Now, anyone with a history of receiving mental health treatment or anyone that has been admitted to a state mental hospital can be denied a hand gun license.

read more

One more reason to never, never, ever, pever, whevergo for 'treatment'...in other words, unless you are truly insane, do not ever be diagnosed with bipolar disorder or any other 'syndrome'...sometimes the crazies have it right--the only thing I can give Scientologists is their innate distrust of the psuedo-science of psychiatry...

Tough break for Patton.

:: dies::

seriously though.... not sure how i feel about this one. on one hand, i feel its an attempt to curb VA Tech style tragedy ( "we knew he was wacko... who let him have a gun") but at the same time it seems like a violation of rights and invasion of privacy...


one of my biggest questions is : say someone who has had mental health issues , maybe like the ones TX mentioned ... bipolar etc.... already owns guns, and had been responsible with them for years etc... are these people not going to be allowed to buy another gun? or would they fall under the "doctor's note " category?

seems there could be alot of red tape with this one....

interesting, at the very least.

Yup, it is a knee jerk reaction---"please, do something, anything to protect us"...(we are helpless little morons).

Well, in the case of the crazed killer in WV Tech--there were multiple warning signs & the faculty all knew he was a nutjob...

Secondly--does anyone really think that more bureaucrats are the answer to any problem? If you think this, just watch the DMV for a day--and get your son his license...

Steps:
1. get in line w/forms filled out & birth cert..& id..
2. get to head of line--'sorry, but the person who does that is on break'
3. go sit down with other losers.
4. 1/2 hr goes by--other person shows up...1st person closes her window & leaves..you get back in line-because you can't ask the new person if he can help w/o being in line..
5. get to window again--yes, he can help...oops--the computer is slow. sorry. would you like to take the test? (no, I'm here for my health).
6. take test. pass. given test results back & told to now go to other section and take a number & wait..
...and so it goes for 2-3 hrs..
end result-permit is obtained..get sticker which says rookie driver & permit..

In away it's good and In away it isn't good.

Not good for the Crazy Nuts out here.

Good for the law bying citizens. So it's a going to be a pain getting a gun permit.
Look on the bright side, you may or may not have to worry about some crazy nut shooting you.

Not much detail in that report from the illustrious TV people.

What do they consider mental health treatment?

You went to marriage counseling?

You had a substance abuse problem and sought treatment?

You had grief counseling because someone close died?

You had anxiety attacks after being a crime victim and took valium for awhile?

I usually see new gun laws as another way for radical anti-gunners to further advance their "Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in" ultimate agenda.

What would have really saved many lives at VA Tech was for some VA concealed carry permit holders to have been allowed to carry at the school.

Uncle Sam has trained me and allowed me to utilize heavy firepower for 23+ years. No worries here.

All good questions. But I'm sure the government will consider all those things thoughtfully and make the right decisions just like they do when they monitor all of our communications and financial transactions.


We have nothing to hide and we trust the government, right?

Have you personally been monitored?

If so, keep talking, I'll be interested to hear who you are speaking with, if not STFU, and let the government do its job and protect the citizens of this great Nation.

yeah actually, they monitor bank transactions of over $2,000. ( not being a smartass) its part of the patriot act.... already went through this one in another thread, if i remember correctly.

Oh well, then they monitored a few of my transactions today. BIG DEAL. I have nothing to hide.

which is why you are allowed to buy firearms!

Do you know how many CTR's (currency transaction records) the federalis get in a day? You think everyone is monitored?

paranoia strikes deep... lol

haha it doesnt worry me... i worked at a bank for years before i had lori... i filed 'em.. i know how much attention ( or lack of) gets paid to those things... the point of the post was that we ( ordinary people) are monitored more than many realise.

I would seek treatment for it but then I might not be able to buy any more guns.

I think this is gonna backfire! Only the real nutcases don't seek treatment! (excluding TxEx, of course! heehee) So, the only ones who can buy guns will be the ones that will be using them against themselves or others.


