Gun Control Act fearmongering against mentally ill

[Anymouse]

Easter Sunday, 2008. Excuse the strange formatting please, I have not gotten the hang of this bizzare message system yet.

"A well-ordered militia being necessary to the security of the State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Amendment the 2nd, US Constitution, 1791.

I am not a gun nut. I do not believe everyone who can draw a breath should own a firearm, and I support the first part of the Second Amendment, unlike the National Rifle Association, which only quotes the second half after the word "State." But I am for privacy, and the right to live my life without the Government meddling in it.

And now it's done. With only one dissenting vote in the Senate, (Coburn - R - Okla) and none in the House, the Virginia Tech Gun Registry Bill (originally introduced in 1996 by the two Senators from New York after a brutal slaying at a church) was sent to the President, who immediately signed it.

The stated purpose of the bill is to create a Federal registry of all persons who have been diagnosed with any "major" mental illness; that is to say, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, paranoia, or major depression; by ordering all states and all medical facilities to submit such data as is in their records to the Federal government to create this registry. $250,000,000 of tax dollars have been initially allocated to the states and hospitals to create this registry. A tribunal system is also to be set up where anyone who feels they were wrongly added to the listing may petition to be removed. The bill exempts persons returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.

No one will be notified if they have been added to the list. The bill states the list has been created to screen applicants who purchase firearms, ammunition, or reloading equipment and supplies.

In advance of the expected passage of the bill, the Veterans Administration has already submitted its records. Unfortunately, in this week's Navy Times it was reported they mistakenly reported 130,000 people who sought voluntary counselling for financial problems from the VA. The VA is working now to remove those people from the Mental Health Registry. No doubt this will encourage others who need financial, marital, checkbook-balancing, educational, or other kinds of counselling to step up to the plate and get it.

Creating a group in society that can be stigmatized and shunned is always one of the first steps of stripping the rights of a democratic society. Democracies can never be conquered by a "palace revolution" - like everything else, the majority has to want it. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (Richard Jackson, oft misattributed to Benjamin Franklin). The "Ten Commandments" of the Constitution represent that Essential Liberty.

While the massacre at Virginia Tech was tragic, it was preventable. The laws were already on the books to prevent Mr. Cho from purchasing weapons - he had already been adjudged a danger to himself and others in a court. The Commonwealth of Virginia already had that information from his criminal record. Though they claim their privacy laws prevent them from reporting medical information to organizations outside the Commonwealth, the fact often overlooked in the press is he was already declared a danger in a Virginia Court. It was the Commonwealth that dropped the ball, not the gun dealer.

And the Von Maur shootout in Omaha? The kid who did the shooting had stolen the weapons from his father. No background check there.

Today on the BBC World Service, one is dead and seven others wounded in a mall in Japan after a man went beserk with a French knife. Next we will need background checks on anyone who buys kitchen cutlery. There is a difference between the Japanese response and the response to most of the recent American cases like this: their police -captured- the assailant. Didn't use a SWAT team to gun him down.

And what of those professionals, the psychiatrists and psychologists who believe that many disorders are often temporary in nature? That like other illnesses, you get over them and move on? The American Psychiatric Association is opposed to this gun law, because they feel it will stigmatize mental illness worse than it already is, place more fear of the mentally ill in the population than there already is, and cause persons who need there help to think twice about actually seeking it.

There's the rub: a Free Society can only remove the Inalienable Rights (those granted by God) of one of its members after careful and grave consideration - to be wrong would be to violate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and for those who believe, the Will of God. A criminal who has completed his sentence, or served his time, or made his restitution, has all his civil rights restored. This list takes tens of millions of Americans, virtually none of whom have even committed a parking offense, and strips them of their Second Ammendment right FOREVER. Their rights are taken WITHOUT committing an offence.

And once the mechanism is in place to suspend a groups civil liberties forever without an offence, then it is only a small step to suspending ANY groups civil liberties forever - after all there is Precedent - the great equilizer in our laws. And once the mechanism is in place to suspend -any- civil liberty of a group, then the mechanism is in place to suspend ALL the civil liberties of a group. If you think this is not possible, then go back and read the history of the Twentieth Century (or any century for that matter) to see how this is done.

Governments never give up power peaceably: once they take a power, or a right, they keep it. They never shrink in size, only grow.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that gives the Government the power to compile a list of -any- group for any purpose, whether it was Sen. McCarthy's "anti-communist" campaign, or this law which is not about gun control, but about compiling a list of the mentally ill. Considering the track record of the Government recently with keeping private information private (The revelations of the Chinese Army breaking into the secure E-mail system of the Pentagon, teenagers breaking into the Websites of the CIA and Justice department and changing their logos with a marihuana leaf [it was funny though], the VA scandal over a stolen laptop with the medical records of 80,000 veterans and 7,000 active duty Navy on it, this week's revelation that Sen. John McCain, Sen. Barack Obama, and Senator Hillary Clinton's passport records had been accessed and stolen) I am not sanguine about the Government's ability to keep this private either. Too many people would want a list like that.

