PC Gone Overboard - For Real

[PornoDoggy]

Whatacountry ...

Originally Posted by annistonstar.com

In 1968, a federal law was passed that disqualified people with “serious mental illness” from purchasing guns.

In January, 2004, an Alabama man who had twice been involuntarily committed to mental institutions, shot and killed two police officers with a rifle he had bought the week before. Today, facing the death penalty, the man is pleading “not guilty by reason of mental disease and defect.”

Now why, you may ask, was this man allowed to purchase the weapon?

The answer — because when the store checked in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) his name did not appear.

And why wasn’t his name there? Because at the time, privacy laws in Alabama and many other states prevented the release of such information. (Since then Alabama lawmakers have allowed the sharing of those records with the NICS, making our state one of only 20 to do so.)

Today, legislation is pending in Congress that would require states to update computerized record-keeping and share with the NICS and other states a variety of records that would disqualify people from buying guns — including those records pertaining to mental illness. Instead of another unfunded mandate, the bill would also provide $250 million in grants to cover state costs.

Advocates for the mentally ill and some gun-rights groups oppose the legislation. though it has bipartisan support in Congress and at least one of its sponsors is on the board of the National Rifle Association...

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/...-5k30q2856.htm

Somebody needs to smack the advocates for both the mentally ill AND the "gun rights" [sic] groups upside the head - preferably, with each other.

[Dravyk]

I dunno. Seems like two organizations that should have been working closely together for years!

[Jeremy]

Ummmm, if someone is Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can they go on to a criminal database (assuming it's only for people who've actually been convicted)?

Far more sensible to either have a separate LoonyTunes DB to check, or make people take a full psych eval before purchase.

[Timon]

Anthony, better stock up your arsenal because once they start linking those databases together.....

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Ummmm, if someone is Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can they go on to a criminal database (assuming it's only for people who've actually been convicted)?

Far more sensible to either have a separate LoonyTunes DB to check, or make people take a full psych eval before purchase.

Fair point, Jeremy. Not a popular one, but an accurate one.

However, if people with "severe mental illnesses" are disqualified from the ability to purchase firearms, the sellers of firearms have to have the ability to find out if their potential customer suffer from "severe mental illness" somehow. The only option is a database that can be checked. (I imagine selling a gun to a known crazy who then shoots people can result in one nice lawsuit against the gun seller.)

Advocates for the mentally ill are more afraid of the misuse of such a database, I imagine. Also, knowing that you're going to be put in a database could prevent a lot of "voluntary" committments from people seeking help; or "involuntary" committments by family members who will fear that if the person gets the help they need, they'll never find employment again with their name in a database.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is a very good idea, as the case given in the article more than proves. It's also federal law. Now...how to do it?

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Ummmm, if someone is Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can they go on to a criminal database (assuming it's only for people who've actually been convicted)?

Far more sensible to either have a separate LoonyTunes DB to check, or make people take a full psych eval before purchase.

Really simple. Insane people should not own guns ESPECIALLY if they already used them to kill someone. I'm pretty pro-gun but mentally unstable people, any use of mental capacity to be excused from a crime, should not have guns and neither should violent criminals (felony violence of any kind) as well.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Really simple. Insane people should not own guns ESPECIALLY if they already used them to kill someone. I'm pretty pro-gun but mentally unstable people, any use of mental capacity to be excused from a crime, should not have guns and neither should violent criminals (felony violence of any kind) as well.

Of course they shouldn't purchase / own guns. The issue is *how* to stop them from doing so. Unconvicted people have no place on a criminal DB.

Mental illness isn't just a binary / 0-1 situation. So, before you get to putting names on a list, you've also got to consider the degrees of illness and whether their illness has been cured. Maybe just start with NGRI's & other involuntarily institutionalised people and go from there?

[Nickatilynx]

You could have a big sign up on your gun shop saying..

"No nutters"

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Ummmm, if someone is Not Guilty by reason of insanity, how can they go on to a criminal database (assuming it's only for people who've actually been convicted)?

Far more sensible to either have a separate LoonyTunes DB to check, or make people take a full psych eval before purchase.

Being found "not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same thing as being found not guilty.

Not guilty means the (jury, judge) doesn't think you did it.

Not guilty by reason of insanity means the (jury, judge) thinks you did it, but can't be held responsible for your actions because of mental disease or defect. A person found not guilty by reason of insanity generally doesn't go home; they are usually institutionalized.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Being found "not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same thing as being found not guilty.

Not guilty means the (jury, judge) doesn't think you did it.

Not guilty by reason of insanity means the (jury, judge) thinks you did it, but can't be held responsible for your actions because of mental disease or defect. A person found not guilty by reason of insanity generally doesn't go home; they are usually institutionalized.

Not guilty simply means it hasn't been proven that you did it - it doesn't neccessarily mean you did or didn't do it (OJ!).

To be guilty of something, you have to have mens rea. Without that, you cannot be guilty.

NGRI is a very specific reason for not being found guilty, because you end up failing on mens rea, which ultimately means you cannot have committed a criminal action.

That is why it's not "Guilty But Hat-Stand", and more importantly, it's definitely not "Innocent".

