After Hours

General discussion


Gun Permits for the mentally ill

By aidemzo_adanac ·
Tags: Off Topic
In the USA, these issues always appear to be so hard to resolve as one state permits, one state does not, one state has some allowances etc. In Canada, the same problems are usually pretty easy to sort out, all the provinces will agree to a unified solution ( in most cases) , while Quebec does something else that nobody cares about and doesn't affect anyone else. In written legal terms, there's always the 'except in Quebec' clause, as they are restricted from doing pretty much anything.
When it comes to employment rights, same thing, the rest of Canada's provinces all get a level of protection, except residents of Quebec, who's employment laws are very similar to the US where the company is protected and can do pretty much what they want to an employee.

Preamble over, after watching the morning news I was wondering how Americans deal with issues when they are so separated by state laws. I completely understand the independence of states but I also see how it detracts from moving forward as a nation on many issues.

Gun laws: Today I almost fell out of bed while watching US news and how one state has denounced a new gun law amendment to protect the medical records of mentally ill people from being released to FBI conducting background checks for new permits.

I was sure I didn't her it right so I them looked it up and found it was true! So protecting a person's medical record release, when they sign a form accepting a background/security clearance check, medial records are off the record?

Their reasoning was that, if Americans know they MAY be restricted form buying a firearm, if they have a history of mental illness, they will be less likely to voluntarily enter a mental illness facility.

Even after confirming it, I still think they are having a laff. It appears that most states have laws where IF you've been voluntarily admitted and then released, you can still get a permit. If you were admitted against your will and THEN released, you were not, then again some states allow it for both.

I just don't get how ANYONE, EVER having been admitted for ANY reason would be allowed a firearms permit.

Shouldn't that be like question #1 for a gun permit?
Are you or were you ever a nutter? If YES, no gun for you!

How can there be ANY gray area around it? Are Americans THAT mental that even someone with a history of mental illness has his right to own a firearm defended?!? I still can't quite get my head around it myself, it's just so far out of this world that I don't see how anyone can actually say it with a straight face.

The state argues that medical history records are private, unless specifically authorized for release by the patient. Fair enough, I couldn't agree more. But when you sign a release for a criminal background history check, finding out if you are mentally unstable should be authorized at the same time.

So not only do pro gun activists feel ANYONE should have a gun and be able to get one quickly an without further delays, they also feel that the mentally ill (assumed "cured") should be able to get one without revealing their past mental illness history.

Seriously, you think you have problems in the middle east, try looking right next door instead. Your problems are internal, not in foreign countries.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I blame the schools

by Slayer_ In reply to Gun Permits for the menta ...

They keep producing near brain dead Americans.

Collapse -

Also how the constitution has been changed as much as the bible

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I blame the schools

The right to bear arms was originally part of British Law and was aimed at allowing an armed and regulated militia. Kings had before reclaimed all guns from subjects, so they could not revolt against the kingdoms. It took a while but was soon shot down (excuse the pun).

When English colonized America, similar rights were afforded them in order to protect their homesteads and settlements.

Over the years, many rewrites of the original US Constitution, basically focusing on punctuation and capitalization that changes the context of the bill have been made.

Today,m Americans are under the belief that they have a right to walk around on the streets carrying a gun and can shoot someone who invades their space or property. Many claiming that police are never there and you have to take matters into your own hands, literally justifying a modern day UNREGULATED militia. Not the regulated militia as stated in the Bill of Rights

When regulation IS proposed/discussed, American gun supporters start crying about their rights to carry arms and shoot people at will who cross, actually they say to hunt, protect their families and shoot at the target range.

It's just like freedom of speech, most Americans have NO IDEA how it applies, when and where. You get them crying about being censored when speaking out in a privately owned store, a website etc. How they can say what they want, anywhere they go and how if they can't, it's infringing on their rights. IF you actually read and understand the Bill of Rights, you quickly see that freedom of speech means no such thing, in fact not even remotely close.

But as Americans have a simplified, condensed version of their rights drille dinto their heads since they take their first breath, it's no wonder nobody actually takes time to read and learn what rights they actually ARE entitled to. It also explains why so many Americans stand up and shout about changes when they clearly don't understand the guidelines to begin with.

Blame it on Obama, blame it on schools and poor education, bottom line is, blame it on Americans. Ignorance is bliss, until someone loses their life or the life of a family member. Instead of then fighting against people being able to shoot at their families, they use it as justification to arm and protect themselves and their families instead. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Collapse -

At least it happens over there

by Slayer_ In reply to Also how the constitution ...

Much less terrorism in Canada. We're fine.

But just in case, what size of shoes do you wear Oz? Just in case your feet are found on a beach...

Collapse -

I own 3 guns...

by jck In reply to At least it happens over ...

And I haven't shot anyone...... B-)

Collapse -

Well done! Brownie badge in the mail!

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I own 3 guns...

I own 2 and have never thought of them as a way to protect myself, nor needed to. If the government turned up tomorrow and said I couldn't have them anymore, 'oh well, c'est la vie, who the **** cares'?

I don't have a need or desire to have guns, I've acquired a couple over the years but if they were cleaned and shot more than once a year It'd be rare.

Half the time I head up into the mountains and a few days later think, 'oh, yeah I should have brought the guns up it would kill 10 minutes" other than that, no interest, no need, no decide, no give a damn. I completely forget I have them, that really are that insignificant.

