June 23rd, 2007 10:15 PM
Can Doctors keep you from owning?
This article suggest that the NICs improvement is a bad idea. If it is true I certainly agree!! Decide for yourself!!!
June 23rd, 2007 10:21 PM
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
June 24th, 2007 08:31 AM
They can now if they ever admit you into a mental health facility. That's one of the questions on the curent gun purchase application.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf. - George Orwell
June 24th, 2007 10:41 AM
Only if you are involuntarily committed.
Originally Posted by tegemu
"When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer himóby force.
"... No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own." -John Galt, Atlas Shrugged
June 24th, 2007 10:51 AM
It is kind of a no win proposition since different people will see it different ways. However some of the most high profile shooting in the last few years have been by people with mental health problems, this new legislation would have is no sure bet that had it been in effect it would have stopped them.
Taking a devil's advocate approach, if this can stop one of these mass shootings it means less ammo for people like the Brady group to come after MY guns!
EOD - Initial success or total failure
June 24th, 2007 11:34 AM
For now. Not for long, I fear.
Originally Posted by Protect
If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?
June 24th, 2007 12:17 PM
Seems we have a slippery slope here.
Originally Posted by armoredman
June 24th, 2007 04:21 PM
It would be my guess that if you are not allowed to own a gun by virtue of a doctors saying you are mentally incompetent, then you would be eligible for SS Disability payments. If everyone in that situation were to hit Uncle Sam for $$$, they would soon change their methods.
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
June 24th, 2007 05:31 PM
A simple, two-step plan for a disarmed America:
1. Forbid the mentally disturbed from owning weapons.
2. Declare that anyone who thinks self-defense is justifiable is mentally disturbed.
See the similar thread http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ad.php?t=27788 to see that they've begun on step 2 already.
June 25th, 2007 12:07 PM
The question is, are there some people who are mentally disturbed enough that they should not be allowed to own guns? If your answer to that question is "yes" (and mine is) then there has to be some way to determine this.
First thing to be aware of is that you do not lose your right to buy a gun unless you have been ADJUDICATED mentally incompetent. That means that it takes more than a doctor saying you are mentally ill. MUCH MORE! It requires going before a judge, having both sides argue the issues, including doctor(s) testifying, and having the judge finally decide that you are a danger to yourself and/or the public.
The only difference with this new law is that once the above has happened, the information is made available to law enforcement agencies. Up to now, this information was considered privileged medical information and was usually not made available.
This is only a "slippery slope" in the sense that any restriction at all, on anyone at all, is a "slippery slope." I don't believe that it is. I think it is perfectly reasonable for society to say to some people--very limited and clearly defined--that they cannot legally buy guns.
June 25th, 2007 10:06 PM
I believe you are oversimplifying things. According to what I found while researching a related issue, the standards for commitment vary from state to state. GOA states that a mere diagnosis by a psychiatrist would earn you a firearms prohibition (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56311).
Furthermore, the bill is clearly in reaction to the VT shootings, and is therefore almost guaranteed to be bad law, and just as likely to be bad for gun owners. The bill would not have prevented the shootings, nor will it prevent future shootings. Sadly, I believe we will see many more shootings involving the deaths of many more innocent people. Simply put, the criminals and mentally deranged don't abide by the laws that hobble the rest of us.
Finally, even if the law were completely innocuous as far as gun rights were concerned, no law can prevent someone from "snapping" and going on a shooting spree or driving his SUV into a crowd. However, that person can be stopped by a gun owner; unless, of course, the gun owner is obeying the laws that prevent him from being armed wherever he goes.
In short, if the NRA is for it and the GOA is against it, especially when known anti-gunners such as Ms. McCarthy are lining up w/ the NRA, I'll take my chances with the GOA over the "no guns in schools" NRA.
Originally Posted by denverd0n
June 26th, 2007 01:29 AM
The GOA is wrong. No state allows commitment with just a doctor's signature. Due process rights apply to psychiatric commitment. The exact mechanism varies from state to state, but nowhere can it be done with just a doctor's signature.
Originally Posted by SCGuy
June 26th, 2007 02:16 AM
I have considered this a lot lately and have come to the conclusion that we must decide if we are going to take the Second Ammendment as absolute or not. If you take an absolutist view, there is no room for ANY limitations. Not for mental health. Not for past criminal acts. None.
If you allow for restrictions for these, you are saying that it is not a right but a privilege. As a privilege, you are allowing for the government to put in place any restrictions they want and the 2A is therefore meaningless.
When we compromise on our rights, we lose them. We cannot continue to have it both ways. Either it is a Natural Right, guaranteed by our Constitution, or it is a privilege, granted by government and subject to government limitations.
"...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Luke 22:36
June 26th, 2007 02:40 PM
And that is a perfect example of how the GOA is over-reacting to this, and hugely exaggerating. The law says quite clearly that you have to be ADJUDICATED mentally incompetent. That means it MUST go before a judge. Even in states where a doctor can have you committed on his own signature, you still are not ADJUDICATED mentally incompetent until you get a chance to go before a judge. That's the definition of the word!
Originally Posted by SCGuy
Now we can argue about whether or not our rights should be absolute. Should I, for instance, be allowed to organize a parade down Main Street without getting a permit? That should be allowed under an "absolute" interpretation of the right to assemble guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Regardless, if we accept that people, whom a judge has ruled are a danger to themselves and/or others, should not be allowed the right to own arms then this is a very reasonable law for enforcing that.
June 26th, 2007 10:18 PM
denverd0n, in addition to being Adjudicated, the bill also adds "or committed to a mental institution", at least the text of the bill as is on Thomas does. Want to wager your gun rights on the premise that being committed will be a fair, just and equitable process in which your interests are fully and competently defended?
Even today I read a story in which researchers are claiming that people who hold to traditional moral values are doing so out of a mental condition.
Again, for me, it's a big deal when the NRA lines up with known anti-gunners (or is it the other way around? It's confusing, which kind of proves the point).
Also, can you adequately explain the process for getting your status changed? Who will bear the burden of proof--you or the state? (Hint: Who always is on the short end of that equation when it comes to such administrative matters?)
And, when our rights are subjugated to administrative processes, we suffer. Remember the BATFE arbitrarily deciding that AK parts no longer may be imported?
Finally, where is the constitutional authority for a NICS in the first place? It seems to me that if the 2nd Amendment is a matter that applies only to the federal government, the federal government has absolutely no business being involved in a national system used to vet potential firearms purchasers to decided if they are "approved" or not.
Originally Posted by denverd0n
By Mikey in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 10th, 2008, 07:01 PM
By C9H13NO3 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 10:32 PM
By joleary223 in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
Last Post: February 11th, 2008, 07:54 PM
By elrey718 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 22nd, 2007, 10:13 AM
Search tags for this page
can a psychiatrist keep you from buying a gun
what can keep you from owning a gun
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors