When it comes to sharing mental health records with safety officials for gun background checks, Maine is among the worst performing states, according to a national group promoting gun control.
In the wake of 26 murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14 committed by a man believed to have mental health problems, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns on Wednesday urged President Barack Obama to do three things: Get high-capacity rifles off the streets, require every gun buyer to pass a criminal background check and make gun trafficking a federal crime.
Last year, Mayors Against Illegal Guns issued a report on how each state did providing mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.
That November 2011 report said Maine had submitted 35 mental health records but should have submitted 11,078 records.
Maine member Bill Stokes questioned that 11,078 number, calling it too high. Stokes is the mayor of Augusta, a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and has prosecuted murder trials as chief of the criminal division of the Maine attorney general’s office.
Stokes and Larry Gilbert, former mayor of Lewiston and a Mayors Against Illegal Guns member, said Wednesday that more needs to be done to prevent those who shouldn’t have guns from getting them.
Providing only 35 mental health records for background checks is a “lousy” performance, Gilbert said. It’s time, he said, to worry less about individual rights and focus on protecting society.
There are costs to freedom to ensure safety, such as when people fly on a commercial airplane.
“We had a shoe bomber, which means now everybody has to take off their shoes. We have people on a no-fly list, yet they can go out and buy a gun,” Gilbert said.
Protecting the public is the first responsibility of elected officials, he said.
“I’m all for people having guns to go hunting and target shooting, but to have these high-capacity clips on assault rifles, they’re not necessary. Government has a responsibility,” Gilbert said.
Under existing laws, the Maine court system is required to send mental health records to the Maine Department of Public Safety, then to the federal NICS, in three cases: When the court has involuntarily committed a mentally ill person, when a person has committed a crime and been found not responsible because of mental illness, and when the court finds a person not competent to stand trial.
“Those records are supposed to be sent to the Maine Department of [Public] Safety, who reports to the FBI,” Stokes said. “This information needs to be submitted.”
But the law wouldn’t cover others suffering with mental illness, even if they’ve been hospitalized, who haven’t dealt with Maine court system, Stokes said.
In addition, the state law says the courts are not required to transmit records without sufficient funding. Federal funding was anticipated, but “that has not materialized,” he said. “The dilemma in this law is that it creates an out.” The Maine Department of Public Safety “is working to try to comply,” he said.
Maine’s record-sharing law went into effect in 2009. According to the Mayors Against Illegal Guns report, state lawmakers and the Department of Public Safety have disagreed about what other kind of mental health records should be submitted to NICS.
Also, Maine lacks an electronic reporting infrastructure for civil or criminal records, the report said, and the state is exploring applying for federal grants to improve the background check system.
The top advocate for the mentally ill in Maine said Wednesday that the state’s law leaves out many mentally ill, and the number who are violent is small.
“Most people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of crimes than perpetrators,” Carol Carothers, executive director of the Maine Chapter of National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, said. That said, Carothers added, when active states of psychosis and substance abuse are combined, “those are predictors of rates of violence.”
In Maine, one in four people wrestle with mental health problems, which is more than 200,000.
“Three percent of those have serious mental health issues, and a small percentage of that 3 percent is in psychosis,” Carothers said.
For NAMI the debate is not about gun control.
“It’s about early access to preventative mental health services,” Carothers said. “That’s a complex discussion.”
We certainly don’t want to make it any more stigmatized to reach out for help when a person is in a crisis situation. At some time in our lives most of us will face an unexpected loss or stressor where reaching out for a hand will help us make it through.
That said, in my opinion (and I own guns), once you start going through the paperwork to legally purchase a gun, all bets should be off. The background check should include criminal and mental health records.
If a person commits himself/herself because the moon is telling them to kill people, I think that is useful information to have when doing a firearms background check.
All of that said, better mental health records reporting would not have done anything (as far as we know, the legal buyer of those guns was not mentally ill or previously hospitalized) to prevent what happened in CT.
It has been reported the the CT shooter was actually denied when he tried to buy a gun earlier in the week. That part of the system actually worked. The guns her used were not legally obtained. He stole them from his mother.
did he live with his mother? If so, perhaps when you buy a gun the background check should also include anyone living in your household…
I wouldn’t be totally against that, and I am a gun owner. IF guns are going to be in the house, I don’t see it as a bad thing for the background check to see the whole picture. Of course that doesn’t prevent somebody from lying on the application (federal offense, however) or maybe they buy a gun and THEN a day/week/month later, the unstable emotionally detached family member moves in.
No matter what the regulation is, there will be problems that can arise.
Exactly. That would not be dissimilar to what happens when you are vetted for a government security clearance. They don’t simply look at your individual situation, they look at the environment in which you operate in (for instance: do you have close family living overseas).
Yes , he did. He was dependent on her, and with his self loathing, he turned that on her in the end too.
And if the person says “I live alone” do we believe them or do we send someone to the house to see if they are telling the truth?
here’s what i think. owning guns, like most things in life, is a responsibility, not a privilege. Mrs. Lanza’s guns were apparently not kept in a gun safe, but were accessible to her disturbed son. Gun enthusiasts, like dog owners, need to understand that their ‘hobby’ has the potential to do others harm and therefore need to be vigilant, a personal characteristic lacking in many folks.
I think responsible gun owners do in fact think that way. You can regulate all day long, but its not going to stop irresponsible people from existing.
sadly, i totally agree with you.
I agree 100%. This Nancy Lanza seems to have had some real issues of her own and very poor logical and common sense thinking skills (critical thinking skills.) Maybe a game of Monopoly with her son would have been a much better activity, even if difficult, with his aspergers or whatever he had (after all, she went out and played the game bunco or whatever it’s called.) Yet her way of “bonding” was through guns and having all these guns around her house. Newtown is a safe community. But , it takes all kinds. Victim Emilie Parker was being taught Portugese by her father, and being brought up with healthy values and in a stable and loving household. Then, in the same town you have the Lanzas with a mother stockpiling and talking of the end of the world, doomsday,etc. You get the picture. This contributed to this massacre at the school. Her son was the murderer however.
I am willing to get that in the city or town you live in there is a “prepper” or a “dooms day” believer.
Why the F would you have guns in your house knowing you had an unstable family member? Her guns she was responsible for them too bad she can not be held accountable.
I am willing to bet you would be right .
Unless you knew her personally, your opinion is just that. Take stock in your own life before you judge others on how they lived theirs. Nancy Lanza was a victim of a violent crime, and paid the untimate price, it’s funny how some feel the need to portray her as the perpatrator.
Our actions have consequences, sometimes grave. Having unlocked guns around her home with a son who she knew was unstable to put it mildly (and yes, she knew he was) was so irresponsible .
We don’t know where the weapons were kept. They may have been in a a safe. Since his mother took him shooting he may have known the combination or knew where the key was kept.
fair enough. the key word in my comment is ‘accessible’.
if he knew the combo, they were indeed accessible.
Owning a firearm is a RIGHT granted by our Constitution.
When will people wake up. Criminals do NOT obey the law. The MURDERER in CT STOLE the firearms STOLE a car drove to a “GUN FREE ZONE” and MURDERED more people. But people somehow think another law woudl stop or have stopped it? Our prisons are packed to the gills with those who choose to not obey laws.
Drugs are illegal but you can get any drug you want anywhere in Maine. Drunk driving is illegal ever state troopers get caught doing it. Stealing is illegal BDN is full of daily reports of them. Beating your wife/ girlfriend is illegal Read BDN any day to how many ignore it.
Only those us us law abiding citizens obey the law. We had a ban already Under Clinton and that did ZERO to stop crime in fact many people faced charges for having “banned” configurations that did not know it.
You can NOT fix stupid by regulating the good people.
Denied five times…no bells went off….why?
Again, there is no reliable, empirical evidence that people with a mental illness are more prone to violence than the general population.
By the way, there’s no such thing as committing yourself. Furthermore, the District of Columbia v. Heller decision made it clear that before a right can be taken away, it must be done according to due process protections afforded by the Constitution. Emergency hospitalization under Maine law, in which a person is held at a mental hospital without a hearing, fails to meet due process requirements. See the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Rehlander.
However, in Maine, the “Blue Paper” results in you losing your firearms rights (due to state law) for at least 5 years.
Not true. See the Supreme Court’s Heller decision and the 1st Circuit’s Rehlander decision. That’s why I cited them.
See Maine’s laws. NOT the federal one. Until Heller, the blue paper did result in federal prohibition, after it, the BATFE issued a clarification letter, however Maine still imposes a restriction based upon mere blue papers, which it is allowed to do. Trust me, I blue paper people a lot and kept up with this. The fed permanent restriction only comes into play after the court committal hearing.
ETA: it was the Rehlander decision, not Heller that changed the former federal stance on Maine’s blue paper.
15 M.R.S.A. §393(4-A). Application for relief. “Except as otherwise
provided, a person [who has been admitted to a hospital involuntarily
under a blue paper], but who has not been committed to a psychiatric
hospital pursuant to an order of the District Court pursuant to Title
34-B, section 3864, may, after the expiration of 5 years from the date
of final discharge from [the admission], apply to the commissioner for
relief from the disability
You have grossly misinterpreted the law. Title 34 MRSA Sect. 3863 deals with blue papers — emergency hospitalization. Title 34 MRSA Sect. 3864, to which you refer indirectly, deals with a committal proceeding.
