Sen. Cornyn (TX) Wants Mental Cases Reported To FBI

Status
Not open for further replies.
alsaqr

alsaqr

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
4,990
Location
South Western, OK
Senator Cornyn has proposed a bill that would enhance the state reporting of adjudicated mental cases to the National Insta Check System. Good on the senator.

Recent shootings have drawn attention to weaknesses in the background check system. The gunman in last month's killings in a Louisiana movie theater had mental problems that went unreported to the federal database.

"Gaps in existing law or inadequate resources prevent our communities from taking proactive steps to prevent them from becoming violent," Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a written statement
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/no-2-senate-republican-proposing-gun-background-check-125856422--politics.html
 
Who Made Senator Cornyn GOD?

Who are you going to have report these findings? The Nurse Practitioner who actually sees the patient? The Dr. who sits back and reviews the paperwork? The specialist the patient is sent to? The insurance company who pays the bill to the Dr.? The Pharmacy technician who inputs the prescription for the antidepressant that is actually being used for headache remedy or neurogenic pain, not depression?

Long question short, so many meds such as, Valium or Clonazepam, for instance are acknowledged as strong antidepressants. I will not let the Dr prescribe either for muscle spasms, because Uncle might use that info to deny me my basic rights!

In short, just who made Sen Cornyn God to decide who is "Mental". This dichotomy of uses exists among hundreds of medications. The government functionaries do not need to be the ones to decide what my Dr. is treating. After all, we passed a piece of legislation that actually prevents the release of information to anyone other than the patient or their assigned caregiver.

Ever heard of H.I.P.P.A.? The Health Information Portability Protection Act. Keep Uncle Sam out of my Dr.'s back pocket. In fact, some of my health care providers are my shooting partners..................

Bill
 
Who are you going to have report these findings? The Nurse Practitioner who actually sees the patient? The Dr. who sits back and reviews the paperwork?
The specialist the patient is sent to? The insurance company who pays the bill to the Dr.? The Pharmacy technician who inputs the prescription for the antidepressant that is actually being used for headache remedy or neurogenic pain, not depression?

Long question short, so many meds such as, Valium or Clonazepam, for instance are acknowledged as strong antidepressants. I will not let the Dr prescribe either for muscle spasms, because Uncle might use that info to deny me my basic rights!

In short, just who made Sen Cornyn God to decide who is "Mental". This dichotomy of uses exists among hundreds of medications. The government functionaries do not need to be the ones to decide what my Dr. is treating. After all, we passed a piece of legislation that actually prevents the release of information to anyone other than the patient or their assigned caregiver.
Click to expand...


The pertinent federal law is the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. i recommend that all gunowners read the law prior to ranting:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ180/pdf/PLAW-110publ180.pdf
 
I got a problem. What if I am not actually suffering from any sort of psychosis yet I get reported. This can be used as a anti gun tactic. Shall we render our rights in the name of safety.
 
More hysteria infused zealotry this time against the mentally ill and apparently anyone who may just seem like it for not brushing their teeth in the morning.

I wouldn't want an appeal I would normally want to tell my accuser to go do something to himself that I would not be able to say on the high road and would be very unsympathetic to any jerk that made the mistake.

If someone comes up to you on the street and spits on your face or slaps you and says oops I thought you were someone else I would probably be a gentleman and leave things at shouting some very unpleasant things to the jerk, would you? I would belive, no from what I read I know that a lot of people here on the highroad would take it a step further and give him a taste of his own medicine.

We live in a democracy and as such authorities are generally not allowed to screw around with someone's rights unless they have a damn good reason to and rightfully so.

This may not be the most easy and convenient way for a lazy government official to work but freedom has it's price.

In fact it can be argued that they already have overstepped their authority by leaps and bounds.
 
Last edited:
ironworkerwill said:
I got a problem. What if I am not actually suffering from any sort of psychosis yet I get reported. This can be used as a anti gun tactic. Shall we render our rights in the name of safety.
Click to expand...

