Comedian Chuck (err, Amy) calls for gun control legislation

[Darrell KSR]

I admit, I kneejerked and thought this would be your typical gun control proposals, limiting the rights of Americans under the 2nd Amendment. It really isn't--it's a good piece of legislation designed to force states to share mental health information with each other, deny them funding if they don't, and implement good mental health treatment.

In fact, I'd call it mental health legislation, rather than gun control legislation. That's the focus, and where it should be, IMHO.

Here's the article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-chuc...n-gun-control/

[Doc]

I seriously doubt that the NRA would ever support gun control to any individual, even in cases of mental illness. I don't see any way that there will be a situation where citizens will be denied gun ownership based on "mental illness" when you consider that your medical records are private. It will take a lot to convince me that this mental heath thing is nothing more than a talking point that will NEVER happen. I know way too many nutjobs, fruitcakes and loons who own guns, guns that should never be in their hands (IMO) and you won't ever get them out of their hands. So to me this mental illness argument is a good strategy by the gun advocates. IMO it will work because in appearance it looks like something is attempting to be done but in actuality nothing will change.

[suncat05]

I have an issue with it straightaway. And that issue is this.......by the time this bill has gone through ALL of the legislative channels and been revised 2000 times, and some Congressman or Senator's favorite "pork" has been added to it, not to mention all of the backroom deals to make the kinds of changes NOT WANTED or needed by the Left.
They can go ahead and let this one die in committee. Boehner & McConnell cannot be trusted to protect our rights, much less any of the rest of the lot.
I am all for this kind of legislation. It is needed. But not at the expense of everyone else's liberties. I'm sure it is well intentioned, but so is the road to Hell.

[suncat05]

Oh, yeah, and since it comes from not one clown, but two, both liberal hacks if I can be so nice to say so, I definitely don't want that piece of trash to leave the initial committee's docket. It can die in place, just like they want our troops to do.

[Doc]

I have an issue with it straightaway. And that issue is this.......by the time this bill has gone through ALL of the legislative channels and been revised 2000 times, and some Congressman or Senator's favorite "pork" has been added to it, not to mention all of the backroom deals to make the kinds of changes NOT WANTED or needed by the Left.
They can go ahead and let this one die in committee. Boehner & McConnell cannot be trusted to protect our rights, much less any of the rest of the lot.
I am all for this kind of legislation. It is needed. But not at the expense of everyone else's liberties. I'm sure it is well intentioned, but so is the road to Hell.

You're silly if you think only the left bastardize a bill, any bill, to their liking. The GOP does it as well.

[Doc]

I seriously doubt that the NRA would ever support gun control to any individual, even in cases of mental illness. I don't see any way that there will be a situation where citizens will be denied gun ownership based on "mental illness" when you consider that your medical records are private. It will take a lot to convince me that this mental heath thing is nothing more than a talking point that will NEVER happen. I know way too many nutjobs, fruitcakes and loons who own guns, guns that should never be in their hands (IMO) and you won't ever get them out of their hands. So to me this mental illness argument is a good strategy by the gun advocates. IMO it will work because in appearance it looks like something is attempting to be done but in actuality nothing will change.

I should add that I don't want MY MEDICAL RECORDS to be made public or opened for the government and I would hope you wouldn't either. Shockingly it appears we may be in a juxtaposition on this where I'm going to be on the "pro-gun" albeit a pseudopro-gun side and the gun advocates will take a "gun regulation" albeit a pseudoregulation side.

[Darrell KSR]

Interesting.

I'll have to revisit it. I'm a big believer in personal privacy; however, this is one "gun" regulation I think is a good one. When someone attempts to purchase a gun, limiting access to medical records that are associated with mental illness seems to me to be a reasonable intrusion, given the public policy concerns of safety. But I'll think about it.

As far as bastardizing a bill, I'm never going to say a good law should not be passed out of fear that it will be screwed up with other things attached to it. Guess what--those "other things attached to it" will find their way on another bill. I'm going to focus on the law at hand only.

[CitizenBBN]

I seriously doubt that the NRA would ever support gun control to any individual, even in cases of mental illness. I don't see any way that there will be a situation where citizens will be denied gun ownership based on "mental illness" when you consider that your medical records are private.

