16 replies [Last post]
bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

Interesting read about the infighting between Democrats on gun control provisions. In this case a bill to require mental health records being submitted to the NCIC database for purposes of background checks when purchasing a gun.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119033829426334720.html?mod=blog

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. If you don't forward the mental health records, you wind up with loons having access to guns. But if you do, you set a precedent of sending health records to Big Brother.

How many people who like to shoot will be less likely to seek help for mental health issues because they know their records will go to the government and forever be flagged during background checks? We're not talking about psychotic people here -- we're talking about being depressed following a divorce, etc. Rather than get help, these people will fester or get worse. This could be one of those cases where the cure could be worse than the disease.

Offline
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 635
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

Depression and anxiety would be two hot topics for this subject. If they are not carefull with this, and a bill passes then I would think less people would seek help. That would most definately cause worse turmoil. I assume it would more or less cover those who have actually been admitted to a hospital though for psychiatric theoropy. Someone who has actually had lethal thoughts and have taken steps towards them.

Offline
Location: Montana
Joined: 10/24/2006
Posts: 448
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

Who is to say who is crazy Shame on You!

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

I'll admit the idea sounds great -- obviously you want to keep guns out of the hands of psychotic killers. But it's the precedent that's making me a little nervous. Today it's psychosis. Tomorrow someone suffering from chronic depression shoots a bunch of people, and we add that to the list. Ultimately, what this boils down to is allowing government access to personal medical information. Once that precedent is set, then the list of reportable conditions can be tweaked at will.

Eventually, it can be taken a step further. Say a guy's depressed and suicidal over his financial condition and shoots a bunch of people -- do we start denying gun purchases to people if their credit score drops below a certain level? Maybe we should consider the fact that the vast majority of perpetrators of gun crime have an income of less than $35,000 a year and ban purchases based on income?

Bottom line is that we're expanding the list of things society deems worthy of denying your second amendment rights. That list already includes felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence, and now mental health issues. Who will we decide shouldn't have guns next?

Does that mean I want people like Cho to be able to buy weapons? Absolutely not. But I'm not sure I like where this is going. He could've done far more damage with a five gallon can of gasoline and a book of matches.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

From the article it talks about:

the bill's basic framework was already familiar from past Congresses: a mix of carrots and sticks to encourage states to share their mental-health ... with federal authorities

The way I interpret this and from what I've read other places is that the only records they are after are judical rulings that made a person voluntarily or involuntarily submit to mental health treatment. The individual also had already been deemed by a professional as a danger to themselves and/or others as a part of judical proceeding.

This is far different than submitting private mental health records for anybody in question for any reason.

Offline
Location: Montana
Joined: 10/24/2006
Posts: 448
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

The thing that is scray is WHOSE interpretations are used. Most anti gunners strongly belive anyone that owns or wants to own a firearm IS mentally disturbed. I have talked with many as they honestly think there is a socialogical impairment to anyone interested in firearms. So on that note what if THEY are the ones doing the interpreting? Then what happens. I see it as a slow but sure tighening . We as gun owners HOPE that its simpley certain concesions being made but do not be fooled, they want ALL firearms out of civilian hands period end of story and they are getting it done the best way, by not being obvious.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

The word for this thread is: adjudication. Its a formal process of the states that declares a person a danger to himself and/or others. A doctor can't adjudicate you, nor can police, or a political party. It has to be a judge.

Furthermore once adjudicated mental defect there is no appeal process. The NRA supported the bill because it would introduce a formal appeal process required in the state in which the adjudication was made.

More reading from the NRA ILA newsletter:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=221&issue=018
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=246&issue=018

Offline
Location: Montana
Joined: 10/24/2006
Posts: 448
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

and judges NEVER have a political adgenda

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

And crazies never get guns and shoot people either.

If your upset by adjudication, you should have been protesting before, its been a part of NFA since 1968. Read question 12.f on a 4473:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/

The question isn't whether adjudication should be a part of getting a gun, it already is, the question is whether the courts should be turning over the records in a timely manner so that adjudicated mental defectives get denied a gun purchase.

Offline
Location: Montana
Joined: 10/24/2006
Posts: 448
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill

Im simpley possed the question who is to say who is metally defective. What do you really think all this will do? Keep criminals or crazies from firearms? In fact I didnt give a opinion of the bill at all other then posing the question which was rhetorical. Whether or not the NRA supportied it or not would have almost no bearing on my opinion of anything. I dont see it as much as a adjudication issue as a consession issue. My main thought was that it could and very likely would be a very dangerous weapon against gun owners insane or not.
Heck I have known and seen PLENTY of people that I didnt think should ever be around or own a firearm but the 2nd amendment guarantees them the right to own and possess firearms and I quote "shall not be infringed upon."
That means not by me,herman down the road, a judge , senate, president of the United states of america, anyone. I also wonder if there wouldnt be some civil or personal rights issues here as well I dunno but maybe best get Jesse Jackson a call Big smile

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
My trip to QuebecBlackie506/20/2007 23:44 pm
Slaughter House Rulesbitmasher1603/30/2010 14:11 pm
Presidential pollWhelland5706/19/2008 11:31 am
Democrats Refuse to Allow Monckton to Testify With Gorecowgal7605/14/2009 20:07 pm
Election results statistics, interestingJTapia903/08/2009 01:25 am