A new discussion and a few opinions

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I like the idea of universal background checks with a few limits:

1- I don't support giving the general public access to the system. I prefer that a private sale be sanctioned by a BGC at an office of local law enforcement and the sale completed at that office.

2- Alternatively I like the idea of a purchase permit good for 90 days being available from the same local law enforcement office.

3- I don't like general open carry, regardless of the weapon being loaded or unloaded, in any configuration for any purpose other than transportation. You shouldn't OC in stores, playgrounds, hospital ERs, airplanes, theaters, etc. You can OC on unincorporated public land outside a local municipality, on isolated public lands or any private property with the owner's permission. I think general OC permits should be available from the various states for uniformed security and such.

4- I prefer all states become 'shall issue' for concealed carry permits and standardize required training in the areas of safety, storage, practice, self-defense law, etc.

5- Local law enforcement offers the OPTION to anyone to register their firearm(s) in a non-electronic equivalent to an FFL bound book.

6- I'm against mandatory registration and burdensome purchase procedures.

7- Any crime which would disqualify one from firearm ownership would have a minimum imprisonment of 6 months. Non-violent crimes do not disqualify one from owning a gun nor result in any jail time.

8- High schools should offer in health class information on how to recognize, qualify, assess and mitigate in the home, any firearm hazards including standards of safe handling and storage.

[upaloopa]

1. In the last few gun death stories here on DU

the gun owner had training.
We need to stop calling some gun deaths accidents and make the gun owner liable and people who carry guns should be required to have insurance coverage for damage done to persons and property.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. ~~~

Folks found guilty of criminal negligence should be sentenced accordingly.
I don't think insurance will raise the dead but insurance for what, for who? Insurance with a high rate set that only the 1%ers could afford? Please be more specific.

[upaloopa]

6. Your gun falls out of your pants hits the floor

goes off puts holes in the wall and causes bodily harm. You need to pay for the damages. You need insurance to cover the costs.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I suppose that works for those who would CC in public n/t

[Starboard Tack]

45. Makes some sense.

Liability insurance for those with CCW permits. This would also incentive insurers to insist on adequate training, education and certification.

[gejohnston]

46. or simply carry a modern firearm

Last edited Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

design that wasn't made by one of the "ring of fire" companies, or one based on the Remington Derringer design. Given that, statistically, CCW holders are safer, more law abiding, and less likely to hit an innocent than cops, I'm sure the insurance would be very cheap. Perhaps improving cop training and holding them to the same standard as a CCW holder would go a long way too.
Since incidents like this are so rare, one happening in Manila, Utah, makes national news (compared to say, drive bys in Cleveland or Detroit.) it should be very inexpensive.

Self defense insurance is a good idea, and I highly encourage it. The chance of needing it is more likely than the ND mentioned above. Besides, even if it is a clear case that shouldn't go to trial, that changes if the violent meth head is the kid of the local oligarch.

[oneshooter]

48. Would this include LE, both local, state, and federal? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

49. Of course.

[oneshooter]

53. And the city, state, or fed governments would pay for this insurence for it's LEO's? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

55. who do you think pays right now?

It comes out of your tax dollars when poorly trained leo's fuck up and the city gets sued.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. I don't think Ins Co will be lining up

Since they're not interested much in underwriting cop cars, the chances of them insuring on duty cops for a gun 'oops' seems low. Off duty maybe but IMHO, carriers will probably avoid law enforcement.

[Starboard Tack]

59. I would think the PDs have insurance

Or are they self insured by the taxpayers?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. Self insured I believe

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. People posting on the internet should be required to carry libel liability insurance.

This would incentivize insurers to insist on adequate training, education and certification before people engage in free speech.

[Veganstein]

58. What about just requiring insurance for those who don't use a proper holster? n/t

[Shamash]

4. The problem with mandatory insurance

Is that you are requiring a regular monetary payment in order to retain a right. That kind of went out of fashion with the "poll tax".

If a person has a right to own a firearm, and they do not pay their insurance bill, what happens to their guns?

