Posted on 03/17/2013 3:23:55 PM PDT by Kaslin
Problem is, we already got plenty of laws on tbe books that address mental illness.
The new laws can be enforced by way of a mere whisper andthat ain’t right.
No one with an agenda should be allowed to simply state you are nit fit to own or handle a weapon.
That should only take place by adjudication.
I was going to ask you if you meant the school shooter in CT because you used the postal abbreviation for Vermont until I did a search and realized you meant Virginia Tech
or the V is next to the C on the keyboard.
Exactly my thought as I read the article.
The nuts are running the asylum.
The disclaimers can be disregarded. All the government needs to do is to issue a directive that anyone known or suspected of suffering from a mental disorder as defined by the DSM-V is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.
That would include everyone.
Congress too because the DSM includes substance use disorders too :) Seriously, if the real focus of this effort is to deal with mentally ill people with a potential for violence, then those people need to be adjudicated mentally ill, not simply diagnosed based on criteria which the DSM itself admits are insufficient proof of mental disorder. There needs to be a hearing with legal counsel and a judge. And reports, testimony, etc. Anything less is a disregard for our constitutional rights.
Agree. This is a very slippery slope. It won’t be long before wanting to own guns is declared a mental illness.
Clearly there are some disturbed people who should not be in the possession of any weapon. That has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
No the trouble is, who or what determines you are mentally unfit. Note rules are always subject to interpretation.
Ha, you must be kidding? HIPAA is as dead as tax cuts.
Remember how well they described the beltway sniper. In fact they usually describe the perp as a white male 20 to 30 years old, yada, yada, yada.
That could be as simple as being stuck in an "anger management" 'class' somewhere for getting (justifiably) peeved and cussing more than the people around you are comfortable with.
The thresh hold for "verbal abuse" has been substantially lowered over the years, and even out in the oil patch, we have to be careful how we say what any more. There was a time when getting your butt chewed if you screwed up was the norm, and the lessons were learned by those who did not want to repeat the experience.
This namby-pamby crap is just not as effective at getting a point across.
“Graham digs in to ban mentally ill from guns, as Dems focus on assault weapons”....
Well, reading the headline DOES include most Demo’s.
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.