You conveniently left out the actual language of 15 MRSA Sect. 393(4-A): “Except as otherwise provided, a person subject to the federal prohibition against possession of firearms pursuant to 18 United States Code, Section 922(g)(4) as a result of being ADJUDICATED a mental defective may, after the expiration of 5 years from the date of final discharge from commitment, apply to the commissioner for relief from the disability” (emphasis added).
In its analysis, the 1st Circuit says: “Section 3863 permits three-day involuntary hospitalizations (earlier it was five days) without any adversary proceeding and with no finding by an independent judicial or even administrative officer that the subject is either mentally disturbed or dangerous. True, there must be an application to a judge and a certification by a ‘medical practitioner’; but the judge merely determines that the procedural steps have been taken and makes no substantive findings. And the subject is never heard by the judge, through counsel or otherwise.”
Section 3863 does not result in an adjudication. Section 3864 does. Section 3863 deals with “blue papers.” As the U.S. District Court for Maine noted in the original case, which the 1st Circuit overturned, the District Court states that the case is about blue papers: “18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) prohibits the possession of a firearm by persons ‘who have been committed to a mental institution.’ Mr. Rehlander argues that finding him ‘committed’ for purposes of § 922(g)(4) violates his rights under the Fifth and Second Amendments. For his Fifth Amendment argument, Mr. Rehlander contends that ‘[b]ecause a “blue paper” in Maine does not provide the procedures needed to comply with the Due Process Clause, basing the instant prosecution on a procedure that was neither intended to, nor would be recognized as a valid method of “commitment” to a mental hospital, renders the term meaningless” and therefore unconstitutionally vague.”
Furthermore, you are referring to state laws that were enacted as late as 2009, passing them off as a response to the Rehlander ruling. One problem: Rehlander was decided 11 months ago.
The U.S. Constitution ALWAYS trumps state law.
We don’t have to worry about this anymore, under Obamacare ALL your medical records will be in the Federal database.
Can you please cite the portion of the law that requires this? Electronification of medical records is a requirement, but that has nothing to do with the federal government keeping a database of them.
It’s already been reported that the IRS will have access to your medical records. People need to stop and think about how deep Obama care is going to dig into their lives. Of course he and his liberal cronies conveniently made it so this abomination won’t take effect until they are all lame ducks. You will not only have to prove to the IRS that you have health care coverage they will be checking into you personal health issues as well. If you fail to to get healthcare coverage and make a decent salary……stand by for the the tax man, hope you all aren’t too fond of that tax return every year.
“Reported.” Citation, please.
But, his mother had the guns not him. So if you have a relative that has a mental “disorder” then you should not be allowed to have firearms?
If they would reach out for help instead of shooting people retractions would not be needed
I am surprised the governor didn’t seize the opportunity to slam the state of Maine again for being last at something. He loves to kick Maine while it is down.
If you commit yourself to a psychiatric facility that does not get reported on the background check, only the ones that are adjudicated to a facility are.
I love being lectured by the President about guns when his administration has:
1. Funneled guns to Mexican drug smugglers. 2. Lied about funneling guns to Mexican drug smugglers.
are you referring the program started by the bush administration?
Methinks it was the one shut down by the Bush administration, then reguritated by Obungle & Co.
Correct. Fast and Furious is an Obama plan. Totally different from what Bush did. Only the libs want to blame Bush for this debacle.
Bush’s ATF followed the guns and got the back. Obama’s ATF choose to wait and see where they turned up. HUGE difference. especially when it was related to an american death. the election is over, give up the lies
minus the last part you response was most helpful…let me make sense of what you said though without so much rhetoric:
The program likely has the same name, the goal may be the same; but the actual operation of the mission has changed, they took more risks and the consequence is an American was killed by a dangerous person using a rifle that was part of the program.
different name, it was a new operation. you are correct about the rest. I apologize for the tone if you were speaking in ignorance, most who post that comment are not. They either do know better, or refuse to look at facts
No, the one where the guns didn’t cross the border until obozo was in office!
The program under bush they sold them arms that were not functional.
Want to stop ALL school shootings forever? Put armed police or screened and then armed volunteers in all schools…problem solved once and for all.
Also metal detectors at all doors and all windows at least at ground level locked at all times wouldn’t hurt.
This won’t stop all school shootings forever, but it will deter the majority of these cowards from even thinking about it.
I guess you didn’t hear…. The school doors were locked.
And he shot his way through the glass door panel.
Perhaps the best source of info on potentially dangerous students would be the teachers. They see these kids more than the parents. Others are off the radar which is a big part of the problem.