That said, I think there could be some merit to having insurance be a part of "public carry" permits (you don't need insurance to keep a car parked in your driveway, but you do need it to take the car out on the road). Right now there is such insurance available on a voluntary basis, but remember that no insurance is ever going to pay out for a criminal act committed by the policy holder.

So if the idea is that insurance would help compensate crime victims? Not gonna happen.

[upaloopa]

5. I don't see it as a problem

I have medical, car, home, life, motorcycle insurance and all my rights.

[ileus]

8. It ceases to be a right when you have to pay for it...

[Starboard Tack]

50. Nonsense. Did you get your guns for free?

[Straw Man]

51. There's a difference between a right and a piece of hardware.

One shouldn't have a price tag attached. But you knew that.

[Starboard Tack]

60. there is a price tag for everything in life

Especially for rights.

[Straw Man]

62. Are you being literal or metaphorical?

If the former, I say you're absolutely wrong.

[Starboard Tack]

63. both

[Straw Man]

64. So you believe that it's OK to attach fees ...

... to the exercise of rights? Poll taxes and the like? I don't. Sounds pretty regressive to me.

[Starboard Tack]

65. poll taxes, no

Some things, yes. You have a right to travel. Is you passport free?

[Straw Man]

66. Which things?

Some things, yes. You have a right to travel. Is you passport free?

No -- passports are not free, but they should be, don't you think?

So exactly which rights should have a price tag attached, and why?

[Starboard Tack]

67. You hit the nail on the head with the word "exercize"

The right itself comes without a cost, but exercizing a right entails some kind of expenditure, be it monetary or otherwise. Rosa Parks got to ride anywhere on the bus, but she still needed a ticket.

[Straw Man]

68. Wrong again.

The right itself comes without a cost, but exercizing a right entails some kind of expenditure, be it monetary or otherwise. Rosa Parks got to ride anywhere on the bus, but she still needed a ticket.

Everybody pays for the bus ride. The right Rosa Parks was exercising was the right to ride under the same conditions as white riders. If you say it's OK to charge for the exercise of rights, then you're saying the bus company would have been justified in charging black people more than white people to ride the bus.

[ileus]

52. Probably the first 15-25 or so...yeah.

[NutmegYankee]

57. Technically, it is a right to own and use lawfully.

Subtle, but important. Other rights in the bill of rights refer to ownership/use of objects that are not given. Freedom of the press requires equipment. The 4th Amendment protects your privacy in the home. Naturally, one has to be able to afford a dwelling. The 5th protects you from taking of property without just compensation, but doesn't guarantee you will have property. The 6th provides a right to "Assistance of Counsel" (lawyer), but doesn't cover the costs unless you are deemed unable to afford one.

[Duckhunter935]

30. last I knew

as bad as it is you have no right to medical, possible except life saving and stabilization procedures. You do not have a right to a car, home or motorcycle. There is and as of now an established right to a firearm unless a prohibited person.

[Shamash]

3. Personally, I like #1

I think that private sales should remain private sales (as under current ATF guidelines), but it would be nice if a private seller could do "due diligence" before selling a firearm, both for peace of mind and potential civil liability.

If such a system was a available for free, and you chose not to do a background check, there would be a potential civil liability if you sold it to someone ineligible and they committed a crime with it. And that potential liability would be an encouragement to use such a background check. Conversely, if you did such a check and the gun eventually ended up in criminal hands, you could say "there's the guy I legally sold it to, go talk to him."

It is much the same as for private sales in Switzerland. You're required to keep a personal record of private sales for a certain amount of time, but there is no central record keeping of such sales.

[virginia mountainman]

9. I like that....NT

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Works for me

[branford]

7. I basically agree with your ideas.

My one caveat is that I have issues with requiring all sales to occur at your local office of law enforcement. Regardless of whether sales are "shall issue," there are too many pitfalls and potential problems with requiring the consent and involvement of law enforcement in a private transaction even after proof of eligibility.

