  that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?

What protections will exist to offset politically-connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask, because APA includes in its advocacy platform registration-enabling, background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.

Significantly though, even APA admits:

Only a small proportion of individuals with a mental disorder pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.

Casting a wide net and leaving the shot-calling up to those with subjective political motivations has historical precedence – predominantly in “gun control” havens.

Also of interest – or it should be – how will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health prescription to deny them? What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure be to “err on the side of caution”?

An impartial analysis would be helpful here, one addressing protections in initial and subsequent disability determinations, and that unequivocally explains specifics. To do that, we need to read the bill and see if these concerns are even addressed.

At this writing, the legislative tracking website GovTrack does not provide the text of the bill, but does note it has been referred to committee, where it has a 10% chance of going to the floor, and where it then has a 2% chance of passing. Assuming the people who posted that have the experience monitoring things to make authoritative predictions, we can only speculate if those numbers are expected to change, or if this is all a noisy exercise in election prep and political posturing.

Calls to Cornyn’s multiple offices go directly to invitations to leave a message (I’m told his switchboards have been melting down), so I haven’t been able to reach an aide to ask for a copy, nor have any RKBA advocacy contacts I’ve asked seen the actual text. This column will update with a link when I get one.

* Cornyn is currently rated “B” by Gun Owners of America.

80 Responses to Cornyn’s NRA-Backed Mental Health Bill Needs to Address Key Questions

  1. If only we could treat anyone “mentally ill” like second class citizens like the nazis did. And by mentally ill it means anyone who’s seen a therapist.

    And a draconian proposal to “thwart” more draconian proposals? BS.

    John Cornyn needs to be recalled. And the NRA backs this? Maybe I should cancel my life membership payment plan.

    • The NRA is all about keeping guns out of the “wrong” hands.

      They’re still proud of NICS. (Read it carefully, no mention of it being the least bad they could do… they’re proud of it.)

      Yes, cancel your payment plan and tell the NRA to pound sand.

    • … And by mentally ill it means anyone who’s seen a therapist.

      Anyone who has seen a therapist is a mental-defective. Anyone who has not seen a therapist is an undiagnosed mental-defective.

    • Yes, you definitely should stop supporting the NRA. They are too quick to appease the gun grabbers.

      This type of legislation belongs at the state level, if anywhere.

      I wish the great and powerful money grubbers at the NRA would concentrate their efforts on repealing the GCA and the NFA rather than always trying to surrender more and more to the latest bogeyman put forward by gun grabbers.

  2. I’ve been reading David codreas pieces for several years and have heard him on armed American radio for about 2 years….he is a vital advocate for second amendment rights, and his ability to explain complicated legal subject matter is second to none. From breaking fast and furious he continues to prove himself every article, thank you David please keep doing what you do.

  3. Considering what the past 6 POTUS administrations have done, specially the most recent one, I can easily see this being abused very quickly.

    Enough with the compromises. Freakin’ enough.

  4. “with some supporting it as a pragmatic move designed to thwart more draconian proposals” The NRA has been saying that since the first NFA act back in the 20’s or so. This is crap. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Mean’s SHALL NOT under any circumstances.

  5. Sometimes I really despise the NRA, and I’m a life member paying off an endowment membership.

    Never surrender or give an inch. When will they learn?

    • I’d been thinking of joining. Though I knew it to be hyperbolic, all the noise from the antis about how the NRA is a horrible, powerful lobbying machine increased the NRA’s prestige in my eyes. But I remember them selling out before.

      I’m glad I waited. Feel-good legislation is an unfortunate fact of life, but I’d resent being brokered without even being shown the bill. I won’t be joining now.

      • @Pete: No organization is ever going to be exactly in synch with all of it’s members. NRA is the best thing we have going right now for preserving the 2nd Amendment. Not joining them would be a mistake. Join and do what you can to make your voice heard. They will listen. They may not align themselves perfectly with your position but very few organizations with many members ever do that. They do what they can and it is a lot.

