Guns. Who and How?
- Thread starter Foxhound
- Start date
I'm okay with the criminal background check, AND the psychological background check, and I'm more than okay with convicted felons losing their gun rights forever.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Who's going to pay for the Psych check? Or are we going to negate centuries old rules and laws about patient doctor confidentiality and ignore HIPAA?
For ANY kind of psych/medical background check to work we would have to rid the US of any and all medical/psychological privacy and open medical records to the government. States like CA are already violating these rules/laws to consfiscate citizens guns.
Felons should not be allowed to own guns. That's a given, but that should entail more definition as to what felonies EXACTLY would result in loss of priviledge.. there are MANY non-violent felonies that should not prevent you from owning firearmes.. (What was that Football players name??).
It's already illegal for felons to own, carry or possess firearms.. I'm not a felon. So why should I be forced to wait >60 days to take possession of my guns? WHY should I have to go through a background check of ANY kind unless there is reasonable cause to believe that I may be?
I MAY be open to an instant background check (yes those are 100% possible) done in about 30 seconds. Type my name on a computer, it comes back clean, I walk out with my handgun or rifle.
The implication is now, we think you are a felon, we must prove you aren't before we let you have a gun.
That's NOT how our system is supposed to work.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Psych checks, and psych evals are going to make the current problem even worse.
We need to fix the way we care for the mentally ill, not check for illness later.
If a person 1/2 sane thinks getting help is going to have his psych maladies reported to the the government and KNOWING somebody else is going to determine if he can or can not own guns (amongst god know what else they'll decide), or have the right to defend himself, that person WILL NOT seek help.
The entire idea behind doctor/patient priviledge, and confidential medical records was that nobody would second guess getting help, or fear retribution of any kind if they did seek help.
If you open up records, or allow, require doctors to report, less people will seek help that really do need it.
How many soldiers returning from God knows where will seek the help they need if they KNOW it's going to be reported to the government and could/ will result in them losing their rights to own firearms??
We need to fix the way we care for the mentally ill, not check for illness later.
If a person 1/2 sane thinks getting help is going to have his psych maladies reported to the the government and KNOWING somebody else is going to determine if he can or can not own guns (amongst god know what else they'll decide), or have the right to defend himself, that person WILL NOT seek help.
The entire idea behind doctor/patient priviledge, and confidential medical records was that nobody would second guess getting help, or fear retribution of any kind if they did seek help.
If you open up records, or allow, require doctors to report, less people will seek help that really do need it.
How many soldiers returning from God knows where will seek the help they need if they KNOW it's going to be reported to the government and could/ will result in them losing their rights to own firearms??
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
This is one of those things that I think you either view this as a fundamental right, equal to your other rights, or you don’t.
Convicted felons and people with mental problem do not have to go through a background check to exercise speech, religion, etc… I know we think guns are dangerous in the wrong hands; but so is speech and religion.
If we don’t want the 2nd amendment to be an equal right to all our other rights, then we need to amend the constitution and stipulate the limits; otherwise, leave it alone and allow life to happen as it will.
Convicted felons and people with mental problem do not have to go through a background check to exercise speech, religion, etc… I know we think guns are dangerous in the wrong hands; but so is speech and religion.
If we don’t want the 2nd amendment to be an equal right to all our other rights, then we need to amend the constitution and stipulate the limits; otherwise, leave it alone and allow life to happen as it will.
Bob, I'm not talking about psychiatrists ratting people out; I'm talking about someone who has a documented psychotic incident not being allowed to legally own a firearm. Some guy who flips and starts busting up the place may not get a felony charge, but it will be on his record.
I don't want psychos and criminals owning guns and you will not change my mind on that. I also don't want someone with documented brain damage owning guns, either, nor anyone else who is mentally incapacitated.
At some point we can indeed restrict peoples' rights if it endangers the public. Happens all the time, but it would be nice to have some common sense about it.
I don't want psychos and criminals owning guns and you will not change my mind on that. I also don't want someone with documented brain damage owning guns, either, nor anyone else who is mentally incapacitated.
At some point we can indeed restrict peoples' rights if it endangers the public. Happens all the time, but it would be nice to have some common sense about it.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
If doctors and pyschiatrists aren't the ones ratting people out, how are we supposed to find out about the "documented psychotic incidents"? HMMM??
My point being, these people shouldn't be disallowed from gun ownership because of their psychotic episode, it's that if their psychotic maladies make them too much of threat to own a gun, then they are TOO much of a threat to be walking amongst us.
Will it make you feel better that a psycho killed a loved one with a knife instead of a gun?? Or would it make you feel better to know the pyscho is NOT walking the streets and won't be able to harm anyone with ANY kind of weapon.
Making it illegal for a mental case to own a gun is not the answer to the problem. Taking the mental case that is a danger to himself and to society off of the street is.
Making guns illegal for mental cases is about as worthless as zero tolerance laws, and gun free zones.
Because many times the police get involved and there is a record of it. It doesn't mean they got a felony charge, or were even arrested.
I agree but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the system isn't absolutely perfect doesn't mean we can't still have some common sense laws. Besides, how many people can some nutcase stab before he is apprehended vs. how many he can shoot? Nobody ever climbed a bell tower and started throwing knives down at people below.
But all of this is just pissing in the wind anyway because Uncle Sugar and the kids in Annapolis are going to do what they want regardless of what you and I want.
dustin
UAIOE
No need to reinvent the wheel here, how about enforcing the current laws/practices?
from: http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
oh oh oh.... nevermind...
from: http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
oh oh oh.... nevermind...
itsbob
I bowl overhand
I can't imagine anyone that is in the process of buying a gun answering yes to that question KNOWING it would end the sale..
What is the punishment for answering incorrectly??
It'll come up in the background check, dingbat.
18USC924(a)(1)(A) - “false statement in a record” - a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of five years.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
If it comes up in the background check does anyone know of anyone punished for lying on the form?
(Which was my point).
And what was asked would NOT come up in a background check, at least none I'm familiar with.
dustin
UAIOE
good luck to anyone attempting to decode the secret squirrel federal prosecution record for lying on the ATF form...
ZARA
Registered User
The issue I see with psychological testing is this, what will be the grading matrix of who is too disturbed and who is “normal?”
EX:
Someone is going through a rough patch in life, depressed, decides to talk to their doctor about it and the doctor places them on anxiety/depression medication.
What about the Vet that served in the wars and has PTSD? What is the matrix that will decide it is severe or not?
Do these examples relegate the decision to “Not approve” a gun background check application? And if so, for how long?
EX:
Someone is going through a rough patch in life, depressed, decides to talk to their doctor about it and the doctor places them on anxiety/depression medication.
What about the Vet that served in the wars and has PTSD? What is the matrix that will decide it is severe or not?
Do these examples relegate the decision to “Not approve” a gun background check application? And if so, for how long?
migtig
aka Mrs. Giant
Yes, it's already happening with the VA reporting all cases.
ZARA
Registered User
I know and I was absolutely astounded by some of the reports I read. One report from the VA automatically stated a Vet is unable to make informed decisions for themselves so their ability to delegate their funds as they see fit is taken away?! And the kicker- no grounds were stated in the report to substantiate the VA claim.