Rule to keep severely mentally ill from buying guns gets nixed by House

[Elderberry]

Rule to keep severely mentally ill from buying guns gets nixed by House

It would have kept those unable to run their own finances from buying firearms.

Beth Mole - 2/3/2017, 10:25 AM
ARS Technica

The US House voted 235-180 on Thursday in favor of striking down an Obama-era rule intended to keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill.

The rule would require the Social Security Administration to forward information about certain beneficiaries with mental health disorders to the FBI’s background check system. Beneficiaries affected would be those suffering with mental illnesses so severe that they require a representative to manage their finances for them.

The rule, originally slated to go into effect in December, is estimated to affect 75,000 beneficiaries. Those impacted could appeal through the courts to purchase a firearm, but not before their names were sent to the FBI, The Hill reports.

The National Rifle Association, gun advocates, and civil rights advocates, including the ACLU, argued that the rule would strip Second Amendment rights from beneficiaries without due process. Supporters, meanwhile, said the rule would help keep guns out of the hands of those with severe mental illnesses.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/house-pulls-back-rule-to-keep-guns-from-severely-mentally-ill/

[txradioguy]

The National Rifle Association, gun advocates, and civil rights advocates, including the ACLU, argued that the rule would strip Second Amendment rights from beneficiaries without due process.

I'm curious as to how this measure would strip someone who'd been diagnosed with a mental illness of their due process?

If someone is under the care of a shrink for a mental illness...this is one of those times were I have to believe they don't need a weapon at their disposal.

[thackney]

I'm curious as to how this measure would strip someone who'd been diagnosed with a mental illness of their due process?

If someone is under the care of a shrink for a mental illness...this is one of those times were I have to believe they don't need a weapon at their disposal.

And when the official in charge rules doubting Man-made global warming, or voting for a conservative is an indication of mental illness?

Due process of striping away an individual's constitutional rights needs to involve a judge and jury.

[txradioguy]

And when the official in charge rules doubting Man-made global warming, or voting for a conservative is an indication of mental illness?

I'm looking at it from a DSM definition of mental illness...not the word of some looney enviro-weenie.

I mean wouldn't you want John Hinkley to be able to purchase a gun now that he's been released from the Mental Hospital?

What about someone diagnosed with Bi-polar?

If someone gets denied the right to purchase a firearm because they don't believe in Global Warming...then you have ground to sue.

Due process of striping away an individual's constitutional rights needs to involve a judge and jury.

And what happens when your next door neighbor...who is on anti-psychotic meds...stops taking them because he feels "better" and goes to the gun store and buys a Glock 17?

[thackney]

I'm looking at it from a DSM definition of mental illness...not the word of some looney enviro-weenie.

I mean wouldn't you want John Hinkley to be able to purchase a gun now that he's been released from the Mental Hospital?

Isn't John Hinkley a felon and already unable to legally purchase a gun?

What about someone diagnosed with Bi-polar?

I wouldn't want to make such a blanket statement.  There are many levels of that illness.

If someone gets denied the right to purchase a firearm because they don't believe in Global Warming...then you have ground to sue.

And how many years do you think that will involve?

And what happens when your next door neighbor...who is on anti-psychotic meds...stops taking them because he feels "better" and goes to the gun store and buys a Glock 17?

And similarly, what happens to the vet who won't get treatment for PTSD because of the lack of due process to strip away his constitutional rights?

A degree in psychiatry is not sufficient to take away constitutional rights.  It can be a simple hearing, but it needs to involve a court, not merely a single physician.

[txradioguy]

Isn't John Hinkley a felon and already unable to legally purchase a gun?

Found not guilty by reason of insanity and determined by a judge to be safe to be released back out into society.

IIRC he's not a felon. But I could be wrong.

I wouldn't want to make such a blanket statement.  There are many levels of that illness.

And how many years do you think that will involve?

And similarly, what happens to the vet who won't get treatment for PTSD because of the lack of due process to strip away his constitutional rights?

A degree in psychiatry is not sufficient to take away constitutional rights.  It can be a simple hearing, but it needs to involve a court, not merely a single physician.

I agree that there are many levels. Know it better than I really want to quite frankly.

And I agree a shrink shouldn't be the final say. 

But the way I read the article...or maybe I missed it but it didn't sound like in the article they even want a court to be able to deny them the ability to purchase a weapon.