House Rolls Back Rule on Gun Restrictions for Severely Mentally Ill

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: WeRpeons

He can't keep a job and has never been mentally evaluated because he refuses to be tested. He's physically attacked his siblings and parents several times in the past

Then he is a criminal not mentally ill. In what capacity are you able to legally define him as "mentally ill"

Disorder known as psychopathy or sociopathy or antisocial personality disorders. Personality disorders that are quite possibly the most harmful of all the mental disorders, and many are undiagnosed as such. I think you'd be quite surprised, even severely disturbed by the truth of how many people are lacking empathy and conscience to some degree of severity.

originally posted by: reldra
CNN



This is unbelievable, but it is true.

You know CNN has fallen when someone has to say this when they cite it as a source.

The law won't help with him unless he is evaluated, but will with others who have been.

So, it would seem that for the law to work we'd have to round everyone with signs of mental illness up and force them to be evaluated just for the law to work. You know, just to be sure.

Seems like a bad start toward a terrible end.

a reply to: seeker1963

Yes, thanks for the clarification, I definitely understand now.

Honestly, the thought has never crossed my mind and I'm equally floored.

The guy that killed Chris Kyle maybe shouldn't have had a gun...but only maybe and only if it was based on purely clinical assessment. To think that politics plays a role is sad and a little scary. Hopefully that doesn't happen often.

Millions of crazy sumbitches with guns is what keeps this great land safe from foreign invasion.

originally posted by: skunkape23
Millions of crazy sumbitches with guns is what keeps this great land safe from foreign invasion.

I like your style!

Maybe we could just make a law against mental illness

Severe mental illness is, in my opinion, rioting, damaging property, prohibiting constitutional rights, and violently attacking other Americans for their beliefs that conflict with our own. I don't do that. And I look down on those who do. They are the scum of society

Republicans put a provision into Obamacare that psychiatrists weren't allowed to report people with psychiatric problems to the police to stop them from getting guns.

Therefore, this is no surprise.

Republicans and the NRA claim to be all about gun safety, but in reality are only about selling as many guns as possible.

During the Obama years, Republicans kept saying that mass shootings wasn't about gun control, it was about treatment for the mentally ill.

Now they have the option for the mentally ill to stop getting guns, but instead of this, they make it easier for them to get guns.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
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?

CNN is only a "henious source" to alt-right Republicans, who would rather trust the Word of Trump over that of a reliable news source.

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: ksiezyc
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?

CNN is only a "henious source" to alt-right Republicans, who would rather trust the Word of Trump over that of a reliable news source.

The only reason I trust President Trump up to this point is he is actually putting our country FIRST and FINALLY observing our Constitutional LAW!

When the day comes he swaggers past our Constitution, I will be here to claim so!

All I am seeing is a bunch of Progressives who HATE the Constitution UNTIL they can use it for their convenience? The brutal truth hurts doesn't it?

So carry on?

a reply to: babybunnies

Laws have been in place for years already.

This House action is not terminating any existing laws.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Severe mental illness is, in my opinion, rioting, damaging property, prohibiting constitutional rights, and violently attacking other Americans for their beliefs that conflict with our own. I don't do that. And I look down on those who do. They are the scum of society

In your opinion.

Anderson Cooper has a different opinion.

While pandering the Newtown skit, he selected a professor who did not believe the
filth, the gaslighted lies coming from the ass of the mediacreatures, as an example of mental
illness, and then he broadened the scope of the mentally ill to include anyone who questions their fake news.

To the best of my memory, he said:

"Now we have conspiracy freaks, just like him, who are reaching out, using the internet,
to other conspiracy freaks, saying the media are not to be believed.
Should this be legal? Should these persons even be heard from at all?"

And that is precisely what the masters intend as a criterion, one of many, to be branded
as being mentally ill. This utterance is among the most chilling things I expect to ever hear,
and I would be most grateful if someone were to provide a copy of Anderson Performing this speech, and would bring it up to light.

I happen to agree with you, visited. You are quite good at discernment.

# 659

sigh lots of stigma in this one and its gonna be a long post . first off you can own a gun if your mentally ill even the law being rolled back would not change that to be banned from fire arms ownership for you have to have been ruled to be Adjudicated mentally defective (another stigmatizing term)

which means you have been forcibly committed against your will to a mental health facility www.atf.gov... so if none of the following terms are met you can own all the guns you want. nra link below gives full definition again with much stigmatizing language

www.nraila.org...

