AJC - Gun Control on the Radar

B

BarryLee

New member
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/2013/05/17/gun-control-on-the-radar
 
Last edited:
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:

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

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
All this does to me is provide incentive to refuse to get help
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top