IMPORTANT! SB789

[towerclimber37]

Tennessee legislature has SB789 out of Judiciary.

This bill strips the rights of citizens to own firearms if a psychiatrist deems them incompetent, without ANY Ajudication by a court of law!

It also allows them to raid your medical records to do so. you know they'll be looking at veterans!

I applaud the idea of stopping folks that make threats, but the devil is in the details, folks. you may want to take a look at the bill itself and call your state representative.

 

[LowBb]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Fiscal/HB0645.pdf

Please explain where you get your initial post from this link which describes the bill. I see this as very different then your interpretation. Perhaps someone smarter than me(Oh Shoot) could make heads or tails of all the big words.

Here is an interpretation I found.

Mental Illness - As introduced, requires mental health professionals to report any patient who makes an actual threat of bodily harm against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims to local law enforcement who shall report such patient to NICS for purposes of prohibiting the purchase of a firearm when a background check is conducted.
http://openstates.org/tn/bills/108/SB789/

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Even though the bill makes attempts to report "threats", there still should be more than just an order of

commitment, or whatever it is called. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the idea of relying on anything

less than a person's day in court of his peers to remove one of his rights.

 

I don't know how to stop crazies from killing, like in Newtown, but this doesn't cut it, in my mind. How much

of a leap could it be before you and I could be deemed unfit to pass a NICS check?

[LowBb]

Maybe I'm wrong, but this bill tries to report potentially violent people to the background check division of the state in order to flag them if they try and purchase a gun. It is an attempt to fix a problem, which is mentally ill people acquiring guns. Is this not what we want? We have all been saying its not the guns that are killing people, it's criminals and the mentally ill.

[Guest tommy62]

I work in the mental health field. The problem is that most of the people in this field swing way left on gun issues. I could see where this could prove to be problematic especially when patients are in a crisis. It is standard when a patient is in crisis to ask if they have access to firearms. I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals but I fear that if this gets reported many people will lose gun rights. Most clinicians err on the side of caution and safety in such instances rather than seeking a practical solution such as having a family member secure or remove the firearms.

[npgunner]

There doesn't appear to be a way to remove said report from the system which bothers me. Say someone gets depressed and has suicidal or homicidal ideations. Ok, he probably doesn't need access to guns during that period. But now he's treated successfully and not a threat to anyone, he should have his rights back and the system should be updated to reflect his current condition. But doing this would put a lot of extra work in the system with updating everyone's files and would likely result in incorrect database.

[towerclimber37]

LowBb, you got the idea of the bill right..you're understanding it.   Now think about this. How many veterans who deployed to combat zones have received a numbered but "completely anonymous" mental health questionairre that they filled out.

If you filled that out, it's still in your records, for good or ill. (I tossed mine in the trash can-don't trust them folks"..
I am extremely uncomfortable with anyone who has the ability to remove my rights in an extralegal manner.  I've noticed that our legislators are passing laws that look good on the surface but they absolutely suck if you're a thinking man that examines them.

[Sky King]

I have a few thoughts on this.  I agree that numerated rights should not be able to be restricted without due process.  However because our legal system is bogged down and slow, a person who could be a REAL threat could act before legal action could take place.  Temporary restrictions that have a specified expiration unless imposeded permanently by THE COURT MAY be an answer.  There would have to be very specific language to deal with this.  As already posted, the "professionals" in the mental health business likely lean liberal, anti-gun.  Add to that this question, how many of us have used the phrase, "if I ever catch up with that SOB, I'm gonna kill him"?  Come on, get real, we all have said that at one time or another only figuratively with no real intention of doing that.  We are just mad and want to vent.  However in this day and age of kids being expelled from school for just pointing a finger in a way that someone says looks like a gun or having the police and child services show up at your door because your child posed with a rifle that was given to him as a gift, we have to be careful what we say and who can hear it.