And finally, this is not about the rights just of those listed as mentally ill, whether they are or not. It is about -everyone's- rights. The Tenth Amendment states that those powers not specifically allocated to the Federal Government, shall be reserved to the States, or to the People.

YOU are the People. Did you give the Government permission to compile secret lists of your fellow Americans (or perhaps you too)? Did your State give them that permission?

Watch the Federal Register to find out which group will be -next- in the name of Gun Control, or some other "worthy reason" to strip us of our rights one by one, until we look no different than the German Republic after WWI, or the Soviet Union - their constitutions protected the basic rights of all their citizens, too.

- Seamus - Anymouse - James. K - All rights reversed. Post freely and as widely as possible.

Joyous Ostara, Happy Easter, and Blessed Be.

[beetle]

Easter Sunday, 2008. Excuse the strange formatting please, I have not gotten the hang of this bizzare message system yet.

"A well-ordered militia being necessary to the security of the State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Amendment the 2nd, US Constitution, 1791.

I am not a gun nut. I do not believe everyone who can draw a breath should own a firearm, and I support the first part of the Second Amendment, unlike the National Rifle Association, which only quotes the second half after the word "State." But I am for privacy, and the right to live my life without the Government meddling in it.

And now it's done. With only one dissenting vote in the Senate, (Coburn - R - Okla) and none in the House, the Virginia Tech Gun Registry Bill (originally introduced in 1996 by the two Senators from New York after a brutal slaying at a church) was sent to the President, who immediately signed it.

The stated purpose of the bill is to create a Federal registry of all persons who have been diagnosed with any "major" mental illness; that is to say, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, paranoia, or major depression; by ordering all states and all medical facilities to submit such data as is in their records to the Federal government to create this registry. $250,000,000 of tax dollars have been initially allocated to the states and hospitals to create this registry. A tribunal system is also to be set up where anyone who feels they were wrongly added to the listing may petition to be removed. The bill exempts persons returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.

No one will be notified if they have been added to the list. The bill states the list has been created to screen applicants who purchase firearms, ammunition, or reloading equipment and supplies.

In advance of the expected passage of the bill, the Veterans Administration has already submitted its records. Unfortunately, in this week's Navy Times it was reported they mistakenly reported 130,000 people who sought voluntary counselling for financial problems from the VA. The VA is working now to remove those people from the Mental Health Registry. No doubt this will encourage others who need financial, marital, checkbook-balancing, educational, or other kinds of counselling to step up to the plate and get it.

Creating a group in society that can be stigmatized and shunned is always one of the first steps of stripping the rights of a democratic society. Democracies can never be conquered by a "palace revolution" - like everything else, the majority has to want it. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (Richard Jackson, oft misattributed to Benjamin Franklin). The "Ten Commandments" of the Constitution represent that Essential Liberty.

While the massacre at Virginia Tech was tragic, it was preventable. The laws were already on the books to prevent Mr. Cho from purchasing weapons - he had already been adjudged a danger to himself and others in a court. The Commonwealth of Virginia already had that information from his criminal record. Though they claim their privacy laws prevent them from reporting medical information to organizations outside the Commonwealth, the fact often overlooked in the press is he was already declared a danger in a Virginia Court. It was the Commonwealth that dropped the ball, not the gun dealer.

And the Von Maur shootout in Omaha? The kid who did the shooting had stolen the weapons from his father. No background check there.

Today on the BBC World Service, one is dead and seven others wounded in a mall in Japan after a man went beserk with a French knife. Next we will need background checks on anyone who buys kitchen cutlery. There is a difference between the Japanese response and the response to most of the recent American cases like this: their police -captured- the assailant. Didn't use a SWAT team to gun him down.

And what of those professionals, the psychiatrists and psychologists who believe that many disorders are often temporary in nature? That like other illnesses, you get over them and move on? The American Psychiatric Association is opposed to this gun law, because they feel it will stigmatize mental illness worse than it already is, place more fear of the mentally ill in the population than there already is, and cause persons who need there help to think twice about actually seeking it.