        • True, no organization is perfect. But the NRA loves the Brady Bill and tried to stop the Heller case. They prefer there to be political drama going slightly against guns so they can scare more people into paying them and giving them more leverage to push around legislators. They don’t much care about restoring gun rights as they do about retaining their expensive office spaces and salaries.

        • Thanks for your thoughts, but, well, If I thought they were spending too much or too little on Eddie-the-Eagle videos that would be one thing. I could look at the big picture and say they’re alright overall. Gun control legislation however is a matter of basic principle. I think I can do no good by compromising on basic principle.

      • I view the NRA as an imperfect, but necessary first line of defense. They take a lot of public heat and scrutiny that other 2A groups don’t have to worry about.

        • I view my NRA membership as being necessary for my range membership. I wish my range club would recognize other pro-gun memberships in lieu of NRA memberships.

    • The most useful purpose of the NRA is to have their members serve as shock troops for when the GOA calls them into action and forcing their hand on an issue. The NRA is a Paper Tiger, but the GOA is a wolverine behind the scenes.

  6. This legislation was a response to the VA sending letters to vets with PTSD telling them to stay away from guns, and probably turning them into the NICS for good measure. I think it can be improved and maybe it may be used improperly, but it’s a step in a good direction.

    Mentally ill people need treatment and care, we all agree with that. Part of that care should be protection provided by care givers in many capacities. If OTOH we insist that those judged mentally incompetent should have RKBA because we fear the judges or system of abusing the law then we run the real risk of something bad happening yet again. It’s not a clear case one way or the other, but I would draw a line on those properly adjudicated as being unable to care for themselves due to diagnosed mental illness.
    If the bar is set properly and high enough I don’t see a problem with it. I also think we need to bring back institutions and care facilities the ACLU managed to close in all 50 states. Leaving them at home with relatives is not working out and Adam Lanza is one example of that, the Montana guy this week another.
    If you have a family member or friend in this predicament you may agree with me, if not you are free to disagree.

    • My understanding of the purpose was similiar. Cornyn was one of those who was not impressed with the VA/SSA nonsense about what constitutes mental deficiency. The intent was to prevent agencies from having the authority to arbitrarily deem someone incompetent, and would instead require a judicial type process. However it would clarify and strengthen the reporting requirements for those who were truly deemed not responsible enough to possess firearms. Cornyn was also the author of the national CCW reciprocity bill. He’s been a key player in fighting this administration’s executive overreach, so I believe his intent is on the level.

    • It’s a very dangerous bill. I am a mental health professional and also have family members receiving treatment. With modern medications and effective treatments there is no reason to look anyone up unless they commit violent crimes. So will everyone in treatment have to have a trial over their gun rights? I know police officers, CEOs etc with treated mental illness functioning fine. Most of the mass shootings are by young guys just coming down with a MI. The system can’t identify them yet. It’s the biggest slippery slope in history and the net will catch good people and disarm them for life.

  7. Why don’t we just get rid of 1934, 1968 and Hughes.

    My fear with any mental health or anti criminal possession laws is that it seems to convient to expand or change who is a criminal or mentally ill. For example with one stroke of the pen thousands of folks in NY and CT became criminals. Let’s face it, damage can be done without a gun and if someone wants a gun they can get one. Shall not be infringed, no taxes on em, no laws, no suggestions-nada.

  8. Yeah, Why can’t we have laws that stop felons, crazies and “gun rights” terrorists from purchasing firearms.

    Any person can walk into a gun show and purchase guns. That’s a fact. That’s not well regulated, therefore making

    Hopefully a full fledged “Gun-rights” terrorist nut bag will waltz into the NRA headquarters and blast up the place, then we might see.them change there tune and fight for a no sell registry.

    Fighting against gun control is unconstitutional. Why would “law abiding gun community” terrorists be against the Constitution?

    Don’t be absurd Gun-Nuts. Stop parroting the NRA/TTAG lying propaganda. The NRA & TTAG is cynically pushing that narrative of “Well, there’s nothing we can do about it since evil will always exist. We’ll just have to keep selling guns to homicidal maniacs.” Stop doing the gun lobby’s bidding.

    So much talk in America about ‘gun rights,’ like this stance wasn’t created and perpetuated by politics and politicians.

