No-Gun list draws further support

No-Gun list draws further support

www.jsonline.com

Wisconsin is one of 18 states that do not provide the federal government with mental health information on residents who should be barred from owning guns. The data is collected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. .

Privacy concerns have prevented Wisconsin's Department of Justice from sharing mental health commitment information with the federal database.

Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), who authored the bill with gun-rights advocate Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), called it a loophole.

"Federal law prohibits people with involuntary mental health commitments from possessing firearms, but Wisconsin does not make the information available," she said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a touchy subject. Although I agree that people with a history of mental illness should be highly screened and perhaps denied a gun if they have violent histories, I'm not too thrilled with the feds wanting absolute say-so over the decision. I think perhaps it's better left in the hands of the individual states to impose restrictions.

Thoughts?

www.jsonline.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The term 'mental health' is being used so vaguely; it seems like a pretty dangerous piece of legislation. Especially all of these attempts to federalize all of our health information. Who really wants the FBI to be messing around with your health information? What could stop them from 'adding' ailments to prevent certain people from attaining a weapon legally? These are the same people that are reported to lose 3-4 FBI laptops each month with sensitive information! So it's no surprise they're running into trouble trying to pass these laws in some states. Weeee bit of a trust issue there.

Personally I think legislation like this; if passed; will eventually lead to mandatory mental screening and tests for anyone looking to purchase a weapon. Which could get ugly.

reply to post by Peace Frog


This is kind of the direction I was going with this...We know now that close to 1 million people are on the 'terrorist watch list'. We know that people are being hit with 'no-fly' statuses...Now, WHAT IF, the gov starts applying these same 'watch lists' to deny people access to guns? You speak out against the gov, they can deem you 'mentally dangerous' and wah-lah: No guns for you. I would like to say something like that couldn't happen, but so many astonishing things have been implemented by our gov against its citizens over the past couple of years that NOTHING would suprise me any more..

Illinois made changes to its laws, but it's unclear whether they could have prevented this month's shootings at Northern Illinois University. The gunman, Steven Kazmierczak, had been on medication but may not have been prevented from buying a gun.

I believe this is where it's going-- next, people on medication will be denied as well. And given the current incidents involving shooters on "medication", they've got an argument, albeit twisted, but they'll use it.

First they'll begin by finding ways to deny certain citizens the right to own a gun legally-- you know, the citizens that "scare" us all. And then they will incrementally move down that slippery slope to include everyone.

Once the feds get their way the definition of "mental health" will be whittled down to basically include everyone. "Oh, you ran a red light, what were you thinking????? You could have killed somebody!!! You're a mental health risk."

Peace

All gun control will accomplish is create a bigger market for illegal guns. They can't confiscate a gun they don't know about.

In fact, every registered gun owner could, theoretically, report their legal guns "stolen".

The government will turn law-abiding gun owners into "radical dissidents".

Not good at all. Here in CT just this week we had a teacher who mentioned owning a gun to a colleague at work. Apparently this made his co-worker feel threatened so the cops kicked in the guys door, arrested him and confiscated his two firearms.

Some local newspapers report a vague threat. That the man may have complained about a perceived lack of respect but no reports get specific, mention if it was even said in the same sentence as his statement of gun ownership or in the context it was brought up. For all we know the guy was complaining about his boss like everyone does then hours later walked into a conversation about the Spring hunting season and thought mentioning his firearms would be a quality contribution to discussion.

See, last year CT passed a law saying that if all requirements have been met for legal firearm ownership the "authorities" for any reason at all can kick in your door and take your guns. It's all good though because at some point within the next 5 years you will get a chance to state your case in front of a panel of "authorities" who will decide whether or not you are fit to enjoy a natural and Constitutional right.

Any and all restrictions are very very bad.

I can see it now. Mental health being defined as anybody who has ever sought help for any reason whatsoever. Marriage-couseling, depression, hyperactive, the list could go on and on. How many people are on Prozac? Isn't the reason why they were prescribed Prozac is because of an individuals inability to deal with thier current mental health problems? This does not look good. If you have ever been prescribed medication along these lines or if you have ever been to a phsychiatrist to help deal with a problem in the past you can count on your name probably being added to the list.

Read my signature.... that's all I have to say about it.