House Rolls Back Rule on Gun Restrictions for Severely Mentally Ill

CNN

I put this on the growing folder called "Come on, really???"

The Republican-led House voted Thursday to repeal an Obama-era Social Security Administration regulation to keep people with severe mental illnesses from buying guns.

The Senate is expected to pass the National Rifle Association-backed measure soon and President Donald Trump is expected to sign it.

Not surprised by the NRA or Trump being expected to sign it.

This goes in the same folder with mines now allowed to dump waste into streams.

The severely mentally ill have committed mass shooting crimes, over and over in the last few years.

But, it seems a good idea to give them guns, the NRA's backers would lose money otherwise.

This is unbelievable, but it is true.

It's strange to me how the mentally ill keep perpetrating crimes despite this rule having been in place. Maybe there's something else going on?

That said, I agree the mentally ill should at least have tighter controls on access to firearms.

Edit: At least when there are gun free zones and other restrictions that prevent non-mentally ill various from being able to deal with the problem. If everybody is carrying, I don't see it as much of a issue. But that isn't the case right now.

originally posted by: swedy13
It's strange to me how the mentally ill keep perpetrating crimes despite this rule having been in place. Mayb

e there's something else going on?

That said, I agree the mentally ill should at least have tighter controls on access to firearms.

Edit: At least when there are gun free zones and other restrictions that prevent non-mentally ill various from being able to steal with the problem. I'd everybody is carrying, I don't see it as much of a problem. But that isn't the case right now.

True, it has happened with the law in place. Who knows how much worse it would be WITHOUT the law.

Gun free zones are disappearing. Some should always be gun free. Like BARS. Schools can have an armed officer.

In most situations 'everyone packing', like in a movie theater, in the dark, would lead to more deaths and accidental ricochet. That 'everyone packing' argument does not stand up to real world situations.

Should be called the Yosemite Sam Law

a reply to: reldra

One of the things that worries me about the idea of restricting gun ownership from the mentally ill are the things that can be defined as "mentally ill". A portion of the definition of the term "paranoia" from a google search.

"a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, "

While I can of course see the arguments for such a rule, I can also see the worry of having such a rule. Distrust of the government or media could be described as paranoia, as a mental illness, and restrict guns from law abiding and freedom loving Americans who only wish to hold onto and secure their freedoms and families.

"The rule, when implemented, would affect about 75,000 recipients of disability insurance and supplemental insurance income who require a representative to manage their benefits because of a disabling mental disorder, ranging from anxiety to schizophrenia. It applies to those between age 18 and full retirement age."

So it's saying that people that can't even manage their social security benefits on their own shouldn't have access to a deadly weapon.

“These are not just people having a bad day,” said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif. “These are not people simply suffering from depression or anxiety. These are people with a severe mental illness who can’t hold any kind of job or make any decisions about their affairs. So the law says very clearly they shouldn’t have a firearm.”

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: reldra

One of the things that worries me about the idea of restricting gun ownership from the mentally ill are the things that can be defined as "mentally ill". A portion of the definition of the term "paranoia" from a google search.

"a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, "

While I can of course see the arguments for such a rule, I can also see the worry of having such a rule. Distrust of the government or media could be described as paranoia, as a mental illness, and restrict guns from law abiding and freedom loving Americans who only wish to hold onto and secure their freedoms and families.

This was for the SEVERELY mentally ill. The law was very clear. The law worked well. It was not overstepping.

The regulations will be reinstated when some crazy man shoots a Republicans kid or family member.

You reap what you sow.....

a reply to: reldra

I can't tell. You failed to provide the actual text of the law and only provided a heinous source as CNN. I don't even see the name in the link. Mind providing it?

Three edits later... it hasn't even been implemented?

LOL... Ya'll just keep finding things to hate and complain about. LOL.

The Republican-led House voted Thursday to repeal an Obama-era Social Security Administration regulation to keep people with severe mental illnesses from buying guns.

I am getting TIRED of the LIES.

Anyone that's EVER read the Gun Control Act if 1968, and the Brady Handgun Prevention Act knows better.

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) 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)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

en.wikipedia.org...

And here it is AGAIN verbatim.

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Is a fugitive from justice; Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution; Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States; Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship; Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or; Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

en.wikipedia.org...

CNN is not a credible news source.

a reply to: reldra

They just got rid of a bullcrap regulation Obama implement less than 2 months ago if I am not mistaken. The damned "law or rules" are not even being enforced yet so nothing is changing except getting rid of another midnight regulation mine that Obama layed for a later headline when the rule was scrapped.

www.guns.com...


Social Security releases final rule to strip gun rights from some beneficiaries
12/27/16

The rule, proposed in April, drew over 91,000 comments, many of them critical of the move. The final rule is set to become effective on Jan. 18. However, compliance is not required until Dec. 19, 2017, with new disability applicants screened after that date and those already in the system checked on their next regular renewals.

So really, a non story as nothing was implemented, enforced or done on this ever. Forgive me if this is the wrong law or policy as there are quite a few.

I wonder if it should be a case-by-case situation. Some of these people could be targets and need the self-defence.
I've heard that in Australia after the gun-ban came into effect there was a spike in home invasions on the elderly, by both robbers and rapists

a reply to: reldra

There was already laws in place before this went in.

Double stamps.

Maybe they should stop the mentally ill from voting as well.

Forget warrants, they're mental.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Well they're defective so it doesn't count.




Shall not be infringed!!!

a reply to: infolurker

It was a dud regulation not even enforced yet.

Jeesh.

And people think this new bill is a big deal or something.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Maybe they should stop the mentally ill from voting as well.

Forget warrants, they're mental.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Well they're defective so it doesn't count.




Shall not be infringed!!!

Actually there are some State laws that prohibit voting for certain mental illness.

Not sure which ones.

originally posted by: reldra
The severely mentally ill have committed mass shooting crimes, over and over in the last few years.

Who?

a reply to: reldra

I think there's a lot more going on then just

Severe mental illness+gun=mass shooting

But you just have to be able to read between the lines..

Maybe had the regulation been narrowed to just "severely mentally ill" it wouldn't have needed recinding.

As it was it just took assignment of an individuals financial affairs to a third party that was also a SS recipient regardless of mental health.

So granny who had trouble remembering her bills or succeptable to scams had her right to defend herself taken away.

That's why the NRA supported recision.

Bad regulation that far overeached and violated constitutional rights.

I think there are already laws regarding individuals abjucated mentally ill so this is not going to have the effect the OP would leave one to believe.