Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Gun Ban For Mentally Ill People Not Moving Through Congress

And I’m actually happy about it.

Back when the Virginia Tech massacre was in the headlines endlessly busybody politicians in D.C. felt like they needed to do something to make it look like they earn their paychecks, so the consensus among both Democrats and Republicans seemed to be a ban on guns for the mentally ill.

But my question is...how in the world is that sort of a ban going to work?

Think about it.  Mental illness is something that is diagnosed medically.  Meaning that a doctor does it, and your diagnosis is covered by doctor-patient confidentiality.  So how are gun sellers going to know who does and does not have a mental condition that disqualifies them from purchasing a firearm?  Are we going to start requiring that psychiatrists report these kind of illnesses to the feds who will keep it all in a big database?  That sounds like a gross invasion of our privacy, not to mention something that would require a huge new federal bureaucracy costing us millions or billions of tax dollars.

Banning people with criminal records from buying guns is one thing as criminal records are public records, but banning gun sales to people with certain medical conditions is a whole new ball of wax.

And who gets to decide what sort of mental disorder does and does not disqualify one from buying firearms?  If I get fired from my job, go to see my shrink and get some Prozac to help me with my depression is someone from the ATF going to show up to take away my weapons?

I don’t think anyone in this country wants guns in the hands of people who are mentally unstable, but what sort of a slippery slope do we put ourselves on if we start turning over our medical records to the feds so they can decide whether or not we’re mentally fit enough to own a shotgun?  Plus, how many of this nation’s infamous shooters have actually been diagnosed with any sort of really serious mental condition before they went on their shooting rampage?  Seems to me that the cliche we usually hear after one of these tragic incidents (though this didn’t hold true with Virginia Tech) is that the person seemed “so normal” to neighbors and friends.

People will want to rally behind a ban on firearms for the mentally disabled, but before we offer our knee-jerk support for such “common sense” legislation I think we ought to consider the consequences of trying to enforce it. 

Comments

The thing is that the Virginia Tech shooter should have been barred from getting a firearm since he had been adjudicated mentally defective.

It was Virginia’s fault for not using the existing law.

On the other hand I don’t think you should be afraid of going to your doctor because you’ll have your rights taken away.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on September 27, 2007 at 08:22 am

Toot, that is already happening. Doctors are required to notify police of conditions effecting patients ability to operate vehicles. And there are many local and state level politicians who are moving pieces of legislation regarding how far “public safety” concerns can be used to delve into people’s medical records and to what ends that information can be used against people.

Weapons purchasing and possession laws are already onerous and overreaching the intents of the founders of this country. And no law will do any good if it is not enforced, or enforceable. This yahoo at VT was screaming murder spree for several years, no one took action to prevent it. Those who actually had the responsibility in this case need to be prosecuted, School Admin, Court System, doctors. They are the guilty parties that facilitated this crime. Their asses need thrown in jail.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on September 27, 2007 at 09:12 am
Avatar for Dave

Think about it.  Mental illness is something that is diagnosed medically.  Meaning that a doctor does it, and your diagnosis is covered by doctor-patient confidentiality.  So how are gun sellers going to know who does and does not have a mental condition that disqualifies them from purchasing a firearm?

Doctor-patient confidentiality has been swirling down the drain ever since Tarasoff. It’s bullshit.

Dave on September 27, 2007 at 09:33 am

Roe v Wade ensures doctor patient confidentiality. You are not saying that leftards would go against RvW, are you?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on September 27, 2007 at 09:52 am
Avatar for Bike Bubba

Actually, the VT shooter would not have been banned, because he saw a psychologist, not a medical doctor like a psychiatrist.  So no, it was not a failure to apply existing law; it was a failure to see the threat he was.

And this law makes things very bad, because it doesn’t insist on a reasonable legal standard to prevent someone who is healthy from being disqualified, but rather would more or less make just visiting a psychiatrist a disqualification--with no clear process to get off the banned list.

Nasty dangerous law.

Bike Bubba on September 27, 2007 at 11:30 am
Avatar for Robin Crenshaw

Has NO ONE here heard of the National All-Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005?

Google for it.

Virginia also has state-level Prescription monitoring.
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/faq/rx_monitor.htm

Robin Crenshaw on September 27, 2007 at 11:31 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.