Really? With the National Shooting Sports Foundation having spent millions and going state to state to enact exactly this kind of legislation requiring reporting of mental health records to make sure they can't get guns? Why would you think that when the gun industry and the NRA have both called for, even pleaded for, this legislation for years?

You're way off on this one Doc. The industry desperately wants to end these nut job shootings and absolutely wants to restrict gun ownership from those who meet the GCA exclusions for mental illness.

The only thing they don't want is Obama deciding that anyone who gets their social security checks sent to someone else to manage is by definition mentally incompetent and thus not able to own a gun. The 1968 law is pretty clear on the issues, you have to be ruled mentally incompetent by a court or be involuntarily committed, but some clear, legal standard needs to be the rule, not some administrative regulation that can be changed with a whim.

In fact progress has been made, several states are now reporting more such information to NICS, and it has no doubt prevented some people from buying a gun. The problem is that there's a ton of red tape to get through.

[suncat05]

You're silly if you think only the left bastardize a bill, any bill, to their liking. The GOP does it as well.

Sorry Doc, but I could have sworn I also included the GOP in that net, specifically calling out Boehner and McConnell.
I don't trust ANY of those legislators in D.C., on either side of the aisle. "Some" will try to do what's right by their constituents, which is why they're in D.C. because their constituents voted them into the offices. But most of them are going to play their party's game before they get around to representing the people who sent them there to begin with.
Maybe the way I worded it caused some confusion. If so, apologies.

[Darrell KSR]

I thought I had read some comments from you before that outlined their position as being more in favor of something like this. Makes sense to me.

Really? With the National Shooting Sports Foundation having spent millions and going state to state to enact exactly this kind of legislation requiring reporting of mental health records to make sure they can't get guns? Why would you think that when the gun industry and the NRA have both called for, even pleaded for, this legislation for years?

You're way off on this one Doc. The industry desperately wants to end these nut job shootings and absolutely wants to restrict gun ownership from those who meet the GCA exclusions for mental illness.

The only thing they don't want is Obama deciding that anyone who gets their social security checks sent to someone else to manage is by definition mentally incompetent and thus not able to own a gun. The 1968 law is pretty clear on the issues, you have to be ruled mentally incompetent by a court or be involuntarily committed, but some clear, legal standard needs to be the rule, not some administrative regulation that can be changed with a whim.

In fact progress has been made, several states are now reporting more such information to NICS, and it has no doubt prevented some people from buying a gun. The problem is that there's a ton of red tape to get through.

[CitizenBBN]

Darrell, no one wants to end these shootings more than the gun industry and gun owners. They just refuse to do it by restricting ownership by people who haven't shown any risk and have a right to self defense.

It's long, but here's the best excerpt of the GCA that lists who cannot buy a gun:

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


I've highlighted parts that are particularly at issue in this discussion, b/c they are problematic in terms of NICS reporting.

Notice there is no requirement here to expose medical records. It would be a matter of public record if someone is adjudicated defective or mentally incompetent, or committed, yet even those things aren't fully and correctly reported.

What scares gun folks is having it set up so any one doctor or bureaucrat can just decide with the flick of a pen in a box that a person is a risk or a threat or mentally questionable and they lose their 2nd Amendment rights. Like any other fundamental right in this country, such a thing should have to be decided by a judge, with a right to face accusers, with due process and the ability to appeal.

But the truth is that MANY people have that happen to them yet the results don't make it to NICS.

Look at what I highlighted. The first, the drug charge, had it been just properly reported under existing laws, would have prevented the SC shooter from getting a gun. That lunatic had copped to the charge, had that been filed correctly NICS would have flagged it and he's out.

The Louisiana shooter is turned down if they had just properly reported that a judge in Georgia had him involuntarily committed. All they had to do was get that information up the chain to the NICS database like it should have been.

Also, state laws vary a LOT on domestic situations, and little of that is properly reported, and that's a huge hole.

Maybe we need new laws, but wouldn't the obvious first step be to enforce the law as it's existed since 1968 to the best of our ability?

