Senate blocks law to stop those with mental disorders from purchasing guns

[Mormolyce]

I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about a specific suggestion made by the person I quoted.

But he didn't mention pica, but rather altered mental states?

[belleflop]

In the last 10 years
33,000+ deaths (a year) from gun violence, the majority of them suicides.
0 deaths from refugees.

So what do we do as a nation? We seek to loosen our laws to allow more people to buy guns and try desperately to stop refugees from coming into our country.

Makes sense in alternate world.

So republicans that are pro-life people. Are you REALLY pro-life and ok with this?

[Crissi]

The problem with designating specific disorders is that it can be easily exploited by good doctors.

I had a botanist professor that got a LOT of weed people off form punishment because Texas law only specified a certain type of weed. As soon as they broadened it, it hit the people they aimed it for because they could no longer lawyer / doctor themselves out of a loophole.

[Mormolyce]

He said "any mental disorder."

Oh fine, you can have your nitpick!

[Daethz]

"Mental Disorders"
LF link to page that defines EXACTLY in DETAIL what that means.
Is ADHD/ADD a "mental disorder"? If so that automatically disqualifies atleast a quarter of americans from owning guns.

[bowchikabow]

You guys are not even touching the REAL problem... The REAL reason the law was blocked: The SSA would report people with a mental disorder, or other such cerebral abnormalities, the Government would make their decision, and then NOTHING!!!!! The citizen will have had their constitutional right STRIPPED from them and they wouldn't even know it until they went to purchase a firearm (if they so chose to) and were declined with Government certified reasons.

This is called a violation of DUE PROCESS. If you are going to strip any person of their right... A right guaranteed by the U.S. CONSTITUTION... Due Process must be adhered to.

I am not against the severely mentally ill individuals being prevented from owning a gun. I am not simply against organizations having the ability to contact the government regarding an individuals mental status. I am against our government having the power to subvert Due Process and essentially act as judge jury and executioner without the citizen even knowing that it was happening to them.

[Eldar45]

Its probably good that they struck it down until it can be clearly defined. Democrats have a habit of making very generalized sweeps with their legislation that effect a lot more people than they intend. Is OCD or ADHD enough to have gun rights removed?

If someone has been found to be mentally unstable enough to be dangerous it should be done by a trial of experts and then verified by a trial of peers. We can't just take away someones rights just because they have a "disorder".

[Deleted]

We've had another thread about this a while back, here's some links to the actual law and some more things.

Here's the law that's getting repealed.
Here's what defines mental disorders.

I can't go through all of that at the moment but as long as it applies only to people who suffer from things like PTSD, schizophrenia, and other things that can impact judgement in a significant way then it shouldn't be getting repealed. From what i read it would also apply to previous conditions i.e. if you suffered from depession which went away due to either therapy or meds which shouldn't really be the case. Instead of getting rid of it i'd rather it be changed to account for such things.

-- Added relevant text based on how they consider people for this. Whether it's an AND of conditions or an OR i'm not sure. If it's OR it's fucked but i doubt that's the case --

(a) In accordance with the
requirements of the NIAA, we will
identify the records of individuals
whom we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective.’’ For purposes of the Social
Security programs established under
titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act, we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective’’ any individual who meets
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section.
(b) During our claim development and
adjudication process, or when we take
certain post-entitlement or posteligibility
actions, we will identify any
individual who:
(1) Has filed a claim based on
disability;
(2) Has been determined to be
disabled based on a finding that the
individual’s impairment(s) meets or
medically equals the requirements of
one of the Mental Disorders Listing of
Impairments (section 12.00 of appendix
1 to subpart P of part 404 of this
chapter) under the rules in part 404,
subpart P, of this chapter, or under the
rules in part 416, subpart I, of this
chapter;
(3) Has a primary diagnosis code in
our records based on a mental
impairment;
(4) Has attained age 18, but has not
attained full retirement age; and
(5) Requires that his or her benefit
payments be made through a
representative payee because we have
determined, under the rules in part 404,
subpart U, of this chapter, or the rules
in part 416, subpart F, of this chapter,
that he or she is mentally incapable of
managing benefit payments.

[HumbleDuck]

Well, when the chief of staff is mentally unstable, it would be hypocritical of Senate to pass such bill.