I foresee a situation where the local police in many areas will be happy to assist you, but the necessary clerk in only available on Tuesday, from 10:00 - 10:30 a.m., and you need to make an appointment 3 weeks in advance, and hope they haven't "lost" your paperwork. The ability of law enforcement to maintain a de fact registration list is also far too tempting.

I believe a required NICS could be done at any FFL (or police department, if that is your preference). At least a FFL has an inherent commercial and political self-interest to maintain the privacy of your transaction and to expedite it accordingly without interference for a statutorily maximum fee.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. replies and questions

I don't see it as a requirement that ALL sales take place via local LE. I prefer local LE offer the NICS check as a public service during whatever business hours are normal and customary for the area and provide evening hours (5 - 8 pm for example) at least one day per week and make at least 8 hours per month available on weekends. (Any configuration would work, a single 8 hour Saturday, 2 hours every Saturday...) The service fee should be modest and reflect a charge of the average direct labor rate of the personnel performing the service. For example the average LEO who averages $50,000/year takes 15 minutes for the average transaction makes the charge $6. I'd be fine with doubling or tripling that also.

This is available for private sales along with the option to have an FFL perform the same service. Consent of law enforcement is not part of the operation. As I see this law enforcement may stop a sale between a buyer and seller for two reasons: 1 buyer lacks the $6, 2 buyer's NICS comes back denied. There are no appointments, waiting periods, consent of the CLEO, blessing of the bishop or pixie dust involved.

Shoplifting won't get you on the prohibited list regardless of whether you stole the Hope Diamond or a Hershey bar. A non-violent crime never leads to losing the right.

[branford]

13. OK. I though your initial suggestion was for mandatory LE involvement

with the background check and the approved physical transfer of the firearm. I certainly would have no objections to just the availability of law enforcement.

In any event, as is seen in many anti-gun areas, sometimes local law enforcement just ignores or "creatively interprets" the law, usually for "public safety" (e.g., we don't have a registration list, we just keep records indefinitely for "tax purposes" and they're available online for "transparency&quot . I cannot imagine stubborn and litigious cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco being as easy and accommodating as may be required or you suggest. Very small police departments in smaller, gun-friendly locales may also face good-faith logistical problems due to demand.

In any event, I have no objection to universal background checks at all, and if gun rights opponents would negotiate in good faith, I believe a reasonable and acceptable system could be implemented either federally or state by state.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I think a PSC like those for drunk driving/texting...

...might be the most successful things of all. Education, awareness, alternatives and resources always empower folks to do their best. Laws, restrictions, limits, penalties and punishments without clear means to solve problems do more, IMHO, to inspire distrust and hostility than they do to actually prevent crime.

[branford]

15. I think the largest impediment is the wildly different goals of the different sides.

Most gun rights supporters are willing to discuss means and methods to ensure actual firearms safety and security. Many gun control advocates want to simply reduce the number of guns, and proposals like UBC's are often intentionally meant to make gun ownership difficult and expensive, sometimes as a stepping stone to full or partial bans.

Focusing and education, information and safety, to a great number of gun control proponents, is actually counterproductive. It runs the risk of maintaining "gun culture" or even increasing gun ownership among law abiding Americans.

Most proposals by both sides also do absolutely nothing to demonstrably affect a few key areas that would have the most impact - the many millions of illegal guns already in circulation and those individuals who would never obey new laws, no less do things like purchase insurance (which is already impossible for an illegal gun or to cover an illegal act), mental health availability and counseling, and the largest cause of gun fatalities, suicide.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. I suggest a first step for pro-RKBA...

...may be to recognize that not all pro-control folks are ban happy.

[Shamash]

18. Send me a note when the rational ones at DU take command of pro-control discussions. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Alas, they never will

It is in the nature of zealots to engage in guerrilla tactics.
Just my opinion.

[branford]

19. Very true, although most still want many fewer guns, lower levels of even legal ownership,

and greater difficulty procuring and carrying guns, as a primary goals. It's the reason why gun control organizations are now trying to re-brand themselves as "gun safety" organizations, even though they and most of their members often know little about firearms and proper use. Gun rights supporters also certainly have their absolutists.

