Posted on 07/16/2007 11:17:17 AM PDT by Graybeard58
HARTFORD: State police are now providing the FBI with names of people denied state handgun permits for mental health reasons.
The names of close to 3,000 individuals have been entered into an FBI database that lets gun dealers across the country identify potentially dangerous buyers before they buy guns.
The Department of Public Safety has been providing names and mental health histories to the FBI for its National Instant Criminal Background Check System for eight months.
State police say authorities in Utah last month made the most recent NICS inquiry based on information that Connecticut provided.
However, they could not say whether Utah blocked that person from obtaining guns or firearms permits.
State police and state mental health officials have been exchanging information for the last eight years to prevent certain mentally impaired people from holding or applying for state handgun permits.
An agreement signed last year allowed the commissioner of public safety to share this previously confidential state information with the FBI.
The Bush administration and Congress are trying to encourage more states to participate in federal efforts to keep the mentally ill from buying firearms.
The push is a response to the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, the massacre at Virginia Tech on April 16. A student who had been diagnosed as mentally ill killed 32 students and faculty members before killing himself.
The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation last month to require states to provide the FBI automated lists of convicted criminals and mentally ill people who are prohibited under a 1968 law from buying firearms.
The legislation and the underlying 1968 law pose concerns for National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
NAMI contends the current law is vague, outdated, overly broad and stigmatizing. It also worried about privacy protections.
"Confidentiality is always a concern," said Alicia Woodsby, public policy director of NAMI's state chapter in Connecticut.
"I share NAMI's concerns about the stigma associated with mental illness, but I think this bill is a good first step to protecting all citizens, including the mentally ill, from gun violence," said U.S. Rep. Christopher Murphy, D-5th District.
Woodsby lamented what she called the widespread misconception about mental illness and violence. "People with mental illness are no more violent than other people. In fact, they are more often the victims of violence," she said.
The Virginia Tech massacre was a bloody, murderous exception.
Despite a court order to undergo outpatient treatment, Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho remained legally eligible to buy guns under Virginia law because he hadn't been involuntarily committed. He purchased the handguns used in his killing spree in February and March.
Under Connecticut law, anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital is ineligible for a state handgun permit for 12 months after being discharged.
However, there is no such prohibition if a court judges someone mentally ill, but doesn't commit them. This concerns a top state lawmaker.
"Clearly, it is something we should look at next session," said Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven.
Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, House chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said state gun laws and permitting procedures are keeping firearms away from the mentally ill and unstable in Connecticut.
In order to get a state handgun permit, residents must first apply for a temporary permit from their local police department or first selectman's office.
State law requires police chiefs or first selectmen to determine a person's suitability to possess firearms. However, the law doesn't define suitability. It is up to the the local official's discretion.
Lawlor said the rigorous application process should reveal if an applicant is mentally unfit, and the law gives local authorities the latitude to deny that person a temporary permit.
State law also specifically disqualifies certain people from possessing handguns or receiving handgun permits.
In addition to involuntary commitments, the law also disqualifies anyone discharged from custody in the preceding 20 years after being found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or mental defect.
The state ban also applies to individuals who are prohibited under federal law from possessing or shipping firearms for mental health reasons.
A 1999 law permits police to apply for warrants to seize firearms from people considered at imminent risk of harming themselves or others.
A report to the legislature last year found judges granted 153 out of 155 applications for warrants made between October 1999 and May 2006. Police seized more than 1,200 guns in 140 cases.
The gun seizure law was enacted a year after a disgruntled accountant gunned down four co-workers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters in Newington.
Lawlor said he is sure that this law has prevented more workplace shootings and gun violence.
In the aftermath of the lottery shooting, the legislature also authorized the state police and state mental health officials to exchange previously confidential information regarding handgun permits and mental health histories.
Exactly! And this other mess that a physician’s opinion concerning his patient’s mental health could be used to disqualify a citizen from owning a handgun (or any gun) would end up as
Liberal doctor + conservative patient = disqualified citizen
It’s bad enough when gun possesion is listed on a doctor’s general health questionaire, as in some states.
And there’s still the Lout-enberg amendment.
“Gun control is a tide that is always coming in.”
(Although there was once a giant named Ronaldus Magnus who managed to roll back the waves, for a time.)
Deny gun ownership to people who sought pyschological help in the past—
And you may deter people from seeking pyschological help in the future, for fear of their losing guns rights.
My insurance company (home owners) wanted to know if I owned any guns. I only own one, a .357, so I told them no. My deductable is $500 which would pay for a new one if it was stolen.
Since they wouldn't be paying for it anyway, it's none of their damn'd business.
“None of their d@mned business”
Just what I told my insurance company. When I asked about insuring my guns, they wanted make, model, caliber, barrel length, and serial number of each and every gun! I had thought all they needed to know was the estimated fair market value of my guns. Nope, we need all that information.
