TexasCHLforum.com

I'm a long-time NRA member. I support the mission. But there are still some "tactical" choices that are made that make me shake my head, and make me want to smack some other folks' heads together.

Case in point:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02437.html

Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 20, 2007; Page A10

With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls, the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system and potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill.

Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), a gun-rights Democrat who once served on the NRA's board of directors, is leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal by early next week, Democratic aides and lawmakers said.

Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases. For the first time, states would face penalties for not keeping the National Instant Criminal Background Check System current.

Here again we have the NRA, in response to a tragedy, rushing to compromise without even knowing the definition of the word. "Compromise" means working things out so that both parties benefit; if you convince a mugger to let you keep your family photos, that's not a compromise. Neither is spotting someone who looks like they might mug you, and rushing up to give them cash in hopes of appeasing them.

The latter seems to be the thinking in this case. "They might enact tougher laws, so we better work with them to enact tougher laws."



I hope I'm not the only one to whom this makes no sense.

Kevin

I'm not looking at this as a compramise...Sure, it appears to be strange bedfellows...But there are quite a few democrats who are well rated by the NRA...Not all democrats are goblins on this issue...

But like some here think...We'll see when the rubber hits the road when any gun control legislation comes up...I'd rather not wait till then, but what else are we going to do...

If strengthening the NCIC check is the goal, I cannot see that as a bad thing for anyone, pro or con to the issue...

If you don't get issued a straight jacket, then I think you'd be ok...And of course even with this, I'd bet you a dollar to a donut hole that there will always be people who slip through the cracks, and even worse be ones that get a firearm and do henous things like what happened earlier this week...

And nothing is going to stop what happened yesterday on-site at NASA...

I'll always respect (but never condone) the right of someone to get mad, or lose control of their cognative reasoning...But if you grab a gun, and decide to take it out on someone(s) else...I think you should be prepared to be met with decisive and immediate aggression to stop you if you do...

stevie_d_64 wrote:I'm not looking at this as a compramise...Sure, it appears to be strange bedfellows...But there are quite a few democrats who are well rated by the NRA...Not all democrats are goblins on this issue...

But like some here think...We'll see when the rubber hits the road when any gun control legislation comes up...I'd rather not wait till then, but what else are we going to do...

If strengthening the NCIC check is the goal, I cannot see that as a bad thing for anyone, pro or con to the issue...

If you don't get issued a straight jacket, then I think you'd be ok...And of course even with this, I'd bet you a dollar to a donut hole that there will always be people who slip through the cracks, and even worse be ones that get a firearm and do henous things like what happened earlier this week...

And nothing is going to stop what happened yesterday on-site at NASA...

I'll always respect (but never condone) the right of someone to get mad, or lose control of their cognative reasoning...But if you grab a gun, and decide to take it out on someone(s) else...I think you should be prepared to be met with decisive and immediate aggression to stop you if you do...

+1

I think this is a compromise that we can all get behind, all it really does is increase funding for a system that's already in place while giving the NRA and allies the appearance of cooperation.

And if, in the future, the system can be demonstrated to be non-working, just like earlier this week, it might just increase the impetus to dismantle it.

I like the idea in theory, but I so have some concerns. What constitutes someone as "mentally ill". From what I understand once your on NICS list your on there for good.

Contreary to what you see in movies and television some cases mental Illness are curable. For example, lets say someone has brain tumor or is reacting poorly to prescription medication and get identified as mentally ill. However, later the problem is discovered and corrected either with new medication or surgery and they live a normal and productive life. Will they be prohibited from owning a firearm for life.

If we are to add Mental Illness to the database there must be a procedure to challenge that listing.

wo5m wrote:I like the idea in theory, but I so have some concerns. What constitutes someone as "mentally ill". From what I understand once your on NICS list your on there for good.

Contreary to what you see in movies and television some cases mental Illness are curable. For example, lets say someone has brain tumor or is reacting poorly to prescription medication and get identified as mentally ill. However, later the problem is discovered and corrected either with new medication or surgery and they live a normal and productive life. Will they be prohibited from owning a firearm for life.

If we are to add Mental Illness to the database there must be a procedure to challenge that listing.

Bingo! Yes, there should be a process to allow for a review of a persons condition if the case is determined to be cured, and you have regained cognative ability to function at normal capacities...

Good point to bring up...

stevie_d_64 wrote:

wo5m wrote:I like the idea in theory, but I so have some concerns. What constitutes someone as "mentally ill". From what I understand once your on NICS list your on there for good.

Contreary to what you see in movies and television some cases mental Illness are curable. For example, lets say someone has brain tumor or is reacting poorly to prescription medication and get identified as mentally ill. However, later the problem is discovered and corrected either with new medication or surgery and they live a normal and productive life. Will they be prohibited from owning a firearm for life.

If we are to add Mental Illness to the database there must be a procedure to challenge that listing.