I'm not sure what the % is of people on anti-depressants or those who have sought psychiatric help. But, I would like it would be very high!!!!!!

Who says I never sought treatment?? Can't you tell I do the lithium shuffle??

It has always been a pain to get a legal permit in MD, and if someone wants to shoot you they will anyway!

This is not meant to be rude by any means.

It should be a pain to get a permit, if some law bying citizen wants a gun.
It may keep the Crazy people from getting them, but even if they do that, there's no guarantee:)

I know all to well, what it's like to be almost shot by a gun, well actually a 30/30.
So I'm totally against having a gun in my house, nothing I have is worth losing my life over.

I sure don't want no Crazy person trying to buy a gun.

Well that raps this Topic up.

Which rap? Da Gansta Killas? <trying to think of rappers, but I just don't listen to that kind of "music">

(you probably meant to write "wrap"? As in "end"?)

'sweetliberty2u' date='Oct 8 2007, 11:41 PM'

I sure don't want no Crazy person trying to buy a gun.


SW2u........You need to get out more! The laws only affect us. The "Crazy" people will get a gun if want one. But the powers that be are more concerned with monitoring the activities of law abiding citizens, who by the way are the only ones registering anything, than busting the dirtballs THE FIRST TIME the do something stupid with a gun. Then they let the dirt balls out because the were raised in a broken home or were molested when they were little so that they can go out and do something else stupid with another gun, or the same one which they still have hidden since they don't register them anyway.
Then the great all knowing governing bodies wave their hands and "WAH LAH" We have another law loop that you and I must jump through.

This is a victim state. We have no self defense law.
I wish the castle doctrine had been revisited in Maryland and we would get the same type of no retreat laws that Florida has.

Charlie D

You are so right, I do need to get out more.
Most of the time, I work then I come home.

The gun laws doesn't effect me. I'm not going to go out a buy a gun.
I just don't want some crazy person getting their hands on one.
Yes I do realize, that a crazy people can get a gun in more ways then one.

To each his own but when a home invader is coming through the door a gun in the hand is worth more than a cop on the phone! A dead victim doesn't get a second chance at life.
CD

OMG, what is this topic? Guns make me nervous. I have kids. And they have friends. Too many in my house for a gun.
I better move along.

If a person comes in your house with a gun.
How on earth are you going to be able to grab yours, if it's in another room?

Even if I was ever rob, I still wouldn't buy a gun.
I have enough protection, so I feel safe in my home.
Beside nothing I own is worth fighting for anyhow.

Your right, To each his own.

Welcome to the thread you told me to go to CH. I am just making an assumption that you live within the city limits?

'scuze me... i'm CD. lol.

Lib, haven't you heard? You're supposed to pack heat at all times, carry a loaded sidearm in your holster! Better yet, carry two--one for each hip! Hey, it can be just like Dodge City 2007--yeeehawww!

Yeah, especially if you live in an area covered by the Washington County Sheriff. You will have to call repeatedly to get them to come. You are much better just taking care of it yourself.

Yeah, and forget about calling the State Police, they'll tell you to call the Sheriff's office that they don't handle that area... uh... .what part of Maryland State Police don't I understand?

The trouble with the Sheriff's office is, that they have at most, 4 deputies working the entire county at any one time. Cascade to Hancock, Maugansville to Brownsville. If everyone is at a domestic disturbance in the eastern part of the county, it's going to be a long time before they can respond to the western part. Too many chiefs and not enough indians in that organization. But then if you're a Mason, you can't be expected to work the road.

Plus, they always respond in force. It's rare to see just one sheriff deputy show up by himself. It's usually at least two deputies in two separate cars. Maybe it's because when they do show up someplace alone, they end up giving their gun away.

Must get expensive giving away all those guns!

Well, I can see them responding in twos. There's a huge officer safety issue at play here. What I'd like to see, is more deputies on the road instead of at the stationhouse.

