History of mental illness doesn't prevent gun buys

[Quetzal]

History of mental illness doesn't prevent gun buys

The arrest last week of an Ohio man as the prime suspect in a 10-month string of highway shootings in the state has turned a momentary spotlight on the mentally ill's easy access to guns.

Charles McCoy Jr., who has been charged with one assault count, has a history of psychiatric problems. But, apparently, he had no record of being committed to an institution or judged mentally incompetent. So he was not prohibited from buying a gun.

Even if such a record existed, it likely would not have shown up in a required background check for a gun purchase. That's because only a handful of states make any mental-health information available to the national background databank used for checking gun buyers. Nearly two-thirds don't even compile such information. As a result, a 1968 federal law designed to keep guns away from the mentally ill is toothless.

more...

History of mental illness doesn't prevent gun buys

[texasdem99]

1. This is where I break from the party line

I don't think someone who is diagnosed as clinically insane should be walking into gun shops and purchasing firearms. Same for ex-felons. I believe that these in these two circumstances that the individual lose the RKBA.

[Pert_UK]

2. A totally sensible response......

Of course this entails that the RKBA is treated equally with other rights, i.e. they can be restricted or suspended in certain circumstances if necessary.

I do get sick and tired of people treating the RKBA as an untouchable "right" and who pretend that to restrict it in any way will lead to the undermining of other rights enshrined in law.

Some people on here seem unwilling to discuss any restriction to the RKBA which rather restricts discussion of the issues. I'm glad to see that you aren't one of them!

P.

[RoeBear]

3. I think you'll get more of a complaint from...

.. mental health officals than the RKBA crowd on this issue.

[Superfly]

4. You see, just being crazy

is not a crime in this country (at least not yet)and the only thing that bars a citizen from owning a firearm (besides age) is a previous conviction in a federal crime.

[slackmaster]

7. We should all be very careful with our language on this subject

The word "crazy", especially when used by people who are not mental health professionals, covers a lot of territory. I think most people who run for public office are crazy. I think you'd have to be at least a little crazy to join the Marine Corps or become a teacher in public schools.

Even a formal diagnosis like schizophrenia does not necessarily mean a person is not competent to responsibly and safely own a gun. Schizophrenics cover a wide spectrum from people who function with occasional talk therapy to those who must be kept institutionalized for their own safety. I believe anyone who has a mental health diagnosis but is functional has the same rights as someone without a diagnosis. There are plenty of people who could get a diagnosis if they sought one or were forced into therapy.

No, being crazy is not a crime and it should not bar a person from owning firearms unless the nature of a particular craziness predisposes an individual to overt violent or self-destructive behavior. Some like CO Liberal have suggested that a person should have to provide some proof that he or she is NOT mentally disturbed before being allowed to buy a firearm. That makes some sense. The problem becomes finding a way to define objectively what constitutes sanity and how to test for it in a practical and non-discriminatory way.

[Wingnut357]

17. I think it may be safe to assume that...

...the majority of Americans are mentally competent enough to own a firearm, so that requiring everyone to prove they are is a bit excessive. In FL, they merely ask if you have ever been declared mentally incompetent if you are trying to get a CCW, but leave it at that. Usually, the best judge of mental acuity is be the subject himself. Let him decide whether to purchase or not, and deal with the rare instances of sociopathic gun ownership as they present themselves.

[slackmaster]

8. No right is truly inalienable

Including, at least in some countries, the right to breathe.

[slackmaster]

6. Which party line are you referring to?

Because your position (which is similar to mine BTW) reflects current federal and state gun laws. The problem is lack of enforcement - in particular the lack of adequate mental health adjudication records from the NICS database.

[texasdem99]

9. Well, the term was hyperbole, some of the

people who feel passionately pro-gun would argue that the right is an inalienable right, and should be available to everyone, regardless of circumstances.

I'm just making a general statement, not singling out anyone here or anything.

I should have clarified. Although I should shut up, since I can't come up with a reasonable method of tracking such things. As you said, it can be somewhat subjective, and has the potential for tremendous abuse. My position is that people who have been medically diagnosed with, as you clarified, aggressive, anti-social behavior should be restricted.