 

I do agree that there should be some mechanism to intervein if there is a possibility a person could be on the eminent verge of committing a violent act.  But let's not start down a slippery slope that we can not stop.

 

I might add, I have just gone to the General Assembly web site and read the whole bill.  First, it shows that it has passed the complete Senate with 33 for and 0 against.  It is now in the hands of the House.  Also after reading the bill, because I am NOT a lawyer, there are so many referances to other laws and statutes which impact this bill, I would not venture any guess about the real meaning of this bill.  I need to hear from some of our real lawyers on this forum first.

 

I do understand the need to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable but we need to make sure language is in place to protect those who are not OR may at some time be deemed competent. 

[zapfbroad]

there is a nics appeal process if someone was flagged as being mentally unstable, deficient, etc, etc. within i'm sure there is somewhere the individual can submit a statement from the psychiatrist saying they affirm the patient is not experiencing homicidal or suicidal ideations and doesn't presently pose a threat to himself or others blah blah blah.

 

if they want to add that language proposed they should also propose the streamlined and newly efficient way in which it can be reversed or correct etc

[1gewehr]

Currently, firearms sales are prohibited only to those who have actually been adjudicated as being mentally ill.  This law would strip 2nd amendment rights based on hearsay alone.  In essence, you would lose a Constitutionally-protected right based on what you said, not on a proven action or intent. 

The right to keep and bear arms is already the only Constitutionally-protected right that you can lose without becoming a felon.  The Violence Against Women Act makes any man a violent criminal in the eyes of the law based only on an affidavit from the woman that the man has made verbal threats or acted like he was going to hit her.  Anyone going through a divorce should understand that a Temporary Restraining Order is almost standard procedure by many divorce attorneys.  If you don't fight it, you lose twice.  You lose your guns, and the other side uses the TRO to show a reason to deny you fair distribution of assets, child custody, or even unsupervised visitation.

 

This bill would require ANY 'mental health professionals' to deny you firearms if you make what THEY perceive as threats.  And the threat doesn't have to be in their presence.  They just have to hear of such a threat.  And the category of 'mental health professionals' is very broad.  It includes school counselors, pastors, and others you would not suspect.

[LowBb]

I have a few thoughts on this.  I agree that numerated rights should not be able to be restricted without due process.  However because our legal system is bogged down and slow, a person who could be a REAL threat could act before legal action could take place.  Temporary restrictions that have a specified expiration unless imposeded permanently by THE COURT MAY be an answer.  There would have to be very specific language to deal with this.  As already posted, the "professionals" in the mental health business likely lean liberal, anti-gun.  Add to that this question, how many of us have used the phrase, "if I ever catch up with that SOB, I'm gonna kill him"?  Come on, get real, we all have said that at one time or another only figuratively with no real intention of doing that.  We are just mad and want to vent.  However in this day and age of kids being expelled from school for just pointing a finger in a way that someone says looks like a gun or having the police and child services show up at your door because your child posed with a rifle that was given to him as a gift, we have to be careful what we say and who can hear it.
 
I do agree that there should be some mechanism to intervein if there is a possibility a person could be on the eminent verge of committing a violent act.  But let's not start down a slippery slope that we can not stop.
 
I might add, I have just gone to the General Assembly web site and read the whole bill.  First, it shows that it has passed the complete Senate with 33 for and 0 against.  It is now in the hands of the House.  Also after reading the bill, because I am NOT a lawyer, there are so many referances to other laws and statutes which impact this bill, I would not venture any guess about the real meaning of this bill.  I need to hear from some of our real lawyers on this forum first.
 
I do understand the need to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable but we need to make sure language is in place to protect those who are not OR may at some time be deemed competent. 

Well said

[S&WForty]

It all comes down to that often rephrased quotation: those who give up liberty for the sake of security will have neither.

Every solution the hand-wringers come up with strips more freedom from good and harmless people. It is so disgusting.