But, what I'd really like to see is a consolidation of the city and county forces. A Washington County Police Department would be much more efficient. The sheriff could still run the detention center and hand out summones and such. But a county police department would certainly provide better service.

It is SOP especially for a domestic. You will never see them in the East edge of the county either except going to and from their homes. I see more Frederick County in Eastern Washington than anything, including MSP assigned to other Barracks.

At first in the bank robbery thread, I thought you were being a bit of a jerk about the deputy's gun. But I gotta admit, this made me laugh out loud a little.

Now I know why, I don't want to walk around downtown. Darn crime rate is too high.
More like the Wild West ha.

If I would own a gun, it wouldn't be a handgun.
It would be either a 30-30 or a 22 rifle, they are the only firearms,
I do have experience's in shooting.

Since I been almost shot by a rifle, you can forget it.
I will never pick up any kind of firearm again.

How about your life?

FYI-
The subject of barring the mentally ill from purchasing guns was dealt with in a long article in Guns and Ammo Magazine . Its author noted that a history of mental illness is no indication of the liklihood of future violence, that this will stigmatize the mentally ill unfairly. He still said the restictions could help.
A psychiatrist sent a letter to the editor , pointing out that that the restictions cannot be pointless and helpful at the same time. The psychiatrist opposed such a measure, reiterating that mental illness is no predictor of future violence .

The MD State Police once denied purchases based on arrests that never resulted in convictions . They cannot be trusted to administer the gun laws fairly .

Psychiatrists are not considered capable of predicting future behavior.

There is a book called " Dial 911 and die " by Stephens. It is available from www.jpfo.org . The book explains that the police have no legal obligation to help a citizen, that they cannot be sued if they don't respond or refuse to help . The police are only required to provide service to the community as a whole . Numerous examples of victims who got no help are documented.

SweetLiberty :
Your evidence seems to consist of your fears , your feelings and a dose of gun phobia. That isn't really up to the standards of public debate. Disciplined thinking and putting emotion aside are not easy but they are essential to rational argument .
I've had some unpleasant incidents involving people mishandling guns too. I got over it .

I would say it depends on what kind of mental illness you're dealing with. If someone is paranoid schizophrenic, or has suicidal tendencies, I certainly wouldn't put a gun in their hands! Are you aware of the fact that half of all firearm deaths are suicide (Source)?




Good for you, but that doesn't mean your "unpleasant incidents" were anywhere on the same level as SweetLiberty's were. You have some nerve telling someone to "get over it."

Patrick Henry........what are you actually basing your conclusions on? No; the police don't have to help you change a tire or help you get the keys out of your car if you've locked them inside.......but if you are in the way of traffic on 270 because of your flat, or if you accidently locked your keys in the car with right after putting your baby in the car seat on a hot day, they DO have an obligation to help.

Mentally ill people.......pardon me, but I really don't want to take a whole lot of chances with them owning weapons. A man in this silly little one horse town where I live took a groundless disliking to my son when I first moved here and walked up to my porch, cussed me out for making the decision to be a Mom (no kidding) and threatened to kidnap my son and kill him. I had never seen this man before. The FBI got involved, and when the whole thing was ironed out, as much as it possibly could be, it came out that this man and all of his biological children have bipolar disorder. I know that not everyone with a mental illness, especially situational depression or a tendency to drink in excess is a dangerous person, but am I to be blamed for not wanting anyone with this disorder to own weapons around me or my kids? Geesh.......my son was only 8 at the time, and I will never forget the way I felt with him in my arms, hiding his face in my shoulder, and this bipolar creep threatening him and yours truly. I might agree with you about psychiatrists.......this creep's psychologist is the one who told him to confront me over the imagined slight, and she did not even do any checking to find out if her patient had actually met me and my family or not. I still don't know why he wanted to kill my child. I do know that one of his children has, since, been removed from his custody by social services. If the police deny this kind of person gun ownership..........more power to them.