There's the rub: a Free Society can only remove the Inalienable Rights (those granted by God) of one of its members after careful and grave consideration - to be wrong would be to violate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and for those who believe, the Will of God. A criminal who has completed his sentence, or served his time, or made his restitution, has all his civil rights restored. This list takes tens of millions of Americans, virtually none of whom have even committed a parking offense, and strips them of their Second Ammendment right FOREVER. Their rights are taken WITHOUT committing an offence.

And once the mechanism is in place to suspend a groups civil liberties forever without an offence, then it is only a small step to suspending ANY groups civil liberties forever - after all there is Precedent - the great equilizer in our laws. And once the mechanism is in place to suspend -any- civil liberty of a group, then the mechanism is in place to suspend ALL the civil liberties of a group. If you think this is not possible, then go back and read the history of the Twentieth Century (or any century for that matter) to see how this is done.

Governments never give up power peaceably: once they take a power, or a right, they keep it. They never shrink in size, only grow.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that gives the Government the power to compile a list of -any- group for any purpose, whether it was Sen. McCarthy's "anti-communist" campaign, or this law which is not about gun control, but about compiling a list of the mentally ill. Considering the track record of the Government recently with keeping private information private (The revelations of the Chinese Army breaking into the secure E-mail system of the Pentagon, teenagers breaking into the Websites of the CIA and Justice department and changing their logos with a marihuana leaf [it was funny though], the VA scandal over a stolen laptop with the medical records of 80,000 veterans and 7,000 active duty Navy on it, this week's revelation that Sen. John McCain, Sen. Barack Obama, and Senator Hillary Clinton's passport records had been accessed and stolen) I am not sanguine about the Government's ability to keep this private either. Too many people would want a list like that.

And finally, this is not about the rights just of those listed as mentally ill, whether they are or not. It is about -everyone's- rights. The Tenth Amendment states that those powers not specifically allocated to the Federal Government, shall be reserved to the States, or to the People.

YOU are the People. Did you give the Government permission to compile secret lists of your fellow Americans (or perhaps you too)? Did your State give them that permission?

Watch the Federal Register to find out which group will be -next- in the name of Gun Control, or some other "worthy reason" to strip us of our rights one by one, until we look no different than the German Republic after WWI, or the Soviet Union - their constitutions protected the basic rights of all their citizens, too.

- Seamus - Anymouse - James. K - All rights reversed. Post freely and as widely as possible.

Joyous Ostara, Happy Easter, and Blessed Be.

I hope they have a lot of paper cause that's going to be one long list. I think 95% of the country would qualify. Hey, maybe that's how they plan on disarming the country.

I don't like the idea of being added to some gov. list based on what should be private medical records. Hell in a handbasket...

[Velvet Elvis]

Do you have links to sources on this? I've been meaning to research it myself for a DailyKos diary.

[Anymouse]

Yes I have a credible source - the San Diego Union Tribune has it on their Web site - http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080109/news_1n9nation.html goes straight to the article.

A longer article can be found on http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-18-state-gun-laws_N.htm though it is decidedly pro-National Rifle Association.

What I failed to mention is that this is an open-ended funding bill - in addition to the $1/4 B dollar already authorized, $1.3 Billion additional is authorized, plus more if need be.

That works out to nearly $4.50 for every man, woman, and child in the United States to create this database, not counting the money to run the list and the tribunals afterward.

- James

[beetle]

Yes I have a credible source - the San Diego Union Tribune has it on their Web site - http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080109/news_1n9nation.html goes straight to the article.

A longer article can be found on http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-18-state-gun-laws_N.htm though it is decidedly pro-National Rifle Association.

What I failed to mention is that this is an open-ended funding bill - in addition to the $1/4 B dollar already authorized, $1.3 Billion additional is authorized, plus more if need be.

That works out to nearly $4.50 for every man, woman, and child in the United States to create this database, not counting the money to run the list and the tribunals afterward.

- James

Not to open a can of worms or anything but, wasn't GWB on SSRIs at one time? Think he'll make the list?

[FreedomSeeker]

I know the last post to this was a couple months ago, but I have been angry over this since I first heard about it, too. I'm sickened by how the mentally ill are targeted for removal of rights based on what they might do, when they haven't actually done anything yet. On one board I used to frequent, a guy said to me that he disagreed with me, that he would want me evaluated before I would be given a gun. I am not violent, never have been and I'm not dangerous.

I'm a small female, and I should have the right to protect myself, the same as anyone else. I am not saying guns are the answer to all danger, and guns as protection is up for debate, but my point is, I should have the same rights as everyone else. Innocent until proven guilty. I don't own a gun and I haven't ever applied for one, but I shouldn't be automatically rejected if I decided to.

What if we conducted a scientific study that showed more blacks committed gun violence than mentally ill persons? Do you think America (or other countries) would accept a database of all black people, with the intent to deny them guns, solely for being black?

