I have to ask if anyone thinks this was a good move. Repealing legislation just because BO’s name is attached to it seems rather childish. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna727221
I wouldn't call that a smart move but then again we are talking about government so smart left the conversation a long time ago.
Yes it’s a good repeal. It never defined what mental illness is and how it would apply to individuals. So regardless of the savior having his finger prints on it, it was a bad piece of legislation that also violated the 2nd Amendment. It was a general gun restriction law. Also, two year old news.
Yes I am fine with it however I have no clue where you got the idea that’s the reason it was repealed. Where did you get that idea?
Here's the rub with denying somebody with a "mental illness" their right to purchase a gun. Who gets to determine whether the person is mentally ill? Is it a medical doctor (we could talk all day about inefficiencies and problems in the healthcare industry)? Is it a psychiatrist? Is it a psychologist? Is it a judge? Is it a cop/sheriff, and is it a true professional that's got real training, or is it some flunky that took an online course? Or worst of all, is it some bureaucrat processing a form? What happens when it's illegal for a "crazy person" to own a gun, and some bureaucrat decides that owning a certain type or certain number of guns makes you "crazy"? What about veterans that have sought treatment for PTSD? What about all the people who refuse mental health treatment out of fear of losing their 2nd Amendment rights? Finally, what about the perfectly sane person that buys guns, then snaps later? The reality is that you cannot preemptively stop crimes like this. The best course of action is to arm more of the populace so they can defend themselves from attack.
As I recall, it was clearly defined as ANYONE receiving social security checks for mental illness. So yeah, documented mental illness = no gun. It makes sense.
What are the qualifications to get a check from SS for a mental illness? It could be the Obama thing but it could have also been a bad law he did in an overreaction.
I'm going out on a limb to say that a doctor has the credentials to determine mental illness. That said, if you're receiving benefits for said mental illness, isn't that an admission that you're mental?
You just made my point. The law didn’t specifically define mental illness. It was too broad in scope. In any event this is two years old news. It was a bad piece of legislation randomly attaching it to conditional SS payments.
I'm not sure, but if a doctor says you're mental, and you receive a check for it, doesn't that pretty much kill the "Who determines" argument?
Agreed. It does however trigger the background check to determine if your mental illness makes it hazardous to handle & operate a firearm. It's a check, not a right revocation.
It all depends on the circumstances. Did you know that the average doctor/patient interaction is less than 16 minutes? There's no way to make determination in that amount of time. Then you have to factor in things like pharma kickbacks. Most doctors gloss over the patient's needs and throw a prescription at them. It doesn't mean you're crazy. And even if you ARE having mental health issues, it does not necessarily make you a threat to yourself or others? Again, what a bill like this does is attempt to make a blanket determination and infringe upon the rights of millions of people.
Hopefully, this is just the beginning. Next...felons. Not all felons are actually guilty. Plus not all felons are violent. There is NO REASON they should not be allowed to purchase guns. Hell, it's their god given right!
I've been posting in the dungeon for a week. You guys have converted me from a responsible gun owner to a full on 2A nut.
