Nope. The bill's §102(b)(3)(C) exempts voluntary commitments.
Having worked for Eli Lilly, the makers of Prozac, a drug for bi-polar disorder, I can assure you that there are millions of people in this country that take this drug on a daily basis. I am sure you know people who take Prozac, but you are probably unaware that they do. In fact, you might find that some of your buddies down at your local gun club take Prozac.
I take Celexa myself, and have found that it runs in my family, back generations. But the claim that HR 4757 includes some sort of provision for barring those who have been written a prescription for anti-depressants from owning firearms is at best, outlandish hyperbole designed to elicit contributions, or simply an outright lie.
The text of the bill passed by the house is available on the THOMAS system. And none of the three versions include any mention of prescription drugs or clinical depression.
The bill would also help FBI officials to effectively stop millions of additional Americans from purchasing a firearm, because they were guilty in the past of committing slight misdemeanors.
Oops, hope they don’t find out about that J-walking thing.
Har de har. Can the hyperbole. I find it rather troubling that they are describing wife-beating as a "slight" misdemeanor. I thought we got over that attitude by the 80's at the latest.
“It could require that states forward information concerning drug diversion programs and arrests that do not lead to prosecution...
Shouldn't we be more concerned with what it actually does require, rather than what it could, or might, or enitrely possibly may require?
You make interesting points, I shall peruse the text of the bill at the link that you have provided.
"Shouldn't we be more concerned with what it actually does require, rather than what it could, or might, or enitrely possibly may require?"
But that has always been the problem with many pieces of legislation, the law of unintended consequences, many pieces of legislation have started out with really good intentions, but what they actually end of being is something completely different.
I mean take a look at many of the social programs that were implemented in the 60's, they all had real good intentions, wasn't going to cost a lot of money, and were something that all decent people should be willing to support. Then take a look at what kind of monsters many of these programs have turned into over the last 30 years.
I find it advantages, when looking at legal questions, to not only look at the immediate problem in front of you that they propose to address, but to also look at the bigger picture of what they might be able to address in the future. Or, to put it another way, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.