Don't misunderstand me, I am, very much, a second amendment sister. I just don't find fault with setting a few limits on gun ownership. One gun a month is plenty for me. And it does not bother me a bit that my ex husband, who was found guilty of domestic violence, cannot legally buy a gun. And as for the police.......they usually do the best they can. They just can't always be in the right place at the right time to provide assistance for someone who can and should be less dependant on them (such as on a mountain 45 min away from the police station) and most sheriffs are not clairvoyant, so they have to depend on certain guidelines before they issue permits to carry weapons.

sirunsun-
When I say that the police have no legal obligation to help you, I mean that they are not legally liable if they ignore your 911 call or show up 45 minutes later . A case in Washington D.C. is an illustration : Two women were raped . Responding officers knocked on the door and when no one answered, left . The women sued and lost . The court found that the police have no duty to serve any particular citizen , that they provide services to the community as a whole .

The book, Dial 911 and Die explains this principle of law and documents many more of these cases .

I did not express an opinion on whether the police do their best most of the time (as you say ) because that is irrelevant to this matter of a legal obligation to respond .

The issue here is not people who can be identified as crazy and dangerous. It is the new idea of prying into every gun buyer's medical history and denying purchases to anyone who has a mental illness . Since mentally ill people are not usually dangerous and since mental illness is no indication of future misuse of a gun, the idea is ridiculous . I suspect this is just one more way to deny gun ownership to one more chunk of the population ; another back door approach to "gun control " .

Whether a particular gun law, such as the Domestic Violence Protection Act or One-Gun-A-Month bothers you is not important. Your personal likes and dislikes don't determine whether gun laws save lives, get people killed or do nothing but waste money and police resources . Those are the practical issues . Then there's the matter of rights . Once a right is regulated, it becomes a privelege .

Phish :
Yes, I'm aware that half of gun deaths are suicides. The part of the debate you aren't told is that the presence of guns seems to affect the method of suicide and not the suicide rate . Studies find higher suicide rates even in Japan .

Let's phrase things properly. We are not talking about " putting a gun in the hand" of anybody. We are talking about prior restraint against a class of people without cause .

As for " getting over it " . Maybe there are some things one can't get over but most people who survive car accidents force themselves to get back into a car . Why should guns be different ? It may be easier to give in to a fear of guns because you can live your life without touching one but cars are essential . BUT giving in to a phobia does the victim no good . Logic tells us that guns are safe ; in general, nobody gets shot unless the gun was pointed at him . You could violate all other safety rules and as long as you kept the gun pointed in a safe direction, no accident could happen .
SweetLiberty is not able to enjoy the shooting sports and I think that is sad . Still, since the criminals don't know who is armed, the gun owners are indirectly keeping SweetLiberty safe ( there are studies to back that up, such as Wright/Rossi ).

D.C. has had quite a few problems with it's police force over the past 20 years or so and has recognized that. I would need to know more about that particular case before I comment..........but I can still tell you that if an officer has been dispatched to a location, he does have to do his job. Inasmuch as domestic violence is concerned, I think it would be very helpful if women, the most likely victims, WERE more inclined to own guns. Just the fact that I own a weapon makes my ex think twice before harassing me, and I agree that one of the reasons we have soooo much trouble with that particular crime is that the victims will not take logical steps to protect themselves. At the same time; however, once a person has actually assualted someone who weighs about 100 lbs less than he does or once he beats up a child, I really think he should not own a gun. If a person can't handle simple relationships with other people without using violence, then why should he have all the freedoms he would have if he did not harass and victimize other citizens? You have to remember, domestic violence victims are other citizens to the offender, not possessions.

