Congress may act to keep guns from mentally ill

Rushlimbo

These guys in Washington come up with some outlandish ideas. Keeping firearms from crazy folks ?! What a thinktank we have working for us.

=============================================
U.S. Congress may act to keep guns from mentally ill
By Thomas Ferraro
Sun Apr 22, 4:09 PM ET

Prompted by the Virginia Tech massacre, a U.S. Congress reluctant to tackle gun control may pass limited legislation to help keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, lawmakers and aides said on Sunday.

"Given the horror that happened at Virginia Tech, I think there's a real chance of passing this," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat, told "Fox News Sunday."

A Republican leadership aide agreed, telling Reuters, "If there is a consensus, and it is in lieu of knee-jerk draconian measures, (the chances are) probably really good."

Congress was initially hesitant to respond to the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech on Monday with any vow to toughen gun-control, a politically divisive issue.

In fact, Democrats, who had earlier championed such measures, including a since expired 1994 ban on assault weapons, effectively abandoned the issue when they won control of Congress last year.

Yet after it was determined that the Virginia Tech killer had been admitted earlier to a psychiatric hospital and deemed "a danger to himself and others," lawmakers dusted off previously rejected legislation.

Seung-Hui Cho, a Virginia Tech student, took his own life after fatally shooting 32 others. He had bought two handguns in Virginia but his mental health had not made it to a federal registry.

The proposed bill would provide money to the states to help update the national instant-check background system with mental-health adjudications, which ban firearm purchases.

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Charles Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and gun-rights proponent, has teamed up on such legislation with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record), a leading gun control advocate.

Appearing with Schumer on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Republican, voiced support.

So did Sarah and Jim Brady, two leading gun-control advocates. They have helped lead the charge since Jim Brady was wounded in the 1981 attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan. He was Reagan's press secretary.

"We're not working to take handguns away from people. But what we do believe is that we need to curb the availability of these weapons to prohibited classes: felons, fugitives, and of course in this case, those who have been adjudicated mentally ill," said Sarah Brady who appeared with her husband on CBS's "Face the Nation."

A bill passed by Congress a decade ago and named for Jim Brady, required an instant background check for gun buyers.

"What we had here, unfortunately, as come out in the last day or so, is that the system did break down," Sarah Brady said.

(Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai)

RolandTD20Kdrummer

There's a concept....not giving guns to children (the mental equivalency of with regards to decision making in this area).

Amazing how the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive action is considered ok somewhere else but not so much at home.

I wonder what took so long for the powers that be to embrace this mind-numbing epiphany?

RyeGuy

its about time!

mammasan

And it only took 32 people being killed for Congress to realize that the mentally ill are not fit to purchase fire arms.

hippiemom

Wow, I'm speechless! WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!!

Why oh why didn't anyone ever think of this before?!!?!

Martyn Lucas

How about if you are stupid enough to want to own a gun, then you are automatically banned from having one!

rebornFixer

Martyn Lucas wrote:

How about if you are stupid enough to want to own a gun, then you are automatically banned from having one!

How about ...

That's retarded?!

Martyn Lucas

That's fine. Just find it stupid that anyone would want to own a gun.

Different cultures I guess.

Ericastrada

Martyn Lucas wrote:

How about if you are stupid enough to want to own a gun, then you are automatically banned from having one!

Wow, that was just down right rude.

Staceb10

I honestly have to say that it surprises me that being mentally stable isn't a requirement to purchase a gun!!! I've just never had a strong enough feeling on this issue to bother learning anything about the rules/laws of gun ownership.


I'm not for banning the right to own firearms at all but they do need to do some serious work on the requirements and abilities of people to legally purchase them. Of course that isn't going to stop people from buying them illegally but seriously mentally ill people should not ever have been able to purchase a gun!

Martyn Lucas

Ericastrada wrote:

Wow, that was just down right rude.

Really? I wasn't even trying either.

know1

Was the Virginia Tech gunman officially diagnosed as mentally ill?

While I'm not sure where I stand on banning guns exactly, I do know this:
GUNS WERE BANNED ON THE VA TECH CAMPUS. Nevermind, mentally ill or properly licensed, NOBODY was supposed to have them so it doesn't make me real confident that any gun laws will be effective.

69charger

I think the mentally ill should have thier 1st Amendment Rights taken away as well.

Why not?

Thier irresponsible use of language can kill too.

rebornFixer

know1 wrote:

Was the Virginia Tech gunman officially diagnosed as mentally ill?

Yes, he was. He was actually on an inpatient unit previously and was at one point deemed "dangerous to self and others".

rebornFixer

Martyn Lucas wrote:

That's fine. Just find it stupid that anyone would want to own a gun.

Different cultures I guess.

Responsible people do not pose a problem in terms of gun ownership. The problem of course being that many gun owners are gang members, mentally ill folks, and others who do not fit the definition of responsible.

PJPOWER

69charger wrote:

I think the mentally ill should have thier 1st Amendment Rights taken away as well.

Why not?

Thier irresponsible use of language can kill too.

Not to mention their legal rights to purchase alcohol, drive a car, go to a university where non-mentally ill students against the odds of 1 in a million might end up being negatively effected by their actions. In other words.........damn those that are mentally ill..........they're obviously the downfall of our society. It's never the sane people that snap and do something that they wouldn't normally do, it's always those fucking mentally ill people. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should give people with psychological problems guns and knives to play with, but do any of you see how the promoting of fear towards those that are mentally ill could also cause some societal problems?

hippiemom

69charger wrote:

I think the mentally ill should have thier 1st Amendment Rights taken away as well.

Why not?

Thier irresponsible use of language can kill too.

Nah, let's let people who have been judged to be a threat to others own guns. Let's give driver's licenses to the blind while we're at it :rolleyes:

Rushlimbo

PJPOWER wrote:

Not to mention their legal rights to purchase alcohol, drive a car, go to a university where non-mentally ill students against the odds of 1 in a million might end up being negatively effected by their actions. In other words.........damn those that are mentally ill..........they're obviously the downfall of our society. It's never the sane people that snap and do something that they wouldn't normally do, it's always those fucking mentally ill people. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should give people with psychological problems guns and knives to play with, but do any of you see how the promoting of fear towards those that are mentally ill could also cause some societal problems?

Put the crazies on an island and there would be no problems. They could own guns and drive drunk (crazy drunk) and society as a whole would continue to prosper.

my2hands

Rushlimbo wrote:

A Republican leadership aide agreed, telling Reuters, "If there is a consensus, and it is in lieu of knee-jerk draconian measures, (the chances are) probably really good."

too bad they dont understand this theory when it concerns the USA PATRIOT ACT.

my2hands

hippiemom wrote:

Nah, let's let people who have been judged to be a threat to others own guns. Let's give driver's licenses to the blind while we're at it :rolleyes:

i have always liked your style

know1

reborncareerist wrote:

Yes, he was. He was actually on an inpatient unit previously and was at one point deemed "dangerous to self and others".

Is that the same thing as being officially ruled mentally ill? I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking the question.

But I also made a second point - that, by law he wasn't allowed to have that gun on campus so it doesn't seem that stricter gun laws are the answer since he was already operating under the strictest of laws as they were banned completely.