Since 1968, federal law has barred the possession or acquisition of firearms by anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”[2] The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued regulations that define an “adjudication” as a “determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” This includes a finding of insanity or incompetency in a criminal case.[3] “Committed to a mental institution” is defined as a “formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority.” The definition makes clear that “[t]he term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission.” The Supreme Court has held that an involuntary commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that requires due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[4] A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment. Doing so would actually discourage troubled people from getting the help they need.

note how its worded and yeah ya try rounding them up ya get the mentally ill that want to own guns going "underground" and refusing treatment that may help them manage their conditions other wise

and how do you get to know whos mentally ill otherwise if they dont tell you? Hippa laws tend to protect this kind of thing and the general populace doesn't get to know who is or is not mentally ill its not like we go around wearing gold stars even if some of the population would like it that way .

namimass.org... NAMI on getting rid of the myth that the mentally ill are just a bunch of people who run around murdering people when we are in fact not but we do tend to have higher suicide rates ,on the state level laws can be more strict but in most cases they have to prove you are not dangerous to the general public or return your fire arms (see above link for source)

news.ncsu.edu... and as the mentally ill are much more likely to be victims of violence then the ones causing it they may just need those guns to prevent attacks on them by people who perceive them as weak or easy targets

The researchers found that 23.9 percent of the study participants had committed a violent act within the previous six months. The majority of those acts – 63.5 percent – were committed in residential settings, not in public. Only 2.6 percent of the violent acts were committed in school or workplace settings. The researchers found that a significantly higher percentage of participants – 30.9 percent – had been victims of violence in the same time period. And of those who said they were victimized, 43.7 percent said they’d been victimized on multiple occasions. “We also found that participants who had been victims of violence were 11 times more likely to commit violence,” Desmarais says. “This highlights the need for more robust public health interventions that are focused on violence. It shouldn’t just be about preventing adults with mental illness from committing violent acts, it should also be about protecting those at risk of being victimized. “For one thing, it’s the right thing to do,” Desmarais adds. “In addition, while correlation is not necessarily causation, preventing violence against the mentally ill may drive down instances of violence committed by the mentally ill.”

ajph.aphapublications.org... link to the actual study for those that prefer to read the studies them selves so lets drop the mentally ill are all dangerous killers set out to snap on the general population at any time crap the OP is pushing

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... we are also least acording to this study 11 times more likely to be victims then the general populace and at roughly 50million and counting (they tend to include everything from ADD/HD to schizophrenia we are a good chunk of the us populace (African Americans for example are at 74.5 million for example)

and we are 16 times more likely to be shot by police during an encounter then the general population www.democracynow.org...

and finally as a protected class making specific laws that target a protected class (ie disarming the mentally ill as a whole) would not exactly be legal or practical under the guidelines of the us constitution and then we would just stop going to get mental health treatment and again with hippa laws you have no right to know who is mentally ill and as an often victimized group of the populace perhaps we like having our fire arms to protect us from people that would like to go back to yee old days of locking us up indefinitely experimenting on us via electroshock "therapy" or sterilizing us again like happened during the time of Eugenics ,and as the definition of who or what is mental illness changes often with the DSMV (insert version here) i mean at one time gays lesbians and transgender individuals were considered by the medical profession to be mentally ill you wanna take the chance that some day some one gets to label you as being mentally defective and suddenly your rights go Poof and disappear?

your fear does not entitle you to take the rights away from otherwise lawful Americans and the fact you even thing its a good idea is exactly the reason my kind owns fire arms,never again ain't just for the Jew's and Armenians these days

originally posted by: reldra
CNN

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.

The criticism against that regulation is because it is widely applied and not specific to the mentally ill. It should be specific, but it is not.

One of the last few times this was discussed, some links were posted to a site that had been collecting vet experiences with the VA and they had a whole section dedicated to this issue of fiduciary appointments being forced in situations where they are not appropriate.

Common examples include people who have told workers that their wife handles paying the bills because it's more convenient for one person to handle it or that it's difficult for them to get to the bank (physical disability, infirmity, etc) - the VA has been known to take this as evidence that they are not able to manage their own affairs and so a fiduciary has been appointed. Nothing to do with mental health.

Someone who is adjudicated mentally ill in a court of law can still be restricted from owning firearms. Somebody who gets swept in the fiduciary system for a number of reasons, many of which might not be connected to mental health, should not be restricted purely because a VA desk jockey is abusing a system.

It's a good decision. Fiduciary appointments do not equal mental health problems. This was a blatant attack on vets and nothing more.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: reldra

House Rolls Back Rule on Gun Restrictions for Severely Mentally Ill

Christmas all over again

I can get my AR platform out of impound now

Thanks Trump!!!

Funny, Stosh.

Glad someone found the humor in it.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: stosh64

I can get my AR platform out of impound now

LOL So you are "severely mentally ill"? Maybe we need a new sub forum for you sufferer's - we can pop in our heads fro mtime to time to get clarity?

Maybe you could put in a good word with the ATS staff?

I have tried but to no avail

a reply to: reldra

What that law really did was take gus out of VETERANS hands. If anyone follows Reldra and her posts they can openly see her sanity level. This is one of the rioters.

a reply to: reldra

I never seen an old SS income guy go on a shooting spree. It was just an excuse to confiscate guns from older people so they can't pass their arms to their kids. It was a long term gun confiscation agenda which would require a generation to take most of the guns.

nothing is changing except getting rid of another midnight regulation

Whatever, when the rule was implemented is irrelevant, just an excuse for more horrible Republican actions.