I remember being younger and staying with a scout family in Tacoma during a jamboree. When I came back I couldn't stop telling people how I met two Americans and they carried guns in the HOUSE!! Both his parents had side a small private, lakeside community....after the days of the Wild West. I couldn't believe it, even though I'd seen it with my own eyes, it just blew my mind that people actually carried guns and it wasn't even a third world country, at that time anyway.

I was actually asking my fellow scout I stayed with if they were FBI or undercover police or something. I couldn't grasp that normal people in a normal country carried guns, for what reason I just didn't know.

My pistol grip crossbow is a lot more fun anyway. I find guns just a pain in the ***.

Either way, that' snot really the point of the post, I was more amazed at how some states felt it was more important to protect a person's medical history, when applying for a gun permit and having a background check performed, than allowing a mental patient to carry a weapon.
I even understand how SOME people justify their need to carry but as far as letting a person with a mental illness history obtain a permit, that's just.....insane.

The mindset that 'give them an inch and they take a mile' is absurd in such a case. Even sane people have moments where they go on a killing rampage, of course stopping sane people from a killing rampage means ALL people can't go on a killing rampage, which would logically (or even illogically) be wrong.

But to defend a mental patient's right to bear arms and block their mental history from being investigated is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've heard in ages.

Why has the USA turned into such a gong show? The world now stares at the USA and wonders how the people remember how to walk?

Collapse -


by jck In reply to Well done! Brownie badge ...

I would shoot someone if they broke in my residence...guaranteed.

And, I won't shoot to wound. American law sometimes (depending on the state) allows a convicted criminal to come back later and sue you for the physical damage to their body from being shot while robbing your property.

Friggin amazing, I tell you. Sometimes I expect a John Cleese drawing to be on the next page after an article about things like this with a caption "No...sorry...too silly..."

Collapse -

I'll never know.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Oh...

I won't have one in the house. I've only had one home broken into, of four houses over 30 years. No one was home, and the only thing stolen was ... a weapon. (My grandfather's WWI bayonet that I kept, in my youthful ignorance, under my side of the bed.)

My firearms experience is limited to an M-16 during my National Guard years. I never enjoyed going to the rifle range. This was partly because I was just no damn good, but there were other factors. After just a few rounds, the smoke from the powder made my eyes itch and water. (Obviously, this didn't help my already mediocre aim.) Since the Army wants everyone to achieve a minimum standard, those failing the first 40-target series keep retrying until successful (or the ammo is exhausted). Of course, the more I fired, the more my eyes watered, the worse my aim, etc. Also, I hated cleaning my rifle. Since I was a lousy shot and had to keep trying, the weapon became dirtier and dirtier, and thus even more of a pain to clean to the armorer's standards. More power to those that enjoy target shooting, but I've turned down a few dozen opportunities. ****, I don't even play FPS games

I don't target shoot, I don't hunt, and my wife and I are probably more danger to ourselves than self-defense purposes can justify. When my father passes away, I have literally no idea how I'm to legally transport or dispose of his two pistols.

Collapse -


by aidemzo_adanac In reply to Oh...

You wouldn't be able to stop an intruder unless you shot him? Castle doctrine is pretty variable these days too, in many states you'd be arrested for murder. I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm not giving you a hard time because you feel a need to protect yourself with a firearm. If anything, I find it pretty sad that, in the land of the free, you would feel that insecure so as to need such protection.

Personally, if anyone pulled a gun on me, they better fire it and better be e good shot. If you don't kill me you will regret it very quickly. I live in a province where guns are carried by pu$$ies. We've still have gang violence of course, a shooting or two every couple of weeks, but they are mainly targeted between dealers and gangs but people don't feel a need to be armed, nor do they push the government to make registrations easy, in fact it's the opposite. If there's a lot of gun violence, instead of forming a private militia, people push for greater gun control, not less of it. Funny enough our Constitution, just with yours is based on the same English Law your Constitution is. Just with more realistic amendments, designed for a more modern society.

I know there's absolutely no way to remove guns from America, even if it was outlawed entirely tomorrow, in 1000 years you'd never remove the guns, it's proven impossible.

But allowing mentally ill people the freedom from such checks, is simply mentally ill. Perhaps that's the key, gun lobbyists and the government that supports it are actually scared they'll get found out for being mentally ill.

I don't know, maybe it's just freaking hilarious to anyone NOT living in America. To an American it's a normal way of life, to protect and serve...yourself. I know that the mindset there is 'it's all about me' but still, that's just freakin' nuts!

So glad I wiped my hands of the US last year, no more ties, no more contracts, no more responsibilities....damn, except a guy that called me from Seattle last night, who wants to farm me out for some web work.

Why is it I just can't escape the damn place!?!

Collapse -

Father's pistols

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to Oh...

Call a gun dealer, they'll come to you and buy them or call police, they'll come to you and take them. Either way, problem solved.

Collapse -


by maxwell edison In reply to Oh...

Re: "Personally, if anyone pulled a gun on me, they better fire it and better be a good shot. If you don't kill me you will regret it very quickly. I live in a province where guns are carried by pu$$ies."

More chest-pounding, I see.

I'm reminded of my 6 years in the military back in the mid 70s. I quickly learned that those who told the best Vietnam War stories were the least likely to have experienced them. Those who never talked about it (boasted) were more likely to be the real deal.

Related Discussions

Related Forums