House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To The Severely Mentally Ill

  1. According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
    About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.
    The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process...
    House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To The Severely Mentally Ill : NPR
    •  
  2. 50 Comments

  3. by   rnmaybe
    Something wrong with due process before denying someone a constitutional right?
  4. by   Markperry
    Just another reason to be a card carrying NRA member, they get stuff done.
  5. by   Lil Nel
    Here in Kentucky, Republicans are pushing a law that would allow folks as young as 18 to carry concealed weapons without a license or training.

    I'm sure the two trolls above would surely approve of that!

    Of course, all the NRA'ers and supportive Republicans will be SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED when more gun violence is the result of such a foolish law. But they will only need to look in the mirror and repeat: I am the problem.

    Shame on these fools. And how logical is it that 18-year-olds can't legally purchase cigarettes or alcohol, but the will be able to buy guns. This is truly a sick society.
    Last edit by Lil Nel on Feb 5 : Reason: misspelled word
  6. by   Markperry
    Quote from Lil Nel
    Shame on these fools. And how logical is it that 18-year-olds can't legally purchase cigarettes or alcohol, but the will be able to buy guns. This is truly a sick society.
    But it's ok to send off 18 years old to fight in other parts of the world, either thru draft or by joining the military.
  7. by   margin261
    Quote from Markperry
    But it's ok to send off 18 years old to fight in other parts of the world, either thru draft or by joining the military.
    But those 18 year olds would be trained to use weapons.

    I am a member of the NRA (don't carry a card around with me though) and I am for more responsible gun laws.

    I was raised with guns around my house and was taught, at a very early age, to handle them responsibly. And now, I own several- hand guns & rifles/shot guns.

    Does anyone remember the fear-mongering around Obama's election? If you vote for him, he'll take all our guns? Hmmm, in 8 years I didn't have to fight off anyone that came for my guns. I don't remember any attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment (or did I miss it??) I do recall some attempts at common sense gun legislation that didn't get very far because of the money the NRA pours into congress & more fear mongering.

    I suppose if it were one of the congressmen/women's children killed in a school shooting or in any other situation where an assault rifle were used, they might reconsider their idiot excuses for why everyone needs access to any kind of gun they want.

    Will it stop gun violence? Nope. Will it make it a little more difficult for the Adam Lanzas & Dylan Roofs? Yep.

    **my Father gifted me a lifetime membership in the NRA years ago- I don't send them my money nor do I agree with their tactics.
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Of course the severely mentally ill shouldn't have access to firearms. Just as people we consider dangerous enough to be on a no fly list shouldn't have them.

    By the same token, neither the no fly list nor the SSA list of mentally ill allows for due process. If we ever allow the govt the right to remove firearms based on a list that was compiled without due process, how long would it take for such a list to be misused by an Administration hostile to my 2A rights?

    I distrust the makers of the lists. If you think that's paranoid, then the government hasn't ever been very hostile to your beliefs. That, of course, might change over the next four or eight years.

    Personally it's not that big a deal for me. Most of my firearms I purposefully bought using the so-called "gun show loophole" (that doesn't actually have anything to do with gun shows) so the govt doesn't have a record of my ownership anyway. And besides, I lost all my guns in a weird boating accident...

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  9. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA

    Personally it's not that big a deal for me. Most of my firearms I purposefully bought using the so-called "gun show loophole" (that doesn't actually have anything to do with gun shows) so the govt doesn't have a record of my ownership anyway. And besides, I lost all my guns in a weird boating accident...

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Timothy - you made me smile.

    California (liberal) voters voted in a myriad of laws regarding ammo. And before they took effect, we all stocked up. It's a mess for legal gun owners/hunters/target shooters. And an incremental way to restrict our 2nd Amendment Rights. Maybe Obama and other lawmakers didn't do away with the 2nd Amendment but they are slowing eroding rights by making it more difficult to be a gun owner. This article talks about the different laws CA has to deal with - some overlapping each other.

    California gun owners stock up on ammunition ahead of new regulations | The Sacramento Bee

    As to the original post, I'm not a fan of taking away due process. And I'm not convinced those making the "lists" will be fair about who they point the finger at regarding mental illness. Many of my friends have been diagnosed with a mental illness and still are able to live and work and not become violent. I don't like the idea that just because someone might have a diagnosis of bipolar, they would have some rights taken away without due process.

    The stigma attached to mental illness is not right.

    My kids grew up with firearms. They got their first Cricket rifle at about 5 years old. We taught gun safety, our firearms are locked up, they all took the safety course as junior high school students, they all hunt or target shoot clay pigeons.

    There has to be a balance here. Safety and rights.
  10. by   herring_RN
    I'm glad you agree that some severely mentally ill people should not be able to have access to firearms so long as there was due process.
    Perhaps when a person is determined to need another person the handle his or her finances that would be the time to begin the due process regarding fitness for gun ownership too?
    As the law was written a person, who is unable to deal with their money, would have to prove their competence to own a gun.

