Concerning mental illness and gun ownership

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Rommelvon, Jun 16, 2007.

  1. Rommelvon

    Rommelvon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,452
    Location:
    Goldsboro, NC
    First off..we all know that if a person wants a gun, they can get one off the streets, or steal one, current bills are being shuffled through our Gov to outlaw persons with a mental illness from owning a gun, now that said where do we draw the line? mental illness covers a broad spectrum of issues, from Anxiety, depression, grief counselling, social phobia, learning disabilities, paranoia post traumatic stress disorder....etc...and all of these issues have various levels of severity, it is impossible to judge who would "go postal" simply based on a diagnosis, to me this bill is simply another attack at second amendment RIGHTS disguised as a caring bill to stop shootings, and I have been a member of the NRA for years and their support of this bill is sickening and a slap in the face to second supporters, this bill denies rights to otherwise legal citizens based on "what if's" I hope this bill withers and dies on the vine like an unwatered melon---Rommelvon:mad:
  2. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,850
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Here is NRA's weak-kneed explanation for selling another chunk of our 2nd Amendment rights down the river !!!!!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [​IMG]
    ·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683

    H.R. 2640, The “NICS Improvement Act,” Passes House By Voice Vote Friday, June 15, 2007

    On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the “NICS Improvement Act,” by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA’s decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

    While the media continues to characterize this bill as a “gun-control” measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and “spinning” the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.

    Here are the facts: H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records.

    Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms
    .

    The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible. While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms. H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:
    • Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
    • Excluding federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans’ family members to be added to a “prohibited” list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)
    • Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish “relief from disability” programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
    • Ensuring—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
    • Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misusedfor unrelated purposes.
    Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:
    • Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.
    • Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.” Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”
    • In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.
    This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system.

    If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!

    For additional information, please click here: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018.

  3. obxned

    obxned New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,342
    Well it's a darn good thing all the crazy people will obey this new law. I would hate for them to be getting their guns from the same sources as the criminals.
  4. bunnyhunter12

    bunnyhunter12 New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Another example of something you read and think it sounds like a good idea for about half a second. But then your brain has time enough to click in and you think "wait a minute, this can never be implemented in an effective way." My stance is that I'm all for making it difficult for people to acquire a firearm if they are a proven, violent sociopath or suicidal but how can a bill like this possibly work. There will be so much abuse of this law and so many loop holes that it will just be another stumbling block in the way of you and me (I think I'm of sound mind but how can I tell?) to buy new firearms to enjoy our sport or enjoy the ability to protect ourselves from the above mentioned sociopaths. As OBXNED says in his signature, unintended consequences must be considered for they can be dire consequences. As well let us examine the word "consequence" the root word of which is "sequence", a string of outcomes which fall in order. The reprecussions of this bill will be far reaching, above and beyond the seemingly, well meaning result of keeping guns out of the hands of those who will hurt themselves or others. I think this rant proves that we all have a little bottled rage that I expel either here in the forums, or at the range. Shooting sports are therapeutic! This is getting long so I'll sign off now, thank you.
  5. Pat Hurley

    Pat Hurley Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    Naples, Florida
    I wish to note, for the record, that given the opportunity to enlighten, illuminate, and perhaps even persude others to their way of thinking, NOT ONE person has taken up the challenge of specifically listing the mental illnesses that would be ACCEPTABLE to them for a person to have when purchasing a firearm.

    I think that is most instructive.
  6. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2001
    Messages:
    7,505
    Location:
    Owyhee County, Idaho
    No comment.

    :confused: :eek: :mad: :( :mad: :( :cool:
  7. Rommelvon

    Rommelvon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,452
    Location:
    Goldsboro, NC

    I'll take this challenge, I think this question has various answers, mental illnes has many levels, if a person is schitzophrenic to the point of wanting to harm others, then no they shouldn't have a fire arm, but some with the illness are harmless, a person with anxiety, social phobias, general anxiety disorder, PTSD should have every right to own a firearm, the only time any Government intervention into a persons owning a firearm should be used is if the person threaten suicide or harm to others, but then again....who's to say how far a person will or wont go, no law is going to keep a gun from someone who wants one, who are we to judge the future actions of an individual? now if the person has mental retardation to the point they cannot safely operate a firearm...of course they shouldn't have one, but I know a few who aren't mentally ill at all and they scare me....my whole point is this, this bill will judge a person based on assumption, Felons have been tried and convicted, persons with a mental illness according to this bill will be screwed just because they were a bit depressed one day and sought help......it's just another chipping away at our 2nd amendment rights
  8. Pat Hurley

