Mother of suicide victim sues Wal-Mart over gun sale

[rainbow4321]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D873H67G0.html

Stewart, 24, was diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic. She had assaulted police officers. She had been arrested for attacking a fellow customer at a Denton Wal-Mart where she had a prescription to anti-psychotic medication.

Given all those signs, her parents say, another Wal-Mart just seven miles away should have never sold her the shotgun Stewart used to kill herself in 2003.

Her mother, Lavern Bracy, filed a $25 million wrongful death lawsuit last week in a Denton County district court against the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailing giant, saying clerks should have known about her daughter's illness or done more to find out.

Federal law prohibits stores from selling guns to people who, like Stewart, have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions or declared by a judge to be mentally ill and a danger to herself or others or incapable of handling her own affairs. A federal background check is conducted on all gun buyers to weed out those who are prohibited. The form that must be filled out to buy a gun asks about mental health. Stewart, who had been both committed to an institution and declared dangerously mentally ill by a judge, lied on that form, according to her mother's attorney's office.

[TwentyFive]

1. I hate walmart - but this lawsuit is a waste.

Even if they knew she was unstable, she still had a legal right to buy a gun. If she didn't get it from walmart, she would have bought elsewhere.

Perhaps we do need gun registration laws in this country?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

2. Sure, that way it will be easy for SF to take them all away

No thanks and I don't even own one.

[TwentyFive]

6. How does gun registration 'take' guns away? A contradiction in terms?

Am I so crazy to think people should have to pass background checks, including one for mental stability. The lives we could save....

[AliciaKeyedUp]

29. Ask the people in San Francisco

Which is moving to ban guns. You first tell the government who owns them. Then they take them based on that list.

But I'm guessing you need a gun owner to take a stand against you and I'm not. I have children in my house and don't allow guns.

[sled]

40. As though

Guns were the root, of her problem... By the same logic, we'd outlaw pills, rope, tall buildings, etc. ... Punish all, to solve the problems, of a few...

[DoNotRefill]

89. Registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation....

Without an effective registration program in place, the government doesn't know who to collect the guns from.

According to the article, the woman PASSED the background check. The dealer complied with the law, it's the government that fucked up. The Government should have said "no" when the background check was conducted. Instead, they didn't keep track of her records, and said "yes" to the sale.

[juliagoolia]

109. There is no mandate on the state to turn the info

over to the federal computer systems.

Thats a flaw in the law. Although the law requires the mental illness to prohibit her from getting the gun, there is no process to notify the background record keeper that she is in fact mentally ill, so the background check is only as good as the data in it.

[DoNotRefill]

111. Most background checks are actually conducted by the States...

and include all state records. It's only if the State doesn't have it's own background check law that it goes to the NCIC.

[juliagoolia]

114. And in a lot of STATES its not reported either

Like in TX where this took place. The law enforcement officials in TX do not know who is or is not mentally ill. State law prohibits the sharing of that info.

[DoNotRefill]

115. And WHY does state law prohibit sharing medical records?

eom

[slackmaster]

143. In Texas it's a cultural thing

People are very big on privacy and property rights there. Texas is one of just a few states where the price you paid for your home is not in the public record. (Although the property tax you pay is public, and from it the purchase price can be extrapolated.)

[juliagoolia]

130. TX does not do one

So, the check would be a federal instant check.

[Richard Steele]

151. EXACTLY!

The LAW requires a backround check for ALL such purchases.

But the LAW is not being followed by the government. Loopholes, underfunding and apathy have made this law a JOKE just short of a Kafka film!

The LAW is just 'lip-service' if it is not vigorously applied...and this one is NOT being applied!

The so-called DATABASE is haphazard, erratic, entirely hit-or-miss.

People who were cited for 'disturbing the peace' because they held a loud party in the 70's can be denied a gun purchase.....while persons with a lifelong history of violently anti-social mental disturbance walk out of the stores with firearms EVERY DAY.

One more "unfunded mandate"; add it to the list.

[merwin]

15. So, by that logic... car registration lets them take your car? n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

30. No one seems to want to take my car

There are people who do want to take away guns.

[DemBones DemBones]

128. Sure, if they wanted it. nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. No she didn't have a legal right to buy a gun...it's right there in the

article. They had a legal duty to make sure they were in compliance with applicable federal laws.

[merwin]

22. The check they were doing was a federal background check

that goes through the FBI records. Since Texas (and 37 other states) don't report mental problems to this database (they say it's a violation of privacy), nothing turned up.

Really, how were they supposed to know? Do you honestly think that if they asked her why she wanted the gun, she would just admit that she wanted it to kill herself?

[salin]

58. shouldn't her attack on police officers have come up

and given a clue?

[Xithras]

70. No

See my other post. Only convictions show up under the criminal history check.

[slackmaster]

61. Wal-Mart's duty is to see that all the paperwork is done properly

It's the responsibility of a gun buyer to answer questions on the paperwork honestly.

The seller has an obligation to verify a gun buyer's ID, perhaps to see that the signature the buyer reasonably matches that on the ID card. If they have reason to believe that a transaction is suspicious they have a duty to refuse the sale. For example, if it appears that someone might be making a straw purchase that's a no-go. In this case they had no reason not to process the transaction.

They had a legal duty to make sure they were in compliance with applicable federal laws.

From the information available her it appears that Wal-Mart did exactly that. The buyer's answers and the response from NICS are supposed to serve as a background investigation. The seller is not obligated to take it any further unless they happen to have knowledge that the sale is not lawful.

[DoNotRefill]

90. Ummm...NSMA....

they DID conduct the background check, in accordance with the law. The State cleared her purchase before they sold it to her.

[The Doctor.]

17. Plenty of imbalanced people buy guns...

Unfortunately we have no means of 'testing' them unless they have a history such as the subject in this case.

Any such test would, of course, be arbitrated by very biased administrators who wouldn't let a besieged single woman own one for "mental instability", but give a pass to a fellow churchgoer or political sympathizer. (So what if Clem used ta' burn cats t' death - he's a good Christian man.)

Maybe we should issue permits for having kids too...

[NYC]

18. Federal law prohibited selling a gun to her.

Excerpt from article:

Federal law prohibits stores from selling guns to people who, like Stewart, have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions or declared by a judge to be mentally ill and a danger to herself or others or incapable of handling her own affairs. A federal background check is conducted on all gun buyers to weed out those who are prohibited...

[hollowdweller]

37. Here they do a computer background check. Wonder why her mental health tx

didn't come up?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

38. patient confidentiality i would assume.

medical information is gaurded very tightly these days.

[DoNotRefill]

92. Nah....

the information has nothing to do with patient confidentiality. The disqualifier is being adjudicated mentally defective....that means you go to court, and the judge rules that you're nuts. Since it's a judicial proceeding, it's a matter of public record. It's the same thing as a felony conviction.

[NYC]

72. Maybe they didn't actually do the check.

Not processing the paperwork could be the cause of this. ???

[slackmaster]

76. That would be a serious mistake by Wal-Mart if it happened

The store could lose its Federal Firearms License. Someone could even go to prison.

[DoNotRefill]

91. It'll be easy to check...

each background check ends with them (the State or NCIC) giving the seller an individual identifier, which they must enter on the 4473. If they didn't approve the transaction, it'll be really easy to find out.

[DS1]

106. Yes, but Ashcroft eliminated the requirement to keep those records

longer than 48 hours.

[DoNotRefill]

110. Ummm....

Ashcroft eliminated the requirement for the GOVERNMENT to keep those records for longer than 48 hours. The SELLER musk keep those records for a minimum of TWENTY YEARS, and surrender them to the Government if they go out of business.

The records are easy to find, and are maintained basically forever.

[DS1]

112. I stand by my statement

She's not getting a nickel from Wal*Mart.

[DoNotRefill]

113. true...

nt

[slackmaster]

55. She lied on the paperwork

One of the questions on Form 4473 asks whether you have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated incompetent.

Unless that information has been piped up to the National Instant Check System (NICS) the only way to catch a person disqualified for that reason from buying a gun is when they answer the question on Form 4473 honestly. A person who has decided to buy a gun in order to facilitate suicide isn't going to do that.

[NYC]

71. Doesn't anyone check the paperwork?

What is the point of requiring it if it goes unchecked.

Next time I fill out a job application, I will say that I was CEO of AT&T. Think anyone will check?

[slackmaster]

75. Paper was original implementation of Gun Control Act of 1968

Now as in '68 nobody looks at the paper unless there is some reason to e.g. a criminal investigation. The system was very weak, the result of a series of compromises when the GCA was negotiated in Congress.

The whole point of the permanent provisions of the Brady Act is to fix that weakness. Data about criminal convictions, mental health adjudications (and I assume involuntary commitments as well) is supposed to be in the National Instant Check System (NICS). So should restraining orders thanks to the 1994 crime bill.

But the states have not been very thorough in passing that information up to the federal government.

If NICS had all the information it was supposed to, this gun sale would have been stopped. Garbat

Next time I fill out a job application, I will say that I was CEO of AT&T. Think anyone will check?

That's a different situation, and I hope someone would check!

[Maat]

3. So sad.

I know that I'm going to get flamed ... but if guns weren't so readily available...

I know that there are many DUers that are hunting afictionados .. I won't have them in my house..the chance of an accident is much greater than the chance of it protecting you.

Oh, well, I can see why people want the right to own preserved, but accidents like these break this 'retired' social worker's heart.


Think of Mike Sherman, coach of the Green Bay Packers. His son was killed while working on a shotgun in the garage - his 14-year-old. If I lost my 14-year-old, I would be curled up in a ball in a rubber room - I couldn't even begin to think about coaching. Sorry. EOR.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

4. Not an accident, a suicide

There's a big difference. If you want to kill yourself, we can't stop you.

[havocmom]

7. There ya go. Problem is not guns, but making it more likely that people

can get the mental health care they really need. Nothing will stop a determined suicide, but good care is the best strategy.

And if someone lies on the paperwork, how is the business responsible?
Much as I hate WalMart, is it their job to parent young people with serious issues, or is it their families' responsibility? How about the person who lied to get the gun and then pulled the trigger? How are her actions WalMart's fault?

[rocktivity]

14. Posted by Havocmom

If someone lies on the paperwork, how is the business responsible?

That's pretty much what Judge Judy told a woman whose 16-year old daughter got a tattoo. She wanted the tattoo parlor to pay for its removal, but the daughter had shown a fake ID and signed a form saying she was at least eighteen. Case dismissed!

:headbang:
rocknation

[tsuki]

27. "She had assaulted police officers.

She had been arrested for attacking a fellow customer at a Denton Wal-Mart..."

That should have shown up on her background check. Those are not "mental illness issues," those are criminal charges.

[Xithras]

69. "Charges" don't show up

Gun retailers don't get to look at your criminal history when you register, they simply enter your information and wait for a simple "Yes" or "No".

The computer that generates that "Yes" or "No" just looks for convictions, mental health problems, restraining orders, etc. An arrest probably wouldn't even show up in the federal computer system, and if it did, it wouldn't be grounds to decline a sale.

[tsuki]

121. But if she had been arrested, wouldn't the court resolution be noted?

[Xithras]

134. You assume there was a resolution

FYI, most arrests never lead to criminal charges, much less court resolutions or convictions. More often than not, people get released after sobering up, getting a warning, or answering a few questions. In this case, the police or prosecutors probably decided against filing formal charges because of her mental illness, and release her to her parents or a psych ward. Neither of those resolutions would come up in a background check.

[tsuki]

26. Why was his 14 year old working in a garage with a shot gun?

We have a locked closet in our house with the hunting guns even now. My husband would never allow son to work on a shot gun alone, even after he took the gun safety class.

[DoNotRefill]

94. Ummmm....she went to the trouble....

of BUYING a gun especially to kill herself with. That means she went to the store, filled out all the paperwork, had all the necessary ID, underwent a background check, coughed up a couple of hundred dollars in cash, learned how to use the gun, et cetera.

That tells me that she was pretty serious about killing herself. Does the fact that she shot herself make her death any more horrible than if she'd simply driven her car into a bridge abutment at high speed, or bought a couple of boxes of rat poison, or parked her car in her garage and sat in it with the motor running, or jumped off of a bridge?

SHE killed herself. It's not the gun's fault.

[Sporadicus]

5. Not That I'm in the Habit of Defending Wal-Mart

but doesn't the onus of determining whether a person is competent to purchase a firearm fall on the government? Wal-Mart is merely the firearm dealer who has no way of determining whether a person is filling out the form truthfully. The article also hinted that the poor woman's mother was going to argue that, since her daughter was something of a local celebrity, every clerk in the sporting goods section should know her history - thereby preventing the sale in the first place. There may be a case if it can be determined that the salesperson had firsthand knowledge of the woman's involuntary commitment, but I'm betting she wasn't THAT infamous.

[Maat]

8. Points well-taken.

I wonder what went wrong with the computer check, though.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. kind of a catch 22

It said the gun dept didn't have the legal right to search the pharmacy records, due to privacy laws.

So they aren't supposed to sell guns to a mentally ill person but they have no way of finding out if the person is mentally ill?

That is pretty crazy. :wtf:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Due diligence...even ifthe clerk didn't know..WALMART is responsible

for WALMART being in compliance with federal law. With all the other info they share with Betonville on every customer that walks through their doors, this shouldn't have been too difficult to manage.

I guarantee you if she slipped and fell in a Wal MArt, they'd have every record of every prescription available to defend themselves.

[merwin]

23. So they should spend $10,000 on every person that tries to buy a gun?

They were in compliance with the federal law. It's not Wal-Mart's fault if the federal law sucks and needs to be rewritten.

Somehow, 38 states have deemed mental records to be completely confidential and have no basis in these background checks. The federal law allows this to happen. She could have gone into ANY gun shop and the exact same thing would have happened.

Federal background checks on guns are a joke, and that's an issue that needs to be taken up with the federal government, not the store that is merely following the government mandated rules.

[livinginphotographs]

62. I know I'm going to regret this

Since I avoid these gun threads like the plague, but I'll dive right in.

Mental records are confidential. The fact that she assaulted police officers and a fellow customer are not. If this girl had no criminal record, and she went in and lied on the application, then bought the gun and killed herself, I'd say that it was not Wal-Mart's fault. But the fact that she had a criminal record makes it their fault.

What if she was not intending to kill herself? What if she was intending to go shoot up a preschool or a monastery (I'm being ridiculously hypothetical here, before anyone tries to jump on those examples)? Gun laws exist to protect the general public from those who are not fit to own them, much like traffic laws exist to prevent those who are not fit to drive from driving.

Wal-Mart is definitely responsible; I think another poster mentioned "due diligence;" that responsibility is on the gun owner if they wish to sell weapons.

And as far as gun registration leading to gun confiscation: please! That's just more NRA propaganda BS. If you're worried about people knowing you have a gun, that's a pretty good reason right there not to allow you to have one.

[merwin]

137. But the background check is just a federal form. Wal-Mart doesn't actually

perform the background check itself. The government actually has the database, not the individual gun salesman. That is how it works, like it or not. If, somehow, the background check came back clean then it's the federal government that is at fault, not Wal Mart.

[livinginphotographs]

141. I did not know that.

(This is why I rarely come into these threads, because I know next to nothing about guns).

Since that't the case, that's definitely a situation that needs to be fixed. :shrug: I mean, they can run credit reports off of databases like that, so why not keep criminal records in a similar one, or at least allow gun owners to have access to them?

[DoNotRefill]

145. And as far as gun registration leading to gun confiscation: please!

Actually, it's already happened here in the US. In California, to be precise, with the State "AW ban". They required registration, and then went around to people who had registered them and confiscated them after the State AG decided to change the rules.

You say: "If you're worried about people knowing you have a gun, that's a pretty good reason right there not to allow you to have one."

Would you therefore agree with the following statement: "If you're worried about people knowing you are planning to vote Democratic, that's a pretty good reason right there not to allow you to vote period."

or

"If you're worried about people knowing what you're going to publish before you publish it, that's a pretty good reason right there not to allow you to publish at all."

Because they're the same, it's just a different civil liberty being affected.

[TiKiGoD]

28. Finally, a truly frivolous law suit...

This is the sort of thing that gets publicized and lends credence to the Bush administration's war on frivolous law suits. While I expect the pharmacists at Wal-Mart to be reasonably well paid and well educated, have you been to the sporting goods department at Wal-Mart? Not the brightest group of people working there. It's hard enough to just get a fishing license. It is unrealistic to expect them to place a call over to the pharmacy.

Also, someone who wants to kill herself will find away. I'm just glad she did it this way instead of crashing her car in to oncoming traffic or something. If she did it that way, would the mother sue the maker of the SUV her daughter crashed in to?

I hate Wal-Mart - especially since where I live, they are the only place to get some things without driving for an hour. But this is not Wal-Mat's fault. And the lawsuit just hurts people with valid claims.

[amazona]

52. "It's hard enough to just get a fishing license." -- do i agree!

And if you want to really puzzle the clerk, try buying a nonconsumptive license. Whee.

[depakid]

59. If it's a frivolous suit- it'll get thrown out of court

before a jury ever sees it.

However, it doesn't look frivolous to me.

The question here is the extent of Wallmart's duty under the law.

And we don't know the answer to that. Maybe this is the first case to test that in this jurisdiction. If so, that's what the civil courts 9the common law) is meant to do and has done for many centuries.

If however Wallmart's duty was spelled out clearly- which it appears it may be- and they breaching that duty not by illegally selling a gun to a mentally ill person with a civil committment record, then it's entirely forseeable that this person would take her own life or otherwise cause someone damages.

That's exactly the type of harm the statute was put in place to prevent.

If you don't like the law- change the statute, but don't blame the attorney- they're only trying to enforce it.

[DoNotRefill]

95. NSMA....what makes you think that they didn't exercise...

due diligence? They obeyed the law, and did the background check, yes?

Your argument seems to be that Wal-mart should keep better track of their customers background. Isn't that a HUGE privacy issue?

[rocktivity]

9. The guy who shot Darrell Abbott was a paranoid schizophrenic

who got his gun from his mother as a Christmas gift a year earlier.

I've been wondering what she could have done to get the gun away from him once she learned of the diagnosis even though he was no longer a minor. If only she had tried to find out!

:headbang:
rocknation

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Did Mom know he was a paranoid schizophrenic

when she gave him the gun?

Please say no.

[rocktivity]

49. He got the gun in December 2002, he was discharged in November 2003

from the Marines after being diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenis. His mother is quoted as saying, "I...didn't understand the whole thing, but he came home with his medications, and I don't know if he took them or not." She also says they never actually discussed his condition. She didn't understand that having a disease that has "paranoid" in its title and gun ownership is not a good idea?

Here's a story I wrote for my Web site if you're interested.

:headbang:
rocknation

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. She didn't know if he took his meds??

This mom sounds totally clueless.

[DemBones DemBones]

133. The son was old enough to have been in the Marines. A mom who would

monitor the meds of an adult son would be intruding upon his privacy, don't you think? I'm assuming that the son wasn't bedridden or ptherwise physically dependent on her. And maybe she was in denial about her son's illness as well.

[DoNotRefill]

97. Ummm....

well, if he was legally disqualified from owning a gun, she could have called the police, yes?

[Banazir]

16. Federal law, if this is the case, is discriminatory though.

Having been committed to a mental institution doesn't mean a person is going to be irresponsible with a gun. Not having been committed to a mental institution doesn't mean a person is going to be responsible with a gun. There are so many reasons that people can end up committed to mental institutions and a lot of them, regardless of what the laws state on paper, have nothing to do with whether a person is likely to be dangerous on the outside.

People who've been through the psychiatric system aren't actually any more likely to be violent than people who haven't. If a person was determined to commit suicide, she could have just as easily used a rope or a cliff, readily available tools, or are we supposed to deny those to people with psychiatric diagnoses as well? I'd hate to think that if I ever decided to own a firearm, the decision would hinge on something that happened to me in my distant past for reasons that had nothing to do with how I might use or misuse a gun, or some psychiatrist's biased assessment of my mental stability. (I've had psychiatrists who were more out of it than I ever was.)

[sandnsea]

19. Oh for the love of pete

This thread is unbelievable. Mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, period. Sorry if you think it's not fair, but it's like saying a blind person has a right to drive a car. I don't know what the procedure is to keep mentally ill people from buying guns, but it obviously isn't working or wasn't followed in this case. That's the point of this law suit and it could have just as easily been a psychopath who murdered somebody else as this suicide. I'm glad this family is suing and maybe they'll save some lives in the future.

[SKKY]

21. For the love of who? Who's Pete? n/t

[Banazir]

24. This is prejudice pure and simple.

The idea that 'mentally ill' people are dangerous violent "psychopaths" is an old one, but it's not reality-based. Might as well deny guns to anyone who drinks a lot, given that alcohol has a link to violence (far more than 'mental illness', a broad category if I ever saw one, does).

You can't believe this thread... why? Because it challenges a knee-jerk prejudice you seem to have about people who've been in the psychiatric system? I know plenty of gun owners, and the ones who've been in the system truly are no more likely to be dangerous with them (and the more 'obsessive-compulsive' types are less likely to be dangerous with them -- ever think of a kind of 'mental illness' that makes people obsessed with safety?) than the ones who haven't.

You clearly don't even know what 'mental illness' is, or what a broad category it contains, yet you would say that 'mentally ill' people should not be allowed to have guns. What about drinkers? What about males between the ages of 15 and 25? Those groups are more likely to be violent than 'mentally ill' people are, and the majority of violent people are not classified as mentally ill. 'Mentally ill' people are far more likely to be the victims of violence than violent themselves.

To simply blacklist people because of a diagnosis is prejudicial whether you're willing to see it or not. If a person has some kind of history of harming people, sure. But if a person doesn't, why the hell would anyone believe they were going to start? This country has a system of innocent until proven guilty, but too often for those in the psychiatric system it is guilty until proven innocent. If a person's never been violent in their life (which isn't the case here, but it could be for other people), again, why would anyone believe they were suddenly going to start?

If a person was in a psychiatric institution for depression or OCD or some kind of unspecified 'nervous breakdown' due to stress in 1990 does that mean that in 2004 they should be told that because they have a history of 'mental illness' they can't own a gun? These are serious questions, and the knee-jerk "Mentally ill people are always violent" response is the part that seems ridiculous.

[sandnsea]

25. I just disagree

First, it's restricted to institutionalized mental illness. It isn't as if everyone who suffers from mild forms of mental illness are subject to the law. I also don't think every person with mental illness is a pscyhopath, that comment was in reference to why the law suit is legitimate. But back to the mental illness, it is the possibility of violence, misjudgment, and depression and people with mental illness severe enough to require hospitaization do not need to have guns. I certainly think there can be judicial oversight, to make allowances for mistakes. A "nervous breakdown" is not a diagnosis of mental illness. I also would have no problem with people with known alcoholism being denied guns either. There's too many guns in this country and guns mixed with mental illness, and alcohol as well, are known recipes for disaster. I can understand how you feel, but like I said, I just disagree.

[puddycat]

57. Great, insightful post

this society continues to scapegoat the mentally ill, and at the same time encourages programs which will greatly increase the number of individuals labelled as mentally ill under the DSM, which is a largely political document.

I do believe that much of our society is heavily invested in continuing the bias and prejudice against the mentally ill--lawyers, doctors, politicians, drug company executives, etc. Many of these professional benefit financially from being able legally to scapegoat a segment of the population.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

31. Who determines which of us is mentally ill?

By some definitions, pretty everyone has some mental issues.

[Paleocon]

33. Well... We could check voting records...

You would have had to have been crazy to vote for W this past November...

That's one easy way...

[Poppyseedman]

32. but it's like saying a blind person has a right to drive a car.

why do drive up ATM's have braille on them?

[sled]

43. Good one

You guys are too much... ;-)

[amazona]

54. sad to say but some blind people do drive

I have a relative with macular degeneration who still drives years after diagnosis. She could use the braille at the ATM. I honestly don't know why she hasn't killed someone.

[Poppyseedman]

66. killed someone.

or herself!!!

[slackmaster]

60. I used to work for a bank and I can answer that question

why do drive up ATM's have braille on them?

So that banks can claim that they are making all financial services available to disabled people. They include that information in annual Americans With Disabilities Act compliance statements.

I've been assured by vision-imparied people that the Braille instructions are utterly useless even on walk-up ATMs.

[slackmaster]

53. Depends on what you mean by "mentally ill"

Would you care to propose a better definition than the one used to determine eligibility to buy a firearm?

Sorry if you think it's not fair, but it's like saying a blind person has a right to drive a car.

I don't believe a blind person has the right to drive a car on public roads but a blind person has a right to OWN a car, or a gun.

I don't know what the procedure is to keep mentally ill people from buying guns...

Why don't you read up on it and come back to make some informed comments?

Start here: http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/index.htm

[saigon68]

20. If she passed the NICS Check

Walmart is not liable.

This lawsuit will be dismissed on a summary judgement motion.

She had to have FILLED OUT a valid 4473, for the sale to go through.

[Tesla]

35. Wal-Mart can tell you the last time you were

on your period if you shop there enough!
They have a computer system bigger than the Feds!
If someone is buying their Lithium or Terozine or whatever at a Wal-mart, that should be a "Red Tag" in their computer system so they can't purchase a GUN!!!
She also has a Police record!
Man, you have to have 10 forms of ID to liquor,marriage licence, car licence.
Have a re-issuable gun licence every year. Noone is saying or looking at how many guns or what kind of guns, just that you pass a licence to purchase one or many.
I'm not saying to even register the ones you have, just if you are going to purchase from a dealer, you need a licence!
More crimes are done with new gun purchases.

[Paleocon]

34. She lied on the form....

Case closed...

What we really need is more government to watch over us! :think:

Then we could get rid of parents entirely! The state can raise children better anyway.

Read "1984" by George Orwell.