ANY law can be misused or abused -- and that means the bazillions of laws on the books now.
I am as pro 2A as anyone here .... but we can't be "kneejerk" in our response to proposed laws that might help ameliorate violence, and if reporting standards are helped by Cornyn's suggested law, I think it could be a good thing.
Do we really want dangerously psychotic people armed? Wouldn't be a good thing if even some of them could be identified and prevented from being armed?
No, it will not result in a perfect society.
I wonder if these spree shooters, schoolshooters, et al, the ones largely commiting these crimes, are clinically insane ... or are they just evil people?
Those few inspired by ISIS videos .... are they clinically insane?
If they were, then are we going to be able to catch them and assess their insanity prior to them, still being ... "normal" citizens, go out and purchase their firearms? No, or course not.
But let's not "make the perfect the enemy of the good."
 
Welcome to "The Star Chamber" Going to practice a bit of prior restraint here aren't we? I have no problem with persons actually committed or diagnosed under a Psychiatrist or Psychologist's treatment for mental illness being restricted from purchasing a firearm. When a Government minion or a non professional starts being the "chooser", I object.:eek:
 
Senator Cornyn's rhetoric does not impress me in the least bit.

Maybe if he actually did something useful like improve the economy, made the work place better, and stopped government wasting of resources I would be impressed.

I think people like Senetor Cornyn need to be taught that most americans are not the stooges he makes them out to be.
 
R.Ph. 380 said:
...Ever heard of H.I.P.P.A.? The Health Information Portability Protection Act.....
Click to expand...
You could at least get the name of the law right. It's "HIPAA", the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, enacted as Pub.L. 104–191.

Among other things, HIPAA authorized DHHS to adopt regulations regarding the privacy and security of medical informatin, but that is only a small part of the law.
 
First, they came for the convicted felons. Then for the mentally ill. Then for the poor (ala NYC's permitting system).

What's next them coming for the poorly-groomed?
 
There is already a legal process for reporting people that have been adjudicated as mentally ill and criminal convictions. There does not need to be another law telling the Courts and Law Enforcement Agencies to do what they already are required to do by law.

So it begins. The anti's score a major victory merely by a medical diagnosis by a Doctor or Health Care Person (maybe a Social Worker). The AMA is very anti-gun. This is going to have a chilling effect on folks seeking mental health counseling and treatment. I am disappointed in the NRA for falling for this. The current buzzword in the media is how violent offenders are suffering from "depression." Since almost everyone suffers from some form of depression at some point in their life such as divorce, death of a loved one, job loss this opens the door down the slippery slope of confiscation and loss of rtbk based a (one?) Doctor's report.
 
Last edited:
This is an area where there are problems from either side.

On the one hand, you've got certifiably mentally ill people who are known to the court system and who have violently assaulted people already who are wandering around free and not entered into the NICS system.

The flip side of that coin is some jurisdictions have been using an extremely loose definition of "adjudicated mentally defective" that does not require an adversarial hearing, or a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others. In theory, you could end up losing your Second Amendment rights forever in those jurisdictions based on nothing more than the word of two doctors.

The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 made federal grants available to the states to update their reporting of these records to the NICS system; but for the most part, the states have not been all that interested in participating.

The other part that needs to be fixed is better statutory language to keep states from reporting people who shouldn't be in that system.

Without seeing Sen. Cornyn's bill, it is difficult to know what the effect would be; but considering that the bill is backed by the NRA, I'm guessing it addresses at least some of the concerns with improper reporting of the "ajudicated mentally defective" category.
 
Let's see the text, if it mandates reporting of what is currently on the NICS check forms by the states, that is different from the expansive state laws like SAFE.
 
There is already a legal process for reporting people that have been adjudicated as mentally ill and criminal convictions. There does not need to be another law telling the Courts and Law Enforcement Agencies to do what they already are required to do by law.
Click to expand...