Bingo! Yes, there should be a process to allow for a review of a persons condition if the case is determined to be cured, and you have regained cognative ability to function at normal capacities...

Good point to bring up...

What if medication is mandatory to maintain an even keel? I'm not sure how I feel about Bob forgetting to take his medication and his bi-polarity kicks in. Just a thought.

ScubaSigGuy wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

wo5m wrote:I like the idea in theory, but I so have some concerns. What constitutes someone as "mentally ill". From what I understand once your on NICS list your on there for good.

Contreary to what you see in movies and television some cases mental Illness are curable. For example, lets say someone has brain tumor or is reacting poorly to prescription medication and get identified as mentally ill. However, later the problem is discovered and corrected either with new medication or surgery and they live a normal and productive life. Will they be prohibited from owning a firearm for life.

If we are to add Mental Illness to the database there must be a procedure to challenge that listing.

Bingo! Yes, there should be a process to allow for a review of a persons condition if the case is determined to be cured, and you have regained cognative ability to function at normal capacities...

Good point to bring up...

What if medication is mandatory to maintain an even keel? I'm not sure how I feel about Bob forgetting to take his medication and his bi-polarity kicks in. Just a thought.

I'm not that up on the pharmicutical effects of the medication for certain mental afflictions...I know there are some that obviously dope you up enogh to keep you from exercising clear judgement, so that might be a show stopper there...

But I know there are some medications out there for various conditions that do not sedate, or medicate you to the point of a stupor...So I do not believe that those "maintainable" situations should restrict you from driving, much less performing other tasks that require good cognative skills while on medication like this issue...I would think someone would practice good judgement by knowing if they were in a situation like this to make a sound decision not to carry if they were impaired either by a condition, or the treatment until it is resolved...

I would without hesitation, and have done so in the past when I was under some medications that made me (for lack of a better term), "loopy"...

I don't think SSG was talking about meds that keep you from performing/behaving normally, but people who "forget" to take meds without which they can't perform/behave normally. Ask any teacher what a child who needs ADHD medication is like when they forget to take their pill(s).

as I work in the medical field, I am goint to pontificate.

If ol' Joe Bi-Polar forgets his meds on Friday, no one will know until maybe Sunday. that is, if he does not take ANY meds between now and then. Even then, depending on the amoung of dosage, ie how many milligrams the pt is taking per 24hr period, it can take up to a week or more for the meds to be fully out of your system.
MOST, and I emphasize the word most, mental illness meds are ones that are rather long lasting, take a while before the body builds up a level in the brain to where it is actually "working." And therefore, if you stop taking said meds, they are still in your system for a good while afterwards.
(thank you LoveLine with Dr Drew Pinsky and Adam Carola)

Brain Tumors causing mental illness are very rare. when it does happen, it's a serious cancer, where as the patient TYPICALLY, and I emphasize typically, does not just have the ol' tumor popped out, and they keep on keepin' on. If you have something growing in your brain, significant enough to cause a "personality shift," well, to say you're up a creek is not a stretch.

I'm against continuing to support an unconstitutional system, but i'm odd like that.

What's to stop mentally ill people from getting guns the same way criminals do?

What's to stop mentally ill people from getting guns the same way criminals do?

What's to stop the government and the medical profession from deciding that owning guns is a mental illness?

tomneal wrote:
What's to stop the government and the medical profession from deciding that owning guns is a mental illness?

Even better, whats to stops an ANTI doctor from putting someones name on the list just because he know they have guns. It may sound crazy but I'll bet money someone will try it. Remember it was the doctors who wanted to stop CHL's from carrying at hospitals.

wo5m wrote:

tomneal wrote:
What's to stop the government and the medical profession from deciding that owning guns is a mental illness?

Even better, whats to stops an ANTI doctor from putting someones name on the list just because he know they have guns. It may sound crazy but I'll bet money someone will try it. Remember it was the doctors who wanted to stop CHL's from carrying at hospitals.

The for abuse is almost infinite, but i'd think you could get a "second opinion" and get off the list, I'd hope.

Also, this could have the unintended side effect of keeping "pro gun" folk from getting mental health treatment, for fear of being barred.

Well, I just took a step back in time this evening...I think it was just luck...And Cable TV for that matter...

I was flipping through some of the vast wasteland and came upon the Western Channel...

An old episode of the Rifleman with Chuck Conners was on titled "The Anvil Chorus"

Basically a temporary town marshall was appointed and his first act out of the chute was to ban guns in the town limits...

Of course a local gang of bad guys were waiting for this moment to take advantage of an unarmed town populace...

Of course the plan failed after Lucas McCain (The Rifleman) took care of the bad guys...

I love how things are wrapped up in 30 minutes...

Its amazing how Hollywood at that time put out a product that transends time and speaks volumes to what is pertinent to this thread...

I believe gun control, and people who vehemently support that policy are mentally unstable...

Just thought I would throw this into the mix...