[PaulaFarrell]

36. by that logic, if I added a few drugs to my

prescription at a pharmacy, they should just fill it without asking questions. Fact is, a pharmacist has a duty to ensure that the person he sells drugs to is entitled to them and anyone selling guns has the same duty. If they can't be bothered to fulfill that duty, they shouldn't be allowed to sell them. But these places are only too eager to sell them to anybody, and will continue to be as long as they can do so without paying a price. She lied on the form - big deal, people lie all the time.

[Paleocon]

39. I'm speechless....

Not sure what you want here???

Maybe if WalMart had used a "crystal ball"??? :think:

YOU CANNOT PROTECT EVERY STUPID PERSON FROM EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME!!!

SHE WANTED TO DIE!!! LET PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO!!!

Are you a "progressive"???

[Bridget Burke]

41. Let people die. It's the "progressive" thing to do.

Yeah, right.

[Paleocon]

42. If that is what they want to do....

Let them be free...

Let them do what they want...

What's more "progressive" than that???

[sled]

45. Now that's "progressive"

It's also immortality...are we there yet???

[DoNotRefill]

100. So I guess you're a "right to lifer"...

even for adults who want to die?

"Sorry, I know you're in unbearable pain and want to die, but you MUST SUFFER UNTIL YOU DIE NATURALLY BECAUSE JESUS WANTS YOU TO LIVEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!"


So much for death with dignity...

[Banazir]

139. It's not the government's job, and it's not just Jesus saying that.

It's not the government's job to ensure that death is neat and tidy and pretty and pleasant, and that has nothing necessarily to do with Jesus. I've researched these issues inside and out and as a physically and cognitively disabled person I find much to be legitimately scared of.

Pain is actually not the main cause of euthanasia, and in fact if people were given the pain control that is available it would be far less of an issue. It's more people's fear of things like incontinence (believe it or not) and other loss of the usual body functions, being a "burden" to their family, and actual pressure from their family. The concept of burden in that sense is rooted in discrimination, and the concept of dying in order to "relieve the burden" is downright terrifying to many of us who are low-income and elderly or disabled. Death happens to everyone, and that is perfectly fine, but "death with dignity" is a euphemism for something much more sinister and tied to a lot of prejudice. In fact it's tied closely to the devaluation of certain people's lives more than others, and to the fact that it's just plain less expensive to prescribe death than a pain pill. I don't care if someone decides they truly want to die (although I have personal beliefs that don't include suicide as being a good thing to do, I don't force those beliefs on others), but I draw the line where doctors are called upon to take lives rather than save them. That's simply not what medicine should be. I want to go to the doctor and get better, not go to the doctor and get told that death is a medical option (some disabled people have actually been told they're selfish for having advance directives saying they want to be kept alive if they stop breathing during an operation or something).

Just so you know I'm not pulling this out of my ass, the following site has more information if you're interested. This is a subject I've studied at a fair amount of length before I came to these conclusions, so I'm just putting this out there for your information. There are more than two points of view on this, it is not religious fanatics versus wonderful enlightened progressives. In fact large segments of the disability community are horrified by the fact that progressives don't notice all this and think that a pro-euthanasia stance is somehow a progressive issue. We honestly don't think either conservatives or progressives will help us in this fight, although a lot of us wish progressives would understand how much of this is rooted in disability prejudice, and how much of that prejudice is harbored by ordinary everyday people (it's so ingrained into the culture people don't even know it when they see it most of the time).

Anyway, here's one link on this topic:

http://www.notdeadyet.org/

It's quite possibly the biggest topic that drives a lot of disabled people away from progressives even if we are progressive in our general political stance. Over in the disability forum on here we've been discussing how on earth to get other progressives to recognize our issues, despite the fact that we try to recognize and learn about other progressive issues.

[DoNotRefill]

146. Sorry....

but I've suffered from a serious degenerative birth defect for my entire life which has resulted in serious chronic pain that is only going to get worse. I NEED to be able to take my own life when it gets to be more than I can bear.

If you don't want the option of committing suicide to alleviate your suffering, fine. But don't you FUCKING DARE to try and take away MY right to die when and where I want to.

[pffarrell]

51. i think they should have first,

used her criminal arrest for assault. in texas, I believe - though I may be wrong - that arrest records are available to the public. so I think walmart could have a quick look and wouldn't need that crystal ball. I also suspect, though again I may be wrong, that any large chain such as walmart has a list of troublemakers which is circulated in their stores. THey certainly have lists of people who pass bad checks, so there just meight be lists of people who actually assault staff.

part 2. "she wanted to die". lots of people want to die at some point in their life. I agree that people who really, REALLY want to die you can't do anything about. but most people who 'want to die' are just feeling particarly bad at that moment in time. and then they go on and live happy enough lives later on. I'm happy (well, not happy, resigned) to let people top themselves if they've thought about it long and hard, and really feel it's the best option. but if they're just feeling overwhlemed at that particular moment, sorry, no, not really, I'd rather have the world with them in it. speaking as someone who knows lots of potential suicides I just don't want to do without.

part 3. are you a "progressive"? gee, yeah, you caught me.

[juliagoolia]

83. smart cookie you are

used her criminal arrest for assault. in texas, I believe.

I did not see where anyone else caught that!


Those are public records. They are also in the FBI records. However a conviction and an arrest are not the same, so unless she showed a conviction it would not show up!

[slackmaster]

85. Lots of people get arrested for crimes they did not commit

It happens all the time. We can't start denying people civil rights based on having been arrested.

[DoNotRefill]

101. Sorry....but being arrested is no disqualification...

for civil rights. It's only if you're CONVICTED that there's an issue.

BTW, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY MUST LIVE HAPPY LIVES IF THEY WANT TO DIE?!?!?!?!?!?!? That's not progressive, that's fascistic.

[IA_Seth]

67. Apples and Oranges

"These people" at walmart arent EAGER to do anything (like selling a shotgun) but take their lousy 6 dollar/hour check home and cry themselves to sleep. The checks that are put in place failed because she lied on the form. If this lady was not mentally fit to purchase a gun, then she probably shouldn't have been un-supervised in the first place.

Take some freakin personal responsibility here people. How long can you keep moving things away from children before you finally just say NO? Eventually people need to take responsibility for their own actions, we can't babysit every citizen!

[Paleocon]

140. No, I think you are wrong...

Just a few more laws and this could have been prevented...

Of course, after those laws have been passed all you will be able to do is sit at home and stare at a TV in your padded room, but you will be safe!

Personal responsibility??? That's a joke...

U N B E L I E V A B L E ! ! !

[Deja Q]

44. Guns? Dangerous and messy. Now a huge overdose of (a drug or two)

might do it when mixed with (another).

Another sure method is by reading the book (won't say, third edition)

No, I'm not giving out details. Unless you really want me to.

[sendero]

46. I wanted to stay out of this..

.... but there is so much bullshit "information" in this thread I can't stand it.

First off, to buy a gun she had to fill out a standard form and assert under penalty of perjury that she has never been ajudicated mentally incompetent. Wal-Mart cannot give her the third degree about that, that would be a different civil rights violation that most of you would be against.

Wal-Mart then calls a 24-hour FBI hot line to see if there is anything in their database that would prevent her from legally owning a firearm. If nothing comes up, they give Wal-Mart a reference number and the transaction is completed. Should mental-health info be in there? Perhaps - sue the FBI.

You have to be a simpleton beyond all belief to think that this is Wal-mart's fault, and this case will not win the plaintiff a dime unless Wal-mart decides to settle just to get it over with.

[slackmaster]

56. A simpleton beyond belief, OR

A grieving mother being manipulated by lawyers.

[sendero]

65. Good point..

... I was not referring to the family, people do crazy things when in pain. On the other hand, they cannot possibly really believe WM is the problem here - perhaps they feel guilty that they could not prevent their daughter's taking her own life.

And sure, there will always be a lawyer willing to go after deep pockets, even if there is only a 10% chance of recovery.

There isn't a whole lot we can do about that, any free civil justice system will have a modicum of abusers.

[IA_Seth]

68. Thank You n/t

[juliagoolia]

77. Another take on it... Put them in the computer!

Being all too familiar with both mental illness and suicide in a family I have to disagree with a lot thats been said here as well.

Some people that commit suicide only have the courage to do it in a "certain way". A gun is thought of to be the simplest and quickest way to go by most. Thinking of more suffering on top of what they are already going through is enough to inhibit some from doing it. Additionally, more of them fail by other methods than by gunshot. Impulsive actions taken with a gun are more likely than well thought out plans. A Bi-polar-Schizo is less likely to be able to plan out a detailed suicide plan and carry through with it, and more likely to do some impulsive thing like this case shows.

I think Walmart as well as other retailers need to lobby congress to make sure they are selling guns to sane people, and we could and should help them! WalMart was setup to fail! The System is setup to fail.

