Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/13/2002 4:31:25 PM EDT
INCREDIBLY, the mentally ill are NOT on federal databases for background checks. And THIS is the source of the vast majority of gun violence. Two groups block making mental history being available during a NICS check: The National Mental Health Association and The Gun Owners of America. [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/10/60minutes/main525146.shtml[/url] (CBS) [b]Privacy for the mentally ill is more important than the public’s right to protection[/b] from the potential dangers of mentally ill gun owners, says the president of the National Mental Health Association. Michael Faenza tells Steve Kroft that, despite a 1968 law prohibiting firearms sales to people who have been involuntarily committed, using medical records as a red flag denies an already stigmatized group their right to privacy. [b]“We feel that people with mental illness should not have special restrictions regarding firearms,” says Faenza. [/b] There can be no exceptions, says Faenza, even for those involuntarily committed to institutions. “We’re talking about much more than the right to buy a firearm. We’re talking about the right to have your medical records kept privately,” he tells Kroft. [b]Most of those records are being kept private, thanks to a loophole in the Brady law[/b] requiring background checks of all gun buyers. When the law was passed, after the shooting of President Reagan and his press secretary James Brady,[b] Congress neither provided funding for states to collect information on the severely mentally ill nor required them to report it to the federal government. [/b] As a result, [b]so few states do any reporting of this kind that only the names of one in 30 persons who have been involuntarily committed are in the federal database. [/b] Even that is too many, says Faenza, because, he says, studies show that past history of severe mental illness does not augur future violence. [b]“If we want to be serious about hand guns, targeting people with mental illness is not the place to start,”[/b] he tells Kroft, pointing out that other factors, such as being sexually or physically abused or having alcohol problems, represent a greater risk to do violence. Dr. Howard Zonana, Yale professor of medicine and law and chairman of the American Psychiatric Association’s task force on the mentally ill and their access to guns, is torn on the issue, but believes safety must be paramount. “There are many people…who are very [mentally] ill who have never been violent,” he tells Kroft, “[but] there are certainly a number of people that I would not want to see have guns… Whatever the risk is, however low, it’s not worth the risk.” You can contact the National Mental Health Association here: [url]http://www.nmha.org/infoctr/help/index.cfm[/url] Toll-free: (800) 969-NMHA (6642)
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 4:53:39 PM EDT
Define "mentally ill". Does it include depression, anxiety, insomnia, AD-HD? Those are all included in the DMSM-IV as "mental disorder" and the MAJORITY of the population experiences these to some extent or another during SOME period of their life. Does it include EVER being under ANY type of psychiatric care, even just one session? Does it include being prescribed ANY type of psychiatric meds including valium, sleeping aids? Does it include ANY type of psychological therapy sessions including marriage counseling? Go ahead. I'd LOVE it if they tried to close THAT "loophole" by tacking onto the next AWB!! It would absolutely [b]KILL[/b] ANY new gun-legislation bill that it was attached to! [squint] Go ahead. Make my day [/squint]
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 4:55:15 PM EDT
Who's going to decide what "mental illness" is?? [X] TS [X]
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 4:59:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 5:01:26 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Originally Posted By TigerStripe: Who's going to decide what "mental illness" is?? [X] TS [X]
View Quote
Currently you can be denied the right to purchase or possess a firearm on the "allegation" of domestic abuse (a misdemeanor). BUT, if you've been involuntarily commited for extreme and/or violent mental impairment, NO RECORD is supplied to the federal database in more than 90% of the cases. More importantly, they are ALREADY deciding who is mentally impared. They are just not supplying that data for the purposes of preventing firearm sales.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 5:37:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TigerStripe: Who's going to decide what "mental illness" is?? [X] TS [X]
View Quote
This is what I want to know! Is this loophile for "gun nuts" or for them?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:05:57 PM EDT
Exactly my question. Who are and what is a mentally ill individual? I think you're all nuts myself but I my be a tad biased here. However, if the squirrels like you, there is no question, you must be nuts.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:08:47 PM EDT
Once again: ... they are ALREADY deciding who is mentally impared. They are just not supplying that data for the purposes of preventing firearm sales.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:10:42 PM EDT
On 60 Minutes they were defining it as "A person was involuntarily committed to a mental institution"
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:14:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 6:15:20 PM EDT by Sodie]
The definition is on the background check form that you have to fill out. Of course, leaving a mental health evaluation up to a piece of paper is ludicrous. Those douche bag ACLU lawyers would fight against any release of mental hospital records.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:18:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: Once again: ... they are ALREADY deciding who is mentally impared. They are just not supplying that data for the purposes of preventing firearm sales.
View Quote
Yeah but who's to say what "mentally ill" is???? Hmmmmm??????
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:21:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sodie: The definition is on the background check form that you have to fill out. Of course, leaving a mental health evaluation up to a piece of paper is ludicrous. Those douche bag ACLU lawyers would fight against any release of mental hospital records.