We cannot rid ourselves of evil. We can only react to it decisively with swiftness which may deter future acts from being committed.

Isn't it fitting that those who want to strip us of freedom for the sake of safety are the very same people who refuse to rightfully punish those who commit evil against us...

[Sky King]

It all comes down to that often rephrased quotation: those who give up liberty for the sake of security will have neither.

Every solution the hand-wringers come up with strips more freedom from good and harmless people. It is so disgusting.

We cannot rid ourselves of evil. We can only react to it decisively with swiftness which may deter future acts from being committed.

Isn't it fitting that those who want to strip us of freedom for the sake of safety are the very same people who refuse to rightfully punish those who commit evil against us...

 

I agree whole heartedly.  I truely feel that the we as a society have abdicated the responsibility for our personal safety to the government and police.  Look at the pioneers who settled our country.  Who protected them?  THEY DID.  And in all fairness, AND as ruled by federal courts, the police have no duty to protect you, their only responsibility is AFTER the fact.  The problem is, just as with other social issues, "we" have become a society who wants somebody else, ie the government to take care of us, physically and financially.  The whole idea of personal responsibility and accountability has been lost. 

 

With all that said I do still believe that society DOES have some responsibility for others in some areas.  I have no problem with welfare and physical care for those who TRUELY are unable to care for themselves, the REALLY mentally ill, REALLY physically unable to work and the very elderly.  I also believe that while I will never say, with few exceptions, such as those who by their actions, ie violent felons, have proven they can not be responsible members of society do not have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, BUT not all should in practicality exercise that right. 

 

My father is a prime example.  He is well into his 90's, has advanced Alzheimers and can't physically take care of himself.  Now he is an obvious case.  BUT many years ago before that horrible disease did what it has done to him, when he was still living by himself at home, his physical strength and mental sharpness was declining.  Even though he still was driving, (riding with him was becomming a white knuckle adventure), my siblings and I decided that even though he had a concealed carry permit, (he lived in Kentucky), it was probably not to advisable that he carry.  He would likely have the weapon taken from him and used against him before he knew what was happening.

 

BUT at no time did I ever say he didn't have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, it just wasn't advisable in his case.

[1gewehr]

With all that said I do still believe that society DOES have some responsibility for others in some areas.  I have no problem with welfare and physical care for those who TRUELY are unable to care for themselves, the REALLY mentally ill, REALLY physically unable to work and the very elderly. 

 

I agree that society has the responsibility to take care of those who cannot care for themselves.  However, you confuse 'society' with 'government'.  I do NOT believe that government has any such responsibility except to veterans. 

 

As Christians, we are taught to help others, and to share our time, talents, and resources.  That is a gift, voluntarily given.  when government provides charity, it is not a gift, and is certainly not voluntary.  It is money that is taken by threat of force, and usually used to buy votes from those who oppose us.  Government-provided 'charity' is just a means for politicians to control us, and is not a tool for good. 

 

Just a 'gun control' is never about helping citizens.  It's about helping those in power to keep and increase their power.

[JAB]

don't know how to stop crazies from killing, like in Newtown, but this doesn't cut it, in my mind. How much

of a leap could it be before you and I could be deemed unfit to pass a NICS check?

 

That is because we can't.  Period.  We might curb such killings but there is no way to stop them.  Even if we allow rights to be unjustly stripped and so on such killings will not stop.

 

I think that is the real problem with all the knee-jerk legislation, etc.  It impacts the rights of the law-abiding but cannot stop the kinds of things it is intended to stop.  Legislators are just wanting to be seen 'doing something'.  That is because people need a clear 'problem' that can be confronted and solved.  In this case, however, until someone 'snaps' there truly might not be anything to confront.  People don't want to accept that fact, however, and so they allow (or even call for) legislation that makes it seem like the 'problem' is being confronted but which, in reality, doesn't do much to stop future tragedy and only restricts the rights of those who are not and will not be the problem.