Nevada SB221 - A Gun Control Bill With Some Bad, and Some Good


PDA






gazpacho
March 13, 2013, 05:21 PM
I just got notice of some gun control legislation for the state of Nevada, SB 221. IMO, a significant chunk of it is quite good. It strengthens the state government's ability to keep the mentally ill from possessing firearms. On the bad side, it introduces Universal Background checks.

SB 221

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Bills/SB/SB221.pdf

The official government comment link

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/77th2013/A/

Section 8 (go figure) of this bill covers the universal background check.

I would appreciate it if those here with a good legal mind went over this bill, and confirm or deny my general opinion of this bill.

Thanks in advance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Nevada SB221 - A Gun Control Bill With Some Bad, and Some Good" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
-Xero-
March 13, 2013, 05:49 PM
Fast/dirty read raises issues for me about the definition of "mental illness."

Mental health professionals have repeatedly noted that there are millions of persons in the US who meet much or all of the psychiatric profile criteria for committing mass murder and yet don't pose any risk whatsoever for violence or homicide.

Similar problems faced by the Veterans Admin. when assessing suicide risk. Some veterans meet all the criteria and pose no risk. Other veterans commit suicide without ever being assessed as "at risk."

Reporting requirements for mental health professionals raise a complicated issue: Therapy and counseling requires client/doctor confidentiality. Clients at risk will not confide in their doctors if they feel that doctor is required to report what is disclosed. -- And then this goes back to the basic premise that persons "at risk" may or may not act out their inclinations. It's virtually impossible to predict behavior.

Veterans Admin. got itself into a legal bind not too many years back when it began placing a Federal bar to firearms possession on veterans diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Diagnosis is not predictive.

The term "Mental Illness" is loose, too broadly non-specific, unworkable. There are millions of Americans who are "mentally ill" and who pose no risk whatever of violence to themselves or others. The definition herein proposed as law, fails to comport with professional diagnostic criteria in the mental health field.

gazpacho
March 13, 2013, 07:47 PM
Hmmmm

Thanks for your opinion. I hadn't thought of he mental illness issue in these regards. I got a lot more thinking to do on this issue, but it's looking like the whole bill is probably worth junking.

Dean1818
March 13, 2013, 08:05 PM
There will be no system that is absolutely fool proof

I may be in a minority, but there has to be some action for the mentally ill.

It has been the root cause of our problems...... Not lawful gun owners

In the past, to get a conceal carry, in some states, you had to get a few people that have known you for a few years, and that would "vouch" for you


I wonder if a system would work where anyone on an anti-psycotic drug or receiving treatment for the condition would be on a searchable database by
The FFL

If a person in this category has been denied, they would have the option to overturn it by having a process of getting 10 people to vouch for them in the same way it used to work.

I imagine a few of the killings would have been stopped with this process

David E
March 13, 2013, 08:12 PM
there has to be some action for the mentally ill.

It has been the root cause of our problems...... Not lawful gun owners


If you are defining the anti-gunners as mentally ill, then I totally agree with you.

c4v3man
March 13, 2013, 08:29 PM
As submitted online (thanks for the links!)

While something must be done for the mentally ill, requiring background checks on all private purchases (with exclusions as currently defined) is completely unacceptable. Giving citizens the OPTION of performing a low cost background check is fine, however REQUIRING such action constitutes infringement of our right to bear arms, a constitutionally protected, inherent human right. These onerous requirements have no effect on crime without mandatory registration which history has proven often leads to confiscation. One must look no further than New Orleans, following hurricane Katrina, or the current confiscation taking place in California.

ID-shooting
March 13, 2013, 08:32 PM
There will be no system that is absolutely fool proof

I may be in a minority, but there has to be some action for the mentally ill.