    All you’re doing here is repeating the line about ‘evil doers.’ Well go ahead and fan the all-pervading climate of fear. You’re gun nuts are nothing but puppets. Nothing more.

    You gun nuts are the real “sheeple” that eat the crap your gun-masters feed you.

      • willy_lunches_on_meat must be between pizza deliveries. That or mom’s asleep and left the computer on again.

    • OMG Willy go away. You are one guy who should definitely not have a gun. Talk about going psycho at any mention of gun rights or the 2nd Amendment.

    • “Stop parroting the NRA/TTAG lying propaganda”

      Uh, many of the comments posted for this particular entry are quite critical of the NRA. Reading is fundamental.

    • Any person can walk into a gun show and purchase guns. That’s a fact.

      Sure. Right after they fill out a Form 4473 and the FFL selling the gun calls in the NICS check.

      And you really went all CSGV after that, wishing for people who disagree with you to be murdered.

      You’ve overplayed your hand and over stayed your welcome, Willy.

    • Any person can walk into a gun show and purchase guns. Most sellers at a gun show are FFLs. Back to Mommie’s basement.

    • My answer to you, Willy, is no. We’re not going to do any of that. Further, there’s nothing, whatsoever, you and the Gun Confiscation Lobby can do about that fact.

      So, I suggest you move onto what your next favorite Marxist idea.

  9. I see it as at least potentially smart tactical move to head off something worse. Judging by all the hand wringing and pants wetting from the usual suspects it might actually be the right thing to do. I mean this is a law that ACTUALLY would have prevented two shooting… Ok maybe not completely as the Charlestown and Lafayette shooter could have just easily gotten a gun somewhere else if they really wanted, but thatbis useless speculation because they both walked into an FFL holder and lied on their forms to legally buy a gun. That, at least, shouldn’t have happened.

    This is the only gun control bill I have seen maybe ever that even attempts to solve the problems that led to a recent shooting.

  10. This bill, first blush, looks to be a complete non-starter.

    Any bill with any sort of “mental health” definition or criteria means that government will go to town and reclassify anyone and everyone as not being able to have a firearm until taking some sort of sanity test by a government certified psychiatrist.

    There are no “reasonable restrictions” on guns, because the other side is only interested in one thing: taking away guns from everyone except those who act on behalf of the State.

    People need to wake up and realize one cannot deal honestly with dishonest people.

    • @Blake: Have you read the bill ? I can see some merit in this proposal IF it is done correctly with protections for the liberty of those of us who do not have mental health issues that would tend to make us harmful to ourselves or others. Perhaps a panel with a Psych guy, a judge and a 2A activist on it to make the determination in each case. Maybe even an ACLU person to make sure the person in question’s rights are protected. Not sure if the ACLU person is a good idea, just a suggestion. That one might do more harm than good on second thought. Anyway the idea would be to have safeguards in place to weigh the 2A rights of each person vs the protection of the general population IF the person in question’s 2A rights were infringed to some degree. Should never easy to take away anyone’s 2A rights.

      • “IF it is done correctly with protections for the liberty of those of us who do not have mental health issues…”

        And what do you suppose the odds are of that? The past fifty years or so have been one long, steady push to slowly restrict and deprive people of their rights and increase governmental power and involvement in people’s lives. Do you think this proposal is going to buck that trend? Keep in mind, this is coming from the same people who brought you the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, NSA spying on the e-mail and phone traffic of millions of innocent Americans, etc, etc…

      • And I would ask if you read what I wrote?

        Politicians almost never make things better. Passing new laws is just more government intruding in our lives.

        How about his novel approach? How about Senator Cornyn work to remove all of the odious gun laws?

        Politicians never met a law that couldn’t be made better by passing a new law. Even though the more sensible approach is repealing the original law.

        • “Passing new laws is just more government intruding in our lives.”

          Y’know, our Constitution outlines a form of government that is almost completely ineffectual. On purpose. And our government, in all their wisdom, somehow manage to screw up the idea that they’re SUPPOSED to do next to nothing…

      • That was pretty funny, thinking this monster will be administered in a sensible and reasonable manner.

