Dingell, NRA Working on a Bill to...

This is a discussion on Dingell, NRA Working on a Bill to... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So does liking guns (aka gun nut) qualify as mental illness ? Waiting periods help though. Go with me on this one- Once you have ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 55

Thread: Dingell, NRA Working on a Bill to...

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array Shizzlemah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    723
    So does liking guns (aka gun nut) qualify as mental illness ?

    Waiting periods help though. Go with me on this one- Once you have 20 or so guns in the safe, waiting periods make it inconvenient to expand your collection, thus saving you money.

    If you dont have a dozen guns in the safe, well then no mental illness and I guess you can just buy more as you see fit :/

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    As long as the definition is very stringent, i.e. involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, sounds good to me.

    We already limit peoples' rights when they cross over a certain line. The mentally ill (again, those involuntarily committed, not just someone taking antidepressants) and felons don't get all the rights that the rest of us do. Yes, some of those rights are in the Constitution, like the right to vote, but these people don't get them. This is just an extension of this fact. Even more, the mentally already aren't supposed to be able to purchase firearms; this law seems like it just closes up the loopholes where it isn't entered into the background check database.

    I don't see the problem. I don't want felons or incompetents allowed to have guns, which they'll most likely commit crimes with. Yes, they can still get them, but only if they're very determined and have the right connections, which most of your average thugs or nutcases probably don't.

    Just like the right to vote, or the right to not be held in prison, the RKBA is for upstanding citizens, not criminals or mentally incompetent people who have proven themselves to be unfit for these rights.

  4. #18
    Member Array lostone1413's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
    The problem is, there really ARE some people who shouldn't be allowed access to firearms. There really are people who have lost their right to, among other things, own firearms... and rightfully so.

    How to balance that with the average normal person's right, and IMO need, to have access to firearms for self defense is THE problem.

    As has often been mentioned before a Constitutional right can be regulated, so this isn't a Constitutional issue... but one does wonder where the slippery slope ends. Mental illness and violent felony convictions ARE sufficient reason for a person to lose their right to bear arms IMO, but how do we check for that without allowing other things to be added later; religion, sexual preference, political affiliation??
    How can you regulate a Right? It you regulate a Right doesn't it then become a Privilege?? My Constitution the first 10 amendments are called a Bill Of RIGHTS. Not a bill of Privileges. Funny I remember being able to walk into a Sears and walk out with a gun. No paper work or anything. Wonder why we never had this trouble before.

    People who back bills like this to me sound like the Brady Bunch. Oh just a little common sense gun laws. Thats all we want
    Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
    John F. Kennedy

  5. #19
    Senior Member Array Pitmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wherever there's fried chicken or barbecue
    Posts
    642
    THIS IS AN EXTREMELY BAD IDEA AND SOLUTION.

    I'm a social worker who has worked in the mental health field for over 15 years. I've worked in outpatient, inpatient, addiction, chronically mentally ill, and the worried well.

    The potential for abuse, misdiagnoses, violations of civil rights is way out of proportion to any benefit or preventive efforts to reduce violence. When I think of some of the mistakes I have seen and made in diagnosing, I shudder. There is not any tool, test, of research that is even remotely accurate enough to make this worth considering.

    Do not let something like this get put in place. If you even remotely think this is reasonable go read "Unintended Consequences". If you have all ready read it, read it again.
    Pitmaster

    HELGA: Where are you going?
    HAGAR: To sign a peace treaty with the King of England.
    HELGA: Then why take all those weapons?
    HAGAR: First we gotta negotiate...

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Pitmaster View Post
    The potential for abuse, misdiagnoses, violations of civil rights is way out of proportion to any benefit or preventive efforts to reduce violence. When I think of some of the mistakes I have seen and made in diagnosing, I shudder. There is not any tool, test, of research that is even remotely accurate enough to make this worth considering.

    Do not let something like this get put in place.
    Um, I think the horse is already out of the barn on this one. It is already illegal to buy a gun if you've been committed for a mental illness. The bill in question is trying to improve reporting of such committments at the state level.

  7. #21
    Distinguished Member Array SixBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    1,692
    One of the points I failed to convey in my previous post are my thoughts about the limitations. Hotguns, you hit the nail on the head with it and I agree with you for the most part. Maybe that shows I'm still personally confused as to where I lie on the whole matter...? I can't speak as an authority on mentally ill nor can I speak authoritatively on just how effective background checks are. The idea of criminals getting weapons illegally is a no-brainer, as well. However... seeing them work as advertised... does sway my opinion a little.