I do not believe that the debate about firearms is really about safety, it is a culture war battle, often between more liberal urban sensibilities and regional or rural culture and history. Few are truly willing to compromise on either side, and efforts like trying to attach assault weapons bans and magazine limits to universal background check legislation in Congress, certainly did not help establish levels of trust and good faith.

[Straw Man]

21. Yes.

I do not believe that the debate about firearms is really about safety, it is a culture war battle, often between more liberal urban sensibilities and regional or rural culture and history. Few are truly willing to compromise on either side, and efforts like trying to attach assault weapons bans and magazine limits to universal background check legislation in Congress, certainly did not help establish levels of trust and good faith.

Exactly. The anti-gun cartoons are a perfect example of this. How many of them depict overweight moronic-looking middle-aged white men in overalls and camo? The message is clear: We, the urban elite, have nothing but contempt for you and your lifestyle. Asking for compromise in the face of such ridicule is not only pointless, it is insulting.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. It is absolutely a culture war

So how is possible to engage in "gun safety" without a gun? Isn't that like saying the safest safe sex is none at all?

Since progressives are the ones with an interest in innovation rather than tradition, they are the ones that will lead the way in finding the compromises and developing the understanding and common ground the inure change and negotiation. This is part of the reason I came to this site and part of the reason I'm no longer a Republican.

The Founders, if alive today, would be progressives of various sorts. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was a uniquely articulate manner of expressing every individual's basic rights. IMHO, the Pursuit of Happiness dominates among these because without the freedom to make our own choices, work toward our own goals and learn from our own mistakes, there isn't really any liberty and not much meaning to life. Einstein said, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom."

Freedom is not an attainable state but a continuous pursuit of the best compromises. Progressives are reasonable, creative and friendly. That's a good enough start for me.

[branford]

24. You don't really need to convince me. I'm good with your suggestions.

Your query about "how is possible to engage in "gun safety" without a gun," is best addressed to the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts, and other individuals like certain liberal mayors who often have their own armed security.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Addressing any of those folks...

...is pointless. They are in it for media exposure mostly.

IMO, one of the first things any pro-control advocate needs to accept is that 'control' is a myth. Gun-control laws won't control guns. The only controls over any gun are the hands that hold it. Leaders and citizens that care and do the right thing out their own desire rather than the force of law will have more impact than a ban. Do our laws for 'murder control' work well? Not in my opinion they don't. Our laws on speed control don't even work because last night as drove through the sleet and snow folks passed me that were doing close to 70 in a 55 zone.

Let's bring back the idea of making illegal actions that directly harm others is better than making it illegal to have a black rifle with a folding stock.

I'm getting off my soap box now so have a nice night and thanks for your thoughts.

[branford]

26. The problem is that Bloomberg and his ilk are the leaders and de facto representatives

of the gun control / "safety" movement. Sadly, we cannot always choose our interlocutors.

Have a great night.

[ManiacJoe]

17. Those would be good starters for eight threads.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Feel free

Art isn't art until it's hung on someone else's wall and political ideas aren't good until a group shares that opinion.

[gwheezie]

27. I think we all agree the government can regulate guns

My concern is the number of gun deaths in our country. I don't know if you can separate that from the number of guns in our country. I pretty much think the 2nd amendment has more to do with a well regulated militia than the right to own a gun. Why wouldn't the founders assume it's understood you would have a firearm for your own use? Since the idea was to not have a standing army but have armed citizens prepared to defend the country does that mean in this era each citizen should be expected to have a decent sized arsenal? We have the well regulated militia so I don't think we can use that argument as far as citizens having the right to own military style weapons or large amounts of weapons. So over the years it's been accepted that the government can limit our rights to arm ourselves.
Maybe I am somewhere in the middle on gun issues. All of the gun owners I know are sane and responsible. I think some of them have a mind boggling amount of guns but I'm sure someone thinks my handbag collection makes no sense. I'd rather not interfere with those gun owners. But we do have a problem in this country of people being killed by guns. The criminals got them somehow. I'm assuming these guns that wind up being used by criminals were sold legally to someone at some point or how did they wind up floating around out among us. This is what my question has been and if I'm wrong someone tell me. When the gun leaves the manufacturer it doesn't then get sold illegally right? So it somehow goes from being sold legally to winding up in the hands of criminals and a few psychopaths. How does that happen?
That's where the problem lies for me. How do we limit that transformation from a legal to an illegal gun sale.