    I also hope that a person would not be deprived of the right to vote without due process. Shouldn't there be due process before taking away a person's right to vote?
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from herring_RN
    I'm glad you agree that some severely mentally ill people should not be able to have access to firearms so long as there was due process.
    Perhaps when a person is determined to need another person the handle his or her finances that would be the time to begin the due process regarding fitness for gun ownership too?
    As the law was written a person, who is unable to deal with their money, would have to prove their competence to own a gun.

    I also hope that a person would not be deprived of the right to vote without due process. Shouldn't there be due process before taking away a person's right to vote?
    I would be fine with a Court that is deciding if someone is mentally ill enough to require a decision of incompetence to make their own decisions also weighing in on competence to own firearms. That would be due process and a hurdle high enough that the govt couldn't capriciously deny firearms to somebody randomly.

    And to clarify your last sentence, a CITIZEN shouldn't be deprived the right to vote without due process. Requiring an ID to vote isn't a high hurdle, nor is it a due process violation. Since we linked voting and 2A rights here as fundamental Constitutional rights, you don't support allowing someone to walk into any gun store and buy a gun without showing ID, do you?

    ~faith,
    Timothy
  12. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from herring_RN
    Perhaps when a person is determined to need another person the handle his or her finances that would be the time to begin the due process regarding fitness for gun ownership too?
    As the law was written a person, who is unable to deal with their money, would have to prove their competence to own a gun.
    I'd have to look at this further but that's a weird standard. I know many people who can't handle their own finances but that doesn't mean they can't handle a firearm.

  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Spidey's mom
    I'd have to look at this further but that's a weird standard. I know many people who can't handle their own finances but that doesn't mean they can't handle a firearm.

    Yes and no. The two aren't linked and appointing a guardian for finances shouldn't ipso facto deprive someone from the right to bear arms. But I think it could be a prima facie reason to conduct a 2A competence hearing at the same time.

    If we're already in Court to discuss competence, exploring the total ramifications of that incompetence doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Those would be two separate decisions, though.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  14. by   herring_RN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I would be fine with a Court that is deciding if someone is mentally ill enough to require a decision of incompetence to make their own decisions also weighing in on competence to own firearms. That would be due process and a hurdle high enough that the govt couldn't capriciously deny firearms to somebody randomly.

    And to clarify your last sentence, a CITIZEN shouldn't be deprived the right to vote without due process. Requiring an ID to vote isn't a high hurdle, nor is it a due process violation. Since we linked voting and 2A rights here as fundamental Constitutional rights, you don't support allowing someone to walk into any gun store and buy a gun without showing ID, do you?

    ~faith,
    Timothy
    Which ID? What is wrong with due process before deciding a WWII veteran's VA picture ID is not a valid government issued ID?
    There are reasons other than not being a citizen that deprive some people of their voting rights when laws are too strict:
    Sutter, 61, doesn't drive and her only photo ID is from when she was a college student in 1978.
    Her Social Security card is under the name Tia Sutter.
    Her New York-state birth certificate is under the name Christine Sutter.
    She has been told that she cannot get a state issued ID because her names don't match. "I thought I knew my legal name," she said. "I'm not sure anymore."
    To change her name on her SS card, she was told she would need a court order, which would cost $400 and would take months.
    "My roots and my future are all in Pennsylvania," Sutter said, choking up with emotion. "It's hurtful to me that this is now a question of 'papers please.'
    If your papers aren't in order, you can't vote."
    Speaking Freely: Voter ID Trial Day 4: Real People, Real Stories
    Here was a 92 woman who had been voting and then was denied her right to vote. She had to do a lot to get due process.
    I think there should be due p;process before denying a citizen the right to vote. I'm glad the state of Texas used some common sense.

    My mother and grandmother were born in Texas. Neither had a birth cdfrtificate. My grandmother voted in the first election after women were allowed to vote.
    My mother voted from age 21. When she went to get a p;passport she needed proof of where she was born. They accepted records of the church where she was baptized.

    My husband was delivered by his grandmother at home in 1927. The state of Illinois accepted his school records, the page from the family Bible recording his birth, his drivers license and his draft registration, when he registered to vote.
    ... A frail 92-year-old woman has earned her right to vote Tuesday after struggling with new voter identification laws sweeping across the U.S.Ruby Barber, a senior citizen in the small town of Bellmead, Texas, had been unable to vote because she could not find her nearly century-old birth certificate that she’d need to obtain a voter ID under a new state law.
    “I’m sure (my birth) was never reported because I was born in a farmhouse with a coal oil lamp,” Barber, 92, told the Waco (Texas) Tribune. “Didn’t have a doctor, just a neighbor woman come in and (delivered) me.”
    This was rectified Tuesday when the state was able to verify her citizenship by finding her birthday in a U.S. census taken in the 1940s, Barber's son Jimmy Denton told the Tribune. Barber also showed her Social Security card, two utility bills and her Medicare card.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1799344
    Why New Photo ID Laws Mean Some Won't Vote
    January 28, 2012
    Why New Photo ID Laws Mean Some Won't Vote : NPR

close