Is it sane to ask a mentally ill person who is irrational at best to fill out a form rationally and honestly? Thats the way the system is set up! Dumb isn't it. Thats like asking child molesters if they have ever molested a child on a school employment form. Of course they will lie! BUT then the school system can check, and so WalMart should be able to check too.

I would think what ever DR or system that did not have this person in the hospital is probably more culpable than Walmart though.

Should mental health info be input into the law enforcement computers? Hell Yes, but only if someone has been committed by a judge after the compulsory 72 hour window. At that point they should be in the computer, not only to protect the public but to protect the person from abuse by the police, and to protect the ill from harming either their self or another. If a policeman is called to a scene and the mental history of a person comes up on his screen he is likely to respond a little differently than if he didn't know the person was mentally ill.

My step sister did this. She was allowed to leave the hospital after being committed by a judge and a week later she did this. Long story but it was made easy for her by the hospital, the dr, and her husband. She was the second in my step father's family to do this and its a topic that was discussed a lot by my step-siblings.

The way and method in which a suicide is done is contemplated by those that are serious. Sometimes they accidentally get it right and given a second thought or time to think they would never do it. With the simple pull of a trigger you can't back out. If you have decided to overdose you can change your mind after you swallow the pills! YOu can call for help before you bleed to death too.. With a gun its usually final with no back peddling for those who are ill with impulsive illnesses. This could be a life saving change if it were implemented.

[sendero]

Well....

... I agree with you 100%.

[juliagoolia]

Maybe letters to congress is in order? n/t

[DoNotRefill]

103. Ummmm...

"Impulsive actions taken with a gun are more likely than well thought out plans. A Bi-polar-Schizo is less likely to be able to plan out a detailed suicide plan and carry through with it, and more likely to do some impulsive thing like this case shows"

Ummmm.....she didn't have the gun and impulsively shoot herself. She decided she wanted to die, so she came up with a plan, got her ID together, got enough money, went to the store, picked out a gun, filled out the voluminous paperwork, underwent a background check, showed picture ID, proof of residence, and proof of citizenship, bought the gun, bought the correct ammunition for it, and then went home and killed herself. That's a pretty frikkin detailed suicide plan, no? Is that easier than locking herself in the garage with the car motor running?

[juliagoolia]

129. ummm "instant check" is pretty instant too....

Ummmm.....she didn't have the gun and impulsively shoot herself. She decided she wanted to die, so she came up with a plan, got her ID together, got enough money, went to the store, picked out a gun, filled out the voluminous paperwork, underwent a background check, showed picture ID, proof of residence, and proof of citizenship, bought the gun, bought the correct ammunition for it, and then went home and killed herself. That's a pretty frikkin detailed suicide plan, no? Is that easier than locking herself in the garage with the car motor running?

Lets say she was wandering around the store with her driver license in her handbag and decided to do it when she saw the guns. Went up to buy one(because she had enough money or a credit card) and they said fill out these papers. So who knows how long that takes. clerk says you want ammo with that? Yes, I do.. what do you have? this right here ma'am. I will take it.. done inside an hour I bet.

IN TX there is no state requirement that there be a waiting period for gun sales beyond the "instant check" in federal law. Police are not given any additional time to run a criminal background check to make sure the gun buyer is not prohibited from acquiring firearms. There is no "cooling off" period to help prevent crimes of passion.

[DoNotRefill]

147. form 4473...

and the various state forms generally take a half hour plus to complete. Then, of course, there's the background check. You DO know that at times the various governments have, without legislation, prohibited gun sales simply by shutting down the so-called "instant check" system, right? That's for EVERYBODY, not just the mentally disturbed. The net result: At times when people NEED guns, they can't get them, simply because the Government prevents them from getting approval by shutting down their computers.

As for the "cooling off period", the whole idea behind that is complete and total bullshit. The entire notion of a "cooling off period" is dependent on the person who wants to commit murder being deterred from going to the black market to buy a gun by the fear of a much shorter sentence than is earned by committing murder in the first place.

[noshenanigans]

47. If she wanted to do herself in, she would have found a way

So I do think a "wrongful death" suit is unjustified. Makes sense, though, in a way- just speculating, I bet the mother is trying very, very hard to find something to "blame" it on. We live in a very causal society where even if there simply isn't a rational explanation for the why something is the way it is, a great number of people have to have something to put their finger on (look at the Columbine killings for a prime example of it.)

That said, I find it ludicrous that you can buy guns at Wal-Mart. I'm not saying "take the guns away" or anything like that, but since Wal-Mart is staffed by people who are not specifically and professionally trained in firearms and they often have to bounce between ringing up deadly weapons and Spongebob dolls, it stands to reason that mistakes will be made in the execution (if you can pardon the expression).

Where I am in North Carolina right now, you cannot buy beer or liquor at all, you have to go the next county over. When you go there, you can only buy it in special "Alcohol Beverage Control" stores. I guess what I'm proposing that level of control over something that is more deadly.

[Dear Maggie]

48. What will they think of next?

if she was "incapable of handling her own affairs" ...

where was her guardian?

I don't know of any 'wrongful death' suits for those who have died after working on the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup, but maybe there should be a few. Now that's a suit worth filing

Why I think so
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1079661&mesg_id=1086257

[juliagoolia]

87. They tried to fix this McCarthy-Schumer bill "Our Lady Of Peace"

http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/newsdaynics.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d107:1:./temp/~bd40BC:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d107query.html

The Bill passed in the house, and got STUCK in the judiciary committee of the senate and probably DIED there.
HR 4547/S 2826

from the bill

SUMMARY AS OF:
7/30/2002--Introduced.
Our Lady of Peace Act - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to require the head of each U.S. department or agency to ascertain whether it has such information on persons for whom receipt of a firearm would violate specified Federal provisions regarding excluded individuals or State law as is necessary to enable the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to operate. Directs that any such record that the department or agency has be made available to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or transmission of a certification identifying the record for removal from the System. Directs the head of such department or agency, at the Attorney General's request, to furnish such information to the System electronically.

As we all know the Senate and the Whitehouse let the Assault Weapons Ban die. And I bet they let this die too.

What you don't and probably wont know unless you research it, is that the NRA was behind this one!!!!!!!!!!!!

What can we do now to revive it?
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S7584&position=all

Schumers remarks on the senate floor

[DoNotRefill]

104. Ah, yes....

let's give the government the ability to construct a BIGGER database on us all!!! THEN we'll be safe!!!

Gee, I wonder what use Bush would put such a system to....Big Brother is Watching YOU!!!

[juliagoolia]

107. You think that compiling lists

of child molesters is a violation to you?

Does compiling lists of violently mentally ill people and violent criminals put a damper on your liberty>?

How is this a bigger database on US ALL??

If only convictions for violent crimes are entered, and only commitments for violent mental illness is entered how does it affect you? or me? How is that Big Brother?

Tell ya what, I've lived with a mentally ill violent person and if there is anyway you can keep a gun from that person its just fine with me. I'd give them one of my limbs along with all my privacy to prevent it.

[DoNotRefill]

108. I'd give them one of my limbs along with all my privacy to prevent it.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither"

[juliagoolia]

116. I can only guess

that you have not personally been faced with these situations. I have a violently mentally ill family member-who should never be allowed to own a gun, and my step dad had two kids that committed suicide with guns.

To talk about liberty in this situation and giving up personal liberties is not acknowledging the fact that there are those in the public domain that the PIBLIC needs to be protected from, and that need protecting from their self.

Don't mean to sound flippant or flame but this issue is bigger than black and white and gun owner rights.

Retarded people aren't allowed to carry guns either. Why? lack of judgement! Violent crimnals should not carry guns either? Why? go figure.... People with impaired mental faculties that can harm others or their self should not be allowed to carry them either. If you can think of a way to keep them out of their hand without compiling a list I am all ears.

[DoNotRefill]

118. I've had several friends....

who committed suicide with guns. I've had friends who have been shot. I personally have been shot, several times. And I still support the Second Amendment.

What you envision for "public safety" is no less than a Police State. Thanks, but I'll pass.

[juliagoolia]

119. So according to what you are saying

Everyone gets a gun?

Anyone and everyone can have a gun? Is that right?

[DoNotRefill]

120. Nope....it's a violation for prohibited persons....

to possess a firearm or ammunition. But if a prohibited person possesses a firearm or ammunition, THEY are the responsible party, NOT the person who sold or gave them the gun, not knowing that they were a prohibited person.

If Wal-mart had performed the background check, and the FBI said "She's not approved", THEN Wal-mart would be liable. But that's not what happened. Wal-mart obeyed the law. They checked with the Government. The Government said "it's OK." So Wal-mart isn't liable.

[juliagoolia]

125. Then that gets directly back to my point

background check to where?
If the FBI does not get the data then the background check is useless.
If no mentally violent people are in the FBI data base then asking Walmart or Joe blow to do a background check is futile.

