[DaveH]

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gun control activist Mark Kelly says a proposed national gun background bill under discussion in the Senate should include better access to mental health records that could prevent psychologically disturbed people from obtaining guns.

He focuses on Jared Loughner having passed a background check "despite evidence of his agitated mental state."

 

[Rock and Glock]

Other than the likelihood of bureaucratic manipulation, abuse, prevarication, delay and the like, I have no problem with it. <WRONG>

 

[crsmiffy]

Other than the likelihood of bureaucratic manipulation, abuse, prevarication, delay and the like, I have no problem with it. <WRONG>

Agreed

 

[Once]

So he agrees with the NRA.
Nice.

 

[gasmitty]

I know, let's get the ACLU involved to tell us which part of the HIPAA privacy rules should be violated in order to get people like Loughner on a government "no gun" list.

 

[Alex_C]

Sounds good to the sheeple, but in reality requiring mental health checks as part of a UBC system would result in the following:

"This guy had grievance counseling? Denied!".

"This lady saw a psychiatrist as part of post-rape recovery? Denied!"

"This retiree was once treated for depression as a teenager? Denied!"

 

[Rock and Glock]

It could get much worse, Alex_C:

"He looked at me funny";

"He pointed his finger at me";

"He made a birthday cake with toy soldiers on the top";

The Damnorats will never be satisified. Just say "enough is enough", "no".

"What did you not understand about the word "No"?"

 

[tokerblue]

I didn't see any mention about saving baby seals?

 

[TX expat]

It could get much worse, Alex_C:

"He looked at me funny";

"He pointed his finger at me";

"He made a birthday cake with toy soldiers on the top";

The Damnorats will never be satisified. Just say "enough is enough", "no".

"What did you not understand about the word "No"?"

But... But... It's common sense! And 80% of NRA members support it! And I only lie on days that end in Y.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kapnketel]

Been to court ordered marriage counseling during a divorce?=Denied.

 

[Plinker56]

Should'nt he have been arrested for making a straw purchase when he tried to buy an AR 15 from a gun dealer (who canceled the purchase) and admitted he was giving it to another organization?.

 

[84160]

This list of "denied" would be endless.... they would twist anything in / on a medical record as reason to deny

 

[RickyD]

C'mon folks, who can possibly argue against creating more bureaucracy? I can't think of a single instance where more government didn't make things better; they spend more money in horrifically inefficient ways, they make people jump through hoops for fun and they always have the most outstanding people pushing the paper. Who wouldn't want some more of that?

Oh, and at what point did Mark Kelly become an expert on mental illness?

 

[Ghost1958]

I think a lot of Government officals need a mental health check. ASAP. IF they fail they lose their position.

 

[Gunsmoke16]

He's just ticked cause his wife probably wouldn't pass the background check and be able to carry his AR-15. Actually, he's just doing some political grandstanding trying to get everyone's attention focused on something and make it hard as heck for normal folks to get a gun. If they really want to make a difference, hire more cops to patrol the back alleys where the illegal guns are coming from and arrest the bad guys selling them out of their trunks in the cities...could start with Chicago, the Prez's hometown which has the WORST gun crimes being committed right now. News don't want to focus on real problems, only the ones they can invent solutions for.

 

[ccw9mm]

If indeed an independent court adjudicates a person a mentally incompetent/threat, that's one thing. If they're talking about something else, that's entirely different.

I'm all for the adjudication aspect keeping a person out of circulation, and while out of circulation being denied the possession of arms. But once a person's back on the street and charged with his/her own life's responsibilities, then I'm flatly against any denial of the 2A-protected right of a person to be armed if he/she chooses to do so.

And I'm absolutely leery of the all-too-likely abuse, manipulation and all the rest that's possible once "government" gets its mitts on such a thing. After all, who's gonna decide tweaks/changes/alterations on such a thing, once unleashed: Eric Holder on his own say-so, for crying out loud?

 

[skysoldier29]

If indeed an independent court adjudicates a person a mentally incompetent/threat, that's one thing. If they're talking about something else, that's entirely different.

I'm all for the adjudication aspect keeping a person out of circulation, and while out of circulation being denied the possession of arms. But once a person's back on the street and charged with his/her own life's responsibilities, then I'm flatly against any denial of the 2A-protected right of a person to be armed if he/she chooses to do so.

And I'm absolutely leery of the all-too-likely abuse, manipulation and all the rest that's possible once "government" gets its mitts on such a thing. After all, who's gonna decide tweaks/changes/alterations on such a thing, once unleashed: Eric Holder on his own say-so, for crying out loud?

It is one thing if a judge orders someone as mentally incompetent. But if they are expecting doctors to report someone whom they thing might be a danger to themselves or others is a different story. That would get into Doctor patient privilege "this would put a bunch of medical professionals in a pickle, report or uphold their oath." People would not get help they normally would if they think they are going to be put on a list by big brother. Once on the list how the heck would you get off of it, who would make the call if you were not a threat anymore? We could list things here all day long. The Fed is getting to big for its britches.

 

[GoPackman]

When reading or hearing about topics like these, I becomes very scared , then angry. The possibilities for abuse should the Feds become involved, with the HIPAA violations that would ensue, I shudder to think. This from one who works in the medical profession.

On a final note, Mark Kelly is once again speaking out of the wrong orifice.

 

[ccw9mm]

It is one thing if a judge orders someone as mentally incompetent. But if they are expecting doctors to report someone whom they thing might be a danger to themselves or others is a different story. That would get into Doctor patient privilege "this would put a bunch of medical professionals in a pickle, report or uphold their oath." People would not get help they normally would if they think they are going to be put on a list by big brother. Once on the list how the heck would you get off of it, who would make the call if you were not a threat anymore? We could list things here all day long. The Fed is getting to big for its britches.

:yup:

Exactly the problem. Judge/jury/executioner all in one person (or, worse, committee) does nobody any good. There's one ostensible potential benefit, but a whole truck load of problems and threats from any such thing. IMO, it'll merely hasten the demise of our republic via handing Uncle another invasive power tool we hardly ought to be handing them. Time to clip the strings, all over the place.

 

[oakchas]

I've given this some thought, and have a rather long reply...

It has been said that many of our returning vets have some symptoms of PTSD. It has been said that some returning vets cannot take care of their own affairs (balancing checkbooks, paying bills timely, etc.), and that therefore, there is some concern as to whether or not they should have arms, as they cannot seem to do the necessary tasks to be "unsupervised" in society...

Mr. Kelly served in GW I (IINM). As a result of his service, is he a bit "out of synch?" As a result of the tragic attack on his wife, is he subject to some PTSD as a result of that? Does he take care of the family finances, or does an accountant do that?

He seems to believe that there should be some additional mental health component to the NICS check. I wonder if he would pass such an additional component, or if "Gabby" would? If she would not, should a responsible adult allow firearms in their home? If he might not, (due to some of the same criteria that are being mentioned, if not seriously considered) for the same reasons some of our returning vets are "questionable" should he be required to turn in his firearms?

If he and Gabby lived in California, would they be required to turn in the firearms that belonged to Gabby? Should she be allowed to transfer her weapons to him, without a background check? What if he has undiagnosed PTSD?

JUST THINKING OUT LOUD.