[gejohnston]

28. 2/3 of gun deaths

are suicides. Given the lack of single payer that includes mental and dental health, those would simply become rope deaths. AFAIC, killing yourself with a gun vs a rope is still tragic and dead.
Most of the rest are criminals killing each other. Black markets exist. If you can get a bag of weed or coke, you can get a gun. That is true everywhere in the world, be it Chicago, Australia bikers making their own machine guns, or literary critics out of a car trunk at a Brussels train station.
Until we address the gang problem we always have by dealing with the drug war, wealth inequality, the lack of jobs in walkable neighborhoods, all of the gun laws won't do squat.
Curiosity, why do we say killed by a gun, yet killed with a knife? Do guns have the ability to operate on their own that knives don't?

[gwheezie]

31. Getting back to me question

How would we decrease the number of guns that I assume started out being sold legally to winding up being used by criminals and psychopaths. If they are being sold on the black market how do they get in the hands of illegal gun dealers? How do the gangs get them?
I remember an Archie Bunker episode where Gloria is going on about banning guns and Archie says "would you feel better if they was pushed out windows little girl?" So I'm not going to address people being killed by cows landing on their cars. This is a true story. Livestock trailer Jack knifed on an overpass and one of the flying cows landed on some guy just driving to work. Killed him. Or people being killed by knives.
I think the stories of accidental/negligent deaths by guns makes it sound like there's an awful lot of that going on but when I consider the number of guns in this country it's probably a pretty low percentage of people being killed that way. Tragic but my concern is mainly with how do we stop guns from getting in the hands of people who don't think twice about killing someone else.
I've had patients that have killed themselves with guns. Also killed other people with guns. We've had the court send the sheriff out to remove guns from the home and they still manage to find a gun. When we do assessments for suicidality the plan to use a gun and access to a gun is a crisis. Hanging is another extremely high lethality.

[gejohnston]

36. that kind of depends on the country

in the US, something like 250K guns are reported stolen each year. The ATF estimates the number stolen is about twice that. That is how they entered the black market. Not all of them land up in the hands of gangs. There was a guy at a flea market in Florida who picked up a couple of guns and had the cops run them through NCIC. One was stolen. He was out of $400 and the gun. You figure 10K murders with guns, and often the crime is not solved and gun not recovered, it would be used again in the next drive by. Some gangs use community guns. In 2000, there was a study to see what the most common crime guns were. Some of the most common were made by companies that were out of business 20 years earlier.
Say we had tighter restrictions, like many countries in Europe. Then they follow the drug routes. The full auto AKs used at Charlie Hebdo and the Scorpion sub-machine gun were traced to a Kosavo battle field. The terrorists bought them out of a car trunk in a train station parking lot in Belgium. In Mexico, guns are used in 20 percent of murders. The cartels get theirs from the Mexican military, black market through their southern border, and there is evidence they are making their own M-16s.
Australia, usually smuggled in or made in illegal factories, basements. Biker gangs make their own machine guns. After the single shot zip gun (like the one used by the Zodiac copy cat) the open bolt SMG is the easiest to make. With the dramatic price drop in CNC equipment and 3D printers, it simply won't matter.
When I was in Japan, the court martial of the century were some army special forces who were buying guns for $30-40 from these guys smuggled them to Japan and sell them to the Yakusa for over a grand each. They had been doing this for years before CID and Japanese Police caught on.
All of these sub-machine guns were made in a basement
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/
If you have the tools from a 1940s bicycle repair shop, you can make this. Resistance fighters in occupied Europe did exactly that under the Gestapo's nose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten

It is best to deal with the larger issues than try to tinker with the means.

