U.S. Congress MAY act to keep guns from mentally ill

[babylonsister]

It took the slaughter of 33 innocents for them to figure this out? Is this not a no-brainer to begin with???

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-04-22T200927Z_01_N22218055_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-CRIME-SHOOTING-LAWS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

U.S. Congress may act to keep guns from mentally ill


By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prompted by the Virginia Tech massacre, a U.S. Congress reluctant to tackle gun control may pass limited legislation to help keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, lawmakers and aides said on Sunday.

"Given the horror that happened at Virginia Tech, I think there's a real chance of passing this," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, told "Fox News Sunday."

A Republican leadership aide agreed, telling Reuters, "If there is a consensus, and it is in lieu of knee-jerk draconian measures, (the chances are) probably really good."

Congress was initially hesitant to respond to the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech on Monday with any vow to toughen gun-control, a politically divisive issue.

In fact, Democrats, who had earlier championed such measures, including a since expired 1994 ban on assault weapons, effectively abandoned the issue when they won control of Congress last year.

Yet after it was determined that the Virginia Tech killer had been admitted earlier to a psychiatric hospital and deemed "a danger to himself and others," lawmakers dusted off previously rejected legislation.

Seung-Hui Cho, a Virginia Tech student, took his own life after fatally shooting 32 others. He had bought two handguns in Virginia but his mental health had not made it to a federal registry.

[Monkeyman]

1. Good Now We Can Take Cheney's Guns Away

[bobbolink]

7. DAmn! Beat me to it!

:rofl:

[jilln]

2. Can we get Ted Nugent and Dick Cheney on the list?

[Wetzelbill]

3. obligatory Cheney comment

[Eric J in MN]

4. I wonder if the bill will require states to enter the information whenever...

...someone is ruled a danger to himself or others by a judge.

Virginia claims that though Cho was ruled as such, because he was ordered into outpatient treatment, they weren't required to supply his name to the federal database for gun-buyer checks.

[aikoaiko]

16. The VA Attorney General was saying last night that they may not have been in compliance

that required to report both inpatient and outpatient.

[Eric J in MN]

20. Thanks for the update.

That statement by the VA AG may turn up in a lawsuit.

[aikoaiko]

31. The VA AG mentioned a 1997 Federal Law, but I don't what it is.

[AJ9000]

68. NYT is saying Cho's gun purchase prohibited by federal law, see link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=731249&mesg_id=731249

[aikoaiko]

69. Yep, thats what the AG was alluding too.

I think he knows VA bureaucracy screwed the pooch on this one.

[JDPriestly]

38. The Patriot Act only applies to terrorists. Remember!

Ha!

[BluePatriot]

5. Even my rabidly pro-gun peers are for this

However, I can see some unintended backlash/side effects against the mentally ill if they are not careful (say the way they work this is that a stint in a mental hospital shows up on a background check. Employers do background checks too, etc...could cause a lot of headache for people trying to find a job, get well, and on the right track)

[barb162]

10. As long as there are loopholes, like this case showed, might as well

fix it. I hope they fund it

[Eric J in MN]

21. My understanding is that a judge has to rule a person a threat

...to himself or others.

If someone checks himself into a psychiatric hospital without a judge's involvement, that wouldn't go into the database.

[Cha]

6. Oh god..what will the nra/bushits

say?

[aikoaiko]

13. FWIW: The NRA is helping. see post #21

[Cha]

22. Thanks...post # 11..as well they

should.

[zulchzulu]

8. There's this funny thing called a "background check" already...

Virginia certainly had background checks and used them when Cho bought his guns legally...even though he had a record of mental instability.

I would assume ALL states already have gun laws that keep guns away from the "mentally ill".

Virginia gun laws:
http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA

From the site:

"BACKGROUND CHECK AT STATE LEVEL
Do state police perform a background check in addition to federal NICS check? Yes

Virginia: State law requires gun buyers to go through a state-based criminal background check in addition to the federal NICS check. This is the best system since it includes checking both state and federal records to prevent criminals and other prohibited people from buying guns. in 2000, 2,568 gun buyers failed the criminal background check and were stopped from buying guns."

