Colt Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'd like to hear how you folks - and the NRA - feel about this issue. Regards.

Privacy laws disarming gun dealer database
November 27, 2005
ASSOCIATED PRESS
An Alabama man with a history of mental illness killed two police officers with a rifle he bought on Christmas Eve.
In suburban New York, a schizophrenic walked into a church during Mass and fatally shot a priest and a parishioner.
Neither of their names was in a database that licensed gun dealers must check before making sales -- even though federal law prohibits the mentally ill from buying guns.
Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement. Legislation pending in Congress that has bipartisan support seeks to get more of the disqualifying records in the database.
Similar measures, opposed by some advocates for the mentally ill and gun-rights groups, did not pass Congress in 2002 and 2004.
The FBI, which maintains the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), has not taken a position on the bill, but the bureau is blunt about what adding names to its database would do.
"The availability of this information will save lives," the FBI said in a recent report.
Legislation sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, says millions of records are either missing or incomplete. "The computer is only as good as the information you put in it," she said.
In the Alabama case, police say Farron Barksdale ambushed the officers as they arrived at the home of his mother in Athens, Ala., on Jan. 2, 2004. Mr. Barksdale had been committed involuntarily to mental hospitals on at least two occasions, authorities said.
Facing the death penalty, he has pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease and defect.
The shootings led Alabama lawmakers to share with the FBI the names of people who have been committed involuntarily to mental institutions. But just 20 other states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.

In New York, Peter Troy was twice admitted to mental hospitals but bought a .22-caliber rifle that he used in the shootings inside a Long Island church in March 2002. Troy is serving consecutive life terms for the killings.
As a result of the church shootings, Mrs. McCarthy and Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, introduced legislation that year to close the gaps in the background check system. The bill would have required the states to give the FBI their records and provided $250 million in grants to cover their costs.
The bill passed the House without opposition but stalled in the Senate. In 2004, the measure again had the support of lawmakers who support gun rights, but it did not pass Congress.
Mrs. McCarthy, whose husband was among six persons fatally shot on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993, has introduced the bill again this year, but it has not yet been taken up by a House Judiciary subcommittee.
Michael Faenza, president and chief executive of the National Mental Health Association, said forcing states to share information on the mentally ill would violate patient privacy and contribute to the stigma they face.
"It's just not fair. On the one hand, we want there to be very limited access to guns," Mr. Faenza said. "But here you're singling out people because of a medical condition and denying them rights held by everyone else."
 

·
The Searcher
Joined
·
11,097 Posts
I believe you already know or will find out the NRA position other than through this forum. Although I certainly don't speak for them, I believe most if not all the members of this forum support the NRA at least in principle. If you are trolling for conflict, that is another story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Not trolling for anything other than to learn how people feel about it. If I wanted to initiate conflict, I'd use the word "Clinton" or "liberals".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
i feel we were given a right. I do not feel it should be easier to get a drivers permit than it is to buy a gun......and it obviously is.

With that said, until driving laws are stricter than gun laws, I think we are heading in the wrong direction; both legally and public safety wize.

Ever hear of a parent being charged with a crime when their non-permited teen ager sneaks the car out and causes a major accident?

Guns and gun owners are criminalized while cars, who kill maybe 1,000-times more people, are considered on the same level as "leash laws".

The metally ill kill FAR LESS people with guns than elderly who should not be driving, kill with their cars.

In conclusion, this is a non-story....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
This sounds more like a medical privacy issue than a gun rights issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but isn't that the same as saying we shouldn't have a sight chart at the DMV when we go get our DL? Also a medical condition....

I am willing to discuss mentally ill folks buying firearms when we mandate the same from the DPS's across the nation. Once again, my point is to drive home that cars are more dangerous than firearms yet we regulate and inforce firearms to a much higher level.

You can give (and many parents do) a 16 yr old a 300hp, 3200# car but they may not ever own or carry a handgun, buy ammo, nor buy a rifle / shotgun. Then compare how many deaths were in direct result from firearms vs auto accidents between the ages of 16-18. Then compare the fact that firearms are a right protected under the Constitution versus autos which are clearly a priv.

Sounds more like money and less like common sense; just my .02 /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Sorry, but I really don't see the relevance of your vision test analogy. To my knowledge it's the records that are private, not necessarily the condition: a person is legally required to answer truthfully on the BATF transaction form when asked about their mental health. The requirements don't seem to be an issue in either case, just the means of determining competency. With one a simple test is available, while the other requires the release of personal records, which appear to be legally privileged. That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the points you are making. They don't appear, however, to be germane to this issue. Anyway, enough of that; I would much perfer a discussion about Colts to this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
I guess my point is this: Your right when you say "one is a condition while one is a record of the condition.", however I don't feel the reason for a person's rejection is an issue that needs to be discussed so therefor exposure of the record is nill.

When a call is placed for the gun check, it simply comes up "NO!" and no one is violated it simply tripped the "mental-ill" red flag.

However, my above rants questioned why this is more of a story as apposed to 75yr old, half blind drivers in Boca Raton or 16 yr old drivers in either 300hp / 3200lb cars or even 240hp / 5400 lb SUV's? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

If our politicians are really trying to help us, lets study how they could make a true impact to public safety and go with that versus finding another angle to attack gun ownership.....

Germane? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top