Defensive Carry banner

Kelly: Gun checks need mental health component

2K views 34 replies 27 participants last post by  CanuckQue 
#1 ·
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."
 
#6 ·
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!"
 
#7 ·
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"?"
 
#10 ·
Been to court ordered marriage counseling during a divorce?=Denied.
 
#12 ·
This list of "denied" would be endless.... they would twist anything in / on a medical record as reason to deny
 
#13 ·
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?
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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?
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#29 ·
Oak, I really like your logic. When you play it out even further, if Mark Kelly is suffering from some sort of mental illness as you have so logically identified, then his entire counsel in this matter must be questioned - if the man is not mentally competent, how can we possibly even consider his position on the topic?

Consequently, Mark Kelly's opinion should be dismissed immediately based on his own mental health arguments. He has basically disqualified himself from the conversation... I LIKE it!
 
#21 · (Edited)
Has anyone asked Mr. (not CAPT USN - he already lost all 'our' professionl respect and shed that title = he is as equal as I am and I have no respect for him in his former Naval Service/political graspings) why being able to 'Stick and Rudder' a 'dead sled' glider from space makes him such an immediate Constitutional Expert on the 2A.

The guy is trying to use every little last bit of what he can to be in the news. Why? (Mr.kelly, email me if you have a reasonable explantion that you are not a non=glory/hunter - that obviously aspires to run for his wife's Congressional seat, can explain, that I am not correct).

As David Allen Coe says, "If that ain’t Country, It will hair lip the Pope"………..he can kiss my (something).

Someone should ask Mr. Kelly why he is trying to be relevant now, on the back of the tragedy that his wife suffered, unless he is just riding that tragiety for his own ego...................? You would think he would give her more respect than that, considering………. I certainly do. I have prayed for Gabby. She did not deserve to be assualted by a mentally unstable and very ill Registered Democrat.


Oh, but now it's all OUR fault, now............. What a .......... (Mods, I redacted it ahead of time)
 
#23 ·
Mark Kelly ... is an idiot. On Chris Matthews show on Fox , Sunday.... he also said :

* It's easy to buy a gun , and anyone can get around a background check and doing a 4473 form by buying it off the internet, and this is why all internet sales need to be banned.
Forget I guess that any internet purchased gun a FFL license and information has to be sent first, and the gun is shipped to an FFL, who will then make you do the 4473 form and do a NICS check.

* You can also get around it by buying it from a gun dealer at a gun show, because they aren't required there.
Uh, I would like to know what guns shows he's gone to and done that ..... because all are required to do a NICS & 4473. Maybe he doesn't understand forms can be taken along and NICS checks called in. Who knows.


So, he's either very ill informed about the laws , or is intentionally lieing to further the gun control / ban agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 84160 and ANGLICO
#24 ·
Putting a mental health component to a background check just doesn't work. The ONLY easy one I can think of is if someone has dealt with a criminal charge by having the court accept an insanity defense. That one would violate no health records or privacy concerns.

But, goshdarn, mental health is really important to the gun-loving community. 99% of the major news stories about guns are going to involve mental health. The best defense is a good offense, and the best offense (in the long run) will be improving access, diagnostics, and treatments for mental illness. Currently, charity dollars are our only hope on this front. The gov't underinvests in mental illness R&D. Big Pharma totally underinvests.
 
#25 ·
It depends on what they consider a mental disorder. Returning VETS with PTSD: They are already being classified as not mentally fit to own a personal handgun. Seniors over 55, them too many LIBTARDS are trying to get senior provisions in there. What next Sleep Apnea, Wet Dreams... How about if you voted for BARRY (That's my personal thought)
 
#26 ·
I bought my gun at a Stafford Texas show, but that weekend, there where so many gun sales the Government computers couldn't handle it. I had to come back (Two weeks later) when the gun show migrated into Houston, to finally pick my gun up. (It was either that or drive approx 100 miles to where the gun dealer had his store.)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top