Hick proposes new regs on mental health background checks

Governor Hickenlooper proposed new regulations on streamlining involuntary commitments due to mental health disorders and getting that information to the background checks for gun purchases. I have not seen these new procedures, but generally they are based on the idea that if you are a danger to yourself or someone else, then they can hold 72 hours for evaluation.

While this on it's face is a good first step, I still see at numerous problems.

1) Are the new streamlined procedures for involuntary commitments constitutional and is privacy maintained. If you are committed on a three day hold, and it is found out that was not necessary, is that information scrubbed from the database.

2) Are you blacklisted forever? If you have one involuntary hold, does that prevent you from gun purchases for the rest of your life. Or are there procedures to have that removed.

3) Should someone with severe mental health disorders that are properly treated so that person is functioning normally be allowed to purchase guns? Who monitors if they maintain their treatment?

4) What about safeguards regarding those who have someone who would not pass a background check living in their households? Should they not be required to demonstrate that they can safeguard those weapons from that individual?

5) Are these simply a panacea that really have little effect on the real world. Certainly James Holmes would have still been able to legally purchase his weapons. The Connecticut shooter would still have had access to his mother's weapons.

6) Even if someone is listed on the database, they can still purchase most weapons from private individuals, as you can easily seen on this and other websites. Private gun sellers simply don't do background checks.

So while this makes good headlines, and may someday prevent someone who should not have a weapon from obtaining them, it seems they will have little effect in the real world.

It is a little bit better than a simple "feel good measure".
But I also worry that fear of a lifetime ban on firearm rights might prevent people from seeking help for their mental issues.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Governor Hickenlooper proposed new regulations on streamlining involuntary commitments due to mental health disorders and getting that information to the background checks for gun purchases. I have not seen these new procedures, but generally they are based on the idea that if you are a danger to yourself or someone else, then they can hold 72 hours for evaluation.

While this on it's face is a good first step, I still see at numerous problems.

1) Are the new streamlined procedures for involuntary commitments constitutional and is privacy maintained. If you are committed on a three day hold, and it is found out that was not necessary, is that information scrubbed from the database.

2) Are you blacklisted forever? If you have one involuntary hold, does that prevent you from gun purchases for the rest of your life. Or are there procedures to have that removed.

3) Should someone with severe mental health disorders that are properly treated so that person is functioning normally be allowed to purchase guns? Who monitors if they maintain their treatment?

4) What about safeguards regarding those who have someone who would not pass a background check living in their households? Should they not be required to demonstrate that they can safeguard those weapons from that individual?

5) Are these simply a panacea that really have little effect on the real world. Certainly James Holmes would have still been able to legally purchase his weapons. The Connecticut shooter would still have had access to his mother's weapons.

6) Even if someone is listed on the database, they can still purchase most weapons from private individuals, as you can easily seen on this and other websites. Private gun sellers simply don't do background checks.

So while this makes good headlines, and may someday prevent someone who should not have a weapon from obtaining them, it seems they will have little effect in the real world.

You make some good points.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while this makes good headlines, and may someday prevent someone who should not have a weapon from obtaining them, it seems they will have little effect in the real world.

The same can be said of an assault rifle ban.

It's a start... And I've already written to both Colorado Senators, and my House Rep, and signed about 10 petitions, and sent email to Pelosi and Reid, and Feinstein, and donated some money to to the gun-control effort...

Will it make it impossible?...Not likely... Will it help or slow it down?...Maybe... Do I give a rat's-a** what the gun-nuts and NRA thinks? Absolutely not.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Governor Hickenlooper proposed new regulations on streamlining involuntary commitments due to mental health disorders and getting that information to the background checks for gun purchases. I have not seen these new procedures, but generally they are based on the idea that if you are a danger to yourself or someone else, then they can hold 72 hours for evaluation.

While this on it's face is a good first step, I still see at numerous problems.

1) Are the new streamlined procedures for involuntary commitments constitutional and is privacy maintained. If you are committed on a three day hold, and it is found out that was not necessary, is that information scrubbed from the database.