I think that could be part of a solution, but only 1 side of this debate talks of abridging constitutional rights. Some make the argument that no one need a 30 round magazine. That same argument could be made against virtually everything except food and shelter. No one needs a Ferrari that goes over 200 m.p.h. No one needs a yacht. No one needs a second home. No one needs a swimming pool. No one needs to eat lobster. Pretty flimsy. Some are blaming the guns, but didn’t the shooter drive to the school? Is not the car as responsible for the killers actions as the guns? If he did not have access to a car, all of this could have been prevented. All sound pretty silly. Why are we talking about abridging the 2nd Amendment, and giving the Government the power to choose what free citizens can, what, and how much they shoot, when no one knows what the real is the real cause.
Not good comparisons at all. For the most part, lobster, a second home, a Ferrari, a swimming pool do not kill 26 people, execution style.
Neither does a lawfully owned gun in 99.99% of cases. You wish to restrict the freedoms of 100% of gun owners in order to make a poor attempt at stopping something that occurs at a very very small rate. Look at the drug laws that have been put in place. How well have they stopped anything?
Neither do responsible gun owners or the vast majority of people in this country. What do you and other anti-gun types not understand about the fact that what he did was illegal. Regardless of what he used to commit his crimes, he still committed mass murder. Does that merit no attention? A person did this. Remove the person from the situation and you get no event whatsoever. You cannot just ignore that fact. Yes, he used guns as tools for his crimes. But do you honestly think that if we banned assault weapons and made it even harder to obtain any guns, we would have prevented this tragedy–or would we have just delayed the inevitable? You can regulate all you want, but that will not stop a determined criminal from doing what they want.
Legal, responsible gun owners have done nothing wrong here. Anti-gun people are pushing for regulations and bans that will effect a large percentage of the population to prevent something a very very small percentage of the population may commit. And of that vast minority, none of which will care if a ban is in place or not. You know why? They are criminals! They do not care what laws are put into place, they have no problem committing murder, so do you think some silly gun laws and restrictions are really going to prevent anything?
Niether do inanimate objects. Talking about mental health screening, it appears many of you have an irrational fear of objects, when you should fear the person controlling any dangerous object.
Don’t infringe on the rights of legal US citizens to make you feel good in a knee jerk response, when you do not know what the real cause of this mess is. Legislation will not stop these attacks, but will make you feel better. That is a bad way to pass laws, but the left will exploit any tragedy for political purposes.
Extremely poor analogies.
All? Forever? That’s a whole lot of assumption.
Put an elite soldier type, or small group of better armed and better trained killers against school police or green “volunteers” and they would more than likely die with the rest, guns or not. Assuming all future attacks will be done by stupid kids, and not by politically motivated psychos like Anders Breivik, is just that, an assumption.
You can not protect against the first group of people even if you were able to make ALL guns vanish. Why do you want to blow this into something it is not?
Exactly right. My point is that complete security is a pipe dream. Filling schools with guns is not an acceptable solution – not only because it creates more risk, but because they’d more than likely be next to useless in many scenarios.
I’m not trying to blow it into anything – just the opposite – trying to offer a little reality and perspective.
Agreed.
What you said was neither realistic nor in perspective. Realism is one lone crazy person or a couple of messed up kids coming in with guns. A realistic measure would be to allow teachers who already have a permit to carry concealed to carry in the school as they would anywhere else in there day to day life. They already have a permit so you are not increasing the risk by allowing them to carry in the school, you are decreasing the risk by having someone in the school who has the capability to stop the bad guy before he kills over 2 dozen kids.
People that feel they need to carry guns everywhere they go to be safe, already display a disproportionate amount of fear and paranoia in my opinion – this in itself represents a lack of good judgment. I think the risk would easily outweigh the potential reward.
A CCP does not qualify anyone for emergency tactics. The “qualifications” if you can call them that – a basic course and a few forms certainly doesn’t make one swat. ;)
Maybe if a few more of these teachers had had a bit more fear and paranoia one of them might have been able to save some lives. You and I look at weapons owners differently. I see them as the responsible ones I can turn to if things go bad because liberals won’t keep criminals where they belong or let us kill them. The law provides me with the right to protect myself. Why wouldn’t I use it?
As for “tactics”, it takes no more special training to deal with one of these deranged kids than it does to put down a dog. In the few cases where a person who had a weapon of their own confronted one, most chose to kill themselves.
Either way, having some one there able to fightback sure sounds better than nothing to me.
I’m not against the right to own weapons. Though there is a big difference between someone who has guns in their home for self defense or hunting, and someone that carries a gun with them everywhere, in my opinion. Though I would not try to deny anyone this right.
The kid in this latest incident (and others like it) needed to be in the loony bin. We can’t put people in prison for having the potential of violence obviously. I’m not against lenient sentences against violent offenders or even against capital punishment, given the evidence is indisputable. If you’ve got me pegged as a bleeding heart, you’ve got it wrong.
