US House passes gun control bill

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would bolster background checks on gun buyers.

If it passes the Senate, it will be the first major gun control law since 1994.

It was drafted after April's Virginia Tech massacre, which exposed how gunman Cho Seung-hui was able to buy two guns despite having mental health problems.

The new bill would close a gap by requiring states to automate reporting of mental health and criminal records to a database used to check gun buyers.

To become law, the measure must be approved by the Senate and be signed by President George W Bush.

The bill came as a White House report on the Virginia Tech shootings was released which said concerns over privacy laws meant data on potentially dangerous students often did not make it on to the federal gun purchase database.

A judge had ruled Cho needed mental health treatment but because the report never made it into federal records, he was able legally to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people and himself.

'Save lives'

Democratic Rep John Dingell, a strong supporter of gun rights, was one of those involved in negotiations on the House bill.

The bill will improve state reporting on people barred from buying guns

He said the legislation would "make a better system for public safety, law enforcement and for lawful and honest gun owners".

The Virginia Tech shootings had "made it clear" that the national database used for gun ownership checks needed to be improved with better information and better technology, he said.

Democratic Rep Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for office on a gun control platform after her husband was shot dead on a train, was also involved in drafting the bill.

"This is a good policy that will change lives," she said.

House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi also welcomed the move, saying: "As the Virginia Tech shooting reminded us, there is an urgent need to improve the background check system."

Gun lobby

The legislation has been backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby, which was involved in discussions with congressmen.

The NRA said the bill would not disqualify anyone currently legally able to buy a weapon.

Under legislation passed in 1968, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, drug addicts and those found by a court to be mentally disabled.

The new bill, if it becomes law, would require states to supply the federal database with records of those disqualified from gun ownership and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks.

It also provides $250 million (£125m) a year over the next three years to help states automate their systems to meet the new requirements.

The last major gun control legislation, passed in 1994 when the Democrats last controlled the House, banned some assault weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6750869.stm

[homesick_american 1]

I'm all for it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Cross referencing information from different agencies/institutions is a step in the right direction.

Interesting they mention the 1994 Assault Weapons bill - wasn't that subsequently repealed?

[SteveLaura 0]

Perhaps I'm being a bit dense today, but what does this bill actually do?

a bill that would bolster background checks on gun buyers.

The new bill would close a gap by requiring states to automate reporting of mental health and criminal records to a database used to check gun buyers.

The bill will improve state reporting on people barred from buying guns

The NRA said the bill would not disqualify anyone currently legally able to buy a weapon.

The new bill, if it becomes law, would require states to supply the federal database with records of those disqualified from gun ownership and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks.

If the NRA are in favour, you know something is fishy. Where's the teeth? Meet benchmarks or there will be 'penalties'?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It basically means that mental health and criminal record info is centralised in one database. That would (theoretically) preclude people like the VA Tech shooter from being able to purchase. Of course that doesn't address how that information is collected, or from where.

The obvious question would be what would actually get you on that database - what kind of mental health designations determine whether or not you can't buy a gun. As I recall Cho wasn't professionally diagnosed with any specific condition.

The story is a little vague on the details - the bill should be available somewhere. But I agree - the NRAs endorsement isn't a great sign.

[SteveLaura 0]

I'm gonna have to look this up when I have more time. Working in Mental Health, my initial concern is, as you say, what gets included and how. A big part of my job is to lessen the stigma of mental illness and the media stereotype of mad, random, unpredictable acts of violence on the general populace. Although there are certainly people who should not have access to firearms, my concern is that this could lead to taking a step back in terms of humanising the real issues of mental illness. (Unwieldy sentence - apologies. Blame the Taco Bell spicy chicken crunchwrap supreme and the long weekend off I'm already anticipating.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm gonna have to look this up when I have more time. Working in Mental Health, my initial concern is, as you say, what gets included and how. A big part of my job is to lessen the stigma of mental illness and the media stereotype of mad, random, unpredictable acts of violence on the general populace. Although there are certainly people who should not have access to firearms, my concern is that this could lead to taking a step back in terms of humanising the real issues of mental illness. (Unwieldy sentence - apologies. Blame the Taco Bell spicy chicken crunchwrap supreme and the long weekend off I'm already anticipating.)