The proposed legislation simply provides states a bonus for complying with the law regarding being "adjudicated as mentally ill" as I understand it. The problem has been that the Feds make laws and force states to do certain things, but there is no funding for the states or the funding was short term only.
 
And why, in the back of my mind, do I hear someone like Senator Chuck Schumer ranting about "this bill being a good start but not going far enough" ... Good intention but opens the tent flap a little more.
 
Living in a free Democratic society is messy and not without risk to it's citizens.

Living in a Socialist / Communist / Dictatorship may be more orderly but at the cost of loss of individual liberty and human lives. Consider the six million Jews killed by the Nazis and millions killed by Stalin in his many purges and WWII.

Then in the middle we have countries like England and France who for all intents and purposes are not a world power and have many problems with domestic terrorism.
 
Last edited:
They also have their share of disorder and internal conflict, so the nanny-state isn't even achieving its beneficial effects...
 
"...adjudicated mental cases..."

As in, day in court. Not mere reporting from a pshrink's office.

Regardless of existing laws and systems, not all police/sheriff/court records are sent to NCIC/NCIC in a timely manner.

Computers or no computers, not all bureaucrats are efficient in forwarding information.

For many jurisdictions, it's a budget issue--as in "tax dollars". It's possible that Cornyn's proposal will call for grant money to reporting entities. Your guess is as good as mine.
 
Fair trade; we'll pass this if...
-ATF rule 41p is dropped for good
-ITAR rule changes are dropped for good (and language protecting firearms data from the State Dept added)
-ATF stripped of its powers of technical determination, which are to be wielded by an agency independent of the Justice Dept (I have always suggested the Patent Office), since cops shouldn't be writing their own statute.
-Said agency required to submit all determinations for congressional committee decision that will impact more than 100 citizens or legal entities.
-Strengthened appeals process for technical/legal regulatory changes, fast tracked to a high enough court to matter

I'd say these changes would remove the arbitrary hand of federal overreach from the necks of about the same number of people as those the mental health regs would infringe upon. The difference being that the infringement of the former is not justifiable, whereas in the case of the latter, infringement would at least 'usually' be in alignment with laws against possession by mentally ill.

TCB
 
Here is the NRA press release on the bill: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150805/nra-supports-legislation-to-stop-obama-administration-from-denying-constitutional-rights-of-millions-of-veterans-and-social-security-recipients

High points:

Creating significant new due process protections that will stop the Social Security Administration and other agencies from simply defining as “prohibited persons” those who meet arbitrary criteria such as having a representative payee assigned to their account.

Including a new due process procedure that will ensure that veterans who have been put into NICS will have the opportunity to have their cases individually reviewed and those who are not a danger to themselves or others will have their rights restored.

Providing much needed mechanisms of recognizing the relief from disability provisions of state law, bringing uniformity to the system of who should have their rights restored after state procedures which consider all factors in individual cases.

Granting immediate relief to those who have been inappropriately swept into NICS by bureaucratic over-reach and other procedures that don’t include the due process protections described in the bill.*
 
The biggest danger is we have powerful Federal Agencies who flat out disobey the law and a Congress that refuses to hold them accountable.

Given Congress willingness to pass complicated bills into law that nobody has read, least of understand, what is to say this bill will not redefine what "adjudicated" means.
 
It is a competition between Cornyn's bill and Schumer's bill. I might not like either bill, but even not yet having them available to read, I would bet that Cornyn's bill is infinitely better than Schumer's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Senator wants veterans' names removed from gun list
Replies
23
Views
1K
Phil Lee
P
R
  • Locked
Mental health records not in gun database
Replies
21
Views
582
benEzra
benEzra
F
  • Locked
ATF letter to state AG's re Mental Health prohibitions
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
JohnBT
J
B
  • Locked
defazio/ oregon
Replies
0
Views
385
blarby
B
D
  • Locked
Guns in the hands of the mentally ill
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Ellie
E
Back
Top