My point is to change the law. There was a chance and the NRA backed it. Read my other posts.

The point I am making is that these people belong in the the FBI computer. You pointed out you didn't want a list and that it was big brother. I pointed out there were certain people that belonged on the list, but there was no method for getting them on to the list.

There in lies the issue. How to determine who a prohibited person is. In the case of the criminal mind thats one issue, but in the case of the mentally ill, or mentally deficient mind thats another. Those cases need to be protected from their self, and we get protected in the process..

I can't see how Wal-mart is liable. However the girl does show a conviction on her record. Why the FBI didn't know?? Thats another interesting question? Either it didn't show up in her background or it didn't keep her from buying a gun. So her parents suit may have merit after all. Wait til ALL the facts come out.

[DoNotRefill]

126. Background check is futile? OK...fine by me.

let's do away with the background check.

If the person isn't enough of a danger to himself or others that he or she isn't in a mental institution, then their names don't belong on a government list. Remember, a NGI disposition to a criminal case means that the person can be put into a mental institute until such time as they don't pose a threat any more. It's not like a straight criminal conviction, where there's a sentence of X number of days or months or years, after which time they MUST be released... so why aren't her parents suing the mental hospital that released her???

Her parents are not suing the FBI. They're suing Wal-mart. The parents are not claiming that the FBI said "no sale" and Wal-mart sold to them anyway. They're claiming that Wal-mart should have had it's own database on it's customers, that Wal-mart's pharmacy should have violated the 1996 federal law regarding release of prescription information by giving it to the Sporting goods department, and that they should have called all other Wal-marts to see if they had ever had a problem with the woman (and having an argument in Wal-mart is NOT a disqualifying factor, just in case you didn't know.)

This story is all over the news. The facts reported are coming from the attorney of the parents. Given the facts as reported, the lawsuit is complete bullshit.

[juliagoolia]

127. Certainly there has to be a background check. Its the Law!

"If the person isn't enough of a danger to himself or others that he or she isn't in a mental institution"

Thats a whole other topic unto itself. Certainly if you have a chronic disease like Schizophrenia, or Bi-Polar with psychotic features there are times where you are stable and times when you are not. Very often, letting people go from mental institutions has more to do with financial factors than mental health factors. If you could predict these times then all unstable mentally ill people WOULD indeed be in hospitals when they need to be. Obviously you can't predict it or people would not go in and out of these facilities.

One of the main objectives with these kinds of people is that we don't want to have to end up with them in a courtroom with a insanity plea on a criminal case.

Lets fix the problem with the background checks so that people that are 'sometimes' stable and 'sometimes' off their rockers are not allowed to have guns? What say? Sound like a good option?

Fegit Walmart, lets come together on at least a starting point of acceptable ideas for restricting deadly weapons from unstable dangerous people. How does that sound?

This story is all over the news. The facts reported are coming from the attorney of the parents. Given the facts as reported, the lawsuit is complete bullshit

Fact is.. not from the news, and not from her atty. This woman was arrested and did have a conviction. I am sure it will all come out. I checked. Whether her conviction was enough to keep her from getting a gun is not clear to me. But the conviction was certainly prior to her attempt to buy the gun.

If the local law enforcement agency did not send the info they were mandated to release to the FBI then that will come out in trial as well. Maybe, just maybe they didn't even contact the FBI from Walmart. Maybe her parents are bringing suit to bring attention to the fact the mental situation was not in the record and get the law changed. Maybe they have a deep pocket lawyer thats greedy. Maybe the family is low life and just wants to make some money.

I don't know all the answers to those things, but I do know this. The law (federal) says that mentally ill people should not have the ability to buy these products. Not all states provide adequate info to the federal govt so the federal laws can be enforced. We have to fix that. According to federal law she should have never been able to get this weapon.

And you are right, perhaps the most culpable as I stated earlier in my post are her care givers. But having so much personal experience with these types of people thats hard to nail down too. The criteria for keeping someone in a hospital is very limited, and then once out the ability to get them to observe medical plans is yet another issue. Irrational people do not act rationally.

[DoNotRefill]

131. "It's the law!"

The law is not a fixed thing. It changes. you said that background checks were futile. I agree, we should get rid of them since they are futile.

"Lets fix the problem with the background checks so that people that are 'sometimes' stable and 'sometimes' off their rockers are not allowed to have guns?"

Who defines who is "sometimes stable and sometimes off their rocker"? Remember, the sanest person out there may have a psychotic episode sometime in the future. And denying people their rights because they have what the DSM says is a mental disorder is ridiculous. Remember, until the DSM-III (IIRC...or was it IV???), homosexuality was a "mental disorder."

Why not simply go with previous performance? If somebody has done something to hurt somebody else, and was convicted of it, then and only then should they not be able to get guns or vote.

"Maybe, just maybe they didn't even contact the FBI from Walmart."

What do you have to base this on? CNN isn't exactly a biased source, and they are reporting that the check was completed by Wal-mart. What makes you think this is incorrect?

"According to federal law she should have never been able to get this weapon."

And according to Federal law, you can't buy pot, cocaine, crack, or methamphetamines. Prohibition NEVER works.

[juliagoolia]

135. Well certain types are mentally ill

regardless of your position on gun rights.

People that literally believe they see dinosaurs in the bathroom are not good candidates as gun owners. People that play ping pong alone don't do well as gun owners. People that believe they were taken by aliens when they were 10 and need to travel back to a different time are probably not good gun owning candidates. People that think every odd sound is "those people" coming after them are probably not good gun owners. People, that for no reason whatsoever, stand "sentry duty" for a high rise building in downtown Atlanta and scream out halt at no one should not have a gun. People that freak out and kick their own windshields out and tear up furniture without provocation probably should not own guns. People that have talked hours on end about killing someone or their self probably should not own a gun. People that believe there is a secret society organized to kill them and they are disguised as store clerks or family members probably shouldn't own a gun. Some of them have never hurt anyone.

Most are kept a safe distance from you and others by their own family members. Family members can't always be there and we need laws to help us protect you from our sick family members.We also need laws to help us protect our sick family members from harming their self during episodes of relapse.

Maybe you don't care if my kid blows her brains out in a moment of depressive mania but I do. Why? because the episode will pass.....and the impulse will leave and sanity will return for a while, maybe even for months. Its the known chronic mentally ill we need help with. We might not prevent every sensless death but preventing one is better than none.

Thats just my take on it. I am sticking with it!

And on the other issue. Looks like the girl was charged with a 3rd degree felony and atty got her a deal for a first offense/no contest plea down to a class b misdemeanor with 18 mo probation. Thats why it did not show up. I have sources and they are not the TV.

[DoNotRefill]

148. The test....

isn't "are they seeing dinosaurs?" The test is "Do they pose a danger to themselves or others".

You say: "We might not prevent every sensless death but preventing one is better than none."

So how many people are you willing to kill to prevent "every sensless death"? Because that's what gun control does...it KILLS PEOPLE. F'rinstance, there was a case in Louisiana where a guy was being threatened at work, so he tried to buy a gun legally. While waiting for the transaction to be approved (there was a 5 day wait at the time) the person who had been threatening him came in and killed him while he was still defenseless. His purchase was approved two days after he was dead. So how many bodies are you willing to make on the off-chance that it might save one life???

[juliagoolia]

149. Obviously you have made up your mind

There is no opening for reason.

How about an "instant check" that does check mental illness, and the ability to have your doctor clear you from being termed dangerous?

Sure you can have a computer system go down, and in fact it doesn't even have to be the govt computer system to keep someone from buying a gun. Suppose the store had It's own computers go down what law will you change then?

Look obviously you are a GUN RIGHTS PROPONENT and regardless of any logical or realistic perspective I offer you from my own personal experiences you will not agree. You think that the bi-polar psychotic person should be able to go in and buy a gun and blow you and anyone else they want to into bits so that when YOU got to buy a gun you don't have to suffer an instant check, or your 'case in Louisiana' won't ever happen. I bet this man's employer would not have allowed him a gun at work anyway, so the instant check would not help him. But we are not talking about a five day waiting period or a cool off period. I am talking specifically about how about 37 states do not keep the NCIC notified of individuals in those states that are prohibited by federal law from owning a gun. Thats what I am talking about. I am also talking about fixing it. Any idea how to do that?

I spoke personally to one chronic bi-polar with psychotic features person today about this very issue. They said, the fact that their grandfather kept a loaded pistol on his nightstand scared the crap out of them. I asked if they thought that they should ever be allowed to own a gun, and this person said HELL NO! Maybe today while I am OK, but who the hell knows when I will be OK, and when I wont. She said that unless they came up with a real cure for her illness and it was verifiable that she didn't think she'd ever see a need to have a gun because it would be a danger to society and to herself for her to have one.