It has been the root cause of our problems...... Not lawful gun owners

In the past, to get a conceal carry, in some states, you had to get a few people that have known you for a few years, and that would "vouch" for you


I wonder if a system would work where anyone on an anti-psycotic drug or receiving treatment for the condition would be on a searchable database by
The FFL

If a person in this category has been denied, they would have the option to overturn it by having a process of getting 10 people to vouch for them in the same way it used to work.

I imagine a few of the killings would have been stopped with this process
Call me silly, but I could have sworn I read somewhere that we are all "innocent till proven guilty."

Seems kind of like no matter what someone else thinks, till a crime is committed and convicted, a person has ALL their rights.

Deus Machina
March 13, 2013, 09:03 PM
If a person in this category has been denied, they would have the option to overturn it by having a process of getting 10 people to vouch for them in the same way it used to work.


I won't delve into the hypothetical, but in this case I don't think I know ten people well enough to even ask. All my close friends know me for my mellow temper, but I still limit myself to a few close friends and not many others.

mrvco
March 13, 2013, 10:03 PM
Yikes... coming up with 10 people that I'd feel comfortable asking "The government thinks I'm nuts and won't let me buy a gun, would you mind telling them they're wrong and vouch for me?" is rather daunting.

SigSour
March 13, 2013, 10:22 PM
The main problem I have with the majority of these bills dealing with the "mentally ill" is - WHO exactly is doing the diagnosis.

If it's a board certified psychiatrist saying "Hey feds, my patient might be a little nuts, do what you gotta do" then I am perfectly fine with it...

But if it's Joe Biden and his crew, or an ex-wife/husband being vindictive and tipping someone off that their ex "seems suspicious".. or Feinstein sitting on her throne pointing the finger "uh, HE seems like he might be crazy, get him!" - then I'm VERY much against it.

The focus usually seems to be getting the guns away from mentally ill when the initial focus should be, finding out how to classify "mentally ill", and THEN getting/keeping the guns away from them.

Does that make sense?

barnbwt
March 13, 2013, 10:48 PM
It's virtually impossible to predict behavior.
Who-da thunk it?:confused:

I wonder if a system ... where anyone ... would be on a searchable database by the FFL would be at all registration?
There. Cleared it up for ya ;). At some point it becomes easier to simply track the people who aren't prohibited persons (all the different databases being so expensive and cumbersome to maintain) and then you have your licensing system :banghead:

It doesn't matter who votes, it's who counts the ballots. The same goes for discrediting innocent citizens with mental illness. There is little recourse for one deemed deficient, and even less for a faceless group. Man kind has yet to invent a method to keep here say (which is honestly what these diagnoses boil down to; varying sized collections of testimonials) accusations from being abused by the vindictive or ambitious, so I see not benefit in qualifying our rights with them. Awful lot of people think racists are violent, maybe we should prohibit them, too. Maybe we should prohibit anyone we suspicion could one day turn violent?

You wanna light up every prepper in the country like Ruby Ridge, you put out the word "we'll be taking your guns if we think you're crazy." This is exactly the kind of action those nutbags are paranoid about--do we really need to prove them right?

TCB

c4v3man
March 14, 2013, 02:14 AM
This does nothing to prevent mentally ill from killing people, it merely makes them more... creative. Take away their grandpa's old six shooter, and let's see what else they come up with. We've seen in the past that "crazy people" are often smart enough to accomplish anything, even mass murder without guns.

gazpacho
March 14, 2013, 02:56 AM
Still, if an individual has been legally judged as a danger to themselves and the general public, backed by a competent medical authority, then I believe that there should be a clear and immediate method for the government to restrict their access to firearms.

It appears, by the reading of the proposed legislation, that Nevada doesn't have said methods. So at least this proposed legislation has brought that to light. Now, we need to make certain that whatever legislation DOES get approved does not infringe upon the rights of regular individuals.

So pointing out the good thing and the bad things about this legislation helps (hopefully) bring put better legislation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Nevada SB221 - A Gun Control Bill With Some Bad, and Some Good" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!