    This is why I'm not a politician. haha
    Last edited by SixBravo; April 24th, 2007 at 03:52 AM.
    The Gunsite Blog
    ITFT / Quick Kill Review
    "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008

  8. #22
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by lostone1413 View Post
    How can you regulate a Right? It you regulate a Right doesn't it then become a Privilege?? My Constitution the first 10 amendments are called a Bill Of RIGHTS. Not a bill of Privileges.
    There's a difference between regulation and removal.

    There's a right to vote in the Constitution too, right? Did you realize that felons can't vote?

    Some people don't have all the rights that normal citizens have. That's why they're called "criminals".

  9. #23
    Member Array lostone1413's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by dwolsten View Post
    There's a difference between regulation and removal.

    There's a right to vote in the Constitution too, right? Did you realize that felons can't vote?

    Some people don't have all the rights that normal citizens have. That's why they're called "criminals".
    Your only part right. A felon can go to court and have his right restored.
    Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
    John F. Kennedy

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    This is another horrible idea that's just going to expand government even further. It's going to be a collosal failure just like the Maryland ballistics database. A whole bunch of information that might stop 2 crimes in the great scheme of things. There are better things we can spend our taxdollars on. Or better yet, not even charge citizens for at all.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  11. #25
    Senior Member
    Array sojourner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,054
    I'm against it. It is just anothe way for the anti's to get their hooks in to take away in part, or in whole, our constitutional rights either today or some day in the future. The current checks are good enough. (I would say too much, misdemeanor domestic and lose gun rights for a lifetime?)

    I hope that the NRA does not buy into this!

    Below is a snippet of a quote that someone sent me today. I view this person as reliable, but have not verified the details of the message.



    HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the
    states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are
    thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't
    affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes
    law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun
    rights than ever before.

    Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from
    Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss
    your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans
    Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for
    inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military
    veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our
    society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous
    "crime"?

    Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often
    follow our decent men and women who have served their country
    overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their
    patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally
    "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS
    system, and
    they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).

    HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the
    NICS system.

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    I just got that in an Email.... NRA must make veeery clear what it is gonna do.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,713

    Hr 297

    I have read through the bill HR 297,
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-297

    I do not see anything that will change other than reporting from the state level. The mental issue and the domestic violence issue are already barriers to obtaining a firearm legally, since all those questions are already asked on form 4473. I guess if you lie on the form and the information isn't in the NICS system you can go ahead and walk out with your firearm. I believe this is what they are trying to remedy, the inefficiency of the NICS system as it operates today.

    As far as reporting and getting correct information into the system, I don't think that should be that large of a barrier. Look at the social security systems data base, or the IRS database. I, along with other individuals transmit 10's of millions of tax returns to the IRS in a matter of a couple of months each year. I also have ability to get into the IRS system and retrieve information from it on individuals if the proper paperwork is done. So why would it be so difficult for local agencies, whether they are in the mental health or law enforcement sector to have access to the NICS system for updating records. I am not talking about the clerks or whatever, but qualified people in their professions to report accurate information to the NICS system.

    If for some reason you were improperly entered into the system, or you have overcome your illness whatever, there should be a process for reinstating your ownership rights. I don't currently see that as an option, it looks to me like once you have been commited or convicted of domestic violence your rights are gone.

    As far as making it harder for the rest of us to get firearms that is not the case as I see it. If you don't have anything in your background to prevent your ownership, you do the check and leave with your firearm those of us that have CHL's don't even do the check any more. The only information that is reported is information barring you from obtaining a firemarm, there is nothing in the bill that says if your not entered into the system you can't purchase one, it is exactly the opposite.

    I guess I have never thought about the aliens ownership of firearms. I will have to think about that one for a while, but on first thought, I have no problem with banning thier ownership or purchases in this county, but will have to give that some more thought.

    Anyway, at least there is a possitive side to this in that there is actual talk between the parties on the issue so that maybe a bunch of time won't be spent on the floor of congress debating things that will never come to pass.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array Steve48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    St. John, Kansas
    Posts
    777
    I hope this is not a "slippery slope" argument. Steve48

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,196
    I'm in agreement with Hotguns...The problem folks who support this type of stuff seem to always miss is the fact that it is in fact a very slippery slope and the worst part is that the other side can change the angle of descent later! Do you really think that tightening the laws or making new ones or "better ones" is really going to solve a problem here? The only way is to be able to unequivocably be able to defend ourselves with any means necessary.