When you talk about someone being diagnosed as being bi-polar, or clinically depressed, that's where, IMO, you are spot on in questioning, what, exactly, classifies as being "mentally deficient".
In such cases I don't believe you can categorically deny the right for certain individuals to own firearms.

As in, this hypothetical scenario:

1. Married woman seeks counseling for depression.
2. Diagnosed as bi-polar, informs husband.
3. Husband, hypothetically somewhat abusive anyway, becomes enraged and demands divorce.
4. Husband, angry about the breakup and jealous of new boyfriend, post divorce, threatens ex-wife with physical harm, stalks her at work, in parking lots, outside her house when the new boyfriend isn't around.
5. In this case, how can one deny the right of the woman to protect herself?

Before any of the pro-control "crowd" try and pick this argument apart as something that could never happen (not naming any names), let me head you off at the pass.

This is a real life scenario; the woman was and still is a friend of mine. Restraining orders. Court appearances. Guy didn't get the hint.

Then she informed her ex that she had applied for a concealed carry permit, legal in my state, and was packing heat, so he'd better back off.

Mysteriously, ex husband stopped harassing her. Was it out of the goodness of his heart? You decide.

BTW; Carol is a mouse. Never hurt a flea if she didn't have to...In fact, when I took her to the range, she wanted to leave after only 20 minutes or so. Hardly the epitome of some gun toting lunatic.

Oh, and lastly...For my detractors out there...What's that about how personal experience means jack shit when it comes to views on gun control...?

Ed. for grammar

[CO Liberal]

10. We're In Agreement On That One, Pete

:-)

[texasdem99]

12. I'm always open to bridging gaps...

Nice to agree on some things.

Why are you always so civil, CoLiberal? :)

[CO Liberal]

16. It's My Self-Preservation Instincts

Many people who have been nasty on this board have wound up getting tombstoned. DU is my home on the 'Net, and I don't want to do anything that will get me banned.

[Narf]

19. I'll see you and raise you a severe penalty for crooked gun dealers.

Anyone, licensed dealer or not, who knowingly sells a firearm to a felon or the mentally ill should immediately go to prison for a very, very long time.

[hangar18]

22. I do as well

That's coming from a life member of the NRA. Though I do not know anyone that support felons and people committed to mental institutions RKBA, so I am not sure you (or I) are breaking from the party line. I had to submit a letter from the State of Idaho stating I had not been committed when I appplied for an Oregon CCW permit.

[izzie]

5. I knew a guy that was bi-polar per USA vets with pension

Soon as the money came in he got two hand guns, to go with his hunting ones. Made one feel so safe to know where he lived. Yes he is a right wing, hate Kennedy, religious nut.

[CO Liberal]

11. And Here's Proof That Mental Illness Does Not Prevent Gun Buys

:-)

[MrBenchley]

13. Seems to be a prerequisite some days......

An assault weapon, a pitbull and a sword, and some people are ready to go to church.....

[Wickerman]

14. damn, just lost another keyboard

to spewed diet soda!

[MrBenchley]

15. Oops....sorry!

[Wingnut357]

18. Will this cheap shot...

...never go away. :p

[CO Liberal]

25. Not As Long As That Squatter Is Occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Once he goes back to Crawford (or on to prison), they'll stop.

Or at least slow down a tad......

[MrSandman]

20. Maybe if such racist scum didn't support reporting...

"Congress briefly tackled the problem two years ago, after a priest and parishioner were killed in a suburban New York church. They were shot by a man whose troubled mental-health history was in a state database but not available to federal background checkers. The House subsequently passed a bill offering grants to states that make criminal, mental and domestic-violence records available for instant checks. It died in the Senate, and no action has been taken since, even though the measure is backed by the powerful National Rifle Association."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20040324/cm_usatoday/historyofmentalillnessdoesntpreventgunbuys

[MrBenchley]

24. Wonder what THAT bill REALLY said....

In real life, the bill in the House to expand the NICS is H.R. 3237, sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy, and in the Senate it's S. 1706, sponsored by Chuck Schumer.

And needless to say, both bills ARE bottled up in committee by the GOP at the NRA's instructions.