I’m willing to hear proposals about security in schools, though blurring the line between teachers and police is not something I think most would even consider.
Not blurring the lines at all, just looking at the same goal. What do you really accomplish by not allowing a responsible teacher to carry the gun he already owns and is permitted for? I mean honestly if he intends to kill your children he is just going to bring it in anyway and do it, gun free zone or no gun free zone. That whole “gun free zone” thing is just a sign displayed to the public that everyone on the property is defenseless. I would love to see some of the anti-gun crowd show the strength of their convictions by putting a sign in their front yard advertising their home as a gun free zone.
If thats the case at least they would be able to put up a fight and not be executed. Worst thing is your scenario is a possibility with terrorist.
An armed volunteer like George Zimmerman in Florida? You think that will stop all shootings forever?
Lets not forget funneling guns to Al Qaeda in Libya, and forking over billions to the radical Islamist government in Pakistan, and Egypt.
Armored back packs – brought to you by the same loony fringe that introduced business parachutes following 9/11.
Not to mention that once kids are in the classroom, don’t they usually take their backpacks off?
The loony ones are the scared wusses who buy these things.
No more loony than some of the things people are floating around here.
“the Mayors Against Illegal Guns on Wednesday urged President Obama to do three things:
Get high-capacity rifles off the streets, require every
gun buyer to pass a criminal background check and make gun trafficking a
federal crime.”
_______
And still not a damn thing mention about doing a mental health background check. So, do the next best thing, and probably even better, devise a short mental illness exam on paper at time of purchase and submit it along with the criminal background check.
No more just walking in off the street and purchasing a firearm, mandatory wait period until everything checks out, and if someone is living off the grid no sale.
I welcome all rebuttals as a responsible gun owner trying to protect my birth rights. Please do not attempt to slat this as a gun grab from the Obama administration. We, that’s you and I as gun owners have to protect our rights.
“So, do the next best thing, and probably even better, devise a short mental illness exam on paper at time of purchase and submit it along with the criminal background check.”
Due process. Look it up in the U.S. Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision and in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Rehlander.
I hear you, but these whack-jobs are making us look bad. What then shall we do, wait until they come after our revolver ?
Let me clue you into something, we don’t have rights, we have a set of privileges in this country. Forget about the Bill of Rights. And those privileges are at whims notice at anytime to be revoked.
Look up 1942 on Wikipedia under Japanese American citizen internment if you think you have real rights in this country.
These whack-jobs are making THEMSELVES look bad. Those American citizens locked up during WW2 were no different than the German citizens locked up by Hitler ! Rights are rights , not privileges. Educate yourself if it’s not to late. Give up your guns if you must. I for one ,will defend your rights to my death.
This is where HIPPA laws come into play. The government can’t just pull someone’s medical records to law inforcement agencies, especially mental health ones, except for specific reasons-like involvement in a crime or abuse allegations. What it would come down to is someone voluntarily signing a records release to given them access.
The laws of confidentially & disclosure of health records, in particular mental health records, are complex and numerous…..in most cases regarding health info it can only be released by written permission by the individual, hence problem #1……also it takes a court order per statute to get records released in order to protect public health or welfare….hence problem #2, personal responsibility and reporting responsibility……which comes right back to the main issue re: guns…..punishing those who abide by law and are responsible gun owners, of any kind, is absolutely not going to do one thing to alleviate the related gun problems in America……
The other problem I see in the future is who is going to voluntarily seek assistance if they know there name is going to be placed on a state or federal registry of people with “mental illness”.
Where does the BDN find these crap articles? BDN is becoming more of a joke every week! Why not just change the name to something like Socialist’s Daily Propaganda! Or Progressive Daily Diatribe?
It sure isn’t NEWS when you only give one side!!!!!!!!!
BDN should be ashamed, but their arrogance prevents it.
What is the other side to this article? Someone who says that Maine’s infrastructure for complying with Federal law is just fine, and there is absolutely no problem in people with mental health issues having access to weapons?
And the other side is where? Should you write it?
Assuming this is in reply to the rather aptly-named “A.M. Superior”, not me :-)
Read. Check the byline. As for the alleged political slant, where do you get your reactionary propaganda? Do you subscribe to the print edition or just tee off online? Oh well, keeps you occupied, I guess.
Does the Democrat Party of Maine really want to disclose information on it’s voter base like that?
You don’t seem “superior” in anything.
Huh?
