Politics : argument for letting the mentally ill buy guns?

The existing system is being improved. Reporting of mental health adjudications into the database is improving, providing for a better background check.

Unilaterally broadening the definition and expanding the list of those who will lose basic rights is not how we improve the system though. Even if it does capture a small number of people who should rightly be kept from owning a gun, it also disarms far more who are not a danger.

The Ft. Lauderdale shooter was apparently not judged to be a danger. That highlights a shortcoming of mental healthcare. It is subjective and imperfect to say the least.

In many cases, mass killers have sent off warnings like a fire engine before their attack but the warning signs were ignored or the subject were treated as a dangerous mental OUTpatient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting

There is certainly room for improvement, mostly in pursuing existing options to prevent these attacks.

---

There is certainly room for improvement, mostly in pursuing existing options to prevent these attacks.

---

Glad we both agree on that. Seems a start that we are both looking for improvement.

Seems where we might disagree as to the way in which to do so and which way to concentrate. Could not agree with you more that the mental health care system should get more funds in general though.

And to turn with what you start with, the database that goes into the gun-check system is improving, but the main obstacle is that the Feds have made participation optional. So it is up to each state whether to add the info. And kicker is not just what they think, but the feds don't fund that cost.

Maybe we can both agree that making that existing law work should start with participation being both mandatory and paid for.

---

And to turn with what you start with, the database that goes into the gun-check system is improving, but the main obstacle is that the Feds have made participation optional. So it is up to each state whether to add the info. And kicker is not just what they think, but the feds don't fund that cost.

---

There are now financial incentives for the states to report and for that reason or simply that we are now recognizing the potential seriousness of the problem, reporting has greatly increased. Also, some states perform their own background checks so that reporting to the FBI/NICS is not really necessary.

Even if they have offered incentives, still not mandatory or paid for in full. And good for those states that have tightened up their own systems, but we are talking about a national data base. If the info is there when a person crosses state lines then it is only because the state is reporting to it already.

If not, how does a the best and most faithful state in the country know about someone who tries to buy a weapon from a more lax state that does not report to the national system?

It is basically not possible to buy guns across state lines. If you do buy a gun out of state, the gun will be shipped to an FFL dealer in your home state where the sale (with background check) will be completed. There are few exceptions and I believe they apply to long guns and face to face sales only. The FBI background check still applies.

I am very familiar with the issues concerning reporting records of mental health commitments and such by states to the national database as far as on-site buys. Have already went into detail about it, even if not doubting some states have tightened internally.

But do not know about the laws more generally. So your "It is basically not possible to buy guns across state lines" throws me. Grew up in the Northeast reading about how people went to buy weapons in Southern states with more lax laws and more recently all over the news has been how gang members in Illinois go to Indiana to take advantage of there laws, especially the "gun show loophole." Was that all made up?

And yes the FBI check applies nationwide, but that gets us back to what info is in their database..which again very familiar with and started with.

---

But do not know about the laws more generally. So your "It is basically not possible to buy guns across state lines" throws me. Grew up in the Northeast reading about how people went to buy weapons in Southern states with more lax laws and more recently all over the news has been how gang members in Illinois go to Indiana to take advantage of there laws, especially the "gun show loophole." Was that all made up?

---

Handgun purchases to out of state residents are certainly illegal under federal law, although some courts have held this to be unconstitutional. Long gun sales are allowed with the normal requirements as for instate resident sales. Considering that long guns are generally available to out-of-staters, my statement "basically not possible to buy guns across state lines" was somewhat exaggerated. The vast majority of gun crime though, involves handguns.

Most gun show sales are by FFL dealers which require a background check, etc. Furthermore, most if not all gun shows now require all sellers including "non-dealers" to use the NICS system for all sales. Effectively there is no gun show loophole.

An out-of-stater who wants to circumvent gun laws simply uses a straw buyer. That is someone who can pass a background check and legally buy guns. The straw buyer might be payed for this service in drugs or money. Alternatively, he could contact a corrupt FFL dealer who would be willing to illegally sell guns. Without a "legal buyer" of record though, this is harder to pull off cleanly. The dealer is accountable for every gun he receives. He can report the missing guns stolen or just "lost" but there would be a limit to how many times this would fly.

In short, for those who don't mind committing numerous felonies, it is not difficult at all to move guns from the legal market to the unregulated black market.

Thank you for spending the time to explain that. I am much the better for it. And no never thought that people who didn't want to get guns could be stopped. Pretty sure there will always be drugs available too, even if hoping that wall (even if not purely a physical one) will help with that.

But still start with what I did know. See no reason the FBI system should not have in it all the info that might disqualify an immediate buyer. Least from a bunch of states, that info is not there. Just so no reason for it not to be other than cost or maybe some real knee-jerk 2nd amend stuff. It is the law already; only Q is if the info is there.

Let me be clear completely for the right to bear arms. At the same time would like them regulated and managed, just like with wanting legal and encouraged immigrants rather than just who "jumps the fence."

So make me god for a day and I put a GPS tracking chip in every new weapon and make the punishment for it being intentionally disabled substantive.

---

But still start with what I did know. See no reason the FBI system should not have in it all the info that might disqualify an immediate buyer. Least from a bunch of states, that info is not there. Just so no reason for it not to be other than cost or maybe some real knee-jerk 2nd amend stuff. It is the law already; only Q is if the info is there.

---

I don't think that cost is much of an obstacle to reporting mental adjudications. These are a matter of legal record and therefore known to state authorities. It is a simple matter to report the names and other basic identifiers.

The main obstacle is concern over medical privacy which I think is misplaced. Only basic identification is reported along with legal status. The very reason for these adjudications is public safety and if they are kept absolutely secret, they serve no purpose at all.

The NRA is a strong supporter of the NICS system and efforts to make it more effective.

---

The NRA is a strong supporter of the NICS system and efforts to make it more effective.

---

I know it is, which is part of why the efforts not to put it into more efficient play from the standpoint of commitment records should not be a problem. But as told you before, the state input into the fed database is optional. So for them to do it they have to pay for it to be done. There are principles and logic and then "how best to otherwise spend."

Medical privacy is just a factor involved though. Like you said, what would get reported is all part of court record.and already on court and public record.

People who have mental impairments have the most need for guns.

Guns are needed to keep weak, stupid people safe in unsafe countries.

No one wants the truly mentally ill to have access to firearms. The current law was too broad, preventing people with minor conditions from exercising their constitutional rights. Hell, even mental health professionals were alarmed at how broad a reach it has. The Republicans are simply going to repeal it and bring in a new law that is more focused.

Even you should be allowed to purchase guns.