Pretty interesting news on gun control

[NRA80]

Does it prevent them from possessing a firearm or from purchasing one from a dealer?

An individual that triggers one of the 10 federal prohibitions would be prohibited from purchasing and possessing certain firearms until their rights have been restored.


It does not add or change any of the current state or federal prohibitions -- it makes sure records for individuals who, under state law, trigger the federal firearm prohibition for individuals that are adjudicated mentally defective are shared with the NICs Background Check System. It also provides a "relief from disability." Meaning, it provides an individual the ability to petition to have their rights restored. Currently, veterans and others, do not have this ability to have their rights restored.

 

[Emperor]

An individual that triggers one of the 10 federal prohibitions would be prohibited from purchasing and possessing certain firearms until their rights have been restored.


It does not add or change any of the current state or federal prohibitions -- it makes sure records for individuals who, under state law, trigger the federal firearm prohibition for individuals that are adjudicated mentally defective are shared with the NICs Background Check System. It also provides a "relief from disability." Meaning, it provides an individual the ability to petition to have their rights restored. Currently, veterans and others, do not have this ability to have their rights restored.

I do not like the way this debate is panning out; but unfortunatley mental illness IS where the issue lies. And though I really, really don't want ANY more doctor's being the go to authority on the world, I guess this crap is lessor of the evils.

I predict the process will go awry eventually.

 

[DBMJR1]

Can anyone name one incident of mass shooting that this would have prevented?


It's about as useful a tool as the assault weapon ban for preventing future mass shootings, IMHO.(Which is to say it is of no use what so ever.)

 

[NRA80]

I do not like the way this debate is panning out; but unfortunatley mental illness IS where the issue lies. And though I really, really don't want ANY more doctor's being the go to authority on the world, I guess this crap is lessor of the evils.

I predict the process will go awry eventually.

The only thing that is taking place is making sure the records of individuals that are already prohibited are getting to the NICS system. Additionally, you would also be providing a process to restore your rights that does not exist as we speak. You are not creating any new categories of prohibited persons.

The "doctor" is not the "go-to-authority." Courts have to make the determination for the prohibition and the restoration.

 

[NRA80]

Can anyone name one incident of mass shooting that this would have prevented?


It's about as useful a tool as the assault weapon ban for preventing future mass shootings, IMHO.(Which is to say it is of no use what so ever.)

Actually, it is good policy. You are strengthening the background check system in a way that does not negatively impact the millions of law-abiding, rights exercising gun owners. And, for instance, you are giving people that have recovered from an ailment the ability to again exercise their Second Amendment rights. You are also taking one proactive step to make sure that individuals that are dangerously mentally ill are being identified. Stopping all individuals determined to commit evil acts is very much unlikely -- however, this effort will absolutely help.

 

[Emperor]

The only thing that is taking place is making sure the records of individuals that are already prohibited are getting to the NICS system. Additionally, you would also be providing a process to restore your rights that does not exist as we speak. You are not creating any new categories of prohibited persons.

The "doctor" is not the "go-to-authority." Courts have to make the determination for the prohibition and the restoration.

Then I must have misinterpreted this:

"However, state law in Louisiana now prohibits the state from providing information on mental health eligibility to the database.

The proposal will not require the state to share medical records with federal agencies and the state will be able to request individuals be removed from the list if they are deemed "mentally competent by health care professionals," according to a news release from the Governor's Office."

 

[JNieman]

I'm happy to see a broken system being repaired. This doesn't change any policies, but rather helps make sure existing policies are enforced. It doesn't make sense to redesign a machine that was never built right in the first place - you have to build it right to see if the design was ever good in the first place.

Let's close the "nujob loophole" so long as there's no collateral damage.

 

[NRA80]

Then I must have misinterpreted this:

"However, state law in Louisiana now prohibits the state from providing information on mental health eligibility to the database.

The proposal will not require the state to share medical records with federal agencies and the state will be able to request individuals be removed from the list if they are deemed "mentally competent by health care professionals," according to a news release from the Governor's Office."

That is an error in reporting -- you may recall those types of errors when reading stories on the recent Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment. The petition process for an individual to regain their rights would allow mental health professionals to provide testimony; however, the final determination would be made by a court.

 

[OneStory]

It may prohibit but it does not prevent.

 

[Emperor]

It may prohibit but it does not prevent.

Well at least it's a start! Isn't that what they all say?

