Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mentally impaired and guns

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by browneu, Feb 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gym

    gym member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,903
    What Cos said is true, but in NY it's a "may if the choose to" issue state, They can pull your permit and not even give a reason.
    It would be a sure thing that the shooting of someone in her position would be grounds for an investigation, I would be suprised if it was not done immediatlly, They don't know anything about this kind of shooting when it happens.
    The first thin they do is pull the guns and carry permit. then investigate and after the results "if you are cleared" you get it back.
    I don't know what they do in her state
     
  2. Isaac-1

    Isaac-1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Messages:
    493
    Location:
    SW Louisiana, not near N.O.
    Part of me thinks people with REAL mental problems should not be allowed to own guns, the problem is the line may start with people that hear voices in the heads telling them to hurt people, or that have a history of violent outbreaks and will quickly lead to people that are having trouble sleeping loosing their gun rights.
     
  3. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,646
    Location:
    Alabama
    Not an easy topic.

    Locally, a pastor was murdered on the steps of his church by his wife. She shot him. At trial, she claimed she was bi-polar and that diagnosis was enough to declare her innocent of murder. She does not have a conviction on her record and she is out and about.

    I think if you are suffering from a mental condition that if you kill people, you don’t go to jail or the electric chair, then in my opinion, you should not have any guns.

    Maybe we should include people who are on anti depressants and anti psychotics . That will disarm most of the women over 50!
     
  4. Water-Man

    Water-Man Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,323
    Location:
    N. Georgia
    I can't say regarding Gifford but as to Kelly, yes his gun should be taken away.
     
  5. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    A violent mental case should not be allowed to own a gun-period!!

    Read the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. States are supposed input the names of adjudicated mental cases into NICS. Problem is that few states are doing that.

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49

    CNN has a good piece on NICS and the failure of states to furnish input. CNN used the example of a long time OK violent mental case who legally bought guns, murdered his mother, cut her body up and froze the parts.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  6. Deer_Freak

    Deer_Freak Member.

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I don't know about other states, but here in NC if the police respond to a domestic call they confiscate all the guns in the house. I don't know what the process is to get your guns back.
     
  7. cluck

    cluck Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Gun Lovin' Utah
    I don't really expect this idea to be popular, but here it goes.
    Firearms are already restricted to persons on schedule 1 and 2 drugs. Why not include ones that have been identified by their manufacturers to have violent side effects, particularly when NOT taking them. Just add a line in the 4473 right after line 11e that says, "Are you taking or have you ever been prescribed anti depressants, or anti psychotics?
     
  8. Lex Luthier

    Lex Luthier Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    The fact is, within a draconian agenda, the authorities could label almost anyone mentally ill based on their willingness to accept their agenda or not. Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, all played this card.

    And, they ALL took weapons away from the people so they couldn't defend themselves.
     
  9. blarby

    blarby Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,144
    Location:
    Calapooia Oregon
    I know with 100% certainty that in California, this is not the case.


    Please explain.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  10. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,913
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    It is the warning signs of already known people with a diagnosis that needs more monitoring ala cho, Laughter, and Conn nut job, not G I Joe or depressed housewives
     
  11. cluck

    cluck Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Gun Lovin' Utah
    People who illegally use controlled substances are restricted persons. (Line 11e on 4473)
     
  12. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    It would be simple enough to include RX's for certain anti-psychotics as a prohibiting factor. Enforcement is tricky given federal and state privacy issues.

    My own tolerance for the crazed murderers is getting less and less. Reviving the asylums seems like a potential solution as well. At least for the violently insane who are a threat to others if off meds. I'd be happy to pay an excise tax on firearms to help pay for their lifetime housing at a secured facility.
     
  13. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    314
    And at what point is someone considered "non-violent" if they have been rehabilitated? It's such a terrible slippery slope to not allow ex-criminals and people with a history of mental illness to own firearms. If anything, this will only make people not want to seek mental help. A mental health check is counter-productive.
     
  14. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    314
    You know, let's get into that illegal drug arguement (even though you are talking about the abuse of legal substances) and tie it in: in some states people become felons just for possessing a tiny amount of marijuana. You think the criminal justice system won't be expanded and abused simply to push an anti-gun agenda? Anyone who thinks it won't is delusional. If you give them an inch, they take a mile.
     
  15. blarby

    blarby Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,144
    Location:
    Calapooia Oregon
    and

    Are two completely different statements.

    I know what the 4473 states- unlawful user.

    Unlawful user and "persons on" are radically different. Lets not blur the lines anymore than necessary.
     
  16. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    The standard should be

    1) convicted felon
    2) mental adjudication

    Anything else is a violation of the 4th amendment, imho.
     
  17. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,913
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    My point exactly,cho and laughtner were in the process and the system worked too slow.
     
  18. Sol

    Sol Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    899
    It's true californians who smoke pot may not be under the states firearm disabilty laws, but they are definatley under a federal disability, see gun control act of 1968 and controlled substance act: is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)
     
  19. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "It would be simple enough to include RX's for certain anti-psychotics as a prohibiting factor."

    Easy, but inaccurate. They aren't always prescribed for psychosis. A great many drugs are prescribed off-schedule/off-label - iow, for conditions other than what they were approved for. Doctors can legally do this and they do.

    Not to mention all of the folks who would refuse to take the first dose if they knew that there was a 2nd Amendment penalty. Unintended consequences and all that.

    John
     
  20. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    314
    I actually pointed that out earlier in regards to the mental health check. If anything, it's only going to cause people with mental issues to not seek help. It's counterproductive.
     
  21. beeenbag

    beeenbag Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,023
    Location:
    Grayson, Ky
    In my opinion, even if we did find a way that truly did stop the "crazies" from obtaining firearms, we still will never stop the "crazies" from commiting crimes.

    Therefore it falls back to the great words of Wayne LaPierre, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". You could change that to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a knife, is a good guy with a gun" or "bad guy with a bat" or "bad guy with a tire iron". See where I'm going with this?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page