[MrSandman]

26. Then USA Today...lied

[MrBenchley]

27. No shit, sherlock...

Lies and the NRA are synonymous....

[MrSandman]

29. Wrong answer

Not NRA but U S A Today

[MrBenchley]

31. Then tell us what bill

the NRA supposedly endorsed...

[MrSandman]

32. Representative Dingell Pushes For NICS Reform

Wednesday, May 29, 2002 Last week, U.S. Representatives John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 4757. And while a bill with Carolyn McCarthy’s name on it is usually bad news for gun owners, this one would actually take positive, corrective steps to improve the ailing National Instant Check System (NICS). H.R. 4757 seeks to improve the operation of NICS by pressuring all 50 states to ensure NICS has instant access to the records of individuals who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Unfortunately, some within the anti-gun community, including members of the media, are misclassifying this legislation as an expansion of gun control. However, as Rep. McCarthy told the Los Angeles Times, "Basically, we’re just going to enforce the current gun laws." The agenda of those who misidentify this legislation as "something of an expansion," such as Kristen Rand of the extremist Violence Policy Center, is unclear, but some may be doing so in an attempt to harm Representative Dingell’s reelection campaign by trying to weaken support for him among gun owners. In fact, it is because of Rep. Dingell’s involvement with the shaping of this legislation that it became a positive, productive measure.

... the bill should help to improve NICS performance. By making sure the system has instant access to any relevant and legally permissible records necessary to determine if an individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm, law-abiding gun purchasers should experience fewer delays, while firearms can be successfully denied to violent criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent.


http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org


Not supposedly

[MrBenchley]

33. Too TOO funny....

Yeah...I'll bet they're pushing that.

So tell us, why is it bottled up in committee? After all, the pro-gun Republicans control the House AND Senate.

[MrSandman]

36. Not because of NRA...

Maybe because VPC is spinning it to look like NEW gun control, and the politicians know that NEW gun control loses elections...remeber, NRA is only an "extremist minority." But the 41,000,000 gun owners not affiliated with NRA might be misled by the claims of the VPC.

[slackmaster]

39. Still no evidence either bill is "bottled up"

Sure, they're in committees but that's where most bills stay for most of their life cycles.

Where is the hue and cry from the bills' sponsors (I mean the real sponsors like Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy rather than the NRA moles) complaining that their efforts are being stymied?

:shrug:

[MrSandman]

41. More gun control arguments based on deception and fraud...

"The text of HR 4757 has not yet been received from GPO
Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed."

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Search for HR 4757.

Bottled my arse.

[slackmaster]

43. If not for straw men, appeals to emotion, and empty speculation

The anti-rights crowd wouldn't have any arguments at all.

:evilgrin:

[MrSandman]

46. As long as they keep their grubbies from...

my snubby.

[MrBenchley]

48. Who DO you think you're kidding?

By the way, do you really THINK that the GPO is backed up from May 29, 2002?

"H.R.4757
Title: To improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn (introduced 5/16/2002)      Cosponsors: 58
Latest Major Action: 10/16/2002 Received in the Senate. "

[MrSandman]

49. Which committee is it in?

Or is it all an RKBA conspiracy? That the NRA is not clued to?

[MrBenchley]

50. It's dead as Heston's brain, sandman

and the NRA didn't do dick to support it.

[MrSandman]

51. It just went poof.

Kinda like the million mommies?

[MrBenchley]

52. The bill died just as I said, sandman

So the claim that the NRA was doing anything but killing it turns out to be horseshit.

By the way, the Million Moms are alive and well....and unlike the Second Amendment Skanks, they're not freeper scum.

[FatSlob]

53. The Million Moms are alive and well?

I heard that their last Ohio meetup had NOBODY show up, except the organizer. I don't know if it is true, but judging from the support they typically get, it wouldn't surprise me.

[MrBenchley]

54. Yeah, they are....

"the support they typically get"






Meanwhile look at the sour little bunch of loonies the Second Amendment Skanks drew...it appears to be nine shitheels in total, typical turnout for a freeper stunt.....

[FatSlob]

55. That was amusing

Why don't you post pics from something within the last year or two. For Koresh's sake, they went BANKRUPT and had to be absorbed my the Brady Bunch. The current "Couple Dozen" Moms are a joke.