Just do it through due process, not with bureaucrats and individual doctors or whoever making those calls. Not like Obama wants, where he twists those restrictions to impact millions who have done nothing wrong and are not a risk, but in the very targeted way the GCA intended where we weed out those who have proven they are a threat by being convicted of a crime or otherwise adjudicated.

[Doc]

Really? With the National Shooting Sports Foundation having spent millions and going state to state to enact exactly this kind of legislation requiring reporting of mental health records to make sure they can't get guns? Why would you think that when the gun industry and the NRA have both called for, even pleaded for, this legislation for years?

You're way off on this one Doc. The industry desperately wants to end these nut job shootings and absolutely wants to restrict gun ownership from those who meet the GCA exclusions for mental illness.

The only thing they don't want is Obama deciding that anyone who gets their social security checks sent to someone else to manage is by definition mentally incompetent and thus not able to own a gun. The 1968 law is pretty clear on the issues, you have to be ruled mentally incompetent by a court or be involuntarily committed, but some clear, legal standard needs to be the rule, not some administrative regulation that can be changed with a whim.

In fact progress has been made, several states are now reporting more such information to NICS, and it has no doubt prevented some people from buying a gun. The problem is that there's a ton of red tape to get through.

Is the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the National Rifle Association the same thing?

They may want to end nut job shootings, I don't doubt that but they won't support anything that restricts gun ownership. They have a long history of nonsupport of even logical restrictions based on the slippery slope argument. I also believe much of their "pleading" is nothing but public relations. When a mentally ill individual commits a mass shooting its logical that one would speak out against the mentally ill owning guns. The problem is (and gun advocates know this) is how are those folks identified? I think my neighbor is crazy so I call the local police and therefore he can't own a gun? Or if I decide to see a shrink do I go on a national "can't own a gun" registry?

Again, I question the constitutionality of the governments right to access my medical records even though I have no desire to own a gun. My health is none of their damn business. I don't want Uncle Sam poking their nose into my medical records. My health, mental or otherwise is none of their damn business. I believe the right to privacy supports that.

[Doc]

Sorry Doc, but I could have sworn I also included the GOP in that net, specifically calling out Boehner and McConnell.
I don't trust ANY of those legislators in D.C., on either side of the aisle. "Some" will try to do what's right by their constituents, which is why they're in D.C. because their constituents voted them into the offices. But most of them are going to play their party's game before they get around to representing the people who sent them there to begin with.
Maybe the way I worded it caused some confusion. If so, apologies.

You use "the left" and then specifically state Boner and McConnell. Personally I have a hard time including "dumb and dumber" in the GOP at times.

[KeithKSR]

The left winged liberals really don't want to end the shootings, they are good for their talking points to fully eliminate the Second Amendment.

[Doc]

The left winged liberals really don't want to end the shootings, they are good for their talking points to fully eliminate the Second Amendment.

Yep. It furthers their agenda as well.

[dan_bgblue]

Proposed bill has NRA support

[suncat05]

That is much more palatable than what Schumer offered up, but if it finally comes out of committee for a vote on the floor of each House, it will not look anything like this proposal.

[jazyd]

We should not have to wait on some new gun control bill to fund mental health, they have cut it and cut it and cut it, and you end up with a school shooting like Conn, or movie theatre shootings like Colorado and Louisiana. That is where the emphasis should be, funding mental health and quit giving away the farm to lazy people who refuse to work, illegals, and countries that hate us.

[UKHistory]

I have not read it yet, but what constitutes mental illness? Visiting a shrink. A prescription for anxiety. When will the records say you are cured? It is a slippery slope.

The gun violence is far more a mental health issue than anything else. I need to read it closely but anything coming from the liberal side is destined to limit freedom. Just my view.

Interesting.

I'll have to revisit it. I'm a big believer in personal privacy; however, this is one "gun" regulation I think is a good one. When someone attempts to purchase a gun, limiting access to medical records that are associated with mental illness seems to me to be a reasonable intrusion, given the public policy concerns of safety. But I'll think about it.

As far as bastardizing a bill, I'm never going to say a good law should not be passed out of fear that it will be screwed up with other things attached to it. Guess what--those "other things attached to it" will find their way on another bill. I'm going to focus on the law at hand only.

