we have a LEADER and it’s time we took back out country from gun extremists. the days of doing NOTHING and shaking our heads thinking there is NOTHING we can do are over. this is our country not the nra’s and not their ® political puppets. today is a proud day for America. there’s more work to be done and I support Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. please consider supporting them too, because we can’t rely on just the politicians. WE THE PEOPLE! 11/8/16 & 11/6/18 VOTE!
How would it work?
New rules by executive order…
I don’t think anyone who is even “a little bit off” should be able to buy a gun, Ditto for someone whose IQ is below normal. My daughter, who is perfectly rational and highly gifted, also suffers from anxiety and depression, kept under control with medication and therapy. I sure as heck don’t think she should own a gun and I’m sure she’d agree, not because she’s in danger of killing other people, but because in a dark moment, she might be tempted to use it on herself. I’d be calling her doctor, as well as the FBI, myself if I ever thought she was going to buy one.
Being sane and not stupid are really low standards for gun ownership, if you ask me. But I’m sure that legions of low-information Trump voters would disagree with me.
Yes. It’s just commonsense.
That’s what we’ve been discussing, dstark. As far as mental health goes, the background check changes a small change. A step in the right direction, but a small technical change.
Notice that the press release from the White House talks about some executive actions that are happening, but also legislative proposals that are going nowhere. The White House might want half a billion bucks for mental health treatment, but that’s not going to happen.
CF, I understand. The article is too limited in scope.
In most states you can vote after you’ve served your sentence.
I looked up the law that awc referenced in #19, the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013. This law was not enacted.
As I mentioned upthread, it was already the law, and remains the law, that people are legally prohibited from buying guns if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution, have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, or who have otherwise been adjudged by a “a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority” to be mentally unfit. Again, note that “lawful authorities” here means government agencies and representatives of the government, not random doctors. The law does not require that a mental health professional report that one of their clients should be barred from buying a gun, and indeed, HIPAA would prevent health professionals from making any such report unless they were working as agents of the government.
The proposed law would not have changed current law. It would merely have given a more detailed definition of who would be barred from having a gun because of mental health reasons:
This bill would have done nothing to expand the (tiny) list of people who are not allowed to buy guns based on mental unfitness. Google is not showing me any evidence that the ACLU opposed this bill.
tl;dr The NRA did not support expanding the number of people denied guns for mental health reasons. If anything, the proposed bill would have reduced the number of people denied guns for mental health reasons, because it required that the person have been given a hearing and allowed to participate with counsel before being denied gun rights.
Has the NRA ever supported ANY law/rule/regulation/policy/order that would expand the number of people denied guns for any reason? Follow the money.
My husband is going to be fingerprinted, get a background check, and attend a training class tonight…to coach a basketball team.
@toledo, my son is going to be CORI checked and get fingerprinted so that he can do a 3 week theatre internship at the high school from which he graduated last year. He will be directing kids who are his friends and who are, at most, 3 years younger than he is. Fortunately, he can walk into any gun shop and buy whatever he wants, just in case he needs a weapon to deal with these out of control kids.
Interesting take. It is a nice bumper sticker statement for the some, but misses the fundamental aspects of the argument at hand.
It is not inconsistent, in the least, to be for something, but against how it is accomplished and thus think it better to have implemented in a certain way. Specifically, the separation of powers is there for a reason, and just because something gets done does not mean it was done properly or with the necessary legitimacy to be useful and accepted. And many times in such cases, much more harm to a system is caused than any good created by the policy.
I find this similar to if someone is seen on video killing someone and then the justice system ignores due process and the right to a trial and a judge just decides to punish and sentence without allowing a defense. That too is ignoring the fundamentals of the Constitution, just as some executive orders of this President ignores the role of Congress and the voice of the people.
This is exactly why the executive order immigration policy is now languishing in court because it ignored the role of Congress and subverts the Constitution. It does not matter if one is for the immigration policy; it was attempted to be implemented improperly, as per our government structure and rules, and that is bad for the Republic.
This is much bigger than one issue; it is about how our government legislates and executive orders are not it. Ignoring the role of Congress and the people makes O’s actions something that most will not respect and many will not follow. The result is deeply divided lines with a clear focal point of blame - the president. At least, if Congress playing a role, the people could address with their congressman and vote them out is necessary.
So, yes, I was all for the NRA-supported bill a couple years ago to institute a mental health provision for the background check, and I am still for this - but not done this way. This way is for autocrats and banana republics, not the US. It is not backpedaling to want to respect the governing process.
I agree with the above ^^^. A president should not be able to ignore Congress and issue laws by fiat that failed to pass the Congress. If the law was introduced in Congress in the first place and failed to pass, that seems like an admission that it was not something that was in the executive’s power and the executive should not be able to issue it.