Perhaps the legislation will have everyone go through a "Sanity Test" to see if we love America and its leaders...get your Sanity Card today!
:sarcasm:

I'm a believer in following the laws we already have fully and without constraint, not adding more laws that still won't solve the problem...namely the stigma of mental illness and how it is never viewed as a disease that is treatable as any other.

As it stands now, more legislation that I feel is election year grandstanding will not solve the "Cho Problem". He got his guns with a background check while having been clinically viewed as dangerous.

[AZBlue]

18. The background checks are in effect but don't apply to mental illness history.

Obviously.

As your own quote states, background checks look for criminal history. Having a mental illness is not a criminal act.

[zulchzulu]

26. What about the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993?

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h1025_en.htm

It states:
"...anyone who "as been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution" is prohibiting from purchasing a firearm."

A "mental defective" includes anyone who "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" has determined to be "a danger to himself or other" because of "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

Granted, Cho's illness slipped through the cracks. He should have been treated for his disease and perhaps not allowed to continue attending VT until he was treated.

I just don't see how legislation that basically covers what is already on the books is going to do anything to change the real underlying problem of treating mental illness correctly without the social stigma involved.

[AZBlue]

53. Cho voluntarily checked himself into a hospital - that's why it didn't show up on the background

check. I don't know if it's just in Virginia or if it's nationally, but in this situation a voluntary admission doesn't show up on the check - only if he'd been ordered to a mental hospital would it have shown up. His gun purchases were completely within the law.

That part, at least, needs to change.

[Eric J in MN]

28. The law already applies to mentally ill people ruled dangerous...

...this bill is to provide money to help states comply with the law.

[AZBlue]

54. He was never ruled dangerous.

And that needs to be looked into as well!

[BluePatriot]

40. As per above

I'm concerned about the far-reaching effects of combining mental and criminal history in rgds. to other entities that perform background checks. I can't condone potential employers, credit agencies, hell even insurance cos. finding out that information. The stigma is still too bad for this. It's like branding someone's records with a scarlet letter.

A weapon-purchase only database could work but I have doubts about the info remaining private.

[AZBlue]

55. Excellent point!

I can't see any other reason or situation where it would apply. And that will be a logistical issue.

[Eric J in MN]

27. The bill is to provide more money for compliance,

...more money for the states to give the data to the federal govt.

[zulchzulu]

30. Shouldn't state government justice systems already be in federal compliance?

I guess I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here on this if only to bring up the notion that this legislation will be nothing more than an election year grandstanding bandaid that doesn't solve the real issues of treating mental illness. Additionally, the laws are already there that make it a crime to sell a weapon to someone that is mentally ill.

If it's reconfiguring the federal databases to add "suspected, untreated and legally unauthenticated mental illness" to weapon sales, then I'm not sure that's the correct way either. How would Cho's mental illness be categorized when it is submitted to a federal agency? He was already deemed mentally unstable by the university...

Could someone who is with a anti-war protest group not be able to get a hunting rifle because he is a "suspected mental illness case" by the local police that saw him at a rally?

[Eric J in MN]

35. My understanding is that a judge rules, not the police. NT

NT

[zulchzulu]

49. How would Cho's illness be registered for a background check without a judge?

Apparently the issue is getting mental illness records from a university, for example, to go into a federal database that a gun license vendor would check in order to comply with the "unofficial" mental illness, as per being a legal case where a judge ruled the person "mentally deficient".

So if a university or any organization has a record of someone who they declare "mentally ill", that possibly very subjective judgement about that person goes into a federal database in order that the record shows that he/she are "mentally deficient".

The process would sideswipe the psychological/psychiatric analysis where a clinical judgement would be assessed and put on record for further treatment. And worse, the process would add a lot of people to the federal database where organizations could register someone "insane" for further governmental agency "analysis"...

I smell a grandstanding, opportunistic rat with this conveniently and suddenly important (and redundant) legislation.

[Eric J in MN]

58. Universities don't enter data into the federal database for gun-buyer checks.

It's based on a legal ruling by a judge.

