Reply #13: for some people [View All]

[paulsby]

it may be a matter of life or death. for others, it's just an inconvenience, and an arbitrary infringement on their rights

law abiding, qualified (no felony convictions, no ...) people SHOULD be able to buy a gun easily. why should it be difficult? it's their right to do so. why arbitrarily make it difficult or make it take a long time?

what is the justification for a 15-30 waiting period? you are the one who wants to infringe on the law abiding. it is up to you to justify it. not to say "why not?"

as for the mental health thing, we have this pesky thing called civil rights and privacy. ideas that go out the door when some liberals talk about guns. imo, every state should have a registry and qualified MHP's, through court process should be able to place people in these registries. and of course these entries should be appealable by people who are rejected. this is an area that does need improvement. no doubt whatsoever.

here's some interesting info...
"Beginning June 1, 2008, a new Illinois law requires all hospitals and mental health facilities to submit to the Illinois State Police all relevant mental health records of all patients who display “violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior” for the police to use when processing gun license applications. Under prior law, only private facilities had to provide the reports, and only on inpatients, not on outpatients. The new law also requires the State Police to forward records of people prohibited from acquiring or owning firearms under state or federal law to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database, which is essentially a national registry of people prohibited from buying or owning firearms that gun dealers must check before completing any firearm transaction.

Connecticut law contains a mechanism for the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to get information from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) on the status of people who have been committed to psychiatric hospitals and who also have, or apply for, gun permits or certificates. The law also requires DPS, DMHAS, and the Judicial Department to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to provide mental health data to the NICS database, which the police must check when processing gun permit or certificate applications or authorizing firearm transfers. Another law allows the police to obtain a warrant to seize guns, following specified procedures and probable cause determination, from people they consider to be a danger to themselves or others.

In addition to Connecticut, California, Colorado, Utah, and Virginia, among others, require reporting of mental health data to a state database, the NICS database, or both.

A new federal law (Public Law 110-180) encourages states to report the necessary mental health data to the FBI by offering them more than $ 1 billion to improve reporting systems and address privacy concerns. (A copy and Congressional Research Service summary of the public law are attached. )

Since 1968, federal law has banned gun sales or transfers to, among others, anyone adjudicated as “a mental defective” or committed to a mental institution (18 USC § 922(d)(4) & 27 CFR § 478. 11). Since 1993, it has required (1) states to report people prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms to the NICS database and (2) federal firearm licensees (gun dealers), before completing firearm transfers, to check the database to determine if prospective purchasers are disqualified from receiving firearms under state or federal law. But a 1997 U. S. Supreme Court ruling effectively made state participation in NICS voluntary. In Printz v. U. S. (521 U. S. 898 (1997)), the court ruled as unconstitutional, under the 10th Amendment, federal attempts to compel states to contribute to a federal regulatory program, absent funding.

Citing mostly privacy concerns and, in some cases, state laws that prohibit sharing of mental health data, more than half the states have declined to provide, or provide only limited, mental health data to the NICS database, according to a 1997 FBI press release. California, Colorado, Utah, and Virginia are among the states that currently require the reporting of such data to a state database, the NICS database, or both. Illinois also will require the reports, beginning June 1, 2008. "

while your driver's analogy is interesting, driving isn't a civil right guaranteed by the constitution. keeping and bearing a gun is.

but at least that's a SENSIBLE requirement. i think it's a good idea, although my state doesn't have one and yet we still have very low unintentional shooting deaths. iow, while people aren't required by law to take gun courses, i see no evidence that harm is caused.