Here comes gun control in the back door....

[Guest Cami]

If he can't get what he wants by charming congress and exploiting children and Gifford, then he will do it the reasonable way...  After all it is for our own good...

 

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/04/20130419a.html

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's one I've been expecting. He is gutting HIPAA, which, from what my wife, the nurse tells me, was taken 

very seriously, at one time. It's also very probably a violation of that law, which the President can't do, or undo.

 

What are laws for, anyway? To incriminate more of the masses. This time, to undermine the 2nd Amendment.

Been waiting for it.

[mikegideon]

You're not supposed to lose your firearms right unless a Judge decides you're mentally ill, correct? Why are they trying to decide some other criteria? Am I reading it right?

Edited April 22, 2013 by mikegideon

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, I think so, Mike. At least it used to be that way.

[Hozzie]

I don't want undo oversight into this, but we can't complain that the mental health system is broke and then complain when they want to improve the reporting of the mental health information to the NICS system.  The issue for me isn't the reporting (I actually agree that this should be mandatory), but rather what qualifies a person to be on that list and who can determine that.  There needs to be some solid standards on that, but it can't be a case where someone crazy doesn't think they should be on the list because they think 'I am not crazy" by their thoughts.  Do we want to make it where only those who are found by a court to be crazy are on that list.  Our court system is so efficient, I see that working well (not), plus now I have to pay more for something that I don't think would help a lot.  There has to be some reasonable middle ground.  Don't get me wrong, going to a psychologist or psychiatrist should be encouraged if needed and that shouldn't be the only reason needed to put you on list. 

 

HIPPA is there to protect people, but we can't use that as an excuse to not to give any info that would keep people who really shouldn't own guns from getting them.  Will it keep some from seeking help, probably, but it isn't a perfect world.  

Edited April 22, 2013 by Hozzie

[npgunner]

Oh come on guys ... it's for your health, and the health of the children

[RobertNashville]

While I don't for a moment trust Obummer or Sebelius we do, I believe, need to find a way to identify those individuals who, because of their mental health status, should not be allowed to possess a firearm. I don't know what the best way to do that is but I think it's pretty apparent that the system we have now isn't working very well.

Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a way to do it without trampling on the rights of both the mentally disturbed as well as others.

[mikegideon]

I don't want undo oversight into this, but we can't complain that the mental health system is broke and then complain when they want to improve the reporting of the mental health information to the NICS system.  The issue for me isn't the reporting (I actually agree that this should be mandatory), but rather what qualifies a person to be on that list and who can determine that.  There needs to be some solid standards on that, but it can't be a case where someone crazy doesn't think they should be on the list because they don't think 'they aren't crazy" by their thoughts.  Do we want to make it where only those who are found by a court to be crazy are on that list.  Our court system is so efficient, I see that working well (not), plus now I have to pay more for something that I don't think would help a lot.  There has to be some reasonable middle ground.  Don't get me wrong, going to a psychologist or psychiatrist should be encouraged if needed and that shouldn't be the only reason needed to put you on list. 

 

HIPPA is there to protect people, but we can't use that as an excuse to not to give any info that would keep people who really shouldn't own guns from getting them.  Will it keep some from seeking help, probably, but it isn't a perfect world.  

 

That's what I was getting at. Obama just can't appoint a Crazy Czar.

[Jonnin]

Mental health is not an exact enough science that anyone CAN make a judgement call as to who is and who is not allowed a gun unless the person has a violent history.  Most who have a violent history are known and in the system already (not NICS, but the mental health system, which is not organized, and needs to be).  What you can't do is predict who will "snap" one day, esp teenagers who can be ignored as "angsty" when they may actually be "deeply disturbed". 

 

If they want to do something, organize mental health databases for violent persons as a starting point.  Privacy aside, I would rather know about the guy who is deemed a danger to everyone around him than who exposed himself in public 77 years ago.   That is,  lets fix the databases....   we don't need a "sex offender" database, we need a "violent persons" database which would INCLUDE rapists, child molesters, etc as well as murderers and the mentally unstable with a history of attacking people at random and so on.   It would include the disturbed kids that take 4 adults to subdue when they get angry. 

 

That is not even a gun issue.  Its a privacy vs public safety issue.   If its ok to list sex offenders though, it should be OK to do this.   Second tier, after doing this (registry of violent persons) is to share the data with NICS.