[LisaL]

9. It's about time.

[aikoaiko]

11. Even the NRA is helping with this legislation.

Everyone wants to keep guns out of the hands of bona fide mentally unstable people.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070420.htm
NRA, Democrats Negotiating Background Check Bill

Media coverage of the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, while still heavily focused on assailant Cho Seung Hui, is beginning to turn to the question of whether new gun control measures could help prevent future tragedies. The Washington Post says 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." The bill, drafted several years ago by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, "has twice passed the House, only to die in the Senate." The talks are being led by veteran Rep. John Dingell, "a gun-rights Democrat who once served on the NRA's board of directors."

But McClatchy says "cries for stricter gun-control laws" from some Democrats are being "met with caution from their party leaders. Other Democrats recommend steering clear of the issue, because it could jeopardize their party's recent gains in pro-gun Southern and Western states." As the Los Angeles Times says, while Democrats "have traditionally backed gun restrictions," they "now nurse thin majorities in the House and Senate -- majorities they attained last year in part because they recruited candidates who opposed more gun laws and who won on traditionally Republican turf."

Still, "American attitudes toward firearms have shifted," the Christian Science Monitor reports. Gun ownership "is at the lowest level in three decades, and support for the regulation of firearms, which has always been high, has reached a new peak, according to one new poll." Politicians looking ahead may want to reflect on the fact that "some of the biggest supporters of gun-control are teenagers and college students." The Chicago Tribune says "activists and lawmakers on both sides of the issue are bracing for the first serious debate of the nation's gun laws since the Columbine High School shootings eight years ago."

ABC World News said there is public "outrage" over the fact that Cho "was able to buy guns, even though he was mentally disturbed enough to be placed in a psychiatric hospital and judged to be an imminent danger." Former President Clinton said on CNN's Larry King Live, "He had been identified as being profoundly troubled and having violent tendencies at least. ... There ought to be some serious attempt to see whether there was some breakdown in the way the law works, and the way the mental health system works, to see if we can make some positive changes to avert this in the future."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[bluerum]

12. There was earlier thread on Cho - as I understand it, during the time

Cho was admitted, he consented to being admitted. True, initially he was escorted to the hospital by campus security, but then he consented to stay for observation. Technically, it was no longer against his will.

The hospital recorded it as such, and as such he was no longer required to indicate that was hospitalized against his will on his gun application. Additionally, there was in fact no official record that he was hospitalized against his will.

Of course none of this in any way exonerates the role of gun law enforcement or the state of weapons regulation. It simply points up the weakness in the enforcement system.

One thing that may have helped prevent this tragedy - a mandatory 30 day waiting period and records review.

edit sp. and grammar.

[Eric J in MN]

24. It should be the judge's responsibility to get the information to the federal database...

...it shouldn't be the hospital's responsibity.

Legal compliance is something a judge should be good at.

[bluerum]

51. Hmmph. Judges under the thumb of RW extremists? Beside the point

anyway.

Technically, he was not held against his will. He complied, and was therefore not required to record the incident on his gun application.

Should there have been some additional legal records? Perhaps. This starts to get into right to privacy though.

A thirty day waiting period and record review would have given Cho time to cool off, and the authorities time to research his background.

[Sgent]

67. 30 days wouldn't have worked

he purchased one gun more than 30 days before the shooting, another was picked up (probably purchased) a week before the shooting.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Okaaay..... How is this gonna work in the real world? What about those of us who are

mentally ill but mis- or undiagnosed?

In other words, this is like the sex offenders directory. Only keeps you safe from the ones we know about.

[aikoaiko]

17. It takes a village to keep guns out of the hands of the village idiots.

Sorry, I was trying to be funny, but more seriously, it will take a concerted effort to make sure that individuals with mental illness are, at least, identified, and hopefuly given help.

[BluePatriot]

42. Dingdingding we have a winner

Ask me sometime about that. The short version = I had a physical problem that was misdiagnosed as a mental illness b/c of some of the symptoms. Because my pyschologist did not order simple blood work, I was even put on drugs I didn't need. Google and an internist saved me from a lifetime on mood stabilizers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_thyroiditis

Having a brush with our broken mental health system was nightmarish. If I trusted anyone enough I would go into therapy over the experience *dry chuckle*

[JDPriestly]

15. Will this discourage people from seeking mental health care?

How do you define "mentally ill"? Remember how the USSR used the term to place dissidents in institutions.

