Here's the NRA's compromise

[armaborealis]

All the NRA-bashers should get a leg tingle out of this:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... a-backing/

The bill NRA is backing will...

expand the scope of the current federal database ? the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ? to flag individuals who have used an insanity defense, were ruled by a court to be dangerous, or were committed by a court to mental health treatment.

It includes, for example, individuals found not guilty because of mental illness in a criminal case, those ?found guilty but mentally ill,? and people found ?incompetent to stand trial,? according to a summary of the legislation provided to reporters by Graham?s office.

It looks like it otherwise retains the prohibition on any mental health classifications except for those involuntarily committed, which may actually help us -- it would put the kibosh on efforts to disarm vets via the VA, for example.

Honestly I thought people who had been found by a court to be insane and dangerous to others were already included as prohibited persons. There is substantial due process protection here. The process for this is basically the same as the process to commit someone (which also triggers a disabling prohibition).

The insanity defense provision isn't too worrisome: you cannot be forced to attempt this defense in the US. I also thought people who were not guilty of serious crimes by means of insanity were already included as prohibited persons. There is also substantial due process protection here. The process for proving someone incompetent to stand trial much the same as the process to commit someone (which also triggers a disabling prohibition).

I would prefer nothing at all, but this seems to be pretty harmless. The Blue Dog Democrats (Senators from Red States) are desperately latching onto this so they can appear to be doing something without having to back the BS "trafficking" bill, bans, criminalizing private sales, etc. Of course the devils are in the details but I am not too worried. This looks like what happened post VA-tech: a terrible anti-gun bill was co-opted and turned into something harmless that offered states money to cover the costs of reporting felonies and mental health data to NICS.

 

[John Canuck]

The text of the bill is not yet available (at least according to govtrack) so I'll reserve judgement until I see it. I find its generally a bad aign when the actual bills are a secret, but discussion is rushed forward based on the summary.

Back in South Carolina, the NRA is AWOL on local issues. Sigh.

 

[PatAttack]

The text of the bill is not yet available (at least according to govtrack) so I'll reserve judgement until I see it. I find its generally a bad aign when the actual bills are a secret, but discussion is rushed forward based on the summary.

Back in South Carolina, the NRA is AWOL on local issues. Sigh.

But John, the bill has to be passed so we'll know what's in it! :roll: (Pelosi mod)

 

[PCShogun]

Armaborealis, my understanding of "Not Guilty by Reason of insanity", is that you are essentially "Not Guilty", hence no felony! Since its inception, the state of South Carolina has submitted only 39 names to the NICS database for mental insufficiency.

 

[armaborealis]

I agree that we need to see the text. It usually takes 24-48 hrs for things to show up on THOMAS.

I am still not sure what this bill closes as there is already a prohibited person category for people not guilty for reason of insanity. The instructions on the 4473 spell it out on question 11F:

"A determination by a court... that a person as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, incompetency, or disease (1) is a danger to themselves or others... This term shall include (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case or (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility."

I did some more digging it looks like a few states have a verdict of "Guilty but Insane/Mentally Ill." I am guessing that technically now there is a "loophole" in that if you are a lunatic in one of the states with a Guilty But Mentally Ill option like Michigan, that may not trigger the prohibited person restriction. Of course, a felony conviction still would...

I am hoping that this bill is a life raft for RINOs and Blue Dog Democrats that allows them to say they did something, but in reality it does nothing at all or perhaps does something plausibly useful like providing more money to fund states providing mental health records to NICS. I too want to see the bill's text to see what easter eggs are inside if any.

 

[bigfutz]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If these people are
so dangerous as to deny their 2A rights, why are they allowed to roam the streets with access to knives, ball bats, fire pokers, bank accounts, and worst of all drivers licenses? For crying out loud!

 

[Enjay]

I have some experience observing a mentally ill relative who has had some serious crimes dismissed due to incompetence because of his mental illness. I don't think they should be out on the streets, but it's really expensive to provide the kind of care they need, especially when they have the potential to be dangerous and combative.
Personally I really wish the asylum system was still around. It was far from perfect but at least people had a roof over their heads, food, and were more or less contained.

 

[dreamerofdreams]

Enjay, have you read "My Brother Ron"? If not, you should. Right on the subject here.

 

[armaborealis]

The text of the bill is out on Thomas.

It looks like a good bill.

The first part cleans up the definitions of "has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or has been committed to a psychiatric hospital." It adds clear due process provisions. It then makes the definition clearly NOT include voluntary commitments, observation periods, any findings that are expunged/set aside, or people who have been been restored to mental competency (cured).

So the mental health provision would no longer be a lifetime prohibition, by my reading, if they are successfully treated. That is an improvement over the current system in my opinion.

Obviously amendments are a problem, and it needs to get through a hostile judiciary committee. It could be a good vehicle for letting Blue Dogs and RINOs claim they "did something" while not actually gutting the 2A, though.