 

Even so, with the best system we could make, you still gonna have a few people snap and go on a killing spree.   This cannot be prevented, see the knife/bat/etc attacks in gun free countries. 

Edited April 22, 2013 by Jonnin

[mikegideon]

If a whacko comes to kill your kids... shoot him. This ain't hard.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I agree with Jonnin. You can't reliably predict the dangerous nuts, and there are too many garden-variety nuts to keep efficient tabs on. There are too many dangerous nuts to keep tabs on, as far as that goes.

[mikegideon]

I agree with Jonnin. You can't reliably predict the dangerous nuts, and there are too many garden-variety nuts to keep efficient tabs on. There are too many dangerous nuts to keep tabs on, as far as that goes.

 

Yep. Best to just shoot 'em when they start a spree.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't want undo oversight into this, but we can't complain that the mental health system is broke and then complain when they want to improve the reporting of the mental health information to the NICS system.  The issue for me isn't the reporting (I actually agree that this should be mandatory), but rather what qualifies a person to be on that list and who can determine that.  There needs to be some solid standards on that, but it can't be a case where someone crazy doesn't think they should be on the list because they think 'I am not crazy" by their thoughts.  Do we want to make it where only those who are found by a court to be crazy are on that list.  Our court system is so efficient, I see that working well (not), plus now I have to pay more for something that I don't think would help a lot.  There has to be some reasonable middle ground.  Don't get me wrong, going to a psychologist or psychiatrist should be encouraged if needed and that shouldn't be the only reason needed to put you on list. 

 

HIPPA is there to protect people, but we can't use that as an excuse to not to give any info that would keep people who really shouldn't own guns from getting them.  Will it keep some from seeking help, probably, but it isn't a perfect world.  

The courts are where this needs to be resolved. Do you want a psychiatrist "deeming" people unfit? There's a part

of the Constitution that gives each and every one of us our day in court. I'd rather hold myself to a higher standard

than to trust a shrink, or any other doctor. If a Doctor wants that kind of person to not be able to handle a weapon,

he or she should petition the court and let that person have their day. Don't let it get to the point that a shrink, or

other doctor just signs a piece of paper. You better rethink your value for the rights you have before you give this

one away, also. It would also be nice to de-politicize this issue before it gets out of hand, which could happen,

easily.

 

That's the most important right you would be playing with. I'd take it much more seriously.

Edited April 22, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Hozzie]

The courts are where this needs to be resolved. Do you want a psychiatrist "deeming" people unfit? There's a part

of the Constitution that gives each and every one of us our day in court. I'd rather hold myself to a higher standard

than to trust a shrink, or any other doctor. If a Doctor wants that kind of person to not be able to handle a weapon,

he or she should petition the court and let that person have their day. Don't let it get to the point that a shrink, or

other doctor just signs a piece of paper. You better rethink your value for the rights you have before you give this

one away, also. It would also be nice to de-politicize this issue before it gets out of hand, which could happen,

easily.

 

That's the most important right you would be playing with. I'd take it much more seriously.

 

It's not that I don't take it seriously, but in my opinion, putting all of this through a court will just lead to frustration and ultimately no improvement over what there is today.  Granted, I am not sure we have that big of problem, but I am willing to concede that these things are going to happen every now and then and it is part of the risk we take living with the freedoms we live with.

 

It will also cost a lot of money to put all of these things through the court system.  I am already tired of paying more than I think I should.  Maybe it shouldn't be up to one Psychologist or Psychiatrist.  Maybe it should be agreement between say 3 people vs just the court system.  There has to be something that isn't as subjective as one person, yet so cumbersome as having all of these things go through court.  I am no more convinced I will get someone concerned about my rights in the court system as I would with a therapist.  The only surefire way to prevent someones right from being taken away is to never get treatment and I don't condone that either.  

 

For me the choices are 1) live with the system the way it is and accept that these things will happen, 2) pay more taxes and put all of this through the court or 3) give some more authority to the Dr's who are seeing these people.  I am ok with 1, but I suspect most aren't.  I can live with 3 if there is more of a group decision needed, but I am not for 2.  I am tired of getting raped by all of the govt bureaucracy and adding more isn't really my idea of a good plan.

[mikegideon]

Since the end result of the exercise will be to remove somebody's constitutional rights, it HAS to go through the courts. I don't think there's any way to shortcut it.

[leroy]

My guess is it wont pass constitutional muster.  Doctors are not judges.  They may try this one; but  my guess is that when they get a "fortunate son" with some dollars; this one will be struck down too.  In the old days a judge had to review this sort of thing to get ya committed.