[MrBenchley]

56. Not nearly as amusing as the far right wing horseshit

the RKBA crowd peddles on a daily basis.

[FatSlob]

57. Really

:hi:

[slackmaster]

58. S.1706 was referred to Senate Judiciary Committee on 10/2/2003

H.R.3237 went to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 10/22/2003.

Both are alive and well in the 108th Congress.

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

59. Yeah, really....

Too TOO funny to see crap from MensNewsDaily and other right wing cesspools passed off here as "fact" by the "bullets for brains" bunch.

[MrSandman]

65. Better than...

Biased assertions.

[MrBenchley]

79. Yeah, really, fat slob....

[MrSandman]

66. Talk about sour little groups...

Top Cities for Million Moms Meetups
New York City (68 members)
Minneapolis, MN (49)
Washington, DC (46)
Chicago, IL (44)
Northern Virginia (43)
Philadelphia, PA (39)
Montgomery County, MD (35)
Dallas-Plano, TX (34)
Pittsburgh, PA (30)
Boston, MA (30)
Detroit, MI (28)
Alameda County, CA (28)
San Diego, CA (27)
Houston, TX (27)
Baltimore, MD (26)
Denver, CO (25)
Trenton, NJ (24)
St. Louis, MO (24)
Northern NJ (24)
Hartford, CT (23)
Kansas City, MO (22)
Orange County, CA (21)
Atlanta, GA (21)
Cleveland, OH (20)
San Antonio, TX (20)
Austin, TX (20)
Phoenix, AZ (19)
North Suburban Chicago, IL (19)
Santa Clara County, CA (18)
Raleigh-Durham, NC (18)
San Fernando Valley, CA (18)
St. Paul, MN (18)
Columbus, OH (17)
Suffolk County, NY (17)
Seattle, WA (16)
Newark-Jersey City, NJ (16)
Charlotte, NC (16)
Portland, OR (15)
Sacramento, CA (15)
Santa Monica, CA (15)
Cincinnati, OH (14)
Wilmington, DE (14)
New Haven, CT (14)
San Diego North County, CA (14)
Fairfield County, CT (13)
West Palm Beach, FL (13)
Monmouth-Ocean Counties, NJ (12)
Providence, RI (12)
Tucson, AZ (12)
South Boston, MA (12)
Wheaton, IL (12)
Milwaukee, WI (11)
Norfolk, VA (11)
Jacksonville, FL (11)
Westchester, NY (11)
Hollywood-East LA, CA (10)
Oklahoma City, OK (10)
Orlando, FL (10)
Ventura, CA (10)
Lowell, MA (10)
Richmond, VA (10)
Charlottesville, VA (10)
Lexington, KY (10)
Albuquerque, NM (9)
St. Pete-Clearwater, FL (9)
Buffalo, NY (9)
Marin County, CA (9)
Salt Lake City, UT (9)
Pasadena, CA (9)
Bellevue-East Side, WA (9)
Dade County, FL (9)
Albany, NY (9)
Portland, ME (9)
Syracuse, NY (8)
Middlesex County, NJ (8)
Louisville, KY (8)
Boulder, CO (8)
Ann Arbor, MI (8)
Lansing, MI (8)
San Francisco, CA (8)
Eugene, OR (8)
Everett, WA (8)
Grand Rapids, MI (7)
Hyannis, MA (7)
Santa Rosa, CA (7)
Colorado Springs, CO (7)
Indianapolis, IN (7)
Madison, WI (7)
Manchester, NH (7)
Modesto, CA (7)
Fort Worth, TX (7)
Anderson, IN (7)
Nashua, NH (7)
Tacoma, WA (7)
Long Beach, CA (6)
Columbia, SC (6)
Lakeland, FL (6)
Santa Cruz, CA (6)
Jackson, TN (6)
Riverside, CA (6)

http://millionmoms.meetup.com/members/211

And only 27 days until the "National Meetup Day"

[MrBenchley]

67. Now show us how many are in the

Second Amendment Skanks...

By the way, Sandman, show us how many in the MMM are freepers.

[MrSandman]

68. I don't care about the S.A.S.

So now, the MMM went from a group with wide-based support to a freeper front .org?

