Skip to comments.List soars of those called too unstable to buy a gun
Posted on 12/02/2007 11:40:18 AM PST by Zakeet
WASHINGTON -- Since the Virginia Tech shootings last spring, the FBI has more than doubled the number of people nationwide who are prohibited from buying guns because of mental health problems, the Justice Department said Thursday.
Justice officials said the FBI's Mental Defective File has ballooned from 175,000 names in June to nearly 400,000, primarily additions from California. The names are listed in a subset of a database that gun dealers are supposed to check before completing their sales.
The surge in names underscores the vastness of the gap in FBI records that allowed Seung-hui Cho to purchase the handguns he used in April to kill 32 people and himself at the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg.
A Virginia court found Cho to be dangerously mentally ill in 2005 and ordered him to receive outpatient treatment. But because Cho was not ordered into hospital treatment, the court's order was never provided to the FBI and incorporated in its database, which two gun dealers checked before selling Cho the 9-millimeter Glock 19 and Walther .22-caliber pistol used in the shootings.
Federal law has prohibited gun sales to people judged to be "mentally defective" for nearly four decades, but enforcementhas been haphazard.
A 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling barred the federal government from forcing states to provide the data, and 18 states -- including Delaware and West Virginia -- provide no mental health-related information to the FBI.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Even the FBI's expanded list is missing four of every five Americans
who have been ruled mentally dangerous to themselves or others.
“Justice officials said the FBI’s Mental Defective File has ballooned from 175,000 names in June to nearly 400,000, primarily additions from California.
Backdoor gun control! Just expand the list of those prohibited from gun ownership until virtually no one qualifies.
Why wouldn't the FBI check it as part of their instant check system?
Is it so they can use it as a "gotcha" to put the remaining licensed gun dealers out of business?
Yep. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha.................................................................................
Okay - let’s think about this for a second.
If these people cannot be trusted with a firearm - then, why are they out walking around? Surely it follows they should not be allowed in public.
Further, they have undoubtedly had their names stricken from voter rolls, yes? For this is a much more dangerous activity.
And, nobody at the DOT is going to let them drive a car, obviously. I’m sure I’ve left quite a few other areas and concerns out, but you get the idea.
The question remains “what is the source of the names added to the list?”
“Backdoor gun control! Just expand the list of those prohibited from gun ownership until virtually no one qualifies.”
My understanding was that only persons legally adjudicated (a court proceeding) as mentally unfit would be put on this list.
Some years ago the VA provided the names of all veterens that had ever sought treatment for PTSD and they were banned for some time from buying firearms. Hopefully, this kind of nonsense isn’t happening again.
Should it be, then pretty soon every man or woman returning from duty in SW Asia (Iraq, Afganistan, etc.) could be listed because treatment or checks for PTSD is now mandatory for returning military personnel. Having some PTSD or depression or anxiety should never be cause to revoke someone’s 2nd Ammendment rights.
Like I said, I hope this isn’t happening.
“Backdoor gun control!”
Yeah, that was my first take too. But, as I look around me, I count 29 people who should be added to that list. That’s the number of patients I’m taking care of here in my state’s mental institution.
Yikes, just thinking of ANY of these folks out on their own even UNARMED is kind of scary. Armed? Oh boy. And believe me, most of them are going to be on the outside, sooner or later.
So, for now I’m going to wait for more info.
Some jurisdictions are looking for reasons to confiscate guns.
It's like Catch-22. Start with the premise that guns are terribly dangerous, and that only a crazy person would want one. Now, if someone says, "I want a gun", you can safely assume that they are crazy and should not be given a gun. The only people who CAN have a gun are those sane enough to refuse to have a gun.
Now, why should THAT come as a surprise to anyone???
Can we check and see if "Stretch" Pelosi and Barbara Box-o-rocks are on that list?
Maybe that will keep down the number of vets which are looking to scam some disability. Either you're mentally unstable or you are not. If you are.....then not only should you lose your 2nd Amendment rights......but you should be locked-up in the nuthouse.
Same deal with felons......if they are deemed safe enough to be released from prison they should have their full rights restored. If you can't trust them with a gun then they should still be in prison.
A list must have names to go on it. If you go looking for a Boogie Man you’ll find him.
So, for now Im going to wait for more info.
Agreed. The situation bears close watching but I'm all for keeping guns away from the mentally ill as much as is practically possible. Having said that, I'm quite sure that the gun grabbers will use any means at their disposal to further their grotesque agenda.
Like much of what is printed in the liberal media concerning guns, this is incorrectly stated, I believe.
Every FFL in Kalifornia submits a DROS form (Dealer Record of Sale) electronically to the state. It is the state which checks any databases and then relays approval or denial to the dealer.
The article hides the fact that the reason that most states don't submit these records is that most states don't have gun registration laws and prior restraint on purchasing firearms. Without these infringements, there is no purpose to gathering these records and creating any database.
USSR did the same thing, using the so-called “mental health” establishment to create a class of people having fewer rights and freedoms than others.
I can see it now. The willingness to own or bear arms makes you unstable--BY DEFINITION. /s
Sounds like a clear case of “Catch 22” to me,,,but then if I knew it was,,,,,,never mind..
I agree completely with the latter statement. And I disagree just as completely with the former.
Mental stability is not a single-dimension bi-valued function. It is a spectrum of behaviors and responses which varies from person to person, from situation to situation, and from time to time.
Only the most serious of these situations, those which call for involuntary detention, should qualify for this treatment and such treatment should end when the involuntary detention ends. Anything else is incompatible with maintaining our freedoms.
Didn’t you tell me Eaker appears on the list about a dozen times? :-)
More seriously though, anything and everything will become a reason to say someone is unstable, including wanting a gun.
