House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To the Severely Mentally Ill

[moe]

Sounds reasonable to me.

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.

Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/51312...ma-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Sounds reasonable to me.

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.

Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/51312...ma-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

What could go wrong?

 

[rog1187]

Sounds reasonable to me.

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.

Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/51312...ma-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

Well this one might backfire on them...no pun intended.

 

[moe]

What could go wrong?

I thought this was something that both sides agreed on. If what was put forth was poorly written then propose a better version don't just overturn this rule with nothing to take its place.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I thought this was something that both sides agreed on. If what was put forth was poorly written then propose a better version don't just overturn this rule with nothing to take its place.

82 is in favor of it.

Congratulations. The lunatics get to keep guns.

The victims of the Aurora CO movie theater shooting are pleased and so are the families that lost their elementary school children in Newtown CT at Sandy Hook Elementary.

When 20 children between the ages of 6 and 7 years old lose their precious young life and this country takes no action, nothing will ever be done. What a shame for America. It is despicable and disgusting.

Be proud Republicans.

learn to read...

damn...

idiot...


The Republican-led House voted 235 to 180 largely upon party lines to bar efforts by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to bar disability recipients with mental disorders from owning guns. The legislation now heads to the Senate.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Sounds reasonable to me.

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.

Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/51312...ma-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

I'm torn. It sounds good in theory. How many prior attacks would this measure have stopped if it were in place?

The on the other hand... I first cringe that there is an SSA, then cringe that they have data collected on us, then warning bells go off that that data can be used against us by another entirely different department.

 

[rog1187]

I'm torn. It sounds good in theory. How many prior attacks would this measure have stopped if it were in place?

The on the other hand... I first cringe that there is an SSA, then cringe that they have data collected on us, then warning bells go off that that data can be used against us by another entirely different department.

I read a scrolling tag line today on tv where a therapist had tried to intervene with Dylan Roof several times prior to his shooting incident. I'm interested to read more about what was covered in those visits if it's public knowledge.

 

[MichiganHerd]

If a nut wants a gun, a nut can find a gun no matter what restrictions you place on the nut. It's really that simple. How many of you could find someone selling a gun, and go purchase it from that person within 24 hours?

 

[moe]

I'm torn. It sounds good in theory. How many prior attacks would this measure have stopped if it were in place?

The on the other hand... I first cringe that there is an SSA, then cringe that they have data collected on us, then warning bells go off that that data can be used against us by another entirely different department.

If you're not mentally ill then you have nothing to worry about. I like the idea of mentally ill persons not possessing firearms but that's just me.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

If you're not mentally ill then you have nothing to worry about. I like the idea of mentally ill persons not possessing firearms but that's just me.

It amazes me we even have to have this conversation.

 

[rog1187]

It amazes me we even have to have this conversation.

Let's have a conversation of what would be considered mentally ill? Could someone by placed on the mentally ill list and then at some point be removed? could someone challenge being placed on the mentally ill list?

 

[moe]

It amazes me we even have to have this conversation.

I've not read the legislation but I'm not hearing a reason for it to be overturned either. On the surface it seems like a no brainer.

 

[TarHeelEer]

If you're not mentally ill then you have nothing to worry about. I like the idea of mentally ill persons not possessing firearms but that's just me.

It starts and stops with this: This was never supposed to be the function of the federal government.

I don't like it either. But once this is in place, who is next? Snowflakes? Alt-right? Everyone?

 

[Mntneer]

"About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected."

That alone shouldn't disqualify someone from being able to exercise their rights. Not being capable of being able to manage their financial affairs doesn't equate with them being a danger.

This shouldn't be a "Rule" it needs to be debated, argue and passed into a law if a proper consensus can be reached.

 

[moe]

it needs to be debated, argue and passed into a law if a proper consensus can be reached.

Sounds good.

 

[bamaEER]

Sounds reasonable to me.

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.

Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/51312...ma-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

This is awesome! Another decision based on strong evidence, I'm sure. You go Biff!

 

[rog1187]

"About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected."

That alone shouldn't disqualify someone from being able to exercise their rights. Not being capable of being able to manage their financial affairs doesn't equate with them being a danger.

This shouldn't be a "Rule" it needs to be debated, argue and passed into a law if a proper consensus can be reached.