See now thats talking to a 'stable' mentally ill person. Talk to that same person when they are kicking their windshield out and throwing cement bricks around and you might get a different answer wouldn't ya think?

I don't think you want to find a middle agreeable ground.I think that you want everyone to be able to buy a gun with no questions asked.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't see that you have offerend any other perspective.


I am betting statistics would show that there are more mentally ill people in prison for committing violent crimes with guns than there are dead people who were prohibited from buying guns "in time" when they needed or wanted one.

[Jack_DeLeon]

50. This is a frivilous lawsuit...

its good that the woman only killed herself however instead of murdering others.

[depakid]

63. So, if the woman murdered others

would you still think it was frivolous?

[Jack_DeLeon]

64. yeah...

but if the women murdered others the family members of the dead people could sue the woman's estate for money.

[depakid]

74. Well, this case and murder cases are exactly

what the statute is trying to prevent, so my guess is that this lawsuit is being brought both to seek foreseeable damages and to ensure that the law is enforced.

If Wallmart knew about the law, and didn't have procedures in place to comply with it, I don't think it's unnreasonable to hold them respeonsible for the consequences of their actions.

You don't sell guns to crazy people (with documented committment histories) because they might hurt themselves or others. Seems pretty simple to me.

[slackmaster]

78. There's nothing in the story to suggest Wal-Mart didn't comply

n/t

[depakid]

79. Except for the facts of the case!

They sold a gun to a person with a documented history of mental illness in direct violation of the statute!

Whether they were capable of finding out that history is going to be an issue, for certain- but one thing for sure, if they are held liable, every other gun dealer is going to think twice about doing their due diligence.

It's not like it's inconcievable that a person would lie on their application....

[juliagoolia]

80. Thats why I said in my post that we need to put them in the computer

see post 47

[slackmaster]

86. You are absolutely right in reply #47

Excellent post BTW!

The Brady Law as it stands today has a major flaw, and it's not just lack of mental health adjudications. Many states don't report violent misdemeanors or domestic violence-related restraining orders to the federal government. Any of those legally disqualify a person from buying a gun.

[slackmaster]

84. It's not the seller's duty to conduct a background check

Gun dealers have a very clearly defined set of procedures that they must follow when they sell a firearm. Those steps include executing the required federal paperwork, any additional requirements imposed by their state or locality, and (in most states) contacting the National Instant Check System (NICS) to determine if the buyer is known to be prohibited from buying a gun.

Beyond those steps, if a seller happens to know that a buyer is legally unqualified (even though the person slipped through the cracks on NICS), the sale must be declined.

If the seller followed the required procedures, didn't hold back on any special knowledge that the buyer was legally disqualified from owning a gun, the sale goes through. If the buyer later turns out to be legally disqualified that's not the gun dealer's fault.

They sold a gun to a person with a documented history of mental illness in direct violation of the statute!

Yes, but how was Wal-Mart supposed to know that? Wal-Mart doesn't have access to everyone's personal medical records.

[juliagoolia]

88. See post #87

S.2826
Title: A bill to improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. (introduced 7/30/2002) Cosponsors (11)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

If this had not died in committee we would not be talking about why it was not in the computer. TX does not allow it to go to the computer.

[depakid]

96. This is a civil commtittment proceeding we're talking about

That's a public record.

How it Walmart supposed to know? Well, I've pretty good idea the plaintiff's attorney has a theory and it's in the complaint.

As to the scope of the seller's duty under the statute- I guess we'll find that out when the court rules on the inevitable motions for dismal and summary judgment.

[juliagoolia]

99. this act also had a section to require mental health commitments to be

put in the ncic computers at the FBI.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S7584&position=all

snip Schumers comments.
The Federal Gun Control Act bars
people who have been committed to a
mental institution or convicted of a
felony from purchasing a firearm.
That’s not the problem.
The problem is that this kind of information
is not always shared with
the NICS system. The INS, for example,
doesn’t always share info about an
illegal alien with the Justice Department
or a State doesn’t forward info
about an involuntary commitment to
the FBI.
So when the background check is
performed, the information never appears,
red flags aren’t raised, and the
gun purchase goes right through.


They LET THIS DIE!

[Banazir]

132. That's what's fairly disturbing about the law.

...and that law has had ex-patients' rights groups furious in its stereotyping. There are a number of reasons people are committed to mental institutions. Not all of them even have to do with the person being committed. I personally, in the last few years, have known people in situations like a woman who was involuntarily committed for reporting abuse -- the abuser contended that she was not of sound mind and was dangerous and because of her understandable distress at the time this was upheld. Another was committed for the way she sounded when she reported that someone had threatening her with a knife (and someone genuinely had been). I've been involuntarily committed illegally in the past, no hearing or anything, because my developmental disability makes me look unaware of my surroundings and "unable to care for self" is a valid way of committing people in my state (I have no interest in owning a gun by the way; I hate loud noises). I don't want that following me the rest of my life as a mark against who I am now or ten years from now for any purpose.

Commitment procedures are not as airtight as people think they are, and people are sometimes brought before judges too heavily drugged to speak for themselves. Even for people who do have some kind of problem going on, it's not always permanent and when it is it doesn't always make them dangerous, yet they're pretty much stereotyped for life as dangerous while people far more dangerous are running around and never getting committed. Someone's suicide attempt at age 20 shouldn't affect their rights at age 60. It just doesn't make sense.

But a lot of people want things simple, so they want their stereotyped dangerous "madmen" to scapegoat while curtailing the civil liberties of lots and lots of law-abiding citizens who happen to have, for whatever reason, come into involuntary contact with the psychiatric system at some point in their life.

[juliagoolia]

136. Not everyone committed has a chronic illness either

And it sounds like you don't and your friend didn't.

I am sure while you were there you saw people that had been in and out for years. People that had tried all kinds of medications and were still not stable. Some will be chronic until a cure is found.

Medication is a roulette game for many as well. I think there is a way to tell if someone has a chronic mental illness and is a danger. I would think if you were in a Psych hospital then you'd know that too.

I bet there were plenty of people in there that you would not have wanted to have guns either if you are honest about it. I've seen inside many of the psych hospitals on many occasions and I know if you are honest there are those that should never have a gun.

Maybe trying to kill yourself is just something that you do as a dumb young one and the result of that is you can't own a gun. Life can still be full without a gun. People make mistakes and have errors in judgement, and some break the law. They can't have a gun either. Even if they broke the law as a young adult for a stupid marijuana charge in the 60s. They can't have a gun today if they were convicted of a felony before. I see no difference in the two. Its not stigma its just a result of a bad decision you made at one point in life. We all have to live with the choices we have made over time.

I do see your point though and do agree whole heartedly that there are many more dangerous 'madmen' running around that have never been committed for whatever reason. I also agree that some of the more sane people are the ones that have, and have recovered.

[Banazir]

138. I think I'm coming at this from a very different standpoint...

I don't want to discuss my full personal history with you, but I think I might be coming from a very different standpoint than you. It's not dishonest, though. It just comes from too much exposure to that system (it wasn't a one-time thing, it was years) and the realities of it which are so much messier than they look on paper. With dangerously violent or even murderous staff who are respected in the community and get away with things, while inmates can get in trouble for putting a toe out of line and whose stories are not believed because of who they are. Everything I saw made me into a psychiatric survivor/ex-patient activist once I left.

Having been there for a long time, rather than just brief visits, I saw a lot of people. I saw that we were all being force-fitted into a model that didn't work for many of us. If we were not fixed (whatever that meant) by their particular brands of psychotherapy and medication, we were deemed unfixable (since I was born the way I am and my particular condition is not curable, I rapidly acquired that label among countless others). Our problems were viewed exclusively as located inside ourselves, because the purely medical model was more expedient to the staff, and we were viewed as having 'illnesses'. We were not allowed to see it any differently than they did. Even violence in self-defense got you labeled a 'violent patient', and that was of course a very bad thing.

I wouldn't dare try to evaluate someone based on their actions while living under those conditions. Because you become something a little less than a person when you enter, you become a case. And cases act differently than people normally do. Were there people there I didn't want to see with a gun? Certainly. Do I just mean the inmates? Certainly not. And if anything my experiences there taught me that you cannot predict from the outside who is going to do something awful and who is not, and also that often the most respectable-looking people are the ones committing some of the worst atrocities.

Have I recovered? I don't think I'll ever recover from institutionalization. I've never talked to anyone who's been there very long and not changed on some fairly fundamental levels. A lot of what I learned there, though, is that what is written and what is actually done are two different things. There are false parts of my records, whether by carelessness or deliberately lying I don't know, probably a mix. Those parts of my records have more credibility to many people than I myself do because the words of professionals, even careless errors and lies, trump the accurate actions and words of a
crazy and developmentally disabled person.

