Sen. Cornyn, With NRA Blessing, Proposes Gun Background Checks

[TenBears]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IDAHO_VETERAN_GUN_PROTEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-06-19-54-26
Aug 6, 7:54 PM EDT
Gun-confiscation fears lead to protest in northern Idaho
By KIMBERLEE KRUESI
Associated Press
..."The protest -spearheaded by Scott- attracted roughly 100 people. Among them were Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, who promised to stand guard against any federal attempts to remove Arnold's(Navy veteran) guns, and Republican Washington state Rep. Matthew Shea of Spokane Valley, who described the event as a "defiance against tyranny."...

And some people trust the .gov not to take things to an asinine level, BRILLIANT!

 

[RugersGR8]

I REITERATE:

Remember the big "to-do" that was raised when doctors started asking(questionaire) patients if they own firearms. It scares the heck out of me WHO GETS TO SAY WHO HAS MENTAL PROBLEMS AND WHO DOES NOT HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS. IMHO, a lot of doctors(AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.) already have anti-gun leanings that they could implement into anti-gun agenda(s). That being said, I do agree that there are people with mental problems that should not have access to firearms.

PS----IMHO, John Arnold DID NOT meet the criteria!

 

[Dale00]

I think that two factors are being overlooked in this discussion:

1. There is a panic over mentally ill mass shooters that is largely media-driven. Why should we buy into this panic? Show me the statistical proof that mass shootings are rapidly increasing and a significant threat to the average person and that mental health authorities are unbiased with regard to the second amendment, then I will be more inclined to support giving psychologists the power to suspend basic rights. I am not ready to trust the same psychologists who believe that there are seven sexes, rather then two, with the power to suspend a citizen's gun rights.

2. Mentally ill mass shooters are killing people in gun-free zones. Eliminate the gun free zones.

 

[donner]

Right are you a trained head shriinker too? What it wrong with you Donner ?

I am not and i'm not sure why you feel there is something wrong with me. Wait, are you even trained to determine that?

You said your father was aged, but shouldn't be left defenseless. I never claimed he should be, only that the 'tipping point' on when he should be disarmed probably has more to do with his ability to recognize friend from foe and use a firearm safely. Both of which can be difficult with advanced age, just like driving a car can be.

Just because he can posses a firearm doesn't mean he should. Same goes for a lot of people in this country.

 

[otis147]

would you prefer to make that call, or would you rather some .gov bureaucrat decides when your loved one is no longer allowed to possess a weapon?

 

[jfssms]

Your comparison of a right to a privilege may explain my attitude toward you. I do understand I'm in the minority.

 

[Glocktogo]

I have no issue with the reporting of Involuntary adjudication to NICS. The concern is those who voluntarily seek help, veterans deal with this one when they go to the VA and ask for help with a mental health issue they get reported to NICS, so instead of going and asking for help if they can't afford healthcare outside of the VA system they suffer.

Someone stated not all mental health issues are physiological and treatable by drugs, and that's true, but some are. If you begin treating people who voluntarily seek help, who stay on top of their issues and their medication, and go see their doctor regularly as criminals and report them to NICS you'll have more issues in the long run because people will quit seeking help.

With socialization of healthcare you can bet that eventually a HIPPA exception is going to be made and require doctors to report those seeking help for mental health issues. And that is my concern.

Your concern is completely valid and I agree with it 100%. I would never accept anything but an involuntary commitment (with an appeals and rights restoration process), or an adjudication in a court of law of mental incompetence for placing someone on the prohibited list. Due Process MUST be afforded regardless of the cost.

 

[mugsy]

Your concern is completely valid and I agree with it 100%. I would never accept anything but an involuntary commitment (with an appeals and rights restoration process), or an adjudication in a court of law of mental incompetence for placing someone on the prohibited list. Due Process MUST be afforded regardless of the cost.

Agree with the above 100%.

I don't see how anyone can make the argument that serious mental instability is not a legitimate factor to consider when determining if a right may require restriction in some manner. However, I am very suspicious of how the call is made and who makes the call. The fairest system would seem to be the same system that decides whether one represents a serious enough threat to have his freedom taken away by being sent to jail.
So mental health professionals, just like anyone else, if they felt an individual was a threat could apply to a court to weigh their assessment. So a judgement, by a competent court, of mental defect requiring institutionalization (I am sure there is a better way to define that) would be needed not merely the say-so of a doctor or other official.
Is that a perfect system? Of course not, just as the overall court system is not perfect in deciding who is actually guilty of crimes, however, it is a reasonable facsimile of justice and it has the advantage of a defined system to ensure due process.

 

[Wheel Gun]

I don't see how anyone can make the argument that serious mental instability is not a legitimate factor to consider when determining if a right may require restriction in some manner. However, I am very suspicious of how the call is made and who makes the call. The fairest system would seem to be the same system that decides whether one represents a serious enough threat to have his freedom taken away by being sent to jail.

That's reasonable, but unfortunately, the concept of pre-confiscation hearings is probably not how this would work. Here's the most likely scenario. At the Federal level, healthcare transaction records would be scanned regularly looking for a specific set of procedure or diagnosis codes that are related to mental health (ie, PTSD, depression, etc.). This would trigger an order to local law enforcement to collect firearms. Then, the onus would be placed on the individual to fight to get his firearms and rights back. This would most certainly be a long and expensive fight.

Trust me. They'd be better at this game than the average person.

 

[Glocktogo]

That's reasonable, but unfortunately, the concept of pre-confiscation hearings is probably not how this would work. Here's the most likely scenario. At the Federal level, healthcare transaction records would be scanned regularly looking for a specific set of procedure or diagnosis codes that are related to mental health (ie, PTSD, depression, etc.). This would trigger an order to local law enforcement to collect firearms. Then, the onus would be placed on the individual to fight to get his firearms and rights back. This would most certainly be a long and expensive fight.

Trust me. They'd be better at this game than the average person.

I thought Cornyn's bill is supposed to address that?

Currently, the Veterans Affairs Department can bar veterans from purchasing guns if they are declared incompetent. However, this authority has been criticized by Second Amendment advocates. Most recently, Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas proposed legislation that would require court action before barring gun purchases by veterans declared incompetent.

of course the knee jerk reaction around here seems to be that it's just more gun control.