Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org




NATIONAL gun control legislation limits rights of mentally ill


Recommended Posts

Bush signs long-stalled gun-control legislation

The law will earmark up to $250 million a year to states and state courts to automate records on mentally ill people and forward the information to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That information will be used to disallow from buying a gun anyone who is seriously mentally ill, a criminal or who has a restraining order against them for domestic violence.

NATIONAL DATABASE

of crazy people

call me crazy, but this makes me paranoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

family heirlooms

hunting ducks, geese, rabbits, coyotes, pheasant, quail, moose, deer, prairie chickens, elk, antelope

investment

presentation gift

target shooting

competitive action shooting

skeet shooting

trap shooting

historical reinactment

self protection

required for work

collecting

protection of livestock from wolves, stray dogs, coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, pumas, panthers, jaguars, wolverines

varmint shooting rats, muskrats, groundhogs, beaver, wood rats, cotton rats, nutria

appreciation of mechanical design

appreciation of craftsmanship

AND, I haven't even listed all the illegal criminal uses. ;) Truly, guns aren't bad, only people are bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airmarshall.......Its obvious from that post you are pro gun!!!!

To be honest I wouldnt argue too much especially if you are an american as from what I understand you guys see it as a civil liberty(dont quote me on that I know only UK history!)

Yeah Im from the UK, yeah even though guns are illegal over here unless you have a license or something!!!

Guns scare the hell outa me the reasons youve listed really hold no reason......we have NO BOBCATS, COYOTES,MOUNTAIN LIONS ETC OVER HERE!!!!

All I can remember is a guy shooting a class full of 4-5 year olds,that just put me off guns for life!!!

As they are really meant for killing Im not too keen on them,I dont find them colectable,attractive because they kill,youre right the people are the problem but then again they are made for people to use so I guess its inevitable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns scare the hell outa me the reasons youve listed really hold no reason......we have NO BOBCATS, COYOTES,MOUNTAIN LIONS ETC OVER HERE!!!!

Then come on over and visit my part of the US.

No, um, wait. We do have wildcats, coyotes, and panthers, here too ... but you should REALLY see the lizards and snakes!

Side note: Animal Control makes our overworked police departments look pro-active.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- We have bears. And, no, we're not idiots who leave large piles of food and trash around. Bears happen.

- I have coyotes harassing my horses of late (the baby looks tasty at this point in the winter) and there is a shotgun above the door ready to go. I doubt it will come to shooting. Coyotes know that ker-shunka sound just fine.

- Shooting trap is a surprising amount of fun. Ditto skeet. Ditto target shooting.

- I prefer game to commercial meat for a variety of reasons. I've tried bowhunting, and that's fine, but, frankly, when we depended on game for food, the rifle was a lot more efficient.

- Neighbor's dog was eaten by wolves. Not tied out, either. Not a figure of speech, by the way: eaten. (I am all for wolves. Except when they're eating my neighbor's dog or my dog. I place artificial value on one animal over another, yes, and I'm, like, totally cool with that. And if I can't stop the attack, or if it's too late, I hope I would have the guts to at least end my own dog's suffering. Yes, I keep my damn dogs inside and always have. So does she. This dog got out.)

- Riding in mounted shooting competitions - basically barrel racing with guns, using black powder pistols and walnut shell loads, with balloons as targets. It's every bit as rational and safe as you would expect "barrel racing with guns" to be. ;) Next up: steeplechases with javelins.

We never used them for snakes when I was a kid - flat blade shovel instead. Firearms would have been more portable.

Huh. So, uh, this database assumes people buy guns at, what, stores? 'Cause I hate to tell them, but I bought a deer rifle and a .22 target pistol at a garage/estate sale last month. No ID, no paperwork, no nothing. That's how we've bought most of the guns we have.

I see a huge flaw with this already. It is very common practice around here for the victim to file a DV/TRO on the assailant - and then for the assailant to do the same thing right back.

If they're excluding anyone who's ever had a DV TRO filed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not much for guns myself - I've enjoyed learning to use them, but I wouldn't want one around the house for safety reasons (including the kind where I keep it completely safe from everyone but myself).

Having a national database of mentally ill people that the government has access to, though....aieee. That seems EXTREMELY prone to abuse.

I'm not clear on exactly how it will work, though - there's mention of money for states and courts, but does that translate to required reporting for non-state pdocs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- We have bears. And, no, we're not idiots who leave large piles of food and trash around. Bears happen.

