Gun Ban For Mentally Ill People Not Moving Through Congress

Ken McCracken • September 27, 2007

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.

Tags: Cultural Marxism, Domestic Issues, Guns, Nanny State, Politics

http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

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.
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.
2Hotel9

Roe v Wade ensures doctor patient confidentiality. You are not saying that leftards would go against RvW, are you?
2Hotel9

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.
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
http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ 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.
Charles Shultz

There are different degrees of mental illnes and even though some may render you disabled to an extent it dosnt mean that your going to shoot everybody. Some people like to hunt so I think there could be some provisions put into place such as single shot weapons and no large capacity weapons. And just like most real criminals if someone wants to get a gun to kill someone they will find a way to get it. Some people give up alot when they admit they have a mental issue and seek help but that dosnt mean we should strip them of every right they have. You could even argue that they shouldnt vote because of poor mental health so lets use some restraint and not demonize every person that has a health problem they didnt ask for.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Gun Ban For Mentally Ill People Not Moving Through Congress

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments