Skip to main content

View Diary: 2 New Executive Actions on Gun Background Checks (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's either infringe on gun buyers' rights or (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    john07801, ericlewis0, oldpotsmuggler

    infringe on the rights of ALL mentally ill people with this.
    CT's laws are no where near strict enough to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Illegal guns are as easy to get as cocaine. And often from the very same gangsters.
    Registration and a record of title transfer is the only answer to reducing crime guns. It cuts off the flow of legitimate guns into the underworld.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:41:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes I can't believe what (7+ / 0-)

      I read here.  Ok, then, separate out an entire group with no probable cause for infringement of their rights.   Let's do the same with other rights and privileges, like marriage, having children, driving a car.  Abuses and deaths occur with each of those.

      I'm all for the strictest possible laws re: registration and title transfer.  That doesn't mean that guns will suddenly not be available to gangsters.

      There are already means of reporting individuals who demonstrate a danger to self and others by mental health professionals.  I don't want anyone in the mental health field deciding what constitutes a problematic mental health issue for purposes of reporting to ATF or any other agency.  There are clear guidelines already.  

      For instance, I wouldn't want someone with your mindset determining what is and isn't reportable in order to prevent someone from acquiring a pistol permit or weapon.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:55:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  From what I can gather, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0, MKSinSA, oldpotsmuggler

        they are looking at making mental health data available to the IBGC system.
        If that's only people who have already been adjudicated, that is a fraction of the potential applicants and not very full coverage AFA checking whether someone is mentally stable enough to be trusted with lethal weapons. I know several people just in my circle of acquaintances in my small town on the CT shoreline who have never crossed the line legally but should not be trusted with sharp objects, nevermind a gun. I'm not a mental health professional or law enforcement, I would never want to be in the position to make those decisions and I doubt that most of the people who are qualified would be comfortable passing that kind of judgement, either pro or con, without some very convincing demonstration. And that will leave a huge gap of people who are semi-Ok.
        As for

        re: registration and title transfer.  That doesn't mean that guns will suddenly not be available to gangsters
        No, not suddenly, but it would dry up the flow of new guns into the crime gun pipeline.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:10:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, here's a clarification Via HuffPo (5+ / 0-)

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

          The first proposed rule change, by the Department of Justice, expands the definition of the statutory term "committed to a mental institution" to clarify that the prohibition on firearms purchases applies to people subjected to involuntary outpatient as well as inpatient commitments.

          The rule also clarifies that “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” include persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court.

          and
          The second proposed rule change, by the Department of Health and Human Services, allows certain entities covered by patient privacy protections to submit additional information to the background-check system. The administration notes that nothing in this rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or legally prevent someone from having a firearm just because he or she sought treatment.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:39:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The thing is, we ALREADY do this with (5+ / 0-)

        marriage and driving.  If you drive, you agree to submit to a blood-alcohol test if you're pulled over.  Even if there was no probable cause for your stop/test, refusal to take the test results in an automatic suspension of your license in every state.  When you get married, you voluntarily submit information to the government that you otherwise wouldn't have to.  In some states, you have to submit to a blood test.  In both cases, you're agreeing to an intrusion on your Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for a privilege from the government.  

        •  And when you register to vote, and when you vote (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          john07801, ericlewis0, Tortmaster

          you volunteer to make your address, you political affiliation, and your participation in elections, a matter of public record.

          Depending on location people can be harassed, boycotted, fired based on public information that can be misused.

          The analogy I'm trying to draw is that exercising my right to vote requires a choice, and I'm required to surrender some privacy to do so.

          In contrast, with mental health/RKBA we demand that the entire population surrender a portion of their medical history for inspection/deposition in a government database, for their entire lives. Even when a) most will never seek to own or use a gun, b) only a small number of people with sever mental illness are violent.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:12:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why assume "gun buyers' rights" extend to this? (6+ / 0-)

      With due respect, it's not either/or anything. There are obvious difficulties with, for example:
      - medical privacy issues,
      - identifying which kinds of mental illness should constitute a bar to owning or obsessing guns,
      - identifying who is mentally unstable enough to preclude a gun purchase in the first place,
      - following up so that someone who once passed a check to get a gun but becomes unsuitable thereafter cannot lawfully possess one,
      - ... etc.

      These point up how vapid, worthless and diversionary the NRA's argument is that we must address all the mental health issues first and foremost and completely, before we try to regulate or restrict guns.

      None of this argues for doing nothing about mental health. To the contrary, we should be doing much more, but for far broader societal benefits than just regulating guns. This does underscore that addressing gun issues through mental health identification and treatment gives no hope whatever of adequately addressing gun proliferation.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:57:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I know that's how it appears (5+ / 0-)

      to the gun nuts.  They see all potential controls as unconstitutional in their black-and-white world.

      Even if it's only possible to enact small steps at any one moment to stop the carnage, they can, hopefully, lead to better control of illegal guns without igniting the absurd concept of "gun grabbing."

      And universal registration and strict transfer laws are the only way to stop the sale of legitimate guns into the street.

      Guns don't kill people but there's always one there at the time of death.

      by john07801 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:05:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site