How do we stop mass murder by guns? I can not answer that question, because I seriously don’t believe we can. Most of these murders were planned out in advance. If the person committing these crimes does not have the proper weapon to carry out their plan then they would find another way. I would have to say that if the gun owners in this country believed even for a second that giving up their guns would stop mass murder they would willingly give up their guns. Noone wants these types of crimes to happen. Millions of gun owners are lawabiding citizens and have not, will not and have never even thought of committing any crime. Alot of people who are anti gun know nothing about guns. They look at them as killing machines. And yes they can kill in the hands of the wrong person, but to ban them from lawabiding citizens is crazy. I don’t know how these terrible tragedys can be stopped. I wish evil didn’t exist but it does. If we could see ahead of time who would do such a thing than we would definetly stop it. Talking about gun control may be a first step, I don’t know.
You are absolutely correct. What it seems a lot of anti-gun people fail to look at is taking the guns away from responsible gun owners resolves nothing. It will not suddenly stop crime, it will not stop shootings, it will not make the world a better place. Whether a criminal uses a gun or not, its still illegal to murder.
Maybe there are a few additional steps that can be taken when purchasing a gun. That still won’t prevent crime. Sure, it may deter some people, but a determined individual like you said most likely plans out their crime, so this would only be seen as a setback and most likely push them to obtain illegal guns. So most likely, more regulations and banning types of guns will not be as successful as anti-gun people think it will be.
You are right, there is no good answer. You are basically asking, how do we stop crime? We have laws in place against murder and assault. Are they not strict enough? We have gun control laws in place now. There are waiting periods and background checks in place. We could extend that to all guns and maybe restrict private sale between individuals, force the registration of all guns to some national registry…so your grandfather’s old 30-30 would need to be registered. Okay, its still only creating more hassle for legal, responsible gun owners and not doing a thing against the criminal element. They are not concerned about registering a gun, waiting periods, background checks, or the ultimate end result of their actions–murder. So I just fail to see how stronger regulations, banning types of guns, or even banning them completely will ever stop mass murder by guns. It will not just stop because guns become illegal to own. I don’t know the answer either, but more regulations, bans, and restrictions may not be the ultimate fix democrats and anti-gun people are looking for.
And how are they to be regarded other than killing machines?
Your right they should be regarded as such. I only meant that not everyone who owns a gun uses it to kill. Alot use them for recreational target shooting. I shouldn’t have stated it that way. I will try to find a better way of stating what I mean in the future.
The mentally ill are not all violent. Many people with emotional problems are not dangers to society and should be able to defend themselves and their homes.
I could not disagree with you more. Any person with a mental illness should not be allowed to own a firearm, especially those with emotional problems. A mentally ill person may be in the right state of mind when purchasing, however the could snap at anytime.
Valid point, but I see a problem in how to truly define mental illness, and who is going to do that. Doctors are often in disagreement about diagnoses. I can’t think of many people I know who have NOT had periods of emotional instability in their lives due to situational circumstances; people have been on anti-depressants or mild tranquilizers for periods of time, e.g. after the loss of a loved one, divorces, etc. I don’t think of these people as truly mentally ill – just going through a rough time. Then again, people who supposedly do *not* have a mental illness also snap at any time (think road rage), so I certainly don’t know the answer, but I think its a very complicated issue that can’t be dealt with properly by an “all or none” approach. I think “phosphorescent’ (a few posts above) makes a statement equally valid to yours. Just more food for thought.
I would sooner trust a mentally ill person than a stable person if I was Jewish in Germany during WW11 . People will do the right thing with the right leadership.
“Any person with a mental illness should not be allowed to own a firearm, especially those with emotional problems.”
Facts be damned, right? Who cares if the facts are that people with a mental illness are no more likely than the general population to commit violent acts, just as long as we can fool ourselves into thinking we have solved the problem?
Well you can disagree but NOT all people with emotional problems are a danger. You are blanketing a whole group of people as being the same in the head. They aren’t.
ANYONE can snap, most people under a doctors care don’t. That’s why they shouldn’t be discriminated against.
Just because someone takes a med for an issue doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to defend themselves.
So I cant blanket a entire mental illness group, but gun control laws can blanket gun ownership? That doesn’t make since, nor fair. If its ok for one, then its ok for all.
Absolutely agree….but if the emotional needs of the individual require medication(s) and / or regular visits to a professional provider for care then the responsibility for ongoing evaluations to determine whether the therapy is effective and optimal must be shared by the person and provider and supported in the healthcare system…..and if the provider determines at any time a threat or proposed threat of violence or non-compliance by the patient then there should be a defined path for intervention…..restricting any gun or gun accessory will not address the needs of the emotionally unstable just restrict the rights of responsible law abiding gun ownership…..
On the bright side, Maine seems to have more problems with knives than it does with guns. Most of the gun deaths in Maine are caused by the Authorities.
When we have an unfit government deciding whos fit, we have a problem.. The Government is overgrown and is eating it’self from the inside out. This whole this is a joke.