 

leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's not that I don't take it seriously, but in my opinion, putting all of this through a court will just lead to frustration and ultimately no improvement over what there is today.  Granted, I am not sure we have that big of problem, but I am willing to concede that these things are going to happen every now and then and it is part of the risk we take living with the freedoms we live with.

 

It will also cost a lot of money to put all of these things through the court system.  I am already tired of paying more than I think I should.  Maybe it shouldn't be up to one Psychologist or Psychiatrist.  Maybe it should be agreement between say 3 people vs just the court system.  There has to be something that isn't as subjective as one person, yet so cumbersome as having all of these things go through court.  I am no more convinced I will get someone concerned about my rights in the court system as I would with a therapist.  The only surefire way to prevent someones right from being taken away is to never get treatment and I don't condone that either.  

 

For me the choices are 1) live with the system the way it is and accept that these things will happen, 2) pay more taxes and put all of this through the court or 3) give some more authority to the Dr's who are seeing these people.  I am ok with 1, but I suspect most aren't.  I can live with 3 if there is more of a group decision needed, but I am not for 2.  I am tired of getting raped by all of the govt bureaucracy and adding more isn't really my idea of a good plan.

As frustrating as some things are, there are times when they should be uncomfortable and frustrating. I will also

never accept using these types of issues as an excuse further strengthen the government's power and increase

taxes. There are good reasons those rights exist, and they aren't for the government.We should never take them

lightly. There are some things a new law won't prevent from happening.

[Guest PapaB]

The courts are where this needs to be resolved. Do you want a psychiatrist "deeming" people unfit? There's a part

of the Constitution that gives each and every one of us our day in court. I'd rather hold myself to a higher standard

than to trust a shrink, or any other doctor. If a Doctor wants that kind of person to not be able to handle a weapon,

he or she should petition the court and let that person have their day. Don't let it get to the point that a shrink, or

other doctor just signs a piece of paper. You better rethink your value for the rights you have before you give this

one away, also. It would also be nice to de-politicize this issue before it gets out of hand, which could happen,

easily.

 

That's the most important right you would be playing with. I'd take it much more seriously.

 

I understand where you're going with this but it won't work the way you want it to. Judges know nothing about mental health matters so they almost always defer to the expertise of the Psychiatrist. Unless the defendant can afford a better one than the State has, the judge will rubber stamp the reccomendation of the governments Doctor. In my experience, it's very difficult for the defendants Doctor to override the governments and it seldom happens.

 

The answer, which we won't see, is through well written laws that protect the innocent without allowing the truly disturbed to escape. The court ordered evaluation process has to be tilted slightly in favor of the accused. In making decisions, Judges will need more common sense than many of them will ever have. All these things need to come together and without them, the courts involvement will be moot.

[Jonnin]

It's not that I don't take it seriously, but in my opinion, putting all of this through a court will just lead to frustration and ultimately no improvement over what there is today.  Granted, I am not sure we have that big of problem, but I am willing to concede that these things are going to happen every now and then and it is part of the risk we take living with the freedoms we live with.

 

It will also cost a lot of money to put all of these things through the court system.  I am already tired of paying more than I think I should.  Maybe it shouldn't be up to one Psychologist or Psychiatrist.  Maybe it should be agreement between say 3 people vs just the court system.  There has to be something that isn't as subjective as one person, yet so cumbersome as having all of these things go through court.  I am no more convinced I will get someone concerned about my rights in the court system as I would with a therapist.  The only surefire way to prevent someones right from being taken away is to never get treatment and I don't condone that either.  

 

For me the choices are 1) live with the system the way it is and accept that these things will happen, 2) pay more taxes and put all of this through the court or 3) give some more authority to the Dr's who are seeing these people.  I am ok with 1, but I suspect most aren't.  I can live with 3 if there is more of a group decision needed, but I am not for 2.  I am tired of getting raped by all of the govt bureaucracy and adding more isn't really my idea of a good plan.

 

3 people?  3 what?  Mental health professionals are *clueless*, in truth.  They treat symptoms but not a one of em has cured a violent person to the point that said person can return to a 100% free and normal life to the point that the doctor can say with 100% certainty that the patient will never go ape again.   Until they can cure the disease, they do not truly understand the disease.  Until they understand the disease, they cannot predict who will and who will not do something violent.  Until they can do that, there is no way they can sign away someone's rights.    So they err on the side of caution: deny the rights!  If they do NOT, and the guy DOES shoot someone, they are in trouble.  But if they deny the rights and no one gets hurt, they are geniuses.   ....... There is no scenario here that is not epic fail for gun owners.