How long will the gun ban last for a person. People can have a nervous breakdown and recover, can't they?

I'm not opposed to the law, but this sounds like a well meant knee jerk solution.

What about situations such as the riots in L.A. in the early '90s when the police force is not large enough to provide protection to people? Is everyone to be armed except the "mentally ill" in such an emergency? Should the "mentally ill" be afforded special protection in such situations.

Imagine you are paranoid. You think people are out to get you and you know that other people have guns but you can't have one. Do you think you are going to be prevented from getting your hands on a gun just because you can't get a permit to buy one? I think this is well meant, but I doubt it would have prevented Cho from getting a gun in a society in which so many guns are available and out there. He just would have gone about getting his guns some other way.

In my opinion, more mental health care and awareness in society of the problems of people who are different -- more compassion for eccentric, odd people -- is what is needed. If we had a more nurturing society, we probably would not have such a problem with violence and the misuse of guns and other weapons.

We need better leadership that is more compassionate. Until we choose leaders who value compassion, anger will permeate our society.

[Eric J in MN]

25. It applies to people ruled by a judge to be a threat.

(at least that is my understanding based on the article.)

So someone who checks himself into a psychiatric hospital, without seeing a judge, would be unaffected.

I don't know how long someone ruled by a judge to be a threat would be banned from buying a gun.

[SmokingJacket]

19. How about tacking on an addendum: "and asshats." nt

[KharmaTrain]

23. Also Clean Up Contradictory Laws

One thing Guns Right advocates have right...are there are too many laws on the books...and in many cases, it creates the loopholes that the next pyscho killer will slip through.

For example, in my state, while a felon or mentally unbalanced person may not be able to get an FOID card and buy a gun themselves, that doesn't stop them from getting one as a "gift"...one that doesn't have to be reported to either the state or federal. There are other rules like this that contradict good laws with bad ones...or ammend laws to make them all but impossible to enforce.

I think this is common cause with the NRA...who have long said that the laws are a problem...however they have to admit it's not the only problem. There's still the problem with Cho other than his mental status...including being able to purchase the 9mm and expanded clips on the internet...no check, no nothing. While people are jumping up and down about them showing the picture of the shooter...the next mass murderer is ordering his guns and ammo on the net.

[zulchzulu]

29. Gun law loopholes allow ANYONE to get a gun if they really want to

In Virginia, you can sell a gun to anyone if you are selling from your home. If you are selling a gun at a gun show from the back of a truck, it's just money for a gun.

The NRA will certainly want to keep gun sale loopholes intact... hence, the law will look real nice on the candidate's campaign brochure/web site/commercial, but will be fairly meaningless in the real World.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

72. Repeat after me "there is no such thing as a gun show loophole"...

because there is not.

The mythical 'gun show loophole' is a bogey man created to scare the ignorant.

The same laws that exist outside a gun show, exist inside a gunshow.

Federally licensed gun dealers have to do background checks.

If you are 'in the business' of selling guns and you dont have a federal license then you get a pretty lengthy prison sentence in a federal pen.

[blues90]

32. Trouble is most shootings seem to be

Not from mentally ill but rather from someone who had a gun or has no mental issue background , these people simply snap for many reasons and decide now is the time .

I doubt any law will prevent a change and too much focus is on the gun rather than on the human issues that make the gun a tool .

[colinmom71]

33. Mm-hmm... So, how can this end at all be achieved without...

Violating medical privacy rights? Are we going to have a national database of people who have received treatment for mental illnesses? Who would be allowed to have access to such a list? What mental illnesses should be considered serious enough to warrant restricting Constitutional rights?

It sounds like a neat solution to a problem, but the enforcement of such a measure will become itself another problem at cross with Constitutional principles of law. That and private gun sales will still be a way around such a measure. I don't see how this could be effectively and properly legislated and enforced... It's reactionary and unfeasable...

[Eric J in MN]

36. It's for when a judge rules that someone is a threat to himself or others.

Ordinary people who see psychologist/psychiatrists on their own initiative are unaffected.

[zulchzulu]

50. If that's the case, the legislation is meaningless pandering...

Cho's illness was not confirmed by a judge, so that would mean another Cho-like gunperson could slip through the cracks.