[Aggrophobic]

Its probably good that they struck it down until it can be clearly defined. Democrats have a habit of making very generalized sweeps with their legislation that effect a lot more people than they intend. Is OCD or ADHD enough to have gun rights removed?

If someone has been found to be mentally unstable enough to be dangerous it should be done by a trial of experts and then verified by a trial of peers. We can't just take away someones rights just because they have a "disorder".

No, take the gun away after they shoot someone with it. I mean, then you know... Right?

[Flarelaine]

If somebody has an eating disorder, which is mental in nature, should they have their gun rights revoked?

Yes. If they can't control their eating, they have a self-control problem and should not have a gun.

[oxymoronic]

It affects people who are sufficiently mentally ill that they are deemed incapable of handling their financial affairs.

but yet those people can have a driver license and make kids. yeah i think a gun is the least of the worries here.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys are not even touching the REAL problem... The REAL reason the law was blocked: The SSA would report people with a mental disorder, or other such cerebral abnormalities, the Government would make their decision, and then NOTHING!!!!! The citizen will have had their constitutional right STRIPPED from them and they wouldn't even know it until they went to purchase a firearm (if they so chose to) and were declined with Government certified reasons.

This is called a violation of DUE PROCESS. If you are going to strip any person of their right... A right guaranteed by the U.S. CONSTITUTION... Due Process must be adhered to.

I am not against the severely mentally ill individuals being prevented from owning a gun. I am not simply against organizations having the ability to contact the government regarding an individuals mental status. I am against our government having the power to subvert Due Process and essentially act as judge jury and executioner without the citizen even knowing that it was happening to them.

i wonder how wells feels about this. hes a big due process guy but he hates anything republican or conservative so much he'll probably put the blinders on and not give a fuck about due process. the guy has more love for terrorists (oh no cant waterboard them) than he does his own countrymen.

[Mayhem]

We've had another thread about this a while back, here's some links to the actual law and some more things.

I don´t know about how laws are written in the US but i do think "any individual who meets the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section." means all of them must be true and not one of them.

[SirBeef]

No.

And what a lot of people avoid talking about is both the ACLU and quite a few advocacy groups for disabled have been against this reg since Day 1 because of it's utter vagueness.

So amend it then to make it better. That is the Republican way, get rid of it instead of making it better.

[telygroar]

We need to stop being disability bigots and let blind people drive too!

Preach!

haha, this !

[TITAN308]

I don´t know about how laws are written in the US but i do think "any individual who meets the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section." means all of them must be true and not one of them.

I'm going to admit I don't remember the full discourse regarding the law outside of general knowledge that the bill was written sort of the same way Trump's travel ban was implemented. It was poorly written and did not exercise enough detail and thus ended up with a blanket sort of effect.

The problem is it involves the term "mentally ill" and the word "guns" so when people questioned it, those without critical thinking immediately jumped on the "you want crazy people to own guns?!" knee-jerk reaction.

[Mayhem]

I'm going to admit I don't remember the full discourse regarding the law outside of general knowledge that the bill was written sort of the same way Trump's travel ban was implemented. It was poorly written and did not exercise enough detail and thus ended up with a blanket sort of effect.

Ok that´s silly then.

[alexkeren]

Yes. If they can't control their eating, they have a self-control problem and should not have a gun.

Self-control and judgement are unrelated thought processes, as such use different parts of the brain.

Hence why disability advocates have been against the bill from the start.

- - - Updated - - -

So amend it then to make it better. That is the Republican way, get rid of it instead of making it better.

There's already clear and strong enough law preventing the proper mental impairments from passing background checks.

Not to mention the fact the way guns are acquired for those involved in shootings with mental impairments didn't get them from a gun store.

[ramjb]

OP's ableism is showing. It's funny how liberals claim they are the tolerant ones yet always turn out to be bigots.

[Stormdash]

OP is a pathologically dishonest and/or willfully inaccurate description of the regulation that got shanked.

What Obama did was encourage a rule to be issued that basically allowed the SSA to use receiving social security or social security disability insurance as a substitute for an adjudication of mental unfitness on an NICS check. Like, if you applied for SS or SSDI, you were per se mentally unfit. It was not only a denial of the 2nd Amendment right but also of due process. It was a garbage act by a garbage administration.