It's only a hair's breadth of difference, but it is an important one, as John Hinckley's case shows. It tends to mean you say "I did it, but I was insane", so of course, you end up locked away because you've acted in an insane manner rather than because you have done something criminal.

Anyway ... this is all by the by really, nutters shouldn't have access to guns.

[PornoDoggy]

Anyway ... this is all by the by really, nutters shouldn't have access to guns.

Exactly. Those people found NGBRI should be in any database accessable to law enforcment (and in some states I know they are), and to the gun dealers when selling a weapon.

Morgan's right ... the do-gooders are trying to "protect the rights" of the mentally ill with knee-jerk opposition to anything that treats them differently. This started for good reason, as a reaction to the horrible abuses many were subjected to well into the 1970s.

Those same do-gooders will tell you that the reason that 60-80% of the homeless are mentally ill is that the evil conservatives cut funding for programs to aid them.

There is a certain amount of truth to that, but it is just as true that those same do-gooders went way too far in giving the mentally ill options to resist/refuse treatment - in effect, giving them rights they are unable to properly exercise.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Of course they shouldn't purchase / own guns. The issue is *how* to stop them from doing so. Unconvicted people have no place on a criminal DB.

Mental illness isn't just a binary / 0-1 situation. So, before you get to putting names on a list, you've also got to consider the degrees of illness and whether their illness has been cured. Maybe just start with NGRI's & other involuntarily institutionalised people and go from there?

If you read my post carefully it only uses people who have used mental illness as an excuse to try and get out of a crime or have been found guilty of a felony charge that includes violence that can be non-gun related.

[Newton]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

You could have a big sign up on your gun shop saying..

"No nutters"

How about a nifty in the sky?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

If you read my post carefully it only uses people who have used mental illness as an excuse to try and get out of a crime or have been found guilty of a felony charge that includes violence that can be non-gun related.

Are you saying there should be no such thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity"?

[sudden]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Are you saying there should be no such thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity"?

There should be a "guilty by reason of instanity", sentancing people to care - then prison sentance immediatley after they're declared well. That way, few people would fake insanity, to try to get off in 2-3 years.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Are you saying there should be no such thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity"?

No, I am saying people who use that defense have no business owning a gun!!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by sudden

There should be a "guilty by reason of instanity", sentancing people to care - then prison sentance immediatley after they're declared well. That way, few people would fake insanity, to try to get off in 2-3 years.

First of all, the number of people who can successfully fake insanity to escape criminal charges is laughable - it's a defense that is successful less than 2% of the time. Generally, it's a desperation defense.

Second, if you take most mentally ill people out of a care environment and put them in prison, you're going to have a mentally ill person again within a pretty short time. Prison officials haven't got the time, resources, or training to deal with the mentally ill.

Third and finally - if the mental illness is what caused them to commit the crime, and the mental illness is cured - why treat them the same way as the criminal who did have the ability to distinguish right from wrong? (Please note I did NOT say they necessarily should be let loose on the community, or should ever be unsupervised.)

[Carrie]

I think the "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea should be changed to "guilty by reason of insanity"... rather like the manslaughter charge ("I did do it but didn't mean to" plea). Then if found guilty, the folks should go to an institution for the criminally insane and serve out their full sentence with appropriate psychiatric help.

Not all prisons are set up to (or have funding to) have proper psych care, but criminally insane prisons do have it, and it would serve the purpose quite well. Whether the person was actually insane or is just pulling that plea to try to get off. Fewer people would use the plea if they knew that "winning" it would mean a trip to a looney bin where your fellow cellmates are all crazy *and* murderers... makes the "oh it's a country club, you'll breeze through it" thought just kinda go away. *evil grin*

Database... hrmm. Jeremy's right... there are different levels of mental illness, all with their own list of symptoms and effects and levels of danger. I guess put them all into the database, with a 1-10 rating, and base the "right to own a gun" on a certain rating or higher? I dunno though. Even if we start with the involuntarily commited people, that would cut off a lot of folks who'd gone through a temporary period of depression or extremely stressful situation and thought of killing themselves (or whose friends/family simply *feared* they were thinking of it, even if they weren't) and had them involuntarily commited for 24hrs (they can release themselves after 24 hrs). Do we want to start stripping rights from those people as well?

It's just a tricky road to navigate and there's no blanket answer that will work for every case.

[PornoDoggy]

Some states have already made the change to guilty by reason of insanity.

In spite of the bleating of some politicians and their followers, even before John Hinkley the insanity defense was seldom successful. The chances that it will succeed today is even more remote. The idea that hordes of criminals are using this defense to be sent to some sort of "country club" works well as a line for sleazy politicians to get votes from morons, but it's just not the case.

BTW ... criminally insane prisons? You are kidding me, right? There is not a state in the Union that has anything remotley close to an adequte number of beds for patients with mental problems, let alone prisoners with mental problems. There is not a state in the Union that provides anything remotely cose to adequate mental health care to prisoners diagnosed with mental health problems.

I think the idea that someone who has been treated for depression once will be denied the right to purchase a gun is just typical gun manufacturer hystrionics. I'm sure that's something that will be left up to the states - which means, based on the number of state legislators owned by the NRA, whatever they come up with will be terribly inadequate.