 

[TinMan]

Just a couple of thoughts. For one people can and are diagnosed with PTSD if they have been a witness traumatic event(s) and have some of the following: reoccurring dreams of an event, any lack of memory of an event, difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating, difficulty remembering names, avoiding discussing events. There are also more minor or more major symptoms the most everyone already knows about . You only have to have a few of these issues to be considered PTSD. Not everyone who suffers from PTSD is violent, agitated, has flashbacks, or is hyper-vigilant. Most have only minor issues. Under the new VA rulings anyone returning from a combat situation and shows some of these symptoms is considered PTSD. The diagnosis are right, these issues are related to PTSD. And seeking help does help the person learn to cope with the PTSD. If we start stigmatizing PTSD I'm afraid people will fear losing they're rights and refuse to seek help which can possibly lead to self-destructive behavior like alcoholism. That's the way cops and soldiers have dealt with this problem for too long. They're just now starting to talk about their problems and getting the help they need and we don't need to put a stop to that. I am also concerned about the involuntary confinement issue. Currently if a person is considered a danger to themselves or others by a police officer, they may pick them up without a court order and bring them in to be evaluated. A lot of times the person is determined to be sane and released in less than 72 hours. But I've seen discussion on this at the federal level that considers this as an involuntary commitment. Although this is a good tool for law enforcement to get a potentially dangerous person evaluated it should be up to professional whether or not the person danger to themselves or other for commitment purposes. This needs to be defined in the legislation. I am also concerned about the elderly. Many of them get up in age and have a few problems taking care of day to day Bill paying and have a family member legally appointed to take care of that for them. In all other aspects they're fine with their faculties. A lot of them live at home alone and just have a caretaker stop in and check on them. They are easy targets for criminals. I am worried we could be taking away their self protection.

 

[tim9lives]

PTSD = Mentally Ill
Talk about a catch 22....a young man goes to war...sees his friends blown to bits.....comes home for a few months.....goes back to serve another tour....sees more friends blown to bits....gets hit by an IED and looses his best friend while getting injured himself.
After all of this...he obviously and naturally suffers from PTSD. And now he is banned from owning a firearm. This is total Bull Crap. Its a disgrace and a slap in the face. He is now treated the same as the crack head who has been selling rocks and got busted. To treat these guys the same way we treat felons is a fricking outrage.

 

[TinMan]

I just know that when I was in school every kid had a rifle in the gun rack in his truck parked at school. Never an issue.

 

[TinMan]

Well said about the Unfairness to a returning soldiers.

 

[Sugarbug]

PTSD = Mentally Ill
Talk about a catch 22....a young man goes to war...sees his friends blown to bits.....comes home for a few months.....goes back to serve another tour....sees more friends blown to bits....gets hit by an IED and looses his best friend while getting injured himself.
After all of this...he obviously and naturally suffers from PTSD. And now he is banned from owning a firearm. This is total Bull Crap. Its a disgrace and a slap in the face. He is now treated the same as the crack head who has been selling rocks and got busted. To treat these guys the same way we treat felons is a fricking outrage.

I wouldn't support anyone who supported legislation where PTSD wasn't specifically excluded. However, it would need to be done on a case-by-case basis. If they're a danger to themselves or others because of their disorder, they need to be kept from firearms. It's a slippery slope, I know, but how can we all yell "it's the mentally ill!! Not guns!" And then provide no way for them to implement a restriction on the mentally ill?

 

[Leonidas]

That is an error in reporting -- you may recall those types of errors when reading stories on the recent Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment. The petition process for an individual to regain their rights would allow mental health professionals to provide testimony; however, the final determination would be made by a court.

I'm not reassured. Attorneys are as much, or more, of a closed, good ole boy fraternity as doctors. I don't think they're going to be inclined to challenge a doctor's assessment. Well..........unless it involves a huge malpractice payday for the shyster.

 

[stancel]

The chipping away continues. Thanks Bobby!

 

[Emperor]

I'm not reassured. Attorneys are as much, or more, of a closed, good ole boy fraternity as doctors. I don't think they're going to be inclined to challenge a doctor's assessment. Well..........unless it involves a huge malpractice payday for the shyster.

Nor am I!

I wonder how much more will we allow Lawyers and Doctors to feather their nests?

 

[TinMan]

I wouldn't support anyone who supported legislation where PTSD wasn't specifically excluded. However, it would need to be done on a case-by-case basis. If they're a danger to themselves or others because of their disorder, they need to be kept from firearms. It's a slippery slope, I know, but how can we all yell "it's the mentally ill!! Not guns!" And then provide no way for them to implement a restriction on the mentally ill?

I believe that we are making mentally ill scape goats also. Studies over and over again show the mentally ill are less likely to commit violent acts then the general public and more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. Think about it. If the government wanted to remove weapons from trained armed individuals it would be simple. First you make it easier for returning soldiers to obtain a rating of PTSD because nobody returns from war the same. Next you demonize mental illness and convince the public that every mentally ill person is a ticking time bomb. Then you pass supported legislation to get the guns away from these dangerous people. I'm not saying that the government is setting these shooting up, as I've heard some people say, that's hogwash. I'm just saying that the government and media is over emphasizing things to create a panic. It would be too difficult for a full on frontal attack on second amendment rights so they need to find ways around it that they can slip by the public.