The only problem I have with that is, would a person who wants a weapon ADMIT to that, if they know that would be a reason to keep them from getting it? I sort of doubt it.cjm5874 said:Here's where I say draw the line...
Your standard forms when buying a firearm ask if you have been INVOLUNTARILY commited to a mental instituion. And that should be the determination,
I could not have said this better. My take on it exactly.P95Carry said:Garrett - let me say welcome :smile:
This stuff is thin ice and a double-edged sword.
On the one hand - a classic, proven and documented case of extreme paranoid schizophrenia should IMO debar safe gun ownership - an extreme case and one which should prevent a purchase.
OTOH are the countless cases of what may be listed as ''mild depression'', ''anxiety'' - any number of supposed ''conditions'' which should not in most cases lead to an individual being deprived of their rights.
""Blanket'' policy is dangerous and hard to get right - some winners but potentially way too many losers. To be honest - I am not sure where the safe middle ground exists - if in fact it does exist.
Like most plans to database info - it will usually end up being excessive and overly restrictive - having in the end maybe 5% desirable results - and potential for 95% bad. Plus - if instigated, and it goes wrong - it'd be a long battle to either modify it or cancel it.
Dangerous waters. Do the benefits outweigh the downsides? Not sure they do.
Well, the risk is that some time down the line the word "involuntarily" might be removed. Now someone who would like to seek professional help, knowing this is always a possibility, will not seek help in order avoid this possibility.cjm5874 said:Here's where I say draw the line...
Your standard forms when buying a firearm ask if you have been INVOLUNTARILY commited to a mental instituion. And that should be the determination, in other words you did not have the stability and responsiblity to sign yourself in for some help. (depression, anxiety, whatever) SO...although I hate government regulation of any sorts (most people who settled the West HAD to be mentally unstable....look at how Kalifornia wound up!) I would settle for people who have been ordered into mental helath treatment againt their will being placed into a database.
grnzbra said:Well, the risk is that some time down the line the word "involuntarily" might be removed. Now someone who would like to seek professional help, knowing this is always a possibility, will not seek help in order avoid this possibility.
You either were or were not. If you have been harmed by dissemination of false information about you, then you need legal assistance. If you were involuntarily committed, you have my sympathy for your illness, but not for being denied by NICS.I lived in Missouri from 1993 until I moved back to my home state of NC in 2003. Back in 2001 my family doctor gave me valium to help me sleep, I had never took this medication before in my life, I had a bad reaction and voluntary committed myself.
Around 02/2011 I went to buy my son a shotgun for skeet shooting and was denied. This was very embarrassing since their were several customers standing around.
Well Missouri was reporting that I was involuntary committed.
Weird, see above suggestion.I order the records from the hospital and just received them. This is the first time I have since such records. Man am I tee off. The doctor did not list anything about my family doctor giving me medication in which I had a bad reaction too and most stuff he put was untrue. I wished I had order this records a lot sooner. He also listed that I had taken illicit drugs in the past which is a lie I have never took such drugs.
Now we are getting somewhere. Sounds as if maybe your judgment is impaired. Unless you are an attorney representing a client, you have no business "getting into it" with the DA. Basically, he told you to get out of his office and don't come back. That is because you were doing something you had no business doing.I have gotten into it with the local prosecuting attorney several months before this happened about him charging a friend of mine for something he did not do and he told me if I call him again he would find something to arrest me for, I told him that was a witch hunt.
You are not coming across as a "together" person. My inclination here is to believe the validity of the involuntary commitment. Glad NICS caught you.I think he maybe behind this because he had a grudge against me ever since. You may have seen him on TV because he was on 48 Hours pertaining to Ryan Ferguson. He sent this young man to prison for murder. Look it up on google.
No, it is a prime example of the wisdom and necessity of the NICS check. You have someone who was (probably) involuntarily committed, who "got into it" with the prosecutor, who appears to harbor a continued paranoid belief, and is speaking up in anger.This is a prime example of our "leaders" using unfortunate situation's to induce fear to gain acceptance from sheep to take more inalienable rights away from society.