  11. F**king NRA is selling all the Vets with PTSD and or TBI down the River and agreeing with the Muslim Lover in the white house that Social Security adopt the same rules as the Vets! I say get rid of the 1968 Gun Law written by the Democrats Under Johnson the biggest crook of them all! So now you will have too pay for a certificate of mental health too buy a Weapon. Thanks NRA thanks Democrats and all you other weasels selling out our country for what ever!

  12. “A+”-rated* Sen. John Cornyn….

    Guess grade inflation isn’t confined to college campuses anymore….

  13. I have a long-time friend in Florida who made the mistake of marrying man and he turned out to be a jealous & mentally abusive nutbag. When she finally had enough and requested a divorce, he refused to leave the house. Finally reaching the end of her rope, she tossed all of his belongings to the curb, in the hopes that he would get the hint & follow suit. Instead, he called the law, told them she was suicidal, and requested that she be Baker Act’d. So the cops showed up and hauled her off to an involuntary 3-week committment in a State-run loony ward, no questions asked.
    That 3 week stint turned into 3 months, while she desperately tried to convince the head-shrinkers that in no way was she suicidal, and had been railroaded by her husband. Finally they let her go, with the stipulation that she maintain contact with a state mental-health social-worker.
    In the meantime, her husband had moved out but started stalking her. Finally, she had enough and attempted to buy a handgun after one particularly ugly encounter…. and was subsequently denied due to being adjudicated as mentally ill.
    My friend had never once been in a courtroom for such an “adjudication”, and all of her attempts to clear her record met with stone-cold denials. Under the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, there is essentially no recourse to having such an adjudication expunged or nullified.
    And due to that, she has been defenseless against a husband who has continues to stalk & mentally abuse her. But because of her being Baker Act’d, the cops and courts have consistently refused to help her in any way.
    Almost every day, I worry about hearing the news that my friend has been found beaten or dead at the hands of that guy. And because of that permanent mental-illness label, she’s been barred from ever being able to legally protect herself if need be.

    • Do crazy stuff, win crazy prizes.
      Your friend seems over the top loonytoony in one area: She steadfastly believes that she can just claim the marital household for herself and throw her partner out of it.
      Consider her hospital stay a 3 month sentence for the crime of vandalism to his personal property.

      The rest, well, that’s just our feral government for ya.

    • No one in Florida gets thrown in the looney bin for three weeks, “no questions asked.” The administrator of the looney bin must file a petition for commitment. A hearing on the petition must be held within five days. The patient is entitled to a public defender if she doesn’t have her own lawyer. Only the patient’s lawyer can have deadline for the hearing extended. There might be some information missing from your friend’s story.

  14. THE NRA IS NOW COMPRIMISING THE RIGHTS OF WE THE PEOPLE AND OUR BILL OF RIGHTS!!
    There can be no compromise in any part or form or we will lose our Second Ammendment Right, when that one is compromised the whole Bill of Rights and Our Constitution are from there forward in totally Jeopardy!!! It is now time to rid the NRA of its leadership or Bail on them as they no longer have the best interest of We The People at heart!! I for one will never renew or back them again in funding or voice if this is the stand they take.
    My heart in honesty is heavy tonight in seeing them actually cave to the left and the potus today.
    We are in trouble!!

    • This is nothing new for the NRA. Thirteen sentences in their proposal after Sandy Hook showed that they haven’t changed. This is just more of the NRA being the NRA. I quit my membership years ago and can’t see myself ever re-joining.

      • Yeah, anyone who is shocked that the NRA would back something like this hasn’t been paying attention for the last couple decades. The NRA has done some good work, but mostly they’re just a fundraising organization. Any support of our 2A rights by the NRA is purely incidental to their main mission of constantly pestering the shit out of their membership for money.

        That said, they do make a good lightning rod for all the anti-gunners’ hate, which allows groups like the Second Amendment Foundation to actually push our rights forward under the radar.

        • Aye. Well put.

          I will say that I like their basic pistol course. It serves as the main part of much CHL training in Ohio and, IMHO, is an all around good introductory program.