As the government expands its powers and intrusiveness even more,,,
authoritarian "big brother" types like Rudy ("big sister" types with Hillary) will continue to redefine and expand the DEFINITION of unstable--to the point where ANYONE that even THINKS of gun ownership--is by definiton, unstable.
Government (and its intrusion) just grows and grows. As Ronald Reagan so eloquently stated, (paraphrasing here) "No government in history has ever voluntarily reduced its size".
Of course not. As Orwell said, "Some pigs are more equal than others."
And who decides questions of "mental illness"? Why, liberal psychiatrists who are anti-2nd Amendment, that's who! And then liberal judges who accept a shrink's testimony deprive ordinary citizens of their right to armed self-defense. By the way, even shrinks admit that the vast majority of those diagnosed with "mental illness" are no threat to anybody.
Once they get their 'foot in the door' on this one--the definition of 'unstable' will be redefined, expanded and broadened on a regular basis until we achieve that Orwellian Dream World of no guns. /s
An authoritarian, big government, bully like Rudy is the RIGHT TIME AT THE RIGHT TIME to accelerate that process.
In my state you have to be convicted, not just accused, of DV to lose your 2nd amendment rights. Regardless, I agree with you. The several states’ legislatures will keep tacking on different misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes that will result in the loss of the 2nd amendment right.
LOL! Good picture. That woman, Hillary, looks nuttier than a fruit cake.
Every regesitered republican will soon be on that list.
If these people are considered too dangerous for society, shouldn’t we put them all in jail?
I mean, what if they get a hold of a kitchen knife, or a large paid of scissors?
There’s also all sorts of explosives you can get pretty easy, so if we really think these people are just too dangerous to be allowed to have access to a gun, maybe we should take away their driver licenses, at least if they are driving large SUVs. We all know how dangerous they can be.
I certainly don’t want any of these people manning the 911 phone system, because if they are so dangerous they could mess up. Or operating any heavy equipment.
No, I think I was right — we should just put them all in prison, for our protection.
And their minders in various levels of government, from city through federal.
Awww Eeeeek’s Ok .....it must have been those 4 years he spent in 3rd grade that got him on the list !
Mostly my name is listed because of association with Squantos and Tijeras_Slim!
There are so many other ways that this list can be expanded too.
Whatever it takes to make us subjects.
It was 3 years in the 4th grade ya numbskull!
This might not be such a bad thing. We could start with one's political orientation....
Republicans Report Having Better Mental Health Than Democrats, Poll Finds
Fox News ^ | December 1, 2007 | Fox News
Posted on 12/01/2007 5:23:06 PM PST by Luke Skyfreeper
Don't worry, be happy: If you're a Republican, those words should be easy to follow. A roundup of Gallup health polls over the past four years finds that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to report having excellent mental health. The survey found that 58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health. Only 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Independents reported the same
“Only the most serious of these situations, those which call for involuntary detention, should qualify for this treatment and such treatment should end when the involuntary detention ends.”
If you only knew...
When the involuntary detention ends, the severely, chronically mentally ill are released to one or another place, like a permanent monitoring facility, an out-patient facility, or even to their family.
It’s a matter of course that so very many of them suffer severe relapses, with major psychoses, and frequently become violent, with nobody around who is able to control them, even when they’re unarmed.
You really don’t want them to have access to a firearm.
Until you’ve seen what truly crazy is, you can’t begin to imagine just how crazy a person can be. Movies and TV don’t begin to capture the real nature of insanity. It’s worse than even the stereotypical mad-man you see in Hollywood insane asylums.
And they can all go home, if there’s anyone who’ll accept them.
Hah! That’s because they always get to see the patients when they’re surrounded by the hospital staff, and outnumber them 6-1.
When they outnumber you 5-1, it’s a whole different story. Remember the old saying about the inmates running the asylum? That’s pretty much how it goes, in or out of the asylum.
I think you hope for too much. Of all the people the grabbers would like to disarm, those with military experience, but operating as private citizens, have to be high on the list.
Unfortuately, it doesn't work that way. Many people have problems, are depressed, or any number of other things, very few of those are a danger to others, no matter what sorts of implements they might have.
But the gun grabboids aren't interested in such minor distinctions. They are interesting in taking guns, your guns, my guns, our neighbor's guns.
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
--U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer NBC Nightly News 11/30/93
No matter what state you are in, it's a federal matter. And just having a DV restraining order is enough, even a routine RO issued as part of a divorce or separation agreement. Ask poor Doc Emerson.
No, that was Humblegunner. That and his pathology involving midgets.
Ah, I Knew it was HG who did the 4 years in 3rd grade thing.
no then you have to PROVE you are sane.
of course the government will say no SANE person will want to own a gun. so if you want a gun you are too insane to own one
My midgets are legal.
Come and take 'em, I say.
Oh No! That's part of the pathology. Republicans just report being mentally healthy, but in reality they are sick twisted puppies.[/s
Especially most Republican US Senators, who seem to have been born with no testicles.
But of course that's probably no worse than many DemonRats, especially a recent President of that persuasion, who think with theirs.
Which is of course the problem right there. They shouldn't be let out of an institution, but home they go. All so some welfare queen can continue to get her check.
I don't want no steenking midgets, that's your "thing"
Other than the matched set of 4 week olds I'm helping with now that is. My identical twin granddaughters. Kathryn and Elizabeth. Their big sister Victoria, 2 1/2, isn't likely to get much bigger than a midget either.
The surge in names underscores the vastness of the gap in FBI records...
If Mrs Clinton is elected or steels the election, anyone who ever criticized her or claimed she is a murderer will be on so many lists they will find it hard to live.
Backed by the f.b.i.