Posted on 10/17/2007 3:51:48 PM PDT by neverdem
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A gun-control bill that advocates say could have prevented the April killings of 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus has hit a roadblock in the Senate.
The measure would provide money to states to ensure that they properly update the national database of those prohibited to purchase weapons. It has support from both handgun control groups and the National Rifle Association but Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says his colleague Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, has derailed any hopes of quick passage.
Under federal law, people with criminal records and those who have been judged mentally defective are generally barred from purchasing weapons, and their names are placed in a database.
Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before committing suicide, had been deemed mentally defective and should have been in the database. But Virginia authorities never added Cho's name. He bought two guns in the weeks before the killings.
Anyone who thinks career politicians and BATFE hacks should make the determination on who is "sane" should have their head checked as well...
It isn't crazy people that is the problem here. It's career politicians and BATFE thugs trying to justify their existence by creating as many classes of "criminals" as possible. With your average citizen in full possession of their RKBA, criminals and nutcases tend to "Darwin out" as we shoot them.
It wasn’t that many years ago that we had institutions for these folks. I don’t mind resurrecting that old system. Better than having them on the street. And the consequences of making a mistake in those days were a whole lot greater than merely preventing someone from having a gun.
The bill will not pass in it's current form. it may even die.
So you would still be ok with the BATFE determining who is “mentally capable” of firearms ownership? Remember: the BATFE and this legislation sets a different standard for defining terms than the medical community does.
That President Bush hasn't used EO's to roll back some of Clinton's craptastic EO's should raise a flag as well...
No one is defending the right of insane people to have guns. Read the text of the law. It applies to a much broader group than insane people.
Personally, I’d prefer to put them in institutions, where they would not have firearms.
The federal judge recognized the validity of a two physician commitment. They need to be physicians, either MD, a doc practicing allopathic medicine, or DO, a doc practicing osteopathic medicine. A crude way to describe the latter is a combination of MD & chiropractor.
Give 'em an inch, and they'll burn your church down with you and your congregation still inside it.
I'm describing precedent according to this analysis. Two physicians are sufficient for adjudication.
New U.S. Senator opposing H.R. 2640, and a detailed rebuttal of the NRA's defense of gun control
What I wanted to convey was that precedent doesn’t give you the benefit of a judge. It’s just the word of 2 docs.
Judicial review of the commitment was not a requirement.
This means the BATFE can use whatever doctors they want and still screw you for it. If it isn't in the legislation, the definition will be expanded beyond the intent.
This legislation should not exist. Period. Coming up with legislation regarding mental health is not listed in Art 1 Sec 8.
That is scary...and with no due process of law or appeal process, they might as well declare any freedom-loving person crazy and take their guns away. Why can't the NRA see that?
That’s a stretch from one end to another. Scott McReynolds to Angel Shamaya. I would love to hear the story behind that one.
Good point. I fear gun laws that use the existance of even an expired restraining order as a basis for denying ownership. It's too easy for a vengeful ex to get one based on absolutely no merit.
How about the idea of allowing the accused to challenge the diagnosis in court, with damages allowed for unreasonable defamation? Surely, a truly mentally defective person might not even contest the issue, and if they did, a court might make its own independent findings.
Yikes! You're asking: "How about letting the courts get involved with medical diagnoses?" PLEASE keep the government OUT of medical diagnoses!
Once again, it's the lawyers (and those who file ridiculously and those who award ridiculously) who have trashed our lives pretty badly. Physicians are scared to use their best judgment because of the fear of a lawsuit. They often find that they must err on the side of "caution," in case one of their patients does go off the deep end. And it has gotten to the point where few Americans are even going into psychiatry anymore--it's just not worth it. So we have MANY non-native psychiatrists to fill the gap.
Now, if these were pathologists, peering at microscope slides, then fine. But mental illness is culturally defined (e.g., a shaman might be "visionary" or "schizophrenic," depending on where he is), and do you think that a non-native psychiatrist is going to understand the cultural aspects of a patient's condition as well as an American, even if he's just as good medically?
We've really messed up things badly, but the answer isn't to get the government involved even more, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.