AJC - Gun Control on the Radar

BarryLee · May 17, 2013, 12:24 PM

Hey folks. For anyone interested the Atlanta Journal is running an online article dealing with gun control in general and specifically background checks. They basically have two gun owners offering commentary one who supports increased regulation and one who does not. They allow people to comment, so I thought some of you might want to pop over and share your opinions.

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-forward...l-on-the-radar

**Tom Servo** · May 17, 2013, 09:59 PM

I find it interesting that the writer arguing for more gun control was so enthused with SB 161. That's a bill that would deny issuance of a carry license to anybody diagnosed with any mental disability within the last ten years. The proposed definition would change from folks involuntarily committed to:

Quote:

Any person who has been diagnosed with a disability within the ten years immediately preceding the application

There's no further description or clarification. Further in:

Quote:

Each applicant shall submit with his or her application an affidavit attesting to whether or not he or she has been diagnosed with a disability within the past ten years. If the applicant states that he or she has not had any such diagnosis, the judge shall proceed with processing the application. If the applicant states that he or she has been diagnosed with a disability within the past ten years, the judge shall not issue a license or renewal license unless the applicant submits a sworn statement from a psychologist or psychiatrist, licensed in this state, that in the opinion of such psychologist or psychiatrist, the applicant is mentally competent to be issued a weapon carry license or renewal license.

So, if the applicant checked into rehab because of depression or substance abuse nine years ago, the burden of proof (and the legwork) would be upon the applicant, not the state.

Also, there's some drivel about state-level mandatory background checks.

Fortunately, the bill is dead this session, but expect it to be revived next year.

Crankgrinder · May 17, 2013, 10:37 PM

All this does to me is provide incentive to refuse to get help.

**Tom Servo** · May 18, 2013, 07:31 AM

Quote:

All this does to me is provide incentive to refuse to get help

It does, and that's a real shame. If we buy into the notion that this whole recent push for gun control was inspired by the Newtown tragedy, one of the things politicians promised us was an honest conversation about how we treat mental health as a society. That was quickly swept under the rug in favor of pushing new gun regulations.

We can't expect to reduce violence in a meaningful way by passing laws like this while continuing to treat mental-health issues as objects of shame and punishment.

Alabama Shooter · May 18, 2013, 10:34 AM

I know military people who would never seek help specifically because of these type things. You have to remember that military personnel are routinely misled and lied to about a number of things about government policy so now the distrust of the system is so great some would rather die than trust the system.

Bartholomew Roberts · May 18, 2013, 01:16 PM

Not to mention what psychologist or psychiatrist is going to buy a ticket on the liability train for signing off that you are OK despite the so-called disability. Even if you were right as rain, I would be reluctant to bet my business/malpractice insurance on a total stranger.

Hopefully, we can apply this standard to all of the Bill of Rights so they can get a taste of how "reasonable" it is.

**Aguila Blanca** · May 18, 2013, 05:52 PM

Is "disability" defined?

If I were to seek marriage counseling, for example, or if I were to seek mental health consultation due to the death of a close relative( spouse, parent, son/daughter) but I was able to continue working albeit perhaps with chemical/pharmaceutical assistance, is that a diagnosis of a "disability"?

IMHO laws that throw out catch-all terms without including proper definitions are especially to be distrusted.

**Tom Servo** · May 18, 2013, 09:47 PM

Quote:

IMHO laws that throw out catch-all terms without including proper definitions are especially to be distrusted.

Right. Consider what overly broad labels like "domestic violence" have wrought.

Glenn E. Meyer · May 19, 2013, 10:22 AM

There are no defined standards in the psychological or psychiatric literature for competency to carry or own a firearm.

Without an empirical basis for such a decision - the proposal has no scientific basis.

May 17, 2013, 12:24 PM	#1
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	AJC - Gun Control on the Radar Hey folks. For anyone interested the Atlanta Journal is running an online article dealing with gun control in general and specifically background checks. They basically have two gun owners offering commentary one who supports increased regulation and one who does not. They allow people to comment, so I thought some of you might want to pop over and share your opinions. http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-forward...l-on-the-radar __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman Last edited by BarryLee; May 17, 2013 at 12:40 PM.

May 18, 2013, 10:34 AM	#5
Alabama Shooter Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2012 Location: Sweet Home Posts: 886	I know military people who would never seek help specifically because of these type things. You have to remember that military personnel are routinely misled and lied to about a number of things about government policy so now the distrust of the system is so great some would rather die than trust the system. __________________ Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.

May 19, 2013, 10:22 AM	#9
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	There are no defined standards in the psychological or psychiatric literature for competency to carry or own a firearm. Without an empirical basis for such a decision - the proposal has no scientific basis. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

May 17, 2013, 10:37 PM	#3
Crankgrinder Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 917	All this does to me is provide incentive to refuse to get help.

May 18, 2013, 01:16 PM	#6
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Not to mention what psychologist or psychiatrist is going to buy a ticket on the liability train for signing off that you are OK despite the so-called disability. Even if you were right as rain, I would be reluctant to bet my business/malpractice insurance on a total stranger. Hopefully, we can apply this standard to all of the Bill of Rights so they can get a taste of how "reasonable" it is.

May 18, 2013, 05:52 PM	#7
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	Is "disability" defined? If I were to seek marriage counseling, for example, or if I were to seek mental health consultation due to the death of a close relative( spouse, parent, son/daughter) but I was able to continue working albeit perhaps with chemical/pharmaceutical assistance, is that a diagnosis of a "disability"? IMHO laws that throw out catch-all terms without including proper definitions are especially to be distrusted.