Extreme opinion.
Par for the course.
Stupid and lazy people cause more shooting deaths than crazy people.
Some more recent gun and shooting accidents involving children include:
a 2-year-old in Cooper County, Missouri, died after shooting himself in the head with a handgun that “he got a hold of” in his house.
a 3-year-old in Loris, South Carolina, near Myrtle Beach, died after shooting himself in the head with a pistol that he found in the car.
a 5-year-old in Belleville, Illinois, near St. Louis, was accidentally shot in the head with a shotgun by his 10-year-old brother.
a 3-year-old in Maryland Heights, Missouri, near St. Louis, who shot himself once in the chest, died. He found the gun in his parents bedroom, one of whom is a police officer.
a 2-year-old was shot in the head by his 5-year-old brother in Connersville, Indiana who was playing with a gun he found in a bedroom. The boy, a twin, died of the gun shot.
a 3-year-old in St. Louis, Missouri who died after she shot herself in the head with a gun she found tucked between two mattresses.
a 6-year-old who was shot and killed by his 11-year-old stepbrother, in what was initially thought to be an accident, but the boy is now facing possible murder charges. The two boys were left home alone at the time of the shooting in Martinsville, Indiana.
a 10-year-old in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi died after he shot himself with his grandfather’s gun that he found in his nightstand. He would have been going into the fifth grade next fall.
a 15-year-old from Cherry Hill, Baltimore was shot in the head and killed by a 12-year-old friend who was playing with the gun during a sleepover.
a 5-year-old from Bossier City, Louisiana found a loaded handgun a cabinet in his home, and accidentally shot and killed himself.
a 2-year-old near Fresno, California found a loaded, semi-automatic handgun in his home, walked into a bedroom with the gun, and it fired, striking and killing his 6-year-old sister.
a 3-year-old in South Carolina was shot in his upper boy by his uncle who was cleaning his gun when it accidentally fire. The toddler died in emergency surgery.
a 2-year-old in Georgia was shot in the back by a 9 or 10-year-old who found a gun in a van they were all playing in while the toddler’s family was preparing to move to a new apartment.
a 2-year-old in Phoenix was shot in the face with a handgun by her 8-year-old brother, who thought he was playing with a toy gun he found on the floor of his grandfather’s apartment.
a 3-year-old in Summerville, South Carolina who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her head after finding a loaded, unsecured handgun on the window sill of her parent’s bedroom
a 5-year-old in Telferner, Texas who shot his 4-year-old brother in the abdomen with a rifle they were playing with in their home. His brother died from the gun shot wound.
a 2-year-old in Missouri who died after he accidentally shot himself in the head after finding a loaded handgun on a shelf in the closet of his parent’s bedroom
an 11-year-old in Indianapolis who was accidentally shot by his brother
three children in Houston who were hurt when a 6-year-old accidentally fired a gun he had brought to school
an 8-year-old in Alabama who died from an accidental shotgun blast
a 2-year-old in Vermont who died after he was accidentally shot with a rifle by a sibling
a 10-year-old who lost use of his right eye after being shot by an older teen cousin while they were playing with a gun that they thought was unloaded
a 3-year-old in North Carolina who shot and killed himself
a 4-year-old who accidentally shot a 12-year-old in Louisiana while playing with a rifle they found in a closet
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a/gun-accidents.htm
So? What proportion are these careless, even idiotic accidents?
err. 100% ????
Then you prosecute those responsible for allowing access. I believe Maine has such a law. When was the last time someone was prosecuted under that law?
As tragic as these deaths are, you could most likley list similar events happenign with children falling out of a window or other similar events where parents should have been more responsible.
Accidental deaths of children have fallen in the past 10 years except being shot which goes up every year.
Ban stupid parents from having children! That would eliminate most liberals from having kids though!
That would also decimate the Republican party.:)
Jest kidding. Have a happy Xmas.
When you look at the last 4 mass shooting i can think of, Conn., Oregon, Aurora, and the Gabriel Giffords in AZ, Two were the result of owners not securing firearms (Conn., and Oregon) and two were failures to link obvious mental illness to prevent the person from buying a gun.
a couple thing come to mind:
1-requiring reasonable security ie a good safe by firearms owners.
2-there needs to be a way to place holds by trained mental health professionals, on peoples rights to buy a gun, It would be difficult to craft, but could be done. this would have stopped the shootings in Colorado and Arizona. it would not have prevented a Colorado tragedy though, as the shooter would have done potentially more damage if he stayed home and set off the explosives in his apartment.
this should be about unstable people being allowed to buy guns – not guns themselves
It’s about both. Of what use in this society is A Bushmaster?
Some folks like to hunt with them. Others prefer it as a home defense rifle.