I do still have a few different DSM diagnoses. They describe me, as far as descriptions go. But I am wary of viewing everything related to them as an illness (or even, in the case of the way I was born, something to recover from -- how and why would I recover from being born with an atypical brain?). Wary because I have trouble with turning every part of how I function (or don't function -- I'm considered in medical terms to be severely disabled) in the world into a symptom. Wary because the world is more complex than that.

That complexity, which is the real truth I have seen in the system, is why I don't think that having been commmitted is a good predictor of dangerousness for the rest of a person's life. I would even go so far as to say that many people who would become violent in a psychiatric ward would not become violent elsewhere.

I am not ignorant enough to think that means everyone, but I am also not ignorant enough to shut my eyes to the fact that things are more complicated than dividing the world into 'dangerous crazy people' and 'safe sane people'. I do think that people who've been in the system are scapegoated for violence a lot (and a lot of that is spearheaded by people who want harsher commitment laws), a lot more than we as a whole deserve.

I also think a lot of people can do things that outside the system can be considered normal but inside the system are considered dangerous horrid violence and immediately punished. For instance someone might occasionally get frustrated and hit a wall. If a person does that in a psychiatric ward they will often get restrained and it will be taken as a symptom of an illness, whether it is or not. That double-standard is what I am wary of, and I don't think all of this can be brushed aside too lightly.

That, if I have to be honest (and actually I have a great deal of trouble with lying so I don't know that I could lie effectively if I tried), is why I am wary of stereotyping people from being in the system. There are simply too many variables at play. I personally think I'm too much of a klutz to own a gun (I'd probably shoot myself in the foot), but I don't think I'm any more likely to deliberately harm anyone with one than the average person on the street. This is despite a lot of things about me, including still today, that would probably horrify people if they saw me with a weapon.

This has been a long post, but I'm trying to get across how much more complicated things are in this area, which I've studied in a fair bit of depth, than people make them sound. It's certainly more difficult to deal with the world in this manner, but I think it's worth trying rather than stereotyping a whole group of people wholesale. Commitment involves so many factors, only some of which even originate within the person, that it's simply not a predictor of a person's future behavior. I know people who have been committed in the past, I would not consider them 'recovered' in any conventional sense, and I'd trust them with my life, in fact I have legal documents that state exactly that. There's simply more to a person than an event in their life.

[slackmaster]

142. Gun seller is a federal licensee

A Federal Firearms License carries protection from civil liability for sellers who follow the rules. If Wal-Mart actually knew about the buyer's past and sold the gun anyway, they broke the rules and will not be protected.

How it Walmart supposed to know? Well, I've pretty good idea the plaintiff's attorney has a theory and it's in the complaint.

Lawyers in civil cases always have theories, and half the time they turn out to be wrong.

If the plaintiff can make a case that Wal-Mart actually knew about the buyer's mental health history and that history was of a nature that disqualified her from buying a gun, the plaintiff may have a good case. If Wal-Mart either did not know about it, or what they knew about was not sufficient to disqualify her, Wal-Mart is in the clear.

[msgadget]

73. They expected the store to check prescription records,

which is really a reach in finding someone to blame, especially since the daughter lied on her application.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

81. You just said the magic word:

"Blame."

Suicide brings out the need in all the survivors to blame someone, since they've been so grievously wounded.

The only blame lies on the person who killed herself. She made her choice, she took her life, story ends.

How I fucking hate to find myself in the position of defending WalMart, but those Federal regs are a joke. Wasteful laws are a joke, and these are positively unenforceable.

Drug laws, gun laws - they're equally bullshit and should be done away with.

[juliagoolia]

82. retarded kids will run out in front of cars too

so we as a society and parents try to protect them from their own limits. Mentally ill people deserve the same respect!

[DS1]

98. She checked the checkbox, there's a greater chance of the girl rising from

the dead than her getting a nickel out of Wal*Mart.

[depakid]

102. If she wasn't mentally competant

that checkmark doesn't mean shit... so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the parent's chances on that ground.

[DS1]

105. I would

She's up against Wal*Mart and the NRA in a system which relies on mental competence to own firearms on a checkbox.

My first post in the thread was to point out how absurd the system is, due to the sheer power of gun manufacturers, the NRA, big business, and the majority of morans that surround us.

[GraphicQueen]

117. I am so very tired...

of people always wanting to blame some store, manufacture or other people for the problems of one of their family members. It is old and all it does is make the family look like idiots who are out for money and nothing else.

[Oldpals]

123. Gun laws and registration

I am also fed up with the unreasonable stance of those that havbe guns when it comes to registration. This automatic knee jerk reaction when registering a gun is considered is exactly what the people at the NRA want. There is nobody going to go and take the guns away but it is not unreasonable if I feel safer when the guy next door is obligated to at least declare he has a maximum of twelve guns in his home. Or, for that matter I would not necessarily compalain with a law that demands the sale of guns from the trunk of a car at these open markets.

The most asinine and idiotic argument I usually hear from progun people is that swimming pools , doctors and cars should be banned. Where is the correlation? The only one that you can is use death when it is applied to each where an event has occured. However, the reasonable identification with guns is that they are made specifically for one purpose.

I am not antigun. I am anti intolerance and blind allegiance to a principal where the deaths through murder each year is in the thousands. The worst in the industrial world.

[DoNotRefill]

124. In other words...

"I am anti intolerance and blind allegiance to a principal where the deaths through murder each year is in the thousands."

You value the chimera of safety over civil liberties.

What part of the word "infringed" (as in "shall not be") is giving you problems?

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bugaboo]

150. this is all about patients' rights...

I read the entire article and the reason her daughter made it through the background check is that Texas will not provide mental health records to the feds because of privacy. This is entirely appropriate and protects the privacy of those who receive treatment for mental illness. It would have been entirely inappropriateand a violation of privacy for Walmart to check the daughter's prescription records, or anyone else's for that matter.

This is a case of a parent in pain. It highlights the devestation mental illness brings to families and communities. But no matter the outcome, her daughter had the right not to have the world prying into her health records, even for her own protection, and even if it meant her mother lost her. This is a huge part of protecting the rights of people with mental illness.

[-..__...]

152. I'm hardly a supporter of Wal-Mart, but...

this is a BS lawsuit and enough is enough.


"Lawsuits a volume business at Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart is a legend in American business, a 39-year-old retail dynamo that trails only ExxonMobil in annual revenue. But in America's courtrooms, Wal-Mart has another distinction: As the company's sales have soared, analysts say, it appears to have become the nation's most popular private-sector target for lawsuits.

By its own count, Wal-Mart was sued 4,851 times last year — or nearly once every two hours, every day of the year. Juries decide a case in which Wal-Mart is a defendant about six times every business day, usually in favor of the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant. Wal-Mart lawyers list about 9,400 open cases.

No one keeps a comprehensive list of all the nation's litigation, but legal analysts believe that Wal-Mart is sued more often than any American entity except the U.S. government, which the Justice Department estimates was sued more than 7,500 times last year. Dozens of lawyers across the United States now specialize in suing Wal-Mart; many share documents and other information via the Internet.

But the huge volume of Wal-Mart lawsuits is only half the story".

Complete story...

If Wally World has any balls, they should file a counter lawsuit or at least seek reimbersement for legal expenses.

Some more info on the incident...

"Mom sues Wal-Mart over daughter's suicide Schizophrenic woman bought gun at store"

8<------Snip

"The Bracys said Wal-Mart's gun department could have checked Wal-Mart's own security files or the pharmacy department's prescription records before selling her the weapon.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Christi Gallagher declined to comment on the lawsuit.

But pharmacy prescription records are confidential under a 1996 federal law, so stores cannot use them when deciding whether to sell a gun.

Also, Wal-Mart did a background check on Stewart, as required under federal law, but through no fault of its own, her name did not show up in the FBI database. The reason: The database contains no mental health records from Texas and 37 other states.

Texas does not submit mental health records because state law deems them confidential, said Paul Mascot, an attorney with the Texas Department of State Health Services. Other states have not computerized their record-keeping systems or do not store them in a central location for use by the FBI.

Federal law prohibits stores from selling guns to people who, like Stewart, have a history of serious mental illness.

Would-be buyers must fill out a form that asks about mental health. Stewart, who had been involuntarily committed to an institution and declared dangerously mentally ill by a judge, lied on that form, according to her mother's attorney's office. Wal-Mart ran a background check anyway, as required by federal law.

Michael Faenza, president and chief executive of the National Mental Health Association, applauds Texas' refusal to share information with the FBI database. He said it would not be fair to violate patients' privacy when there is no data to support claims that mentally ill people are more violent than others.

"The tragedies that families face when people are killed is terrible. And frankly I wish handguns were not so available in this country," he said. "But it's not right, in our minds, to make social policy based on just a few cases."

Complete story...