I guess there's also the possibility of this being ruled unconstitutional - if its not based on some tangible, demonstrable standard of current and on-going mental ill-health (that being relatively hard to prove - outside of a long-term observational diagnosis).

Would being diagnosed with clinical depression 10-15 years ago, affect your being able to buy a gun today?

Not saying that this isn't a good idea - some sort of checking needs to be made, but perhaps it should just be determined purely by a red flag on a database. Its tricky..

[mawilson 2,133]

Would being diagnosed with clinical depression 10-15 years ago, affect your being able to buy a gun today?

Or, indeed, having a DUI conviction on your record (or some other minor infraction.)

[homesick_american 1]

I'm gonna have to look this up when I have more time. Working in Mental Health, my initial concern is, as you say, what gets included and how. A big part of my job is to lessen the stigma of mental illness and the media stereotype of mad, random, unpredictable acts of violence on the general populace. Although there are certainly people who should not have access to firearms, my concern is that this could lead to taking a step back in terms of humanising the real issues of mental illness. (Unwieldy sentence - apologies. Blame the Taco Bell spicy chicken crunchwrap supreme and the long weekend off I'm already anticipating.)

I think there is at least as much danger of mentally ill people harming themselves with firearms as there is of them perpetrating random acts of violence on people. Would you want it to be easy for a clinically depressed individual to get his hands on a gun?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm gonna have to look this up when I have more time. Working in Mental Health, my initial concern is, as you say, what gets included and how. A big part of my job is to lessen the stigma of mental illness and the media stereotype of mad, random, unpredictable acts of violence on the general populace. Although there are certainly people who should not have access to firearms, my concern is that this could lead to taking a step back in terms of humanising the real issues of mental illness. (Unwieldy sentence - apologies. Blame the Taco Bell spicy chicken crunchwrap supreme and the long weekend off I'm already anticipating.)

I think there is at least as much danger of mentally ill people harming themselves with firearms as there is of them perpetrating random acts of violence on people. Would you want it to be easy for a clinically depressed individual to get his hands on a gun?

The issue isn't suicide really - I mean there are other ways a person can do themselves in, that don't require waiting for approval on a gun. Honestly, someone who is in a suicidal frame of mind probably isn't rational enough to apply for a licence and wait to be approved (though stranger things have happened).

I guess the point is that unless a person is clinically diagnosed with manic depression, or schizophrenia etc its ultimately a subjective judgment as to what makes them 'psychologically unfit'. That's really the key issue for this bill - if they can't adequately define that then this is going to get shot down by the lawyers (probably including the ACLU).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The legislation has been backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby, which was involved in discussions with congressmen.

Whoah! This is got to be a first!

[Scott & Lai 12]

Perhaps I'm being a bit dense today, but what does this bill actually do?

a bill that would bolster background checks on gun buyers.

The new bill would close a gap by requiring states to automate reporting of mental health and criminal records to a database used to check gun buyers.

The bill will improve state reporting on people barred from buying guns

The NRA said the bill would not disqualify anyone currently legally able to buy a weapon.

The new bill, if it becomes law, would require states to supply the federal database with records of those disqualified from gun ownership and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks.

If the NRA are in favour, you know something is fishy. Where's the teeth? Meet benchmarks or there will be 'penalties'?

I imagine the NRA is ok with it because it doesn't further errode the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, but only affects those who already are barred from buying guns.

[almaty 19]

I'm gonna have to look this up when I have more time. Working in Mental Health, my initial concern is, as you say, what gets included and how. A big part of my job is to lessen the stigma of mental illness and the media stereotype of mad, random, unpredictable acts of violence on the general populace. Although there are certainly people who should not have access to firearms, my concern is that this could lead to taking a step back in terms of humanising the real issues of mental illness. (Unwieldy sentence - apologies. Blame the Taco Bell spicy chicken crunchwrap supreme and the long weekend off I'm already anticipating.)