When you say mentally ill people are not dangerous, just what are you referring to? Since it is hard to actually prosecute a mentally ill person for a crime, I would guess that the crimes committed by that segment of the population are underreported. Mentally ill people are MUCH more likely to abuse and neglect their children than normal people. They are also much more likely to become frustrated and react violently to things that would not challenge the rest of us. And, as Phish pointed out, they also commit suicide a lot. Most of the violence involving guns in schools is done by mentally ill students. My guess (and it's just a guess right now) is that if we really looked at all the contributing statistics without manipulating them for any purpose, such as reducing the responsibility the gov has for caring for the mentally ill or reducing the responsibility the court has for dealing with them, we would find that mentally ill people probably commit the smae number of crimes that the rest of the population commits. And, we might find that people with illnesses such as bipolar disorder are, indeed, more violent. They just have an easier time getting away with it. Why do you think mental illness has such a stigma and why do you think the mentally ill have been locked up in asylums for years? Why do they need to be medicated? Is it because they function well and get along with others? I would have to say probably not. Think about it. And don't lend your weapon to someone who has a low enough flash point to react badly to normal circumstances.

Sirionsun :

You do not appear to think in concepts. Our schools don't teach people to think in concepts anymore . Leonard Peikoff wrote an essay called " Why Johnny Can't Think " to explain this problem .
The principle of law that the police are immune from civil liability if they fail to help a crime victim is what is at issue here. You are mistakenly treating this as an individual instance but it is irrelevant whether the police were negligent or not in this particular case. The D.C. case was not decided based on that. The case was tossed out because of the long-standing legal principle . That principle ( the concept that the police are not employed to serve individuals but only the community as a whole ) applies to any number of cases and jurisdictions .

If you can't think in concepts, each problem, each situation is a new challenge to be worked out independent of all else . I hope you can now grasp that the legal principle at issue does not change based on whether the police acted well or poorly in one case or whether they try to do a good job most of the time .

What we've learned here is that you have no legal right to police protection . You can reason out the implications of that fact for yourself .

The Domestic Violence Protection Act violated due process and property rights among other rights . As a practical matter, it made instant criminals out of many people who a day before had been simply people with an old misdemenor record . That fits my definition of unfair and impractical .
Speaking of concepts, the above law is 'gun control ', which is ineffective in all forms .

You misquoted me on the mentally ill. I did not say all mentally ill people are harmless. I read that a small percentage are dangerous . So why the stigma ? The stigma might be due to the percentage of mentally ill people depicted as dangerous on T.V. shows at over 50% .
The effort we are talking about is one to deny Second Amendment rights to a broad class of people because a few of them are risks. According to the experts I've read, the mentally ill are no more likely to commit a violent crime on average than anybody else .
It looks like one more of those 'gun control' steps that sound good at first and survive because the media won't ask hard questions .
If the State Police deny your gun purchase because you refuse to identify yourself as part of a persecuted group ( mentally ill persons ), you can appeal it to the courts . Reminds me of the time the NAZIs asked all Jews to wear a Star of David and all homosexuals to wear a pink patch . BTW-The NAZIs did not invent 'gun control" but they did originate " HANDGUN control ".

Mentally ill people have been stigmatized since long before TV was even invented. Obviously, there were issues with them that lead the general population to take protective measures whenever dealing with the mentally ill. Since I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, and do not personally know many people who are mentally ill in ways that would merit such a stigma or require that they be denied weapons, I MUST be using concepts here to come to this conclusion, rather than looking at "individuals" or "individual situations".

I am very sorry you feel the way you do about the recent domestic violence laws in many places. No; those laws do not violate constitutional rights, as saving a life that's in danger is legally more important than other items discussed in same.

Inasmuch as domestic violence is concerned, there are reams of info on it that you can study before coming onto any forum and typing this nonsense. Yes......the police DO have an obligation to protect. Domestic violence is a very frustrating prob for police and for the courts. The changing laws are actually starting to help. There are also a few other reasons for domestic violence offenders to have a certain label that just gun control. What's your beef about this? Do you have a record?

I'd call it an "agenda."

I'm bored reading it already. I get your position PH, I don't need to read your posts ever again. It's the same thing every time. Unflinching support for guns, for anyone, anytime, for any reason. I get it.