  15. John Cornyn is becoming an embarrassment to the state of Texas. I am ashamed that I voted for him. He’s become a business as usual RINO seemingly concerned only with his political career and his own self advancement. Why don’t these people recognise the fact that a period (.) immediately follows the phrase, “Shall Not be Infringed”? No debate … End of discussion.
    [W3]

    • Cornryn sounds like the kind of politician that says what the NRA wants to hear for the support and votes, and then when comfortably in bed together starts weaseling out of their previously expressed commitments to the 2A when it comes time to put up or shut up. It is unfortunate but that is the power game that the NRA is playing in Washington. They’ll come to the NRA convention and make speeches to mass applause but then when it comes to protecting rights, they have feet of clay. Unfortunately, these guys pretty much know that without a strong primary challenge they can pretty much get away with it. I’m thinking of my own Senator Pat Toomey, but there are others. It boils down to us as gun owners to pay attention and evaluate these people for ourselves, don’t depend on NRA ranking. Meanwhile Rand Paul doesn’t even get an invite because he won’t make nice with the certain NRA bed fellows like Lindsey Graham.

      I will continue to be an NRA member because together it makes the most powerful voice for us as gun owners. But I see myself lending more support to groups like SAF in the future..

  16. This is just another page out of the NRA’s “Enforce all existing infringements before enacting new infringements” playbook.

    And all of it in the total absence of any data showing that the ‘mentally ill’ are any more crime prone than the rest of us.

    • “Enforce all existing infringements before enacting new infringements”

      You are hereby on notice that I intend to steal that.

      It’s more slippery marketing. The NRA states that existing laws should be enforced before new ones are added. Unfortunately, they don’t distinguish between proper laws (like those against murder and thuggery) and improper laws (like a paperwork “violation” by an FFL). And any new infringement that should get past…well, it would appear that they endorse enforcing the law that (previously) they had spoken out against. So what is one to think they really mean?

  17. I don’t like it. It again only seeks to go after guns. Rather than trying to help them, they just go after their guns. If a mentally disturbed individual actually wanted to cause mass murder, they need to get help with their problem. Personally, I don’t think death by bomb or fire is any better than bullets, if that could actually even stop them from obtaining or making their own firearm. If they are intent on hurting others, taking their legal (rather than physical) ability to pass a NICS check isn’t going to address the root problem.

    • You hit the nail on the head. These laws do not affect the root cause. Guns, weapons, and bombs are not a root cause. The person committing violent acts for whatever reason are the root cause.

      I saw some words of “wisdom” on youtube one day. Humans gonna human. You can’t get rid of ask odd the puerile who wish to do others harm. So that is why I own firearms, to protect myself from them.

    • Dead center!

      Without any provisions to act for the benefit of the persons being labelled, it’s just another “They have problems so FVCK EM!” law.

  18. When the statists in the US Senate do ANYTHING that NEEDS doing (to shut down Obumer/demtards) and reclaim the US then perhaps can have a discussion on something else.

  19. I can see how Senator Cornyn might be using a bill like this (and I don’t know what the bill is since it is not available to review), in order to control the behavior of other agencies on behalf of gun owners. But, even giving the bill that kind of MASSIVE benefit of the doubt, it is an epic failure.

    The bill that should be introduced, and should be law, is simple. If a qualified board of psychiatrists finds that a patient under care is an immediate danger to him/her self or others, then that board may recommend to a judge that this patient, while under care, should be denied the right to keep and bear arms. The judge then must take their recommendation under advisement in the process of reviewing the denial of second amendment rights. The judge can not remove those rights without such a recommendation by the board, and the board has no authority on their own. The board must regularly review each case and make new recommendations to the court, and if a patient no longer requires care or is no longer an immediate threat to themselves or others, their rights should be immediately reinstated by the court.

    That is the next best case. What is probably the best case is that, as Mr. Codrea has pointed out, if as an adult you can’t handle a gun you probably can’t handle yourself at all. But I am fearful that such a simple, rational policy would lead to mass committal of dissidents.