SCOTUS will likely rule on the immigration executive power issue in June.
What bill are you talking about, awc? At first I thought you were talking about Lindsey Graham and Mark Pryor’s NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013, which was supported by the NRA. But that bill did not do what you say. It did not institute a mental health provision for a background check. There has been a mental health provision for a federal background check for guns since the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted. The NRA-supported Graham/Pryor bill did NOT increase the number of people subject to reporting requirements.
Actually, the NRA-supported NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 would have narrowed, not broadened, the set of people disqualified from buying guns. As it is now, a person who has ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution is forever prohibited from buying guns. But under the Graham/Pryor bill, they’d only be prohibited from buying guns while under the order of commitment. Once they got out, they’d be free to get their name off the NICS and stockpile guns.
Involuntary mental commitment usually lasts 72 hours. So the delusional paranoid schizophrenic wouldn’t be able to buy a gun from the institution’s gift shop while they were locked up for three days, but after they got out, if they decided they wanted an AK-47 and eleven Glocks to shoot the pet cats, US postmen and kindergarteners who were secretly monitoring their every move, hey no problem.
You really should expand your knowledge base on the subject matter because you are living a fed narrative that makes people who know, i.e., policymakers, ignore your concerns. Your statement is beyond hyperbole; it is flat-out contrary to the verified and searchable record.
You obviously do not know it was the NRA who fought for and got the current background check in place. There would be no background check without the NRA. Before the NRA support for instant background checks, there was only a wait period, but no check.
You obviously do not know that the NRA wanted and still want the diagnosed mentally ill to be on the prohibited gun purchase list. Currently, these people are not on the background check list.
You obviously do not know that the government is superiorly lax in prosecuting prohibited people who try to purchase guns. So, guess what? They go on and continue to try and buy guns and often get successful when a background check fails. And these known prohibited people to the government, both federal and state.
I could go on, but this video sums up what the NRA supports and has supported and puts facts on the table of which it is clear you do not know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLTMkg1RLW0
You are free to research and see if any of the claims stated in the video are false.
I have done my research. I stand by my position. Your insults don’t move me.
I have gun owners in my family. I have victims of gun violence in my family. I look for the reasonable middle ground. The NRA isn’t standing there.
In 1968. The NRA of 48 years ago is not the same as the NRA of now.
I challenge you to show me one bill, just one, in the last ten years, where the NRA has supported having someone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness, but not been adjudicated mentally ill/unfit in a government proceeding or finding, should be prohibited from buying a gun. One bill. Text of the bill. Put up or shut up.
You are conflating different issues and not making any sense of different situations. Your google knowledge is rather limited it seems.
- The NRA bill was not about reducing the number of mentally ill people on the list. That statement is dead wrong.
The bill was to actually to make sure that verifiable mentally ill people GET on the list in the first place. HIPAA laws made it virtually impossible for doctors to report diagnoses, and still does, even though it is already the law to do so. But, this reporting law directly conflicted with HIPAA and medical privacy laws. And ultimately, it was the HIPAA lobby that killed the bill.
More importantly, the bill had nothing to do with reducing any number of people denied guns because they were NOT even on the background list yet - it had everything to do with getting millions of unreported people ON the list AND who are still not on the background check list. The executive order does not change the fact that these people are still NOT on the list, and the order will not make them magically appear there either.
- I am part of an insurance company board and just over 24% of all doctor diagnoses are deemed wrong or partially inaccurate to fundamental cause after a second opinion. And in some areas, over 30% of initial diagnoses are just dead wrong and only an additional consult or two finds the error. And this goes for all medical professions across the board.
Therefore, I fully agree that no one’s guaranteed constitutional rights be taken away based on 1) one professional opinion, and 2 ) without the person being able to defend himself against a possible erroneous diagnosis. That is a dangerous precedent to set and is akin to being convicted and punished without a defense.
The clearcut exception is cases were a person has been committed, is on certain medication, and has a record of being involuntarily held because of threatening behavior. However, this concept that a doctor can just call, report a person as unstable on a singular diagnosis, and a person’s rights immediately taken away, sets the stage for terrible and potentially abusive policy.
This approach is really ideology not process at work. For example, drunk drivers kill many multiples more people annually with cars than mentally ill people kill others with guns. However, when people are arrested for drunk driving, their licenses and cars are not immediately taken away; they get to present a defense. After a conviction, I think the drunk driving laws sentences are much too lenient, but I agree with the person having a defense. The same right of defense should be given someone called unstable by one professional and the person should have his day to present otherwise. If mentally ill, then a hearing will show that, and then take the proper recourse, but never on the word of one person or one practice (could include multiple doctors) should a constitutional right be taken away from another.