I saw a girl on a TV series called TRUE LIFE, who wanted to join a sports team (roller derby, I think), which was going to go on a trip (to a haunted attraction or something) and the manager heard from one of the team that she had panic disorder (that's what this episode of the show was about, young people with panic disorder), and the manager called her and told her she knew another girl with panic disorder and she knew what it was like, and didn't want her to go or be on the team, because she'd ruin the fun for the other girls. It really disgusted me. My point in bringing it up in this post is that pre-judging the mentally ill and assuming we are all the same, and using our conditions to justify discrimination, is wrong, and that's what's happening with this database.

[another one ...]

Okay, I am not a gun 'nut', but we do own several rifles (with trigger locks firmly in place). And I am usually NOT paranoid (until I read this). That being said:

I do not want to be on someones list!! What else will it be used for? will they tell the MVA and then I will lose my drivers license ( I do not disclose even though they ask)?Will they stop us crazy people from having children, what about getting hired at a new job? What happens if this economy gets worse and my husband and I need to hunt for food (I was raised by a hunter and can do this even though I presently don't) ** I do NOT believe in hunting for sport, if you are going to eat the animal that is ok with me ---please no yelling at me for my beliefs **. Will they come and take away weapons that we already own? Where will it end???

Sorry end of rant. I did not even realize that I felt this strongly about gun control, I guess I just took it for granted.

But this list frightens me!!!!!!

[crazynotstupid]

I did not even realize that I felt this strongly about gun control, I guess I just took it for granted.

Now isn't this just the case? Rights never matter--until they're about to be taken away.

[FreedomSeeker]

I checked, and my state's law does state that if one has been treated for a mental illness, then one cannot purchase and register a gun here. That pisses me off! I am not a gun nut, either, and I'm not looking to get one right now, but if I choose to, I should be given fair and equal treatment when it comes to obtaining one. I am not violent, and I believe I can responsibly handle a gun (I would become educated and trained in its use, regardless of the law, mostly for my own and others' safety).

I was also wondering about hunting. If you're mentally ill, you're not allowed to hunt, either? Can't protect yourself, hunt for your own food.

One thing that really pisses me off is, I didn't choose to enter into the mental health system. My parents did that to me when I was 10 years old. And let's say a lazy parent takes his/her child to a psychiatrist, demanding the child be put on medication to control what are actually normal child behaviors? Some parents will take their child to doctor after doctor until there's a diagnosis and a medication. I am NOT talking about parents who can't handle a child with real problems, but simply those who don't parent responsibly. What if a child is falsely diagnosed as ADHD or something, is entered into the system, and later on, found to be normal, and wants to be a policeman or something? Or, what if the child is normal, but the meds have long-term effects, cause damage, and/or cause an actual mental illness?

I think of these things, and I want answers.

What about our rights?

[another one ...]

Found this for my state:

No permit is required to possess a rifle or shotgun.

Possession of a handgun is prohibited by any person who:

a. Has been convicted for a crime of violence.

b. Has been convicted of a violation of the (my state)Pistol Law.

c. Is a fugitive from justice.

d. Is a habitual drunkard.

e. Is an addict or habitual user of narcotics, barbiturates or amphetamines.

f. Suffers from a mental disorder and has a history of violate behavior or has been confined for more than 30 consecutive days to a mental facility unless the person possesses a physician's certificate stating that the person is capable of possessing a pistol or revolver without undue danger to the person or others. Such a person is also prohibited from possessing a rifle or shotgun, unless the person possesses an above described physician's certificate.

so as long as I am not violent I should be okay, atleast that is how I read it. I could be wrong?

I can't imagine a pdoc would be willing to sign a certificate for anyone, I would think if something went wrong than they would be open to a lawsuit, or sanctions on thier license for being wrong about a person if they have a "breakdown".

[Artemisia]

Heh, I wasn't aware of the first part of the Second Amendment...

Jerod over at The Other board has a whole thread pointing out that most people who "go berserk" and harm others have no history of mental illness.

But of course once you're declared mentally interesting, nothing you say really matters...

[Penny Century]

Found this for my state:

No permit is required to possess a rifle or shotgun.

Possession of a handgun is prohibited by any person who:

a. Has been convicted for a crime of violence.

b. Has been convicted of a violation of the (my state)Pistol Law.

c. Is a fugitive from justice.

d. Is a habitual drunkard.

e. Is an addict or habitual user of narcotics, barbiturates or amphetamines.

f. Suffers from a mental disorder and has a history of violate behavior or has been confined for more than 30 consecutive days to a mental facility unless the person possesses a physician's certificate stating that the person is capable of possessing a pistol or revolver without undue danger to the person or others. Such a person is also prohibited from possessing a rifle or shotgun, unless the person possesses an above described physician's certificate.

so as long as I am not violent I should be okay, atleast that is how I read it. I could be wrong?

