Grand Compromise on Firearms at the National Level

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Some of the recent shooters seem to have obvious mental issues and it would be nice if some thing could have been done before the fact. I would love it if it could work, it just seems impossible.

1. I don't think there is any way that people would agree to a mental health check before being allowed to purchase or carry a gun. I'd be curious what the supreme court would think of that.

2. If this would only affect those who are already seeking the help of a mental health professional, then there will probably be an unintended consequence. Once people know that, if they seek help, they could be placed on the no gun list, then a large number of people who need help will never seek it. That just makes our mental health problem here in the US even worse than it is now.

I just don't see an easy answer.

That's because there isn't one. No matter how much blood is spilled, it's just not enough for any real action to take place when it comes to guns. The only acceptable answer is more guns, never less.

[B_J 2,752]

That's because there isn't one. No matter how much blood is spilled, it's just not enough for any real action to take place when it comes to guns. The only acceptable answer is more guns, never less.

I think you just went hyper-partisan for no reason.

We're not discussing whether it's about more guns, or less guns. We're discussing how to have a mental health check involved without violating 2nd amendment rights or the doctor/patient confidentiality agreement. Also, whether making a mandatory health check will help our mental health situation or cause more people to not seek help.

If somebody is depressed and they seek help, they should be able to get that help without worrying if they will be put on some type of no-gun list. Shouldn't they have some reasonable expectation of privacy when they go see a doctor?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Would this just be for concealed carry or to own any gun?

But you're saying part of the process would be to agree to a mental health check first or just those who are already seeing a mental health professional would have to release their records?

I would like to see every current gun owner undergo a mental health background check. In other words they will have to sign a release for their records to be screened by a mental health professional to see if there is any history of mental health problems. It would be up to the mental health professionals to decide which mental health problems would qualify a gun owner to lose his/her right to own a gun. If you don't agree to the record background check, you lose your guns.

Prospective buyers would have to undergo a mental health background check as well as a mental health screening. So the current gun owners would be grandfathered in from the screening part.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I think you just went hyper-partisan for no reason.

We're not discussing whether it's about more guns, or less guns. We're discussing how to have a mental health check involved without violating 2nd amendment rights or the doctor/patient confidentiality agreement. Also, whether making a mandatory health check will help our mental health situation or cause more people to not seek help.

If somebody is depressed and they seek help, they should be able to get that help without worrying if they will be put on some type of no-gun list. Shouldn't they have some reasonable expectation of privacy when they go see a doctor?

Nope, just pointing out what the end result will be.

Your response of no easy answer is what prompted my answer. When it comes to gun ownership, it's hard as dickens to get any type of regulation passed that MIGHT hinder someone owing a gun. That was the point I was trying to make.

We regulate how much medicine a person can obtain, driving and operating heavy machinery, and all other types of things, but regulating gun and ammo? It's like getting teeth pulled.

[B_J 2,752]

I would like to see every current gun owner undergo a mental health background check. In other words they will have to sign a release for their records to be screened by a mental health professional to see if there is any history of mental health problems. It would be up to the mental health professionals to decide which mental health problems would qualify a gun owner to lose his/her right to own a gun. If you don't agree to the record background check, you lose your guns.

Prospective buyers would have to undergo a mental health background check as well as a mental health screening. So the current gun owners would be grandfathered in from the screening part.

It's an interesting idea. Do you think that the supreme court would ever let that stand?

[B_J 2,752]

Nope, just pointing out what the end result will be.

Your response of no easy answer is what prompted my answer. When it comes to gun ownership, it's hard as dickens to get any type of regulation passed that MIGHT hinder someone owing a gun. That was the point I was trying to make.

We regulate how much medicine a person can obtain, driving and operating heavy machinery, and all other types of things, but regulating gun and ammo? It's like getting teeth pulled.

My response about no easy answer was about....how do you have a mental health requirement without violating the 2nd amendment or the right to privacy while also not discouraging people from seeking help if they need it?

[Teddy B 17,252]

That would be a no go quick

Yeah, no kiddin. It's funny how much the gun lovers claim to care when it's the evil Muslims doing the killing, but turn the spotlight on your self and it's a whole different story.

[Teddy B 17,252]

My response about no easy answer was about....how do you have a mental health requirement without violating the 2nd amendment or the right to privacy while also not discouraging people from seeking help if they need it?

I don't think you can accomplish that B_J. There is no easy answer. But why do innocent people have to continue to die while we sit back and do nothing, all in the name of the 2nd or one's right to privacy?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

My response about no easy answer was about....how do you have a mental health requirement without violating the 2nd amendment or the right to privacy while also not discouraging people from seeking help if they need it?

Oh, ok. Thanks for the clear up.

That is a conundrum. If I wanted to own a gun and had to get screened, I'd be okay with that.

[TBoneTX 45,591]

1. they will have to sign a release for their records to be screened by a mental health professional to see if there is any history of mental health problems.

2. It would be up to the mental health professionals to decide which mental health problems would qualify a gun owner to lose his/her right to own a gun.

3. If you don't agree to the record background check, you lose your guns.

1. How does this comport with the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed"?

2. What about rights to appeal the verdict? What if the MHPs have ulterior motives? What qualifies someone as an MHP?

3. Enforced by whom, and how?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I don't think you can accomplish that B_J. There is no easy answer. But why do innocent people have to continue to die while we sit back and do nothing, all in the name of the 2nd or one's right to privacy?

That's what my comment was about.

[B_J 2,752]

I don't think you can accomplish that B_J. There is no easy answer. But why do innocent people have to continue to die while we sit back and do nothing, all in the name of the 2nd or one's right to privacy?

By Gawd!!! It's these rights that make America the greatest country on earth.

But really, that's the deal. We sacrifice a little of our security in order to have our freedoms. To you, and me, the 2nd amendment isn't that important. But to others, it is. To me, the right to privacy is a really big one.

That's about all I got. I think as a country, we've chosen freedoms over security.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

By Gawd!!! It's these rights that make America the greatest country on earth.

But really, that's the deal. We sacrifice a little of our security in order to have our freedoms. To you, and me, the 2nd amendment isn't that important. But to others, it is. To me, the right to privacy is a really big one.

That's about all I got. I think as a country, we've chosen freedoms over security.

My thing is this. I don't want to take away a right to privacy, nor do I want to get rid of the 2nd. There has to be a sweet spot in the middle somewhere.

[Teddy B 17,252]

By Gawd!!! It's these rights that make America the greatest country on earth.

But really, that's the deal. We sacrifice a little of our security in order to have our freedoms. To you, and me, the 2nd amendment isn't that important. But to others, it is. To me, the right to privacy is a really big one.

That's about all I got. I think as a country, we've chosen freedoms over security.

I think it comes down to which is more important, owning a gun, or one's right to privacy. You would still have a choice.

[Teddy B 17,252]

By Gawd!!! It's these rights that make America the greatest country on earth.

But really, that's the deal. We sacrifice a little of our security in order to have our freedoms. To you, and me, the 2nd amendment isn't that important. But to others, it is. To me, the right to privacy is a really big one.

That's about all I got. I think as a country, we've chosen freedoms over security.

I would imagine that to any family member of someone who has been killed by a gun, they would think they've sacrificed much more than a little of their security.