Even the FBI's expanded list is missing four of every five Americans
who have been ruled mentally dangerous to themselves or others.
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.
Hmmm......
Backdoor gun control! Just expand the list of those prohibited from gun ownership until virtually no one qualifies.
WTH?
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 I’m 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.
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.