Gee, I can't see anything bad ever coming from this. At all.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

http://news.yahoo.com/ga-backs-relaxing-gun-laws-143041490.html

Ga. backs relaxing gun laws for mentally ill

After Conn. massacre, Ga. lawmakers back relaxing gun laws for mentally ill
By Ray Henry, Associated Press | Associated Press – 25 mins ago.

ATLANTA (AP) -- While some states push to tighten gun control laws after the Connecticut school massacre, lawmakers in gun-friendly Georgia want to ease rules preventing some mentally ill people from getting licenses to carry firearms.

Legislators in Georgia's House voted 117-56 on Thursday to allow people who have voluntarily sought inpatient treatment for mental illness or substance abuse to get licenses. The same bill would force officials to check on whether applicants have received involuntary treatment in the past five years before issuing licenses. Georgia also may change its laws to allow people to carry guns in churches, bars and on college campuses, contrary to what's happening elsewhere in the United States.

Judges in Georgia now have discretion over whether to grant a license to carry a weapon to anyone who has received inpatient treatment at a mental hospital or substance abuse treatment center in the last five years, whether it's voluntary or not.

"Simply being hospitalized doesn't make a person a criminal or a threat," said Rep. Rick Jasperse, R-Jasper, the bill sponsor, in a statement. The legislation now heads to the state Senate.
____________________________________________________________________________

[Eleanors38]

1. Looks like checking records of any INVOLUNTARY treatment

would be a tightening up access, right?

Should anyone who voluntarily seeks help be denied constitutional rights without due process?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. If we were talking about the right to vote, sure.

Carrying deadly weapons? I'm sorry, I just have an issue with this.

[Eleanors38]

5. Seems like a 5 yr. back search is a better way to go,

currently, I know of no laws which deny a gun purchase due solely to voluntary mental health care, probably because such a law runs right over the Fifth Amendment.

[backscatter712]

12. This would be the part I would support.

In order to get involuntarily committed, there's a rather high legal bar to pass - you have to be behaving in such a way that authorities, your family, or doctors can convince a judge that you're an imminent danger to yourself or others. And ideally, the judge isn't going to sign off on locking a person up just because he visited a shrink and got a prescription for prozac, or even if he checked himself into a hospital and got treatment voluntarily. You have to be pretty messed up.

[backscatter712]

3. There is the problem with stigmatization.

If voluntarily seeking help with mental health issues gets people put on a "sex offender" list, people won't seek help.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. It's not a list being freely disseminated to the general public.

The people aren't forced to go door to door identifying their condition to their neighbors.

They're not being denied the right to vote. Their not being forced out of their neighborhood.

I fail to see how this would qualify as some sort of public shaming.

[Eleanors38]

6. Hey, Bob, let's go dove hunting...

Sorry Jim, I can't buy a shotgun.

Why's that, Bob?
_____
I'll let you finish the script. But the 5th Amendment problem still stands.

Sounds like GA is trying to act where it legally can by checking involuntary records.

[randome]

8. I'm glad I waited to see how this thread went. Good point.

[Eleanors38]

9. Thanks. Upstream, the more salient point was implied:

If someone knew they would be denied 2A rights by seeking psych help voluntarily, would they even bother?

[backscatter712]

11. Especially since as you posted above, getting listed could cost you more than your guns.

How many businesses would invite employees for "hunting trips" to see if they have these kinds of problems?

If the employee in question encountered a problem, because he flunked the BG check, will the employer respond by firing him? Spreading the word to others in the industry? Putting him on other blacklists? How long before he's completely outed?

I agree that someone with mental illness issues that make him prone to violence should probably be prevented from having a gun. But not every person who's gone to see a shrink or who takes antidepressants is violent. In fact, 95% of people with mental illnesses are not violent.

And then you run into the question: How do you know if a person's prone to violence? It'd be easy if there was some sort of blood test, or if polygraphs actually worked. But we don't have such a test.

[backscatter712]

10. Touche! n/t

[talkingmime]

7. Nope. Not at all. Seems like a good idea.

Well, as long as they stay in Georgia that is.