[MrBenchley]

69. Gee, sandman

it's not the Million Moms who are a freeper front...but the Second Amendment Skanks. Nice playmates the RKBA crowd's got.

[MrSandman]

70. Read what you post...

"By the way, Sandman, show us how many in the MMM are freepers."

Better refill your scarecrow.

[iverglas]

71. well I read it

Benchley said:
"By the way, Sandman, show us how many in the MMM are freepers."

... and you replied:
"So now, the MMM went from a group with wide-based support to a freeper front .org?"

... and I scratched my spinning head, and wondered what the fuck you could possibly be on about.


Let's start over from scratch.

Q. How many in the MMM are freepers?

A. ZERO. (Or some approximation thereof.)

See how easy that was?


Now, just to be sure you're getting the point, let's try an alternate question by way of illustration of that point.

Q. How many in the Second Amendment Sorority are freepers?

A. LOTS AND LOTS.


I get it! But then, I always did.

.

[MrSandman]

72. The things we leave to chance...

If one wanted the inference you suggest be drawn, the sentences should be conjoined.

Literally:
Q. How many in the MMM are freepers?

A. I have no idea.

Q. How many in the Second Amendment Sorority are freepers?

A. I have no idea.


But then, I guess the idea that MMM, or SAS have broad support is just as unsubstantiated as the idea that the NICS improvement bill is dead.

[MrBenchley]

74. So in other words, you have no ideas...

"I guess the idea that MMM, or SAS have broad support is just as unsubstantiated"
Actually, sandman, let me substantiate it for you once again....

Million Mom March...






Freepers, I mean, Second Amendment Skanks...


"the NICS improvement bill is dead"
<sarcasm>Jeeze, Frist is hustling that through the Senate at a rapid clip, isn't he?</sarcasm>

[MrSandman]

75. Sorry, Mr. B...

Suppport of nearly half a decade ago doesn't count.



'Million Mom March' draws 100 for gun control
May 13, 2001 Posted: 6:54 PM EDT (2254 GMT)


http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/13/moms.gun.control/

Substantiate any of your claims with current information, if possible.

On edit: I still think your filling the post with straw. Show where the bill is dead. I don't know what Frist is doing. I did not state the NRA killed the bill without substantiation...s

[MrBenchley]

76. Sez you, sandman

"Substantiate any of your claims with current information"
Sure, currently the Second Amendment Skanks are still the sour little bunch of ugly freepers they always were.

"Show where the bill is dead. I don't know what Frist is doing."
The Republicans in the Senate have had a year and a half to bring it out of committee....if you think that's a living breathing bill, you must be...oh.

[MrSandman]

77. Assertions...

No mention of the hundred mom march.

[MrBenchley]

78. Facts...

Now go snivel about them to somebody who cares.

[MrSandman]

85. With gun control being so popular...

This issue alone should win the Senate.

[MrBenchley]

86. Sounds good to me...

Let's see Frist and his goon squad explain why the nation needs armed lunatics...or why criminals and the mentally ill should be able to buy guns through the gun show loophole

[MrBenchley]

73. The RKBA crowd has such NICE playmates

don't they?

And real grass-roots groups, like the Million moms, scare the living shit out of them. They much prefer those phony groups the gun industry cooks up--even when those groups link to the right wing think tanks that created them out of whole cloth..

[MrSandman]

80. Right

Million Mom Marcher Barbara Graham shoots innocent man Kikko Smith -

[MrBenchley]

81. Gee, Sandman...

And that tragedy by you is a reason why gun control is not needed? Get a clue.

[MrSandman]

87. Whose playmate?

[MrSandman]

60. What a bunch of...

WHAT
Meetup with other local moms to discuss the Million Mom Movement and how to take action locally against gun violence.

WHO
Moms Who Care About Gun Violence Worldwide. So far, 2,053 have signed up.

http://millionmoms.meetup.com/

----


"So the claim that the NRA was doing anything but killing it turns out to be horseshit."

Is it dead, in committee,all I have seen is multiple guesses without any evidence.

TTFN

[MrSandman]

42. Which Repub has voted to...

repeal any gun laws? If you say, they are in control.

