HB-88 Down In Defeat, Not So Quick! Attend This Rally

Although HB-88 was defeated in the senate, Governor Markell and Attorney General Beau Biden are not going to let this stand, or so they think!

“I’m not giving up on this,” said AG Biden in a recent statement. The last session of the General Assembly starts Sunday and the Democratic Caucus intends to re-introduce the bill and force passage at an eleventh hour vote. This bill is called the “Gun Grab” bill and is definitely unconstitutional. It would give the police and authorities broad power to declare nearly any person they don’t like as, mentally incompetent or mentally ill, and enter their home and confiscate legally owned weapons.

A rally and vigil to oppose the passage of HB-88 is being held at Legislative Hall on Sunday, June 30, starting at 4pm and will last as long as it takes to deal the final death blow to this bill. This tyrannical bill would definitely violate our Second Amendment right to bear arms. The rally will be a massive effort, and our Second Amendment Rights are on the line, please call your Senator and make sure his/her vote stays a NO vote and if your senator is a democrat, please call and persuade him/her to change their vote.

The Second Amendment of the United States of America:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“A nation can only be disgraced by the failure of its citizenry to take action in the face of tyranny.”

24 thoughts on “HB-88 Down In Defeat, Not So Quick! Attend This Rally

  1. You think the “mentally incompetent or mentally ill” are what the framers of the Constitution meant by “A well-regulated Militia” ?

  2. No delacrat.

    I think it’s an excuse by progressive liberal Marxists like Jack Markell, Beau Biden and “Pistol Pete” Schwartzkopf to do a landmark Gun Grab. Well they won’t get away with it this time. Many patriots who love America and its Constitution will show up and make their point.

  3. Just to make sure I understand, can someone tell me how prohibiting someone who is “mentally incompetant” or “mentally ill” from having a gun a “gun grab?” (incidentally, the bill only applies to “dangerous mentally ill” persons). We already don’t let felons own guns, but I don’t think that is a “gun grab.” I, for one, don’t want somebody who is mentally ill (hello John Hinckley) owning a gun and for the life of me I can’t figure out why folks are acting like the sky is falling on this. This is not a slippery slope anymore than prohibiting felons from owning guns is a slippery slope.

    More importantly, I wonder how many folks have actually read this bill (my guess is that most folks have not). I recommend that anyone who hasn’t done so, do so immediately, because it doesn’t really do have of what is alleged.

    Under Delaware law it is already illegal for a mentally incompetant person to own a firearm. The major change to the law this bill makes is that it explicitly authorizes law enforcement agencies to investigate whether someone is a “dangerously mentally ill person” after receiving a report that someone is “dangerously mentally ill” from a health care professional. Remember, such a person is already prohibited from owning a gun. The definition of “dangerously mentally ill person” is “a person so mentally ill as to be likely to cause injury to oneself or others and to require immediate care, treatment or restraint.” In fact, if someone is found to be “dangerously mentally ill” that person is supposed to be immediately committed to a facility for treatment. So, if a complaint is made that someone is “dangerously mentally ill,” the police are now authorized to investigate. If a person is determined to be “dangerously mentally ill,” they are ALREADY prohibited from owning a firearm under Delaware law. The bill requires such folks to turn in their firearms, and they get their firearms back if the disability is later removed.

    Having read the bill, I am stunned at the completely over-the-top and misleading rhetoric surrounding this. Nor can the bill be said to be “tyrannical” or “definitely unconstitutional.” Some of the other anti-gun proposals out there are much more serious and should be stopped, but do we want the “dangerous mentally ill persons” (meaning persons “so mentally ill as to be likely to cause injurty ot oneself or others and to require immediate care, treatment or restraint”) to own guns? Really?

    This is the kind of opposition that gives law-abiding, caring gun supporters and owners (such as myself) a real real real bad name. The cynic in me thinks that some groups are simply trying to use this issue and the heated and misleading rhetoric about HB 88 simply as a means to raise funds. If so, shame on them.

  4. ConservativeFromTheNorth

    Well, you certainly have the right to your own opinion and Many of us certainly don’t see it your way. Thank you for your comment.

  5. Sure they’ll get their firearms back, like those wrongly accused of domestic violence get their firearms back. Since we already have laws in place prohibiting mentally ill from possessing/owning firearms there is no need for more legislation.

  6. The probability of process abuse is directly proportional to its ambiguity.

    Exactly, which is why they want a duplicitous law that expands police powers.

  7. ConservativeFromTheNorth on June 29, 2013 at 13:13 said: “Just to make sure I understand, can someone tell me how prohibiting someone who is “mentally incompetant” or “mentally ill” from having a gun a “gun grab?” ”

    Because it is based on a unilateral decision by a private physician, and presumably ANY doctor. So the government can get a Gosnell-quality quack to say you shouldn’t have a gun, and there is no hearing, no process, no evidence for and against.

    And if you were truly a conservative, you would know that and embrace it. Ergo, we know you are not a conservative.

    So you want your neighbor who is mad at how you put the garbage out in the morning who happens to be a doctor to be able to take your rights away unilaterally, without any due process, without any evidence, without any burden of proof?

    You cannot be a conservative without already being keenly aware of those issues and concerns. THAT IS WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE ALL ABOUT — WHO DECIDES. If you are not keenly tuned into the dangers of WHO DECIDES and checks and balances, then you can call yourself a Conservative from the North, but your words give you away.

  8. One cannot claim to be a conservative without recognizing the danger — BAKED IN to the cake of America’s governmental institutions and traditions — that government decisions cannot be trusted and that government needs to be viewed with skepticism, and with public scrutiny.

    If you claim to trust whatever decision government makes — without question, scrutiny, and supervision of government bureaucrats — then you can call yourself a conservative all day long, but you ain’t. You cannot read anything by or about our Founding Fathers without being clobbered over the head with the importance of QUESTIONING everything the government does.

    In the ’60′s and 70′s, the theme was: QUESTION AUTHORITY.

    I mean the 1760′s and the 1770′s, that is.

    Yes, the 1960s and the 1970′s, too.

  9. The definition of “dangerously mentally ill person” is “a person so mentally ill as to be likely to cause injury to oneself or others and to require immediate care, treatment or restraint.”

    And do you really believe that anyone in the medical profession or anywhere else can tell you who is “likely to cause injury to oneself or others” ?

    Can you wrap your head around the idea that NO ONE knows this and cannot predict it?

    What if it is impossible to know who is “likely to cause injury to oneself or others” ?

  10. ConservativeFromTheNorth on June 29, 2013 at 13:13 said: “I wonder how many folks have actually read this bill (my guess is that most folks have not). I recommend that anyone who hasn’t done so, do so immediately, because it doesn’t really do have of what is alleged.”

    How do you know what the bill does?

    First, government officials will stretch and bend the law according to their own personal tastes — regardless of what the law says.

    Second, the courts will give deference to the interpretation given by law enforcement and let them get away with trampling on what the law actually says.

    Third, the courts will then interpret the law to mean something different from what you think the law says.

  11. Jonathan, are you really a lawyer? Have you read the Delaware Code and HB 88? Understand that the definition of “dangerously mentally ill person” is already in the Code. Understand further that the prohibition on gun ownership for such persons already exists. You are fearful that government may wrongly claim someone is “dangerously mentally ill,” but that is already an existing “danger.” Moreover, there are already safeguards in the system, and I’m not aware of anyone pointing to any abuse in the past.

    Why folks are right to be skeptical of government and keep a keen watch on it, should we do away with criminal laws because people might be wrongly accused?

    I agree with CFTN. Better to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, then to try and make the specious argument that the 2nd Amendment allows anyone to have a gun, including felons and the mentally ill.

    Go read the Delaware Code and HB 88 before you go shooting your mouth off (pun intended). And by the way, last time I checked, the issue that led to the revolution was “taxation without representation.” Not distrust of government generally. The antifederalists were against a strong central government, but they were perfectly happy with their own state governments, where they had representation. Let’s face it, we need government because, as Madison famously observed, men are not angels. That doesn’t mean that we should be complacent or not exercise vigilance (the price of liberty is eternal vigilance after all), but the notion that we should be against anything government might try to do because we can’t trust government is ridiculous. Should we have no police because police might abuse their authority? No army? No public education system? We need government, we just need to keep an eye on it.

  12. mosely

    you just commented five times in a row! uncle already!

  13. afederalfarmer on June 29, 2013 at 19:34 said: “I agree with CFTN. Better to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, …”

    But WHO DECIDES who is mentally ill?

    This goes back to the very heart and core of the American political system and the US Constitution, which Delaware was the first State to ratify.

    What matters — and what allows someone to call themselves a conservative — is not having a random collection of opinions. What matters is HOW things get decided. WHO decides? What protections are there?

    The conservative position, and the meaning of the US Constitution Delaware ratified, concerns WHO decides what “mentally ill” means and WHO applies it, and how?

    Dude: If the government ever declares martial law, don’t you understand that it will be done in the name of some good purpose like saving the children? A law that suspends the US Constitution will be LABELED “the child protection and defense of women act of 2017.” And naïve and gullible people will fall for it, and believe the label, without looking at the substance.

    What grown ups understand is that ideas like “mentally ill” can be abused.

    And any power of government that CAN be abused, WILL be abused sooner or later. Just look at the NSA monitoring all your phone calls.

    NOTE: What the NSA does is not permitted under the USA Patriot Act. . The man who wrote the USA Patriot Act, Congressman Sensennbrenner, openly declares that the law does not allow what the NSA was caught doing.

    Did that stop them from doing what is not allowed under the law?

    So if anyone disagrees with Joe Biden, are they mentally ill?

    Depends: WHO decides? And what exactly does it mean?

    If someone doesn’t believe gays should marry, are they mentally ill? That’s what “homophobia” is — a mental illness.

  14. afederalfarmer on June 29, 2013 at 19:34 said: “Moreover, there are already safeguards in the system, and I’m not aware of anyone pointing to any abuse in the past.”

    WHY does that matter?

    What kind of thinking is that?

    You have never been robbed, so do you leave your house unlocked? Your car has never been stolen, so do you leave your keys in the car with the window rolled down?

    Your house has never been hit with lightning. Yet (hopefully) you have a lightning rod on your house.

    Your house has never burned down. Yet (hopefully) you have fire insurance.

    If something is a danger, why does it matter to you whether in YOUR personal knowledge the danger has occurred or not? It is an unacceptable danger, whether the danger has yet materialized.

    Don’t you recognize that that is a silly argument which does not advance political understanding?

  15. In fact, the reason why your car has never been stolen is most likely BECAUSE you have never left the keys sitting in the car.

    If we create dangers in the law, we are inviting poltiicians and bureaucrats to exploit and abuse those dangers

  16. afederalfarmer on June 29, 2013 at 19:34 said: “Understand further that the prohibition on gun ownership for such persons already exists.”

    So we all agree, then, that the new law is unnecessary and should not be passed. Right?

  17. As for Madison’s quote “men are not angels” you completely fail to understand the very heart and root of America’s government. No surprise because our schools deliberately teach a distorted and misleading version of our history.

    Madison’s quote From Federalist #51 of the Federalist Papers is:

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

    But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

    The whole concept of the quote you mangle and the meaning of our entire American system is that we must police the police. The government must be constrained. Those given the power to govern society must themselves be controlled, restrained, always suspect, and always scrutinized.

    The very concept of America — the brilliance of the American invention — is to balance LIMITED power of the government to keep the society safe while carefully RESTRAINING the government at the same time.

    Who watches the watchers? Without this balance there could have been no America.

    And as we lose that balance now, because even you neither understand it nor support it, we will lose America. The natural state of humanity over nearly all of human history has been very different from what we enjoy in this breath blink of an eye in the USA.

    Without constant suspicion and scrutiny restraining government, there could never have been a United States of America.

  18. Because it is based on a unilateral decision by a private physician, and presumably ANY doctor.

    That’s not true. The initial complaint comes from a mental health provider or counselor, they submit to the police who investigate, the police submit to the AG’s office and they investigate and take it to a judge, who makes the final decision. This takes a complain through 3 levels of investigation before a judgement is made. It also gives the person the ability to petition the courts to regain their rights.

  19. Jonathan,
    For all your ranting about potential government abuse, you fail to address the central issue of HB 88 (and existing Delaware law). Do you agree or disagree that someone who is “dangerously mentally ill” and judged to be a threat to harm themselves or others should be permitted to have a gun or not? That’s the question here. With your attitude for government, I’m sure you against everything, including police, the army, zoning, public education, fire services, etc. After all, anything is subject to possible abuse. Remember, the point of the Constitutional Convention was a stronger central government

  20. afederalfarmer on June 30, 2013 at 12:53 said: “Do you agree or disagree that someone who is “dangerously mentally ill” and judged to be a threat to harm themselves or others should be permitted to have a gun or not?”

    If it were possible to know who is “dangerously mentally ill” — it is not possible — then yes, I would support restricting their right to a gun. But it isn’t possible to know.

    If it were possible to judge who is a threat to harm themselves or others — it is not possible — then yes, I would support restricting their right to a gun. But it isn’t possible to know.

    What you are really talking about is someone expressing their OPINION, which can be motivated by all sorts of agendas having nothing to do with what you have in mind.

    The only thing you can know for certain is if someone did in fact commit a crime that is a dangerous felony. Well, even that is uncertain, but we can go on the fact that someone was convicted, and hope that the conviction is accurate.

    You and others discuss this (and similar topics) as if you knew ______X______ to be a fact.

    But you don’t know X. That’s the problem.

  21. Notice the political spin: (1) This is already the law. (2) But we desperately need to pass this new law which is the same as the old law. ????

  22. And by the way, last time I checked, the issue that led to the revolution was “taxation without representation.” Not distrust of government generally.…afeudalfarmer

    Then maybe you should check the Declaration of Independence, and its cited ‘long train of abuses and usurpations.’

  23. Anon, how is that different from current law?

    It’s significantly different. If you want to know how look it up yourself. You stated that the decision was “unilateral” and that is a complete lie. I corrected your lie. I’m not here to teach you about the bill.

Comments are closed.