    Pat Hurley Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    Naples, Florida
    Rom:

    Here's the scorecard... you cite two mental illnesses as being worthy of a handgun ban. You cite four others that do not rise to the level of seriousness necessary for a handgun ban. At least you see the need for some common sense restrictions. Others, and I do not exaggerate, would find banning weapon purchases for Down Syndrome sufferers as offensive and outrageous.

    You say that the universe of mental illness "has many levels," or better, it is murky, esoteric, and often subjective. That is quite true. You went on to ask a vaild, if not rhetorical question; "who's to say how far a person will or won't go?" Clearly, my crystal ball is as foggy as yours is as it pertains to future events, but my senses are pretty sharp as is my understanding of foreseeability.

    See if you find any the following statements objectionable or flat out wrong.

    It is a bad idea for...

    - 10 year olds to drive automobiles
    - 15 year olds to buy handguns
    - persons with pedophilic feelings to be teachers
    - voyeurs to be changing room attendants
    - persons who need service animals to fly aircraft
    - mentally ill persons to be in charge our nuclear arsenal

    My hunch is that 99% of those who read the above will agree that the probablity for something really bad happening is quite high.... a danger that simply ought to be avoided or else we court some sort of disaster. A disater that we should have been able to reasonably forecast and avoid. And apologies if any of the people in those examples would be offended at this needed profiling.

    But you and others say that people who are really depressed, but haven't yet uttered the words "I feel like dying" "or I'm gonna kill somebody", and (sadly) soldiers returning from Viet Nam or Iraq with serious Post Tramatic Stress Disorder are good bets? I'll NEVER take you to Vegas. You're gambling with lives that aren't yours to gamble with! If we must err, shall we err with the lives of innocents or the temporary (we hope) restriction on the mentally ill to purchase weapons?

    If people like that can stuggle through their illnesses and truly conquer them, I am all for a full restoration of their gun purchasing rights. But not a moment before.

    One last question... please state in your reply, knowing all that we khave learned, whether the VT shooter should have been able to - in your opinion - legally purchase two handguns? Is so, why? If not, why not? No tap dancing, please. :)

    In your zeal to protect the sacred gun rights that all Americans have a birthrite to (and I wholeheartedly share that zeal), yI respectfully submit that you have allowed the trees to obscure your view of the forrest.
  9. Rommelvon

    Rommelvon New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,452
    Location:
    Goldsboro, NC
    The psych reports on the VT shooter clearly showed he had violent thoughts,and had stalked female students as well, and now we all have seen the videos and the kid was a fruitloop, and he had been commited to an institution at one time, the "yellow form" we all fill out when buying a gun ask's if one has been in an institution, the new law from what I understand will not affect those who commit themselves, only ones judged by a court or put in by a concerned party, and the VT shooter could have gotten a gun off the street ot stolen one if he wanted, clearly I don't want a person who has talked about shooting up a school to have access to a gun, but no laws will prevent this, my concern is where is the line drawn, I know a girl who was put in an inpatient hospital for severe panic attacks and anxiety, she spent a month there, she is not violent,suicidal or hateful in any way....under this law, she would be prohibited from gun ownership....to me there are too many gun laws as there is, and this one just hurts decent folks who may have had a mental issue....now if a person has mental issues and commits a violent crime, or has made threats etc about using a gun to hurt anyone, then I say fine.......guess we will all have to wait and see the full details and how they change the current laws
  10. bunnyhunter12