    There are way too many questions that will ALWAYS have open-ended answers (as far as legislators are concerned) as to who judges whom as mentally incompetant, what are the standards, and the level of abuse of the system. We already have problems with folks who are perfectly legal but can't carry or even purchase a firearm because someone decided to call in a protective order out of vindictiveness. How far can and will someone abuse a new mental incompetance bill...does all of your immediate family agree with your carry decision? Would they support you fully? Would they try to have you committed if given the chance? Many, many questions arise.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  16. #30
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,247
    I am right in the middle on this issue. While I think that Cho's name being on the NICS list may have prevented him from buying LEGAL guns, he was too determined in his goal to be stopped merely by a piece of paper or a denial. I think he would have found another means with which to carry out his plan.

    Bad people are going to do bad things and the only thing we can EVER do is be there to pick up the pieces. There are always loopholes and always ways for criminals to get around these kinds of things.

    My worries are three fold..

    1. Who gets to define whether someone is mentally ill and who gets to draw that line? Someone said something about being misdiagnosed. I wouldn't put it beyond the antis to set out to prove that you and I are mentally ill because we own a certain type of gun or because of this, that or the other thing. Can they subpoena my records from my private counselor to determine whether I'm mentally ill. Can they look at the notes of my counselor and deem me mentally ill because of the things I have told her?

    2. Is there an appeal system or a way to prove that you are mentally stable after being diagnosed as mentally ill? People change and people heal all the time. What if someone goes through a very rough patch in their life such as a spouse or child dying and they are very depressed and seek help and are seem as mentally ill. Chances are great that soon they will heal and move on and no longer be a threat to themselves or another. Can they then be taken off of the list and be able to purchase guns?

    3. Will passing this bill discourage people from seeking professional help if they feel they need it?
    I went to a counselor for the first time in my entire life last year. I was dealing with an issue MANY years old but the more my husband and I talked about starting a family the more I felt I needed to close the book on that time in my life and get some reassurance from someone who specialized in the kind of trauma I suffered to tripple-check that there is nothing we have overlooked as a family and to insure there was nothing that could stand between me and being a fabulous mother to my children.
    It was a good experience for me. It really helped to put things in perspective for me and to set some things straight.

    Would people be afraid to get that kind of help if they thought it might mean them giving up their property or not being able to buy any more guns? Would they push aside their worry and their doubts and their fears and let them fester out of fear of being deemed mentally unstable and not get the help they need?


    I think all of those things are very real and should not be overlooked.

    The way I see it is this.... There are millions upon millions of people on this globe who have suffered, who have been bullied, who have been abused, rapped, beaten, criticized, hated, and neglected. They have grown up feeling rage, hate, self-worthlessness, despair, pain, discouragement, fear, inadequacy, even terror. Yet, SOMEHOW, they managed to rise above their circumstances and understand that while there are BAD people in this world who do BAD thing, they do not need to be one of them. They swallow their anger and replace it with love and forgiveness. They replace their urges to fight with constructive outlets. They learn to control themselves and their actions and they live happy, normal, even fruitful lives.

    This is NOT the responsibility of the State or any other institution to weed out the good apples from the bad. It is the apples responsibility to make sure he or she doesn't go bad to begin with.

    It is the individuals responsibility alone to control themselves.

    I do believe that some people should not be able to purchase guns. I think that people who have shown the world that they are incapable of controlling themselves should NOT be able to purchase guns and in that instance we are doing a good job. Felons and other criminals are already barred from legally purchasing firearms. However, NO ONE and no machine and no doctor is remotely capable of foretelling what someone will do.

    Sometimes I think if this bill were passed it would be a good thing. Other times I think it would open the door to disaster.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Working her way up from scratch
    By Biomortis in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 21st, 2009, 11:57 AM
  2. The NRA working for us
    By Divebum47 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 4th, 2009, 05:44 PM
  3. Working man's 30-06?
    By PapaScout in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: November 6th, 2006, 10:26 AM
  4. New Fed law seems to be working (as it should!)
    By P95Carry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2006, 12:20 AM

Search tags for this page

adhd and gun ownership

,

john dingell gun control

Click on a term to search for related topics.