[gwheezie]

37. I've had an ongoing discussion about this

With one of my relatives who is a fed agent and has worked in operations to stop black market gun dealers. It is tied closely to the drug trade. He has complained about a lack of coordination between agencies. He has a scarey job.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. You've brought up a number of points and good questions

Thanks for the reply.

There are 3 places on DU where firearms can be discussed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172 Gun Control and RKBA (that's here)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262 Gun Control Reform Activism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1214 Outdoor Life

Please read the SOPs before posting an OP.

Guns held illegally find their way to criminals by various means including theft, straw purchases and similar crimes. Guns have been stolen from polite grandmothers and major police departments, Clyde Barrow, famous partner of Bonnie Parker, stole the Browning Automatic Rifle he used from a National Guard armory, IIRC. Probably less often than the pistols used by low rent drug dealers, major drug cartels smuggle in weapons with drugs from other countries.

The US is often compared to the UK in number firearm murders but it is brought up less often that the US non-firearm murder rate exceeds the UK overall murder rate.

Does the US have a high rate of gun ownership compared to the rest of the world? Sure we do. There's over 600 million guns in private hands worldwide about 300 million are here in the US.

I wrote up some thoughts in my OP and think the best way to approach the matter is to get more folks talking. Thanks for adding your thoughts and questions. Gun rights and laws tend to get complicated which doesn't much bother me because I have a high tolerance for boredom.

Do you have any suggestions, ideas or other particular concerns?

[gwheezie]

33. I like the 1st idea a lot

I don't know anyone that would not care who they sell a gun to. I live in a very rural area and I imagine most gun sales here are private sales. It would be great if we could have the sheriff run a check on someone if we want to sell one of our guns.
I don't want to go into too much detail because it would violate some privacy issues but I remember a young man who had the guns removed from his home by the court and he managed to buy a few rifles and wound up committing multiple murders. The person that sold him the rifles had no idea. You see someone a few times a year and think you know them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. people are basically good

I like to think that if a means was available, most folks would avoid being a party to crime. If I was down on my luck and needed money and owned a gun, I'd sell the gun before I'd use it in a robbery. If I could, I'd pay a fee to know that the buyer was not a criminal. I like the idea that private buyers and sellers can know rather than believe (as the law now limits) both parties are legal.

All of our gun laws are like trying to bail water out of a row boat with a hole in the bottom. Part of our society that is most affected (IMO black males between 15 and 24) are like the row boat; as a group the net result is a lot of time is spent bailing rather than rowing to a destination. It would be more productive to fix the hole than put a bunch of energy into bailing water. No one just awakens in bed and decides today would be a good day, for no special reason, to go shoot someone in a drive-by or holdup a liquor store and shoot the clerk. Folks are in these situations most often because other problems have limited or eliminated any effective legal options. People get sucked into the drug world by using, by needing money, through friends, etc. Drugs aren't legal so those in that business always deal in cash and carry guns to protect their cash and product. Same thing with moonshine or mostly any other contraband.

The US has problems that manifest as gun deaths, injuries and assaults. Solving the base problems will help people more (and probably be cheaper) than trying to remove guns from circulation. Legalizing some drugs and ending that black-market, fixing mental and all healthcare and providing great overall income stability will do much more IMHO. Not that some things that I mentioned in the OP won't be good but it's generally better in the long term to treat the infection and not just the fever.

[gwheezie]

39. I see the top of the iceberg where I work

I work in the mental health field. Many of the people I see are young, mentally ill and do not have the support they need to function well in our society.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. I see a lot of young people feeling...

...the need to get their own place a be self sufficient. Not a bad goal but lonely and limiting for help and support.
Life is just getting harder in many ways.

[gwheezie]

34. And that's the dilemma

How does the government not interfere with liberty yet protect life? I'm trying to have a rational discussion although emotionally I react to stories about little kids being killed and murderers really piss me off.