Sounds like de facto registration to me, I said.. Then I hung up.
Well, if it comes right down to it I suppose I will give in and surrender my guns, of course they’re going to get the ammo first. ;)
This concerns me. I know the way it will be spun, just the way they spin abortion to “protect the life of the mother” to include anything to allow late tern abortions.
But I do come from the other side. I had a seriously mentally ill family member, who had bouts of rage. At other times, he was as normal as you or I. (bipolar) I won’t go into it, but I will tell you he was a postal worker!
We loved and cared for him deeply, and were always there to caretake and protect. But sadly, most people with these illnesses, well, they are alone because their families have given up on them. But I firmly believe the only reason we escaped disaster was because of our family sense of responsibility. God forbid if he had ever taken it into his head to actually go buy a gun without us knowing.
have they picked up murthas yet?
Then the lady asked...."do you have a security system for your home?" And, my wife said...."didn't we just talk about that?"
I am still laugh'n over that one.
that’s the pot calling the kettle black.
That rules out most politicians from carrying a gun.
Comrade, only a mentally ill person wouldn’t see the obvious advantages of Communism. /sarcasm
Look - I am a gun-owner, a member of the NRA, and a helluva good shot ... but I have no problem with limiting firearms ownership for the mentally incompetent, ill or just plain crazy (provided that there is a reasonable definition of crazy).
The right to keep and bear arms was not intended to cover those that are so mentally unstable as to be a danger to society, just like the right to vote wasn’t intended to cover felons. Most “rights” have their limits ...
- Free speech does not cover incitement to overthrow the government, incitement to riot, treason, conspiracy to commit a crime, “fire in a crowded theater”, etc.
- Free expression of religion does not cover those practices that would deny rights or comforts to those not practicing your religion - or violation of other laws (drug use, stonings, or blowing yourself up in the name of Islam, for example).
- The right to vote does not include felons.
- And, the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to criminals, or people officially deemed a danger to society.
I have no problem with this - normal citizens have the God-given right to keep and bear arms. The certifiable lunatics in society do not.
H
Explain that to parents putting their kids on drugs in school.
Living not to far from VT, and knowing students there, I can tell you I don't know how, but I don't want nut jobs owning guns.
Why are the certifiable lunatics walking around on the street to begin with?
If a person is so dangerous to himself or others that he should be denied the retail purchase of a firearm (and that's all this will affect. Person-to-person transfers of firearms don't get background checks.) then it stands to reason that he's so dangerous to himself or others that he poses a risk no matter what kind of weapon he can get his hands on, be that a kitchen knife, a baseball bat or 10 gallons of gasoline.
How about we stop eroding the right to bear arms and concentrate on removing from society those people that are a danger to it?
Except in the 48 states that allow it? Some with restrictions.
>> Why are the certifiable lunatics walking around on the street to begin with?
Good point. But - “crazy” isn’t really a crime. The 2nd amendment is no more important than the 5th/ 14th ... people cannot be incarcerated when no crime has been committed (”no person shall be ... deprived of life, LIBERTY or property without due process of law”).
The right to keep and bear arms is essential to a free society ... but it remains that there are, and should be, reasonable limitations. Rights cannot exist in a vacuum - just as convicted felons cannot own guns (for the safety of society, even AFTER their debt has been paid), nor should the clinically insane.
If, as you contend, we cannot deny them their 2nd amendment right to bear arms ... then we certainly cannot deny them their 5th amendemnt right to liberty.
H
My mistake.
As of May 10, 2007 all 50 states allow felons to vote. Restrictions apply in some states.
The two most restrictive are Kentucky, where voting rights can be restored only when the Governor approves an application for an executive pardon for reinstatement of voting rights from an individual after completion of his/her sentence.
Mississippi, where An individual, after completion of their sentence, must go to his or her state representative and convince them to personally author a bill reenfranchising that individual. Both houses of the legislature must then pass the bill, and the governor must sign it. Each year about 10 to 12 people are re-enfranchised in Mississippi.
25 states allow felons to vote after serving their sentences and parole or supervised release, 13 states allow felons to vote as soon as they leave prison, 2 states, (Maine and Vermont) allow incarcerated felons to vote.
The other 8 states allow felons to vote with less severe restrictions such as applying to county boards or waiting 2 to 5 years after completion of sentence.
http://www.felonvotingprocon.org/pop/StateLaws.htm
“Mental illness” is a Trojan Horse.
This is because some Korean shot up VaTech. It wouldn’t have happened had many others been armed.
Keeping guns from the mentally ill will then depend on some doctor’s determination. Laws can be written about what doctors should/must look for. Over time the legislature will want to define “mental illness.”
Everybody but you and me is crazy, man. And I ain’t so sure about you. :>)
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.