[RichardR]

The main problem is that "crime prevention legislation" is just feel good nonsense that only erodes law-abiding folks rights & freedoms.

Ok let's say a judge or psychologist declares an emotionally troubled person "unfit" to own a firearm, is that really going to prevent them from stealing or buying a stolen firearm?

No ... not unless that person is a "law abiding minded person" to begin with, a "criminal minded person" doesn't give a crap.

*sigh* I cannot understand why there are so many people who believe crime prevention legislation actually preventscriminals from committing crimes ...

[JAB]

So, where does it end?

 

"Well, we know that guy is guilty.  The police and prosecutors are experts in their field and they say he is guilty so let's just skip all this unnecessary courtroom nonsense and get on with the sentencing phase.  Bothering with courts and a trial would just slow things down."

 

Sound unreasonable?  Then what is the difference in letting a mental health 'expert' decide that a person is too crazy to own a gun?  Honestly, there isn't much difference.

 

Do I want more crazies shooting people?  No.  Do I want to be shot by some crazy who is awaiting his day in court?  No.  Do I want to live in a country where a basic, enumerated right can be taken away just because some dude has an office and a degree which supposedly make him 'qualified' to take that right away?  Hell no.  With freedom comes risk and I do not think that the 'risk' of actually following the legal method for suspension of firearm rights outweighs the potential, unjustified loss of freedom.  In other words, I would rather risk getting shot than live in a country where a "doctor" can simply make the decision to take rights away.

Edited April 24, 2013 by JAB

[RichardR]

So, where does it end?

"Well, we know that guy is guilty. The police and prosecutors are experts in their field and they say he is guilty so let's just skip all this unnecessary courtroom nonsense and get on with the sentencing phase. Bothering with courts and a trial would just slow things down."

Sound unreasonable? Then what is the difference in letting a mental health 'expert' decide that a person is too crazy to own a gun? Honestly, there isn't much difference.

Do I want more crazies shooting people? No. Do I want to be shot by some crazy who is awaiting his day in court? No. Do I want to live in a country where a basic, enumerated right can be taken away just because some dude has an office and a degree which supposedly make him 'qualified' to take that right away? Hell no. With freedom comes risk and I do not think that the 'risk' of actually following the legal method for suspension of firearm rights is worth the potential, unjustified loss of freedom. In other words, I would rather risk getting shot than live in a country where a "doctor" can simply make the decision to take rights away.

Well said JAB

[dats82]

I have mixed emotions about all this.  I completely understand that it seems rediculous that one person could deem you mentally unfit; however, having limited exposure in the mental health world, I can also tell you, without a doubt, there are people in this world who are absolutely not competent enough to own a gun.  I know the laws vary by state, but my experience with legal psych stuff was in regards to involuntarily committing patients to an inpatient facility.  In the same way, this is also a process of removing a persons rights.  Through this process, you are able to hold a person against their will as long as the health professional deems necesary.  In the state where I was involved in this process, it was not the decision of one professional or one lawman that could accomplish this.  There were at least two mental health evaluations from two different professionals, a couple of attorneys, and a judge.  I never saw these decisions taken lightly, and in most cases, these rulings were for temporary circumstances.  I see no indication that a decision regarding a persons constitutional right, which would effect such rights for the rest of their life, would be taken any less serious than one that would be temporary. 

 

However, on the other hand, I feel this would be similar to felons.  As we all know, felons have been stripped of their second amendment rights, but it certainly does not seem too difficult for a felon to get a gun.  There are people in this world who, I believe, are truly evil.  They have evil intent, and they always will.  You can call them mentally ill or felons or whatever, but the simple fact of it is that until you find a way to effectively deal with such people in society, passing a law that makes an illegal act extra illegal will have no affect, zero.   

[Oh Shoot]

....
Ok let's say a judge or psychologist declares an emotionally troubled person "unfit" to own a firearm, is that really going to prevent them from stealing or buying a stolen firearm?

 

No need for that ... just buy it at gun show in majority of the states.

 

- OS

[Randall53]

Criminals will always be able to buy guns. I doubt that gun shows are even in the top 5 places they aquire them.