I get the who, I want to know the what. There are mental illnesses that shouldn't have you lose your constitutional rights - any of them.
Why not. If you didn't use a weapon in the crime you committed, there's no reason to deny you your rights to defend yourself.
Actually, there's a lot of misinformation in there. The bill would affect little more than 75,000 folks that are registered recipients of financial aid due to mental illness. Are you suggesting that there are some fraudulent mental illness claims out there? The circle of irony is quite amusing.
The article is definitely unclear on that one. Everyone purchasing a firearm is checked. Seems a lot more like the database is a list of people who are refused a purchase. Even if it means you get a much more in depth background check that is a limitation of your rights just because you get a disability check - which takes me back to what exact mental illnesses will get you a check. It really seems as if the entire thing was written badly and way too broad. In theory I agree, there are some mental illnesses which if diagnosed should get you looked at harder, but not all of them. Not knowing which ones can get you a check has me overall thinking it was a really bad law but I'll see if I can find more if I have time later.
I totally agree, not all felons should have their rights stripped. Tons of things out there are bullshit nonviolent felonies. Oh wait, you didn't want that response did you
Gotcha. The what is determined through the check. That's essentially what the bill is. It doesn't outright deny rights. It's triggers a check which is reasonable. I'm personally for background checks for all owners, not just the ones registered crazy. (that was bad, I meant mental) LOL
That would probably be the same doc that told my wife who is an ICU nurse that her patient wasn't going to hurt himself. Patient had told the wife he would kill himself when released from the hospital. Doc wouldn't listen to the nurse, said patient was fine, guy was released and killed himself the same day. Or another that they told her wasn't a threat to anyone other than himself, that one went out a 4th floor window backwards while trying to drag her with him. Cops shot him a year later when he threatened them with a knife. They don't always get it right and there needs to be systems in place to challenge that ruling.
Can you think of any mental illnesses that wouldn't or shouldn't disqualify someone from owning a gun? I'm not sure where the line between mental illness and just weird is really.
So then structure and word the legislation to actually define what mental illness is and then specifically target those peeps who have said mental illness as specified by the law but don’t determine it by who receives SS payments.
I agree to an extent - granted I wouldn't have an issue with more in depth background checks of everyone - but on that note I'd really prefer they just find the departments tasked with doing the current level required so they can do so in a timely manner and be accurate. They can't even get that right and it should be before they add more to that particular plate.
No, I'm suggesting that the bill was a kneejerk reaction to do "something" about a problem that doesn't exist, and that it would reinforce a precedent that's unconstitutional. EVERY SINGLE argument anyone can make about gun control can be ended with "if there'd been a good guy with a gun there...", but all the anti's want to do is write more laws to make it easier to take the guns away from people. You don't have to take away everybody's lighters, you just need to make fire extinguishers available.
A buddy of mine got a DUI and the entire time he was on probation, he was not allowed to have any contact with guns whatsoever. That my friends is complete bullshit. For the record, good job, good guy, no other criminal record of any kind, 800 plus credit score, good family guy, etc. In other words, model citizen that got whacked coming home from a bar one night. No accident, no bodily injury, just a traffic bust turns into DUI arrest.
Yep, all sorts of PTSD is what first popped into my head. Plenty of people with issues that could/would/should keep them from working (ie the disability portion) but would have no effect on their ability or judgement when using a weapon. I'm sure there are plenty of other things out there too, hell one of the millenial go to complaints is social anxiety, being freaked out by people if it doesn't make you violent shouldn't lose you rights.
If he wasn't getting a disability payment it wouldn't affect him - another example the law was kind of silly Hell even doing something based on people who have had a 72hr hold doesn't work since that can just take an accusation from an ex.
Time out. It's not SS payments. Let's keep the narrative straight. it's payments received from SS FOR mental illness. You know, the folks that get paid by the government because they claim mental illness. Those guys.
But what would really happen is that they'd continue to underfund and understaff the departments (and any new ones) which would result in overworked and understaffed bureaucrats rubber stamping forms that determine who can and who cannot have a weapon. They'd probably default to denying everyone.