Yes, he was declared a danger. But a judge didn't put a stamp on his madness. Therefore, what would be the point of the legislation other than to add as a nice bullet point on some re-election campaign literature... and not even be effective.

[bertha katzenengel]

34. Sounds Good to Me --

"The proposed bill would provide money to the states to help update the national instant-check background system with mental-health adjudications, which ban firearm purchases."

If they leave it at that. They system worked the way it was designed, unfortunately. Help buck up the instant check system, and it'll work better.

[moondust]

37. Oh but they have 2nd Amendment rights!!

Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional!

Nothing in the Constitution about mental illness!

C'mon gun freaks, help me out!

[derby378]

41. Don't expect any help from me, man...

...or think that using language like "gun freaks" is going to score points for you.

The Second Amendment mentions "a well-regulated militia," as I have already pointed out, and said militia does not include criminals and madmen. Simple.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

39. K&R. How many NRA members would fail a psychological test to

xreen out violent personalities? IMO there must be THOUSANDS of NRA members who are just as much ticking time bombs as Seung-hui Cho or Dylan Klebold were.

IIRC, most of the worst bullies in this country themselves were bullied before they decided to switch sides. Many NRA members appear to be highly irrational on the subject of "Second Amendment Rights", IMO because they feel they NEED guns to intimidate those around them by bragging about their firepower. Limiting their access to assault weapons is is difficult as taking a favorite toy from a two-year old at bedtime.

IMO, the NRA has triumphed over common sense not only because of political organization and political pribery but also because there always is an implied threat of gun violence atainst any politician who would go against them.

[Eric J in MN]

43. There are no plans to require psychological tests to buy a gun.

You didn't say there were, but anyway.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

44. Don't some states (eg TX) require psychological screening for gun-carry permits?

IMO it would be a good idea to be more pro-active rather than compiling a database of people's mental health records.

IMO anybody who buys a firearm for personal use (not because they work as police or armed security), even a "sportsman", well could be a nut.

[Eric J in MN]

57. I don't know about Texas law, but if they requre screening...

...to legally-carry but not screening to buy, that wouldn't have stopped Cho if he had tried this in Texas.

[flyarm]

45. 1ST ON THE LIST ...CHENEY!!..EOM

[Jacobin]

46. How convenient

Now they can disarm all the 'left wing kooks'....since psychology/psychiatry is flexible enough to allow governments to tailor their diagnosis any way they wish.

[loyalsister]

47. If this law already exists....

This is nothign but grandstanding at the expense of shoveling stigma regarding mental illness under the guise of "caring." nice.

[slackmaster]

70. Read up on it - This bill would help the states out financially

States that have not done a good job of reporting mental health commitments and adjudications.

The bill is a no-brainer, and even the NRA supports it.

[Canuckistanian]

48. Well, let's not be hasty

Some of those mentally ill may vote Republican (or at least for Lieberman).

And they need all the demographics they can get these days.

But the Dems? I'm beginning to wonder exactly WHO they think they serve.

[RedCappedBandit]

52. Mental Illness is severely misunderstood

This is a dangerous path.

40% of americans will be diagnosed with some mental illness at some point in their lifetime.

[piedmont]

60. I agree. Not every mental illness is chronic. There should be a cluase for restoration of rights. nt

[shance]

56. Is someone who is "mentally ill" defined as someone who opposes Bush policies?

Just curious.

[Eric J in MN]

59. It's a person who is an imminent danger to himself or others. NT

NT

[shance]

62. Who is the person to "prove" one is actually a danger to himself or others?

Someone from the Bush Administration?

[Eric J in MN]

63. A state judge decides. NT

NT

[piedmont]

64. Cho was deemed not a danger to others-- only himself.

I wonder how that is addressed by the proposed law.

[Eric J in MN]

65. My understanding is that's enough for the database. NT

NT

[piedmont]

66. Then I hope there's a provision for re-establishing the right later. nt

[ToeBot]

61. Don't many Conservatives believe that Liberalism is a mental illness?

I'm sure I've heard that before.

[slackmaster]

71. Irrelevant

Mental health adjudications and commitments are done by judges and mental health professionals, not "many Conservatives".