I think there is at least as much danger of mentally ill people harming themselves with firearms as there is of them perpetrating random acts of violence on people. Would you want it to be easy for a clinically depressed individual to get his hands on a gun?

The issue isn't suicide really - I mean there are other ways a person can do themselves in, that don't require waiting for approval on a gun. Honestly, someone who is in a suicidal frame of mind probably isn't rational enough to apply for a licence and wait to be approved (though stranger things have happened).

I guess the point is that unless a person is clinically diagnosed with manic depression, or schizophrenia etc its ultimately a subjective judgment as to what makes them 'psychologically unfit'. That's really the key issue for this bill - if they can't adequately define that then this is going to get shot down by the lawyers (probably including the ACLU).

usually it means prior/current hospitalization under a psychiatrist care..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm gonna have to look this up when I have more time. Working in Mental Health, my initial concern is, as you say, what gets included and how. A big part of my job is to lessen the stigma of mental illness and the media stereotype of mad, random, unpredictable acts of violence on the general populace. Although there are certainly people who should not have access to firearms, my concern is that this could lead to taking a step back in terms of humanising the real issues of mental illness. (Unwieldy sentence - apologies. Blame the Taco Bell spicy chicken crunchwrap supreme and the long weekend off I'm already anticipating.)

I think there is at least as much danger of mentally ill people harming themselves with firearms as there is of them perpetrating random acts of violence on people. Would you want it to be easy for a clinically depressed individual to get his hands on a gun?

The issue isn't suicide really - I mean there are other ways a person can do themselves in, that don't require waiting for approval on a gun. Honestly, someone who is in a suicidal frame of mind probably isn't rational enough to apply for a licence and wait to be approved (though stranger things have happened).

I guess the point is that unless a person is clinically diagnosed with manic depression, or schizophrenia etc its ultimately a subjective judgment as to what makes them 'psychologically unfit'. That's really the key issue for this bill - if they can't adequately define that then this is going to get shot down by the lawyers (probably including the ACLU).

usually it means prior/current hospitalization under a psychiatrist care..

Right - but would that also include people who'd only been "recommended" for care?

I would assume they'd have to establish some sort of time frame limitation on how long that designation applies - like 10 years or something.

Edited June 14, 2007 by erekose

[almaty 19]

I'm gonna have to look this up when I have more time. Working in Mental Health, my initial concern is, as you say, what gets included and how. A big part of my job is to lessen the stigma of mental illness and the media stereotype of mad, random, unpredictable acts of violence on the general populace. Although there are certainly people who should not have access to firearms, my concern is that this could lead to taking a step back in terms of humanising the real issues of mental illness. (Unwieldy sentence - apologies. Blame the Taco Bell spicy chicken crunchwrap supreme and the long weekend off I'm already anticipating.)

I think there is at least as much danger of mentally ill people harming themselves with firearms as there is of them perpetrating random acts of violence on people. Would you want it to be easy for a clinically depressed individual to get his hands on a gun?

The issue isn't suicide really - I mean there are other ways a person can do themselves in, that don't require waiting for approval on a gun. Honestly, someone who is in a suicidal frame of mind probably isn't rational enough to apply for a licence and wait to be approved (though stranger things have happened).

I guess the point is that unless a person is clinically diagnosed with manic depression, or schizophrenia etc its ultimately a subjective judgment as to what makes them 'psychologically unfit'. That's really the key issue for this bill - if they can't adequately define that then this is going to get shot down by the lawyers (probably including the ACLU).

usually it means prior/current hospitalization under a psychiatrist care..

Right - but I would assume they'd have to establish some sort of time frame limitation on how long that designation applies - like 10 years or something.

no...i never seen any time limits placed on this.,..what i have seen is the burden of proof is placed on the applicant..that means, he/she must obtain a psychiatrist who will write out ..stating the applicant is rehabbed and not a dangerous to himself/herself or others...that is hard to get a doctor to do..

also, anyone who has been convicted of certain class of felony cannot ever obtain a gun card..in illinois..