2) Are you blacklisted forever? If you have one involuntary hold, does that prevent you from gun purchases for the rest of your life. Or are there procedures to have that removed.

3) Should someone with severe mental health disorders that are properly treated so that person is functioning normally be allowed to purchase guns? Who monitors if they maintain their treatment?

4) What about safeguards regarding those who have someone who would not pass a background check living in their households? Should they not be required to demonstrate that they can safeguard those weapons from that individual?

5) Are these simply a panacea that really have little effect on the real world. Certainly James Holmes would have still been able to legally purchase his weapons. The Connecticut shooter would still have had access to his mother's weapons.

6) Even if someone is listed on the database, they can still purchase most weapons from private individuals, as you can easily seen on this and other websites. Private gun sellers simply don't do background checks.

So while this makes good headlines, and may someday prevent someone who should not have a weapon from obtaining them, it seems they will have little effect in the real world.

Sounds pretty scary to me. I ask anyone out there reading. Do you know anyone qualified to tell you that you need to be locked up because they think you are crazy?

Yikes.

You know what would be cool. They could follow Park County's lead on the MMJ smell stuff which obviously a great basis to search a home without a warrant, it was justified by folks on this board. The constitution does not really matter when it comes to stuff that people or the govt. really WANT.

I think right now we really WANT to round up anyone we think might ever do something and lock them up...so we will, we just need a few more nights of coverage to make people really understand how important it is to let the govt ID all crazy people and cart them away. All great societies have done it in the past, we have done it before, it's all just a little bit of history repeating.

You know what would really help things along, if we could create a whole new money grubbing government teet sucking industry that could lobby congress for this. Perhaps the prison industry could take care of these folks like they solved our other criminal lock up burdens? I bet they are already putting more money into profiting off of this event than most of us make in a lifetime....

So all your reasons are well thought out....how about it is just wrong and an over reaction and we need to give the govt less right to lock people up before they do things, regardless of their mental status. No pre-punishment period, no use of force against those that have not used it period. Remember, people that are nuts always deny it. Any of you guys nuts? Perhaps you are not qualified to decide any more...

I've written to the Auto manufacturers, my senators, congressmen, Pelosi, and many more.
Auto's should not be made to go faster than 25. Just think of the lives it will save.
No one needs a car that goes 120+. So it's time to take a stand.

FredHayek wrote: It is a little bit better than a simple "feel good measure".
But I also worry that fear of a lifetime ban on firearm rights might prevent people from seeking help for their mental issues.

That is a wicked good point but is not relevant.

This is about reacting, not about addressing the problem. There is no solving the real problem, there is only making the dense LJs of the world happy.

Hmmm, seems to me that shooting folks is a real good way to get a bunch of Democrats to send you money, a good way to increase the control of police, schools and mental health professionals.

Want to talk about incentive, if coverage of Holmes and Clebold and others was incentive to shoot because you know your name will be in lights after you die.....how much incentive is there for those that actually benefit from this when they are alive to precipitate such an event.

If I was crazy and wanted gun control, perhaps the best thing you can do to reach your goal is buy a gun and use it poorly.

Who really has the most to gain? I am not accusing anyone or group, but it is always a reasonable question to act. It would make a great movie to have some politician have his brother hire someone to get find a crazy person on the edge, arm them and push them off that edge. It might even be a full two hours.

Regs usually help group #1, the regulators at the expense of everyone else.

What do you mean movie?
Holder and his cohorts already have done this, and then you have the FBI that has nothing to do so they find a few radicals, get em drunk give em bomb supplies and then bust em to make them selves look good.
Hey the government has experimented with mind control drugs and devices for decades.

So why not cause tragedies to advance their agenda's.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://dailypress2.com/forums/images/smilies/animated_smilies/crazy.gif&sa=X&ei=hAMQUPe8KYas9ASmr4DoCA&ved=0CAkQ8wc4IA&usg=AFQjCNGOCicgW9XbhoE-G8tjxwXaIMdZlQ


Here come the black helicopters.....




It's gonna be a loooooong four years for you guys..... Pity....