Black bears down here too, but they're fairly rare. (Wild boars too) The wolves have been wiped out.

I never heard of dogs being eaten by wolves. Dogs being eaten by alligators ...

We never used them for snakes when I was a kid - flat blade shovel instead. Firearms would have been more portable.

I would rather not get that close. Rattlesnakes are fairly shy, but moccasins will come after you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black bears just want an easy meal and can be scared off as long as they haven't become accustomed to life on the human dole. Brown bears .... not so much.

I feel about pepper spray for bears the way you do about shovels and poisonous snakes.

Thanks for reaffirming my decision not to move to the tropics, Null. I prefer wolves to alligators, thanks. I have a snowball's chance in hell of using the right social signals with a wolf, which is better than flat out zero.

My folks have wild boar in their area and I'm scared of 'em. Pigs are smart. Smarter than mules. Smarter than good sheepdogs. At least you know when they're around, because it looks like a disker has been used on the ground in the forest... So omnivorous, smart, wild pigs strike me as a very bad thing to run into.

We do have quite the field mouse problem (and a dog who tries to solve it) but I haven't resorted to firearms yet.

ANYWAY, back to the actual topic... I'm not finding anything out there. Would this just be everyone who's ever sectioned in? Or only for violent reasons? Or ??? Hell, it's already hard to get people around here to go to the mental health unit - now add fear of losing their guns. For those who live on game - and I mean live, because groceries are expensive, but ammunition is relatively cheap - that's going to be quite a problem and quite a deterrent. No matter what the actual legislation is, they'll fear it'll be reported to a database (some fear this anyway, ahem), and it'll be one more barrier.

Some of you are thinking, "That's ridiculous, no one would react that way," and some of you have lived in similar areas and you get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite my other protestions, the one area that I have favored increasing restriction on gun ownership is for the mentally ill. Tighter controls in this matter would eliminate the provocations that have driven other unreasonable limitations.

Every assassination attempt on our presidents, excepting the Puerto Rican attempt on Harry Truman, has been been by someone who was demonstrably unbalanced. The secret service profile for assinations is for the mentally ill. Thats why the pay inordinate attention to wild rantings and crazy letters. Thats why it's not good to even joke about something bad happening to the prez.

We will have to wait for the details of what disqualifies one, or earns you a place in the database. Common sense would suggest that a judicial ruling of mentally incompetent, and or some lengthy involuntary committent would be reasonable. A short hold for evalation may not be so reasonable. Certainly just receiving services from a hospital is unreasonable intrusiveness. God forbid that doctors ever have to report us just for being patients.

a.m.

p.s. I'm already a criminal in my state. I failed to report my bipolar disorder last time I renewed my driver's license, so the medical board could review my condition and decide whether to deign to grant me a license. Frankly, I don't think it's any of their damn business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not much for guns myself - I've enjoyed learning to use them, but I wouldn't want one around the house for safety reasons (including the kind where I keep it completely safe from everyone but myself).

Having a national database of mentally ill people that the government has access to, though....aieee. That seems EXTREMELY prone to abuse.

I'm not clear on exactly how it will work, though - there's mention of money for states and courts, but does that translate to required reporting for non-state pdocs?

This is exactly what i was trying to say.

it's not about my wanting to buy a gun.

it's about

a)like it or not, the 2nd amendment gives me a constitutional right to have a gun

and, more importantly

b)they are creating a NATIONAL database of crazies.

i do not want to be on a list/in a database/counted as a crazy. my medical data is PRIVATE. it is between me and my doctor(s) [yes, even when i was inpatient that is protected depending on the circumstances].... i have a medical condition, this should not allow the government to monitor me or take away one of my constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering why you would want a gun?

Well...in YOUR case dear...

Do you have an idea just HOW many home invasions there ARE in Britain? Just THINK how many could be stopped by the simple ker-schink of a 12-gauge pump action! Some hoodlum with a bat that is perfectly willing to terroize an innocent family is FAR less willing to go toe-to-toe with a 12 gauge! (It's called "home defense" around these parts)

As far as safety goes--my fiancee has hit, shall we say, the atypicals a bit hard these past years. She would like to exercise. I says, "tkae the dogs for a walk". She says "but I saw a mountain lion once!"