[FeebMaster]

47. You don't understand.

The Republicans are really pro-gun, they want to repeal all the federal gun control. But they can't because the people don't want the gun control repealed and wouldn't reelect the Republicans if they did repeal it.

[slackmaster]

34. Here's another link - yours doesn't work for me

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=399

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay.

I don't see any evidence that the bill is "bottled up in committee", but it would not surprise me if MrBenchley just pulled that out of the air like some of his other noteworthy speculations. Never forget the one about taggants in European smokeless powder...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=44507&mesg_id=44563&page=

Or the zinger about the Catholic church supporting gay rights.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20608&mesg_id=20675&page=

If someone came up with a quote from, say, Carolyn McCarthy or Dianne Feinstein or Ted Kennedy or even Sarah Brady complaining that their bill (either the House or the Senate version) was being stalled by the NRA or Republicans I'd believe it in a heartbeat. But MrBenchley's Scientific Wild-Ass Guesses (SWAGs) about legislative matters or technical issues don't carry much credibility from my POV.

[MrSandman]

37. Sorry...

[slackmaster]

38. Pretty damn evil of them, isn't it?

Having scumbag Larry Craig co-sponsor a bill to strengthen NICS just to kill NICS.

Is there no depth too deep for those fiends?

:tinfoilhat:

[MrSandman]

40. What a bunch of...

lunatic asswipes will do.


NRA and Carolyn McCarthy both supporting the SAME gun bill.

What's next, a Bush/Jeffords ticket?

[slackmaster]

44. I think the NRA must have been plotting this since 1994

They helped design and supported NICS from the get-go JUST SO THEY COULD KILL IT.

What other possible explanation could there be for their behavior?

[MrSandman]

45. Or they designed a flaw,

Convinced Rep. McCarthy to correct it, and supported her to discredit her anti-gun credentials. Wily ba$tard$.

[slackmaster]

28. Hmmm. I guess thomas.gov must be lying as well

Senator Larry Craig (Republican, Idaho) who is an NRA board member is listed as one of the co-sponsors of S.1706. You may recall Senator Craig as the one who pulled the plug on the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act last month after it got loaded up with gun control-related amendments.

Hey, Orrin Hatch is a co-sponsor as well, along with Diane Feinstein (no surprise there) and Michael DeWine. Aw heck, here's the whole list...

Sen Chafee, Lincoln D. - 10/2/2003 RI
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 10/2/2003 ID
Sen DeWine, Michael - 10/28/2003 OH
Sen Durbin, Richard J. - 10/2/2003 IL
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 10/28/2003 CA
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. - 10/2/2003 UT
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 10/2/2003 MA
Sen Levin, Carl - 11/10/2003 MI
Sen Lincoln, Blanche - 10/2/2003 AR
Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2003 AZ
Sen Reed, John F. - 1/27/2004 RI

Looks pretty bi-partisan to me.

See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01706:@@@P (Link may not work due to special characters - go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter S.1706 )

:freak:

[MrSandman]

30. See post 27...

[slackmaster]

35. Yes, it's a classic genetic fallacy

Does this surprise anyone at all?

[happyslug]

21. Is the proposed solution worse than the disease?

One of the problems in dealing with people with mental problems (that are NOT criminally incompetent) is getting such people treatment. One the excuses used by such people is a fear losing their right to drive and own a gun.

If you make it a law that people who are in treatment can not own a gun, such people will just REFUSE to go to treatment. Thus you have a situation where the law intended to protect people from such mentally challenged people will be harmed by such UNTREATED mentally challenged people.

Now before you say something about court ordered treatment, that is different, the test for the court is whether a person is a risk to themselves or others (and this has to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt NOT just that a Doctor thinks a person needs treatment). If the person is NOT shown to be a danger to themselves or other than they can NOT be ordered by the Court into treatment (People who have been court ordered into treatment are on the list and thus NOT the problem, it is the people NOT court ordered and can NOT be court ordered).

Thus the great Dilemma, how to get such people with mental problem (but not a clear harm to themselves or others) into treatment? The best way is to provide them with promise that if they go to treatment, the record of such treatment will NOT be held against them. This is what most states do, it is the best solution to a bad situation. How to encourage treatment.