I can't imagine a pdoc would be willing to sign a certificate for anyone, I would think if something went wrong than they would be open to a lawsuit, or sanctions on thier license for being wrong about a person if they have a "breakdown".

it's hard to say because the new law is a federal law and it's new and untested and there's no way to really know how it is going to be implemented.

i tried to explain how little it makes sense here (in a blog i have now abandoned that i started when i first heard of this law but then life got in the way) but it's hard to understand a new law just by reading it as we live in a common law country so a law's application and how it holds up in court is really what shapes how a law works.

[FreedomSeeker]

Here's some text from the NJ registration form for a gun permit (from http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firea...le13-ch54.pdf):

(d) The application shall be signed by the applicant and the completed application, together with two sets of the

applicant's fingerprints and fees as established by N.J.A.C. 13:59 in accordance with N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.5 et seq. (P.L.

1985, c. 69), a consent for mental health records search form designated STS-1 and a nonrefundable application fee of

$5.00 for a firearms identification card and $2.00 for a permit to purchase a handgun, shall be submitted to the chief of

police of an organized full time police department in the municipality in which the applicant resides.

(The next section is from further down in the document, so the "(b)" isn't out of order; it just applies to a different part.)

(b) A permit to purchase a handgun, or a firearm purchaser identification card, shall not be issued to any person:

1. Who has been convicted of any crime;

2. Who is drug dependent as defined by N.J.S.A. 24:21-2;

3. Who has been or is then confined for a mental disorder in any institution;

4. Who is a habitual drunkard or an alcoholic;

5. Who suffers from a physical defect or disease which would make it unsafe for him or her to handle firearms;

6. Who knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a permit to purchase a handgun or firearms

purchaser identification card;

7. Who refuses to waive statutory or other rights of confidentiality relating to institutional confinement; or

8. Where the issuance would otherwise not be in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare.

13:54-1.6 Exception for physical disability, mental disorder or alcoholism

A permit or identification card may be issued to a person who had previously suffered from a physical defect or disease,

or mental disorder, or was an alcoholic if the applicant provides a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed

in New Jersey, or other satisfactory proof that he or she is no longer suffering from that particular disability in such a

manner that it would interfere with or handicap him or her in the handling of firearms.

Hmmm...I know I read somewhere (unfortunately, I forget where) that it said if you were treated for any mental illness in NJ, you couldn't get a gun. This form is worded a bit differently than the one I saw previously, so maybe I could get a gun, if my psychiatrist said I wasn't a danger. Still, I have a bit of a problem with all this, because I could still be discriminated again, and in fact, I think I would be, because "normal" people don't need special permission from a doctor, do they? Yes, a physical defect would require a doctor's note, I guess, but I have to think about this one some more.

And what if I'm okay to own a gun, but my psychiatrist is overly cautious, or too worried about getting sued if I did do something bad (I wouldn't, but I'm making a point, in that the worry might be uncalled for and used to discriminate).

[Fr0zen1nfern0]

Found this for my state:

No permit is required to possess a rifle or shotgun.

Possession of a handgun is prohibited by any person who:

a. Has been convicted for a crime of violence.

b. Has been convicted of a violation of the (my state)Pistol Law.

c. Is a fugitive from justice.

d. Is a habitual drunkard.

e. Is an addict or habitual user of narcotics, barbiturates or amphetamines.

f. Suffers from a mental disorder and has a history of violate behavior or has been confined for more than 30 consecutive days to a mental facility unless the person possesses a physician's certificate stating that the person is capable of possessing a pistol or revolver without undue danger to the person or others. Such a person is also prohibited from possessing a rifle or shotgun, unless the person possesses an above described physician's certificate.

so as long as I am not violent I should be okay, atleast that is how I read it. I could be wrong?

I can't imagine a pdoc would be willing to sign a certificate for anyone, I would think if something went wrong than they would be open to a lawsuit, or sanctions on thier license for being wrong about a person if they have a "breakdown".

Well, for f., the first part of the clause is vague and subject to interpretation, but the second part is pretty crystal clear. If you have been confined, that is, forced against your will to remain in a psychiatric facility, for more than 30 days, there is a prohibition against ownership of firearms. Remember, however, that this can't be enforced without court records of you having been committed, so go when you need to and you won't have to worry about it. Plus, if you go voluntarily, you are a lot more likely to get out very soon than if you are forced to go.