Now...I could chalk this up to psychosis. Except, I took the dogs out one night, and the neighborhood was mounting up for a lion hunt. So while i know DAMN well no lion's gonna jump her and a dog or two during daylight hours, I really can't blame her. A sidearm would be nice, really.

Except of course, we're both NUTSO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

i agree with penny c and resonance.

PLUS...Im upset that THEY (the government) wants to:

1. make a crazy person database

2. equates crazy people with crime. as if being crazy was a crime in of itself.

and it will be interesting to see how "crazy" is defined. is it who is coded for MI on SSI or SSDI? who sees a tdoc or pdoc? who has rx for MI pills? who took one xanax in college from a friend? the list could be endless....

db

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will have to wait for the details of what disqualifies one, or earns you a place in the database. Common sense would suggest that a judicial ruling of mentally incompetent, and or some lengthy involuntary committent would be reasonable. A short hold for evalation may not be so reasonable. Certainly just receiving services from a hospital is unreasonable intrusiveness. God forbid that doctors ever have to report us just for being patients.

But should involuntary commitment as a minor still be disqualifying for an adult 20 or 40 years later? People can get better, you know. And although a judicial finding of incompetence probably should require an automatic report, I've little hope that a later finding of competence would be reported. My suspicion, which has been pointed out as a reality elsewhere for other systems, is that there would be no procedure put in place for removing a person from the database.

Based on what I know of database maintenance procedures, even if there were such a procedure it would be implemented as a separate field in one of the tables - one that will hardly ever be included in a query on a person's status. It's less likely that the design would accomodate records of change in status so that a person's current status could be queried, even then most folks would target membership in the database and not check further.

Throw in all the ways the Privacy Act, HIPPA, and maybe even homeland security rules could be abused to keep the content and design of such a database locked away from citizens who might be listed, but open to dissemination to multiple "internal" parties... (keeping all those copies in sync with the original would be a separate nightmare!) It would be difficult at best to convince someone afraid of being reported into such a database that their fears are groundless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law will earmark up to $250 million a year to states and state courts to automate records on mentally ill people and forward the information to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That information will be used to disallow from buying a gun anyone who is seriously mentally ill, a criminal or who has a restraining order against them for domestic violence.

I forgot to mention: the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is also used in security clearances, federal hiring and retention procedures, and by Immigration and Customs. Used without discretion, it could blast a hole through ADA protections that you would not normally expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my state there's already a law about MI people owning guns, but it's not really enforced. It applies to anyone who has had a diagnosed mental disorder EVER. If you were diagnosed with simple phobia of elevators ten years ago, had CBT and now no longer are afraid of elevators, you can't legally own a gun.

People make really stupid delineations sometimes.

At any rate, here's the thing that passed: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110...p/~c110BvU7gB::

Here (I think) is the definition of crazy they're referring to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering why you would want a gun?

To protect myself from government oppression. The point of the 2nd amendment is not hunting. It's to provide a check on governmental authority. Nothing keeps politicians from going against the interests of the people like a well armed electorate.

Of course in 1776 the government and the people had the same pea shooters. Now that they have tanks it's sorta a moot point.

I also resent the implication that my genetics makes me less of a citizen. Statistically, African Americans are more likely to commit violent crimes with firearms than the mentally ill are. Why don't we deprive them of constitutionally guaranteed right on the basis of their genetics? Because that would be bigoted and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm away from home and away from stable computer access, so I did not see this thread until now. I see that you stole the article I posted on the other site, penny! lol

I do feel very much like penny and res on the issue and the whole database thing does scare me.

I can also see where this is coming from and how one can see it as benefiting everyone. This is kind of because... I have the opportunity to see things in a different light than many of you have probably been able to see it. There is a lot of back story to this bill and I (well, my family) happens to know many of the government officials involved. They use Virginia tech as an example, but this crusade really sort of started with Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy in response to a tragic shooting in 1993 on the Long Island Rail Road (known as "Long Island Rail Road massacre" that actually killed her husband and severely wounded her son. In total, 6 were killed and 19 were injured in that car. It was actually made into a TV movie "The Long Island Incident." Anyway, the defendant claimed "black rage" or some whatever. He was obviously not of sound mind and everyone knew it.

What I am saying is... I guess it depends on what side of the table you are on. I do not want to be in a database, but I also feel a huge amount of compassion for the people who were effected by this crime and similar crimes. I just so happen to (other than the politicians) know some of the families who lost people in that shooting, so I can I not feel... I don't know....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...