Hunting….target shooting….home defense!
Sadly you appear to think these are somehow more powerful or dangerous than other types of firearms? Most deer hunting rifles are far more powerful and capable of longer ranges. You, as does so much of the media and non-gun owners fail to understand how firearms actually kill. The military doesn’t buy the most dangerous guns on the market, they buy those that allow soldiers to carry them longer without significant maintenence, regualr resupply of ammo and the ability to but them the the ammo cheap.
I bought a gun a couple of years ago, reading the application, it states that my guns are required to have trigger lock, or be locked up, If I sell a gun it is my responsibility to do a background check/transfer paperwork on the individual, if my guns are used in a crime I can be held responsible, if the mom was alive she would be arrested and charged. I have a son and still have his gun and will keep it till he shows me he is responsible to have it and he is 27. I got him a 410/22 when he was 12. You can not regulate responsibility.
“If the mom was alive she would be arrested and charged.”
We don’t know that. You have mistaken “can be charged” (probably “may be charged”) to mean “will be charged.”
Mine leads, in what? Laziness?
I will gladly wait months to buy a gun if it will save the life of even one child.
Why should you wait “months”? A check only takes moments!
It seems the system we have now isn’t doing the job.
Why do you say that. The weapons used were effectively stolen.
How did that even happen?
Well we don’t know yet do we? The Connecticut State Police has said that their investigation will take several months to complete. Maybe we will learn then how the that happened.
8500 gun violence deaths in US yearly are not caused by the mentally ill. Ill, yes, but not those with psychiatric disorders. We need to change our culture if we are to be safe. Scapegoating the mentally ill will not decrease gun violence in this state or in the nation. Most children who die from homicide are killed at home. Very few die in Schools.
The National Rifle Association has a membership of 4.3 million. Which means there are 305.7 million Americans who are not members, yet the NRA has the political power of a majority. Their answer is to spend money turning our schools into armed fortresses. They are also the financially secure who do not need to live among the masses who are being shot.
8500 gunshot deaths in the US yearly.
Depending on the source their are between 9,855 and 10,950 people killed ever year by drunk drivers (MADD & CDC).
We have the technology today to put a interlock on every single car that would prevent operation by someone that is drunk.
We could pass national legislation that would restrict servers from serving more than 2 glass of wine, 2 12 oz beers or 2 two mixed drinks over a certain period of time based on body weight.
9,856-10,950 drink driving related deaths per year in the U.S.
More killed by unnecessary operations than drunk drivers . Only 600,000 doctors . Doctors are much more dangerous than drunk drivers.
HIPPA, will be a huge factor in reportin people with mental illness.
You are very correct and add in patient-provider confidentiality. Who is going to seek out help if they know they are going to be reported to the state or federal government.
Just as the state has access to juvenile records, so should they have access to such information on ANY citizen who applies for a gun or related permit.
Former Mayor of Lewiston obviously has no idea that an assault rifle uses the same semi automatic technology as the hunting rifle. They just look different for glamor.
I do not think that someone involuntarily commited, by two strangers and an estranged relative should have to be on the list to report for a criminal background check. It has nothing to do with anything criminal. Someone doing something harmless just odd, who never physically assualted anyone, including themselves who walks with no medication, and no diagnosis for any mental illness or disorder, and no repeat offense and no other person who actually knows the person agrees to any mental disorder can be involuntarily commited. I think they should be able to go huntring and carry a weapon for protection in this state.
I think they should have to go through white papers before sending the information for background checks to not carry firearms. Blue papers shouldn’t be enough for those reasons. Due process of law is through the white papers. People should have to prove someone is mental before taking life, liberty and property away.
If anything, I think the person who is on medication to be stable even though it is voluntary should be on the list to not be able to carry a firearm. So they don’t stockpile their vehicle when they go off their meds and try to attempt to assault someone across the state border.
And therein lies the problem. Evidently most mentally ill people do not commit violent acts but some do. Foresight is not 20/20, although hindsight may be. Your defense of people with mental issues, shared by many, makes it extremely difficult to keep weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, for right or wrong. Then, of course, a violent act is committed by someone with mental issues and we wring our hands in futility.
Being admitted to a hospital under “blue papers” is not a committal and does not result in losing the right to possess a gun. This was decided in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Rehlander decision, decided in January. The only time a person would lose the right to possess a gun is when the person is actually committed, which is a formal procedure in which the defendant has the right to cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence.
Can Maine do anything right?????
If I want to purchase a new gun, I’m more than happy to sign any document necessary authorizing the State to disclose any and all of my information. I think it’s extremely important that we keep guns out of the hands or irresponsible people and/or people who have history of being unstable. Is that going to completely eliminate shootings? No, but I think it