While this is a good idea, but it is the type of idea that someone who deals with this type of mentally challenged person quickly will see the PROBLEMS with the solution. Remember we are dealing with people who are viewed by law as "sane" unless there is evidence that shows the person is NOT sane. By banning anyone who has a history of mental problems from owning a gun you are encouraging such people NOT to seek treatment, something that is worse than the disease.

[MrBenchley]

23. In a word, no...

[freebird71457]

61. I agree

It's a slippery slope, and I don't have the answer.

If someone is mentally ill, then we shouldn't expect them to admit it when they try to purchase a firearm. Yet, if a person goes to a mental health professional and seeks treatment, but is still depressed or suicidal, or homicidal, or someotherkindofcidal, I don't want them buying a firearm. But I don't want the mental health professional to violate the doctor/patient privelige.

If we put that person on the list, then they are cured a month or a year later, should the right to buy a gun be restored? I hope so. If so, what is the mechanism for that?

There are a lot of questions here, and I hope they are all answered before we pass some well-meaning legislation that doesn't work, or works in a way that we don't intend.

[happyslug]

62. The present system works to a degree

For example, if someone things some one is a danger to themselves or other they can call the Police and have that person "arrested" and taken to a hospital where a mental health profession will make a determination. If it is determined that the person is in danger he (or she) is committed, if not he (or she) is released.

If a decision is made to keep the person, that is not record for it is made without benefit of a hearing. Within one to two days a hearing is held on such cases (often in the Hospital where a judge a District attorney and a person from the Public Defender all meet with the patient and hold a hearing. In that hearing evidence is heard as to the mental condition of the patient and a decision is made to keep or release the patient. This is a permanent record and goes on the list of people who can not buy a weapon. Do to the severity of most people in the above situation these people rarely commit a crime with a weapon (and rarely if ever get a chance to buy or use a weapon).

The people being arrested and committed are NOT the problem. Everyone accepts them as having severe mental health problems, the real issue is those people who the courts have ruled NOT incompetent OR never been in front of a court or doctor even with severe mental problems. Many of these people believe there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM. These are the type of people who, do to their mental condition, commit a crime with a gun.

The real issue is HOW do we encourage such people to seek out mental health care GIVEN THEIR FEAR THAT IF THEY DO SO THEY WILL LOSE THEIR GUNS?

Do not think this is a Small problem I once had a case where the Judge refused to sign a Protection From abuse Order do to the fact the defendant would lose his rights to possess his guns (and the defendant was a part-time fireman). I ended up getting a Order keeping him away from his wife as part of a Divorce Order, but both the Defendant refused to agree to the PFA and the Judge Refused to sign such an order.

Now I bring that up for the parties did not have any mental health problems, but I have seen other cases where someone has refused treatment (that had been recommend to him or her) because he or she feared it would interfere with his ability to own a gun.

Remember without evidence of mental problems (and that has to be from a mental health professional NOT a man on the street) people are presumed to be SANE and thus can own a gun.

My point is the best solution is NOT to ban people from having a gun UNLESS he (or she) has been ruled by a Court to be insane and leave the law as it is at present. It is the best solution to a bad situation but one that has worked for the last 40 years (since the 1960s when the last set of changes took place).

[MrSandman]

63. The criteria is adjudication

[MrSandman]

64. Have you participated in a commitment hearing

That is the criteria.

[Frodo_Baggins]

82. And it SHOULDN'T

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE learn something about psychiatry. Not everybody who has a mentall illness is incompetent to own guns.

[Michigan]

83. In Michigan...

...you are not allowed to purchase a firearm if you have ever been committed to a mental health facility involuntarily.

If you committed yourself, then you're good to go (assuming you are not committed any more).

I'm pretty sure this applies to all firearms, but it may only apply to handguns. Also, I don't think it addresses whether or not a person involuntarily committed already owned firearms prior to being committed and would still possess them once released.

[slackmaster]

84. Does Michigan have the equivalent of California's '5150' law?

That's the section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code that allows police, firefighters, a wide range of health care workers, and even lifeguards to involuntarily commit a person for up to 72 hours for observation.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5157