[Duckhunter935]

32. I have no issues with those suggestions

I am curious if some of the controller side will weigh in.

[gwheezie]

35. I have no problem with all states being cc

I understand the states rights argument however if all states can issue cc's then I would like some uniformity as far as education training requirements.
As far as mental health issues as much as gun rights people don't want a national registry for guns I don't want a national registry of the mentally ill.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. According to the FBI...

...states are required to enter into the database which is used for NICS background checks:

A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

[gwheezie]

42. Agree if there is a court ruling

That LE can access a database if those people however my concern is if there is a huge list of anyone who has a certain diagnosis without a court order to ban weapons.
I have had patients who had the court remove weapons but were able to restore their gun rights. I think all states have a process where you can vacate the order. I hear people say well if we had a list of the mentally ill we could stop newtown and to me it sounds similar to if we only had a list of all gun owners. I worry about how people get on the list and who decides.
Again without going into too much detail we had a person have their guns removed by the court mainly because young fella was rural bump up against city. And he was a little slow and didn't understand what was happening to him. The psychiatrist where I work did help him restore his gun rights.
Believe me I am usually on the side of restricting guns but I also understand that there is a 2nd amendment right and I see folks every week not understand the situation they're in when they are involuntarily committed. Otoh I see voluntary patients where the court isn't involved at all that are allowed to keep their guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. Some states have highly restrictive privacy laws...

...especially regarding medical and health information. This detail sometimes prevents relevant mental health info from making it from a court to the federal database. Several states participate in the NICS as what's called "full point-of-contact". Full point-of-contact means that an FFL contacts a state agency which in turn does the NICS check as well as checking state maintained databases.

IMHO the government maintains far too much info on folks already. We need to continually work on finding better ways to balance government intrusion into privacy with any of the reasons for the intrusion. We need to see to it that only info that is absolutely needed be kept.

[gwheezie]

44. I think there needs to be a separate hearing

In my state during the commitment hearing the judge can order weapons removed. I think it needs to be a separate hearing. I've explained to patients who have been released from a commitment hearing that they need to have the temporari or the emergency detention order vacated. Depending on how deep a background check goes those can be discovered.
Otoh I have had voluntary patients who manage to avoid the whole issue because because the court is not involved. It doesn't make them any less dangerous.
Someone is always going to say a decision you make is wrong but in the line of work I'm in we often violate all kinds of rights because we are ordered by the court.

[jimmy the one]

47. must or may

wheezie: I have no problem with all states being cc .... I understand the states rights argument however if all states can issue cc's then I would like some uniformity as far as education training requirements.

All states do allow concealed carry, wheezie, but there are two general classes, one is called 'shall issue' which is better put 'must issue', where the state 'must' issue the concealed carry permit (ccw) if the person wanting it is a law abiding cit & qualified.
The other ccw class is called 'may issue' which means the state 'may' or 'may not' issue the ccw permit, in other words it has discretion. In a may issue state, the gun owner generally must demonstrate some need for carrying a concealed pistol, such as being a money carrier, or in fear of domestic abuse with possibly a restraining order against a gun owner, or lives near feral wild animals. Just because he wants to for 'general self defense' is not usually not considered a valid reason, whereas it would be for shall issue.
I prefer 'may issue' discretion, since allowing anyone who wants to carry concealed emboldens criminals & potential criminals to carry concealed firearms whether they have a permit or not. A criminal who is seen carrying a concealed pistol in a 'shall issue' state, can usually get away with it without drawing concern, since it's more allowed in the state. Criminals love states with shall issue laws, they tend to be red republican states with little gun control. Criminals tend to hate gun control.

As far as uniformity on educational training requirements, that's a good idea, but is flounted afaik by states sliding further to the rightwing fringe, allowing concealed carry without any permit at all (blue state Vermont, Alaska, a few others).
About 41 states have shall issue (including Vermont & Alaska where no permit req'd), while about 9 are may issue.