I did not know that last part. The problem is that mental health is protected private information according to our laws. This protects your medical history from becoming public knowledge. This is a good thing if you've ever had a problem and need a job. It's a bad thing if your mental condition is a threat to society.Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases. For the first time, states would face penalties for not keeping the National Instant Criminal Background Check System current.
The legislation, drafted several years ago by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), has twice passed the House, only to die in the Senate. But Cho Seung Hui's rampage Monday has given it new life.
Since 1968, individuals deemed mentally ill by the legal system are not supposed to be able to buy guns. A court's ordering Cho into treatment in late 2005 should have been reported to the federal background check system, congressional aides said. Instead, his background check came up clean, and he legally bought the two handguns used to kill 32 students and teachers before he committed suicide.
So it appears that the pendulum is swinging once again toward less privacy. I'm not opposed, the proposal above seems like common sense, especially since it's been the law of the land since 1968 that mentally ill individuals can not buy guns.
Yes, it's a little bit like closing the barn door after the horse is gone, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't get done. With the NRA on board and Dingell any brokered deal should sail through the House and Senate. Which indicates once again what the framers intended with our constitution. Consensus bills sail through, everything else goes very slowly.
One other political effect I predict and support will be a relaxation of bans against concealed carry on campuses and other public places. It's already started and will be something else to watch.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Our "right to bear arms" should not be interpreted to mitigate the obligation of our government to ensure the safety of its citizens to a reasonable extent.
Just as one would not - in the interests of safety - allow a child to play with matches - we should not permit access to firearms by those who have exhibited anti-social behavior, be they felons or paranoid schizophrenics (or politicians).
Assault weapons, automatics weapons, and the private ownership of virtual armories by individuals, go way beyond the need of a handgun or rifle for personal protection or "sport".
Consequently, it is way past time for our government to recognize the existance of our own weapons of mass destruction and to wage war against them by enacting more stringent and consistent NATIONAL gun control laws.
Fortunately, the possession of firearms by all citizens are not yet necessary to ensure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in our Country.
Sadly, the absence of adequate firearms legislation and enforcement may soon require us all to take up arms for self-preservation.
That would be the final solution.
Phyllis at 1:06PM on Apr 20th 2007
2. 1. Making gun-control legislation more strict(such as registering handguns, registering the gun's owners, banning assault-type weapons, and background checks for mental-health history) would be a huge step in the US. However, background checks may still let people with undetermined mental instability "through the cracks" of the system.
2. This week is now the anniversary of VA Tech, Columbine, Oklahoma City massacres. None of these shooters were hunting animals, but targeting humans.
Why would the true "hunting community" be so afraid of stricter gun laws? If they met the criteria of a
background check, they should have nothing to fear. The hunters that want to hunt are not the 'real' problem...the hunters did not kill at the Virginia, Columbine, Texas shootings.
3. There are stronger gun laws in other civilized countries -- are the citizens in the US going to stand by & let the strength of the "powerful" NRA lobbying continue? It seems the profits of the gun manufacturers are more important than the cost in human lives. And the cost in our feeling of being safe in our country, at workplaces, college and high school campuses, wherever we are at the moment.
4. Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution's fathers were writing about gun rights during Revolutionary War times, with those guns being cannons & muskets that took 20 people to load. They could not possibly forsee the times we live in now, with assault-weapons that take 3 seconds to reload and kill 30+ people in moments. It is a fact that the Constitution was written at a different time, situation, and interpretation. If we do not change the laws, this violence will likely continue. Let's stop arguing and dividing ourselves with argument, and start valuing ourselves and our human lives.
4. Lastly, would it be any different if the shooting victims of Virginia, Columbine, Oklahoma City, 9/11, Texas and other massacres, were ALL family members of the National Rifle Assn? Do you think the NRA would feel differently? Do you think they would act differently? Think about it.
amy at 6:35PM on Apr 20th 2007
3. It seems there was a lot more going wrong in Mr Cho's situation than just selling him guns.
Steve Bonomo at 8:41PM on Apr 20th 2007
4. I think the term assault weapon is wrong.The term assault type weapon ?
If it came down to defending my home and family against armed attackers these become damn good defensive weapons.
It's not about hunting!
Randum at 10:38AM on Apr 21st 2007