View Quote
EXACTLY, thank you. The other problem is when those PROHIBITED from obtaining firearms LIE on the 4473, there is NO WAY to catch them. We are always talking about ENFORCING THE CURRENT LAWS. Well here is your chance. That is what I'm talking about. Maybe if fewer retards got guns we wouldn't have a Maryland Sniper right now setting us up for MORE gun control. You think it's possible the guy killing without restraint in MD just "might" have a history of mental illness?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:28:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:40:34 PM EDT
DoubleFeed, this is NOT a new law. This is NON ENFORCEMENT of a current law that lets the dangerously mentally impared obtain firearms. As a result of them obtaining firearms, EVEN AFTER a background check, we WILL get new more restrictive laws.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:42:07 PM EDT
The Brady law is unconstitutional on its face. Loophole? WTF? The whole piece of dung needs to be stripped from the federal code. How's that for putting a sword to the Gordian knot?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:46:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By soylent_green: The Brady law is unconstitutional on its face. Loophole? WTF? The whole piece of dung needs to be stripped from the federal code. How's that for putting a sword to the Gordian knot?
View Quote
AND I AGREE. But returning to reality for a moment: 1. The Brady Law ain't going any place, anytime soon. 2. Retards getting guns even after "extensive backgrounds checks" will get us MORE gun laws. 3. Retards with guns are a dangerously BAD idea.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 7:09:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 8:03:08 PM EDT
Doublefeed, this issue isn't to decide who is and who isn't mentally impaired. That has already been decided and defined. The issue IS that those who are already PROHIBITTED from purchasing firearms for mental reasons are not having their records submitted.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 8:19:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 8:20:28 PM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 8:58:33 PM EDT
Having been adjudicated mentally defective which includes being adjudecated mentally incompetent to manage your own affairs or having been committed to a mental institution.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:00:42 PM EDT
I can just see what's next... All NRA (also GOA, JPFO, SAF, etc.) members will be defined as "mentally ill" because they don't care enough about the Children. Meanwhile, psychopaths will still be able to get all the guns they want.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:09:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:21:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: Having been adjudicated mentally defective which includes being adjudecated mentally incompetent to manage your own affairs or having been committed to a mental institution.
View Quote
What are the criteria for this?
View Quote
I don't know.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:47:11 PM EDT
Let me tell a little story (true) and you can decide what to read into it. A co-worker (female) is interested in buying a gun for self defense. She applies for an Illinois FOID (Firearms Owner ID) card. She is denied by the Illinois State Police. The reason: About 4 years ago, she got pregnant. She is of Hispanic origin, and the father is of Indian (E. Asian Subcontinent) origin. The moment he found out she was pregnant, he had no contact with her. According to her (as she found out later) the his family would ostracize him for having a child "out of the race". Banging her was fine, as long as there were no consequences. So, she got depressed, started to have suicidal thoughts (without acting on them) and realized she had a problem. She CHECKED HERSELF into the local university hospital and was released 5 days later after undergoing Psych. evaluation. She still goes occasionally to a counselor (voluntarily). When she went to apply (4 years after this happened) for the IL FOID card, she was DECLINED due to the hospitialization for mental illness. She is now in the process of getting her doctor to write a letter stating that she should be allowed to get a FOID card. She has appealed the initial rejection of the FOID, written her letter, and the IL State Police need to have a Doctors signed statement saying she is not a danger and is "cured". She has been told by the IL State Police that the process of appeal will take almost a year. What really bothers me about the whole situation is that the IL State Police were given records of her initial hospitialization (in which she voluntarily checked herself in to the hospital--one of my other Co-workers was around at the time and verifies that the hospitalization was voluntary--she drove the other co-worker to the hospital and picked her up at the end of that week). Tell me, then should this co-worker be denied her right to purchase a firearm?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:51:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:51:32 PM EDT
Criteria are decided by a judge. Hence the word "Adjudicated" "Committed to a mental institution" would infer, but I won't swear to it, means committed by, again, a Court Order, upon a Judge's Signature. Whether a Judge is qualified to determine psychological competence is a can of worms I don't even want to open. I'm just saying what the criteria are based upon in the courts I'm used to dealing with. Panz [bounce]
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 10:01:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 12:47:04 AM EDT
"We are at war with the East." "Wait a minute. Last week you said we were at war with the West?" "No, you are incorrect. We were always at war with the East." "How can that be? We have been at war with the West for over 5 years?" "Are you arguing with me? I said we are at war with the West." "I do not believe you because..." "That's it! You are deemed mentally incompetent. No guns for you!"
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 7:40:21 PM EDT
I wonder why we're losing this war (on gun control)??? Could it be we're killing ourselves. The problem with freedom is everyone wants freedom to do what he likes. If he is against something or is of no interest to him he wishes to ban it or accept restrictions on the activity. [X] TS [X] P.S. Who would like the 9th Circuit Court (the not under God squad) of Appeals to decide who is competent? P.P.S. BTW, I'm agnostic at best. However, I think under God should stay in.
Top Top