Yep the argument isn't on whether or not a mentally ill person should or shouldn't have access to guns...it's what/who determines what/who is mentally ill...can being placed on the list be challenged and how.

 

[rog1187]

This is awesome! Another decision based on strong evidence, I'm sure. You go Biff!

Define mentally ill...I'm sure it is easily based on strong scientific evidence.

 

[bamaEER]

This shouldn't be a "Rule" it needs to be debated, argue and passed into a law if a proper consensus can be reached.

Nope. Just sign it and move on. Getter done!.

 

[bamaEER]

Define mentally ill...I'm sure it is easily based on strong scientific evidence.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/federal-law/sales-transfers/mental-health-reporting/

 

[bornaneer]

I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. BUT in 99% of shootings, the defendants are found by the so called experts to be NOT mentally ill.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Define mentally ill...I'm sure it is easily based on strong scientific evidence.

When a person receives federal financial assistance based on a mental disease or defect is a pretty good definition in my book.

 

[bamaEER]

Define mentally ill...I'm sure it is easily based on strong scientific evidence.

 

[bornaneer]

rog1187 said: ↑
Define mentally ill...I'm sure it is easily based on strong scientific evidence.

For starters.......WVMADE.....

 

[roadtrasheer]

If not able to manage money is the criteria for mentally ill then the U.S shouldn't have a military....we are 20 trillion in debt ...

 

[dave]

Let's have a conversation of what would be considered mentally ill? Could someone by placed on the mentally ill list and then at some point be removed? could someone challenge being placed on the mentally ill list?

Due Process is the key difference here. Congress would love the bill if there was a way for the person having their rights taken away has due process to fight the order.

 

[WVMade]

If a nut wants a gun, a nut can find a gun no matter what restrictions you place on the nut. It's really that simple. How many of you could find someone selling a gun, and go purchase it from that person within 24 hours?

You're not at all defending less gun control with that statement.

 

[WVMade]

rog1187 said: ↑
Define mentally ill...I'm sure it is easily based on strong scientific evidence.

For starters.......WVMADE.....

If someone posting news bothers you go creep somewhere else. You sound as thin skinned as Bone Spur.

 

[bornaneer]

If someone posting news bothers you go creep somewhere else. You sound as thin skinned as Bone Spur.

Doesn't bother me at all. I actually enjoy reading your juvenile posts.....Always enjoy having a good laugh. But anyway.......I was defining mentally ill.

 

[Airport]

If someone posting news bothers you go creep somewhere else. You sound as thin skinned as Bone Spur.

What you post is not news, it's pablum.

 

[rog1187]

If someone posting news bothers you go creep somewhere else. You sound as thin skinned as Bone Spur.

Well keep it up and I'm going to ban you.

 

[EEResistable]

When a person receives federal financial assistance based on a mental disease or defect is a pretty good definition in my book.

Agree.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

In theory and on the surface, just like the "No Fly, No Buy" it makes sense and I can see why someone would be in favor of it.

I've posted my thoughts on this one numerous times. This is a constitutional right we are talking about taking away. Should the same person still be allowed to vote? What other rights do they waive for being mentally ill? How do you get on the list? How do you get off of the list? I'm in favor of it being overturned for a couple of reasons:

1. No due Process
2. No consensus definition of what qualifies as mentally ill
3. It's discriminatory towards handicapped people, pretty sure it would violate the ADA. I'd bet the ACLU would have to take this one on.

 

[WVMade]

Well keep it up and I'm going to ban you.

You should have already done that snowflake.

 

[rog1187]

You should have already done that snowflake.

And you're done...cya

 

[WVMade]

And your done...cya

aww... I miss you already.[thumbsup]

 

[eerdoc]

Define mentally ill...I'm sure it is easily based on strong scientific evidence.

"...Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities..." does anyone else have a problem with having the social security administration define who has severe mental disabilities and then restrict their right to bear arms based thereon? I would hope and trust such definitions would be attached to folks ONLY after proper and thorough consideration by qualified medical personnel. I agree with rolling it back under the current situation, since there is adequate reason to believe that many might be so judged inappropriately. (Very similar to the assignment of folks to a 'no fly list' and the hell that has caused when such assignment is unreasonable and unjust.)