    bunnyhunter12 New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Romm, therein lies the problem, too much waiting around to see what happens. There is no simple answer to the posted question of mental illness and gun ownership because as you say, mental illness is so multifaceted. Saying that mentally ill persons should not own guns is like saying, all Europeans hate the French. Define Europeans. How many of them ARE french? How many from Spain like the French? There are just too many questions to answer without some serious thought. "Mental illness" can never be clearly defined with respect to gun ownership because everything is relative. Going back to the example of downs-syndrome, I have known people with this disorder that I wouldn't let out of my sight with a cap gun. On the other hand I worked with a gentleman with downs-syndrome who was the best hand I have ever seen at driving a fork-lift and I would trust no other as I did him to run that sucker within inches of my toes without fear. My neighbours also have a son with this disorder, and he loves to hunt and fish, and owns many of his own firearms. He lives with his parents (he's 31) and only hunts with his father but the guns, and the shot, are his. This is another example of Liberals lumping eveyone into conveniant (for them) groups. Mentaly ill persons are dangerous = gun owners are criminals. I have strong feelings with regard to the "mentally ill" as, I won't say "many", but "some" of my relatives and friends fit the bill, and if we deny ownership to them, I'll be loaning my gun to a lot more "retards".-------I bunnyhunter12 do not condone nor approve the use of the word "retard" but in this case I think you can get the context and purpose of my usage.
  11. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,887
    Location:
    New Mexico
    This is 100% about control, not gun control either.:mad:
  12. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,850
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    A - M E N, Marlin T.

    I agree fully
  13. tom vito

    tom vito New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    69
    What happens when you live in a state the deems a DUI as a "mental illness"?
  14. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2001
    Messages:
    7,505
    Location:
    Owyhee County, Idaho
    PTSD is NOT a mental illness, it is an antisocial behavior. However, one of the Symptoms of PTSD is Depression. Which as we all know is considered a mental illness unto itself, only as a symptom in this case it doesn't qualify as a mental illness.

    At least that's the way my psychiatrist explained it to me in Phoenix years ago. Hope it still works that way.
  15. Pat Hurley

    Pat Hurley Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    Naples, Florida
    Message to people who find themselves in such a predicament: how about get your drunken act together and put the frigin bottle down before you kill someone with a car?

    Secondly, please let me know which state you're speaking of so that I can send them a nice gift and a thank you note.
  16. e3mrk

    e3mrk New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    Is it just Me or has nobody noticed that a background check is only done if you buy from a dealer?
  17. glocknut

    glocknut New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2003
    Messages:
    12,490
    Location:
    THE FORUM MASCOTT...
    Women with PMS ..... ? :rolleyes:

    mike
    gn
  18. Bruce FLinch

    Bruce FLinch New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,015
    Location:
    Bay Point, Kali..aka Gun Point
    I know lots of Libs that think just owning guns is a form of mental illness, even though we know Liberalism is a form of mental illness! The issue is a slippery slope. Some controls are needed, but how far do we go.

    I believe in Kal.. a felon cannot purchase a gun, but yet by filling out the purchase form, cannot be convicted of trying to purchase a gun.

    There are plenty of common sense laws on the books regarding guns, ( gee..just like immigration ), If the existing laws were enforced, most of the discussion wouldn't be neccessary. ( gee...just like immigration ) I think this is the typical Political knee-jerk reaction we always see, though it is disturbing. Just like the latest Immigration bill, it is poorly written without considerable thought. Stinkin' Politicians! :mad:
  19. bluesea112

    bluesea112 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,336
    Location:
    West, TX
    Probably a good idea to stop having any prescription filled that is for a drug that treats even the mildest of mental disorders. Even ADD (attention deficit disorder) and certain stress related migrain headaches are listed under the "mental" umbrella. BTW, having an ADD or Migrain prescription filled means that you are CURRENTLY being treated for mental illness, and that means NO GUNS FOR YOU. If you need medicine, make sure you get it from a source that does not leave a paperwork trail. (ie: Mexico or the black market) If you want to maintain your right to keep and bear arms, for God's sake stay away from the neighborhood pharmacy.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Discussion Concerning the drawing for JULY Aug 24, 2011
General Discussion Message concerning Xracer Nov 30, 2008
General Discussion Medical question concerning peppers... Aug 21, 2008
General Discussion Political question concerning fuel prices May 4, 2008
General Discussion Obama turns table on Clinton concerning gun rights Apr 13, 2008

Share This Page