    • If I’m reading it correctly the bill provides for the states to provide the information on the individuals prohibited. So the criteria is not set by the Feds. Furthermore it keeps the ‘deny in 3 days or the sale goes through’ provision. The dem plans proposed have no time period, any approval from the ATF could be held up indefinitely in bureaucratic limbo.

  20. I’m pursuaded that our best political position at this juncture is: “Screw you!”

    We should recognize that this bill is NOT about NICS; it’s about the prohibited-persons criteria. The felony is being in possession of a gun while being a prohibited-person; attempting to buy a gun from an FFL is merely a trivial facet of the relevant crime.

    The prohibited-persons criteria need a comprehensive reform; but, it’s PREmature to attempt reform while we do NOT have a consensus on the RKBA. Maybe a very narrow bill restoring Vets’ rights would be worth-while; but anything more would wind up making the system still more corrupt than it is now

    Our strongest leverage is to “hold hostage” any and all gun legislation until we secure several major wins. As in judo, we ought to look to use our opponent’s forces to our own advantage. The Antis will push for “common sense” “reforms” to the mental-illness defects in the existing system. The Antis will build support among the uncommitted voters. We tell the uncommitted voters that we refuse to cooperate until we get achieve legal recognition of our rights. Then – and then-ONLY – will we begin discussion of reforms to any existing gun-control laws.

    Foremost among these rights is National Reciprocity. Once that simple and realistic goal is achieved (National Reciprocity) then a Federal law baring a showing of “need” to be allowed to carry. That should be authorized by the 14A:
    – nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    – Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    Thereupon, a Federal law authorizing Open-Carry would seem a logical step. The basis for such a Federal law can be established under the 2A and 14A. Most States already allow OC; so, it’s not a huge political obstacle. A few States recognize a Right-to-Carry but prohibit OC; these shouldn’t represent much opposition. Those States that are now May-Issue with “need” will have – via previous steps – be pushed into Right-to-Carry concealed on a Shall-Issue basis. Therefore, a Federal law authorizing Open-Carry wouldn’t be a really large step.

    There is a thesis that OC is “THE” right guaranteed by the 2A; and, that CC is not an enumerated right at all. It doesn’t matter whether any one of us – or all of us collectively – like or agree with this thesis. It’s a judicial and political question that passes/fails in those respective courts (SCOTUS and public opinion). The shortest distance from where we are to Constitutional-Carry might be via some path such as described above; i.e., by working within the scope of the well-established Shall-Issue CC permit system. If we end-up with Constitutional Open Carry and Shall-Issue Concealed Carry, that will be pretty good.

    • Open carry is protected by the First as well: it’s speech. The courts have ruled that the clothes people choose to wear constitute speech, and if clothes are, then accessories most certainly are — and my Ruger is my favorite accessory.

  21. I’ve have never trusted Cornyn or the NRA. This is a classic case of being seen as doing something by railroading a small minority with no voice, in spite of the evidence and with no regards to the long term implications of doing so.

    Not one damn inch, means NOT ONE DAMN INCH!

    “If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.” – Saul Alinsky

    I am sick of being compromised over and over again. When will we start compromising in the other direction? If Cornyn and the NRA want to impress me, they can push for the repeal of NFA and Hughes, and then we can compromise to the removal of SBRs, SBSs, and Supressors.

  22. If you disagree with the bill, what way or ways would you keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable? No sarcasm here just a real question.

    • …what way or ways would you keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable?

      You cannot keep pointy sticks from evil/crazy people. You can only keep evil/crazy people from pointy sticks.

      No law has, can, or will ever prevent evil/crazy people from acquiring the tools that facilitate their evil/crazy acts. The only plausible solutions:

      1. Lock up people that truly need to be separated from free society

      2. Accept that a certain amount of risk is inherent in a free society, and allow free society to comport itself accordingly, such that individuals have the means to defend themselves from that inherent risk.

    • Good read. Cornyn should have just re-introduced that bill.

      As far as the one he did introduce, I don’t think La Pierre has any interest in it passing; he just wants to be able to say at some future press conference that the NRA tried and the liberals killed it, so his PR firm can send out more “We need money now or all is lost!” letters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *