GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-23-2014, 11:11   #1
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 45,550
Blog Entries: 64
Editorial board: Mentally ill should get background checks before guns

Quote:
Editorial board: Mentally ill should get background checks before guns
Quote:
May 20, 2014 5:00 am(21) Comments
It seems simple: Someone who is profoundly mentally ill shouldn't have access to a firearm.

That's why we support the call from the National Shooting Sports Foundation for Wyoming to report involuntary commitments to the National Instant Criminal Background Check. With the spate of school shootings and ongoing questions about the link of mental illness to some of the recent shootings, we think its high time for Wyoming to submit such commitment information.

Yet we stand perplexed at lawmakers, who shot down such a requirement otherwise bound for state law in the recent legislative session. We're disappointed that when the Interim Judiciary Committee recently had a chance to reconsider a similar law, it refused to even move it forward for broader consideration.

Responsible gun owners know that their firearms are weapons that can do harm, and in the wrong hands can quickly inflict needless and indiscriminate harm.
Interesting...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 11:26   #2
Booker
Senior Member
 
Booker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,491
I believe this would have been a good law! No Guns for Nutters!
Booker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 12:19   #3
Atomic Punk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,795
i would have fully supported this, until the dems started trying to classify all vets as mentally ill. i think its a good idea, but i fear where people may take it beyond the original intention.
Atomic Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 13:34   #4
randrew379
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 356
Psychiatric diagnoses have often been subjective and based on shaky hypotheses. Also, many "enlightened" anti-gunners consider the desire to own weapons as a mental defect. Seemingly innocuous laws may have dangerous consequences.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Ohub Campfire mobile app
randrew379 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 14:07   #5
oldman11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Punk View Post
i would have fully supported this, until the dems started trying to classify all vets as mentally ill. i think its a good idea, but i fear where people may take it beyond the original intention.
You're right, there are a lot of Dr.'s out there that would take it too far because of their own issues.
__________________
Travel light and come well balanced.
Willie Nelson as Doc Holiday
in Stagecoach
oldman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 14:16   #6
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 20,714


I wonder if there is any possibility of getting OFF the list if you are deemed "well" again. Who will determine if you are cured.....

I am not trying to put a burr under anyone's saddle. But is it a lifetime loss of a right, for what level of "illness", and what specific category of doctor can make this judgment resulting in your loss of a civil right. I'm afraid I may already know the answer to this.
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 15:46   #7
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,753
The Wyoming bill I looked at defines the information to be submitted as:
Quote:
(iv) "Mental health prohibitor information" means information which establishes the existence of mental health circumstances which prohibit a person from participating in the sale or transfer of a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968, title 18, U.S.C., chapter 44 and Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, P.L.
103-159, together with their implementing regulations. These circumstances include being involuntarily committed to a mental institution, being found incompetent to stand
trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, being adjudicated as having a serious mental condition that presents a danger to others or to the diagnosed person or
being found incapable of managing personal affairs.
18 USC 922(g) says:
Quote:
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
That may or may not be the same thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if choosing to use a lot more words in the Wyoming bill got it shot down.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 15:47   #8
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
I wonder if there is any possibility of getting OFF the list if you are deemed "well" again. Who will determine if you are cured.....
Not a problem - once you are on the list, it is next to impossible to ever get off it.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 18:27   #9
gt1122
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 58
Do we really want to start yet another witch hunt? The gun grabbers simply want to pick gun owners a piece at a time, having realized that they aren't going to stop us in one legal action. They'll single out the most vulnerable group, race, or segment and "for our protection" take away their rights, preferably without right of appeal and without legally interpretable standards.

As others have pointed, out, they also don't mind picking off veterans who may have PTSD or who may have temporarily needed their spouse to take control of their finances while they recover.

Also, as others have said, the medical and psychiatric community don't know with any credibility who is dangerous to others, but too many (most?) hate guns and distrust gun owners.

I really wish gun rights organizations and related organizations would not throw people with an alleged psych history under the bus. People in the 1950s and 1960s (and today) were committed just because their spouse or abusive parents wanted to get rid of them.

Who will protect us from our protectors?
gt1122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 21:02   #10
VinnieD
Senior Member
 
VinnieD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,158
Fear of losing rights may also drive people away from seeking help even for non-violent mental health issues. I'd support a simple and clean bill that restricted access only to those deemed incapable of being responsible for their own actions (legally insane), those with violent mental illnesses, and would have conditions for immediate removal from the list once they'd reached a satisfactory level of recovery and could be deemed non-violent.

Non violent mental illnesses and disorders such as depression for instance should not be on the list or even kept in the same database. I don't think we need to establish any new database though. The existing requirement of not being declared mentally defective by a judge is sufficient, there just needs to be a better method of establishing this. I think there could be a provision for a mental health professional to in extraordinary circumstances, such as the belief that a patient is extremely likely to take violent action as a result of mental illness, may directly contact a judge for a mentally defective declaration.

Not that this would do all that much good. Many of the mass murders by mentally iill individuals from the Columbine massacre to Sandy Hook were committed with stolen guns. No law can stop someone willing to break the law. At that point the only adequate defense is boots on the ground security and the hardening of soft targets.

We have to be very careful though. The current means by which bills are written make it very easy to slip something in that could trample basic human rights for many of those suffering from a genuine illness, who need help, not criminalization.
__________________
"Use more gun." -The Engineer- (Team Fortress 2)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
VinnieD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 22:09   #11
UtahIrishman
Silver Membership
BLR
 
UtahIrishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 6,626


I don't really care for the term "slippery slope" but I believe it fits like a glove here.
Good intentioned yes, but I can see bad results coming later.

Remember there were those in Gulags in Russia who were sent there for the 'mental illness' of being dissenters with the regime in power.
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal

----
UtahIrishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2014, 01:59   #12
nursetim
Senior Member
 
nursetim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: liberalville N. M.
Posts: 8,259
Sure, when they do the same for pregnancy. Did I miss that being specifically enumerated in the COTUS? I put forth that more damage is done with mouth breathing rectums becoming parents than nut jobs with guns.
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium. - I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.
nursetim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2014, 21:02   #13
plainsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 702
Right, it's just another slippery slope.

Most people cannot afford legal representation at a "sanity" hearing, this is just another attempt to deny probably 25% of the population, who at some time will use mental care services, loss of their rights forever..

How many veterans even get their 2nd Amendment rights, back? Do we need to add more people to that list?

The anti-gun wacko agenda, is to disqualify as many as people as possible. With Yobama care plugged into your doctors office, you rights can disappear in a click of a key.
plainsman is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:35.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 770
189 Members
581 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31