[Doc]

Mental health is a red herring. It sounds great, it really does. But spending more money on mental health will not keep people from shooting folks in movie theaters, them from walking into churches and shooting people they hate, going into a school to kill kids or a suicide killer from attacking a military target. If the government wants to spend money on mental health, I'm all for it. No doubt its money well spent but lets quit the charade that its going to made any dent in the killing of people by people who want to kill people.

Look at Dylann Root, supposedly he wouldn't have been able to get a gun. Why? Because he dropped out of school? Because he was a loner? Because he didn't have a drivers license? Sounds like about 50% of the adolescents out there. IMO I would classify 75% of young adults as psychopaths! I'm sure the gun advocate are all for keep guns out of the hands people with mental illness until SOME LIBERAL DEFINES WHAT THOSE MENTAL ILLNESSES ARE. Keep in mind that universal health care is a great idea until it included birth control for all and abortions for all and gender reassignment for all etc.... See, when you allow the gov't to define it then they have control of it. Suddenly my migraine headaches are "mental illness" because I guarantee when I'm having one I could kill every mofo that bugs me, and I've said that. Suddenly that becomes a reason to keep me from owning a gun if your goal is to keep me from owning a gun

[CitizenBBN]

Mental health is a red herring. It sounds great, it really does. But spending more money on mental health will not keep people from shooting folks in movie theaters, them from walking into churches and shooting people they hate, going into a school to kill kids or a suicide killer from attacking a military target. If the government wants to spend money on mental health, I'm all for it. No doubt its money well spent but lets quit the charade that its going to made any dent in the killing of people by people who want to kill people.

Look at Dylann Root, supposedly he wouldn't have been able to get a gun. Why? Because he dropped out of school? Because he was a loner? Because he didn't have a drivers license? Sounds like about 50% of the adolescents out there. IMO I would classify 75% of young adults as psychopaths! I'm sure the gun advocate are all for keep guns out of the hands people with mental illness until SOME LIBERAL DEFINES WHAT THOSE MENTAL ILLNESS ARE. Keep in mind that universal health care is a great idea until in include birth control for all and abortions for all and gender reassignment for all etc.... See, when you allow the gov't to define it then they have control of it. Suddenly my migraine headaches are "mental illness" because I guarantee when I'm having one I could kill every mofo that bugs me, and I've said that.

I'd argue that absolutely better mental health treatment would prevent some of these. Many? Most? Don't know, but leaving people with serious mental issues roaming around with no help and no restraint is a sure way to have problems, via guns or whatever else.

I'm not for the government defining mental illness as a regulatory or administrative matter, the definition in the GCA works pretty well. Have they been declared incompetent or involuntarily committed? That's a definable rule, and one that can be appealed with due process. That rule has been in place since 1968 and it's workable.

What I want to avoid is using that the way Obama proposes, where with no due process or act of Congress to make law, we simply redefine the law with a wave of his pen.

But getting help for some of these people, and even involuntarily committing some people, would help. That's what we did prior to the 1980s and then Reagan started cutting that funding and they started putting a lot of unwell people out on the streets.

[Doc]

And when some far left liberal who is intent on eliminating your 2nd amendment right to bear arm gets elected president and then sets the "mental illness" standard, then you have nobody to bitch at, because if its PMS then no women between 14 and 45 will ever own a gun and if its testosterone induced anger then ditto for any male. Gun control will become as simple as establishing what defines mental illness by a government appointed official or agency. It will be no different then the parameters for what is needed for health care. Gun ownership will have the same constraints. Like health care where the government decides what is required for my insurance to be "adequate" under Obama care and it can change with the next administration. You don't think Obama and his crew would dip to such tactics to get rid of guns? They did with insurance to force what they wanted. My pre-Obama care insurance served me and my family well for 2 decades but once the AHCA kicked in it was deemed inadequate in their minds. It didn't cover birth control for my 52 year old wife, or prenatal care for my 17 year old son! You don't think Obama and his crew would dip to such tactics to get rid of guns? You think the government won't stoop to ANY level to get their way (left or right)? What rock have you been living under for the last 6 years? (No offense intended. I know you see exactly what I'm talking about)

Again, I have no problem with increasing mental health spending, etc and that very well may help but making a central issue on gun legistlation, no so much. They are two seperate issues. And I'm not a gun owner advocate, only a person who believes in 1) your constitutional right to own a gun and 2) my constitutional right to privacy concerning my medical records and health decisions.

[suncat05]

Doc, I am in total agreement with you. BOTH privacy of personal medical information records AND our 2nd Amendment firearms rights are of equal importance and value. Both seem to be something that some people in this world just do not understand, and refuse to acknowledge.

[CitizenBBN]

And when some far left liberal who is intent on eliminating your 2nd amendment right to bear arm gets elected president and then sets the "mental illness" standard, then you have nobody to bitch at, because if its PMS then no women between 14 and 45 will ever own a gun and if its testosterone induced anger then ditto for any male. Gun control will become as simple as establishing what defines mental illness by a government appointed official or agency. It will be no different then the parameters for what is needed for health care. Gun ownership will have the same constraints. Like health care where the government decides what is required for my insurance to be "adequate" under Obama care and it can change with the next administration. You don't think Obama and his crew would dip to such tactics to get rid of guns? They did with insurance to force what they wanted. My pre-Obama care insurance served me and my family well for 2 decades but once the AHCA kicked in it was deemed inadequate in their minds. It didn't cover birth control for my 52 year old wife, or prenatal care for my 17 year old son! You don't think Obama and his crew would dip to such tactics to get rid of guns? You think the government won't stoop to ANY level to get their way (left or right)? What rock have you been living under for the last 6 years? (No offense intended. I know you see exactly what I'm talking about)

Again, I have no problem with increasing mental health spending, etc and that very well may help but making a central issue on gun legistlation, no so much. They are two seperate issues. And I'm not a gun owner advocate, only a person who believes in 1) your constitutional right to own a gun and 2) my constitutional right to privacy concerning my medical records and health decisions.

The question is if we are talking about simply executing the GCA law or if we're talking about some new expansion beyond the courts and into the realm of regulation, where a doctor or bureaucrat could decide to strip someone of their rights without due process.

As long as it is kept as it is now, when a court must RULE someone incompetent and it not be determined by whoever is President, we'll be fine.

We're in agreement, I dont' want it to become a regulatory/administrative decision, but the gun community has broadly supported the GCA standard really since inception.

In fact, the gun community has generally supported all the "common sense" (to borrow from King Obama I) restrictions in the original GCA. Felons? Yep, that sure sounds right. Those ruled mentally incompetent to stand in court? Seems a clear enough standard. Those who are using illegal drugs? Again, not a bad idea.

That standard has NOTHING to do with mental health records.

Now the Schumer thing? Oh, I don't believe they want to end with just that kind of standard, not for a second. This is another angle to simply keep any group of people possible from owning a gun, no matter which group it may be. Charles Schumer is one of the most anti-gun members of Congress, so no way he doesn't see this as a backdoor and gleefully so, and Amy Schumer impresses me as being an idiot.

[Doc]

But if you read the article, that is exactly where they are going. Dylann Root wasn't a convicted or deemed mentally incompetent by court of law. John Houser, the Lafayette shooter, was never ruled mentally incompetent. His wife, now ex-wife, took out a restraining order once. Is that the standard to prohibit gun ownership for 7 years (the restraining order was in 2008). Last year after being evicted from a home, he vandalized it. So do we make vandization grounds for denial of gun ownership? He was also "treated for mental issues" but no court ruled him mentally incompetent or a danger. Afterwards, in 20/20 hindsight, which is... well 20/20.... several people said he was crazy, but I'll assume you don't want the word of a neighbor to be the standard for denial your 2nd admendment right? See the very example they use is one that isn't going to be picked up using what you believe will be implimented. He had a restraining order in the distant past and a vandalism accusation, plus he was treated for some undisclosed mental illness. (LINK).

All their plan does it hold the state hostage, which is what the federal government does all the time. The federal government takes money from the states then decides if they are going to give it back. Thats a bit like me taking my wifes paycheck and then me deciding if I'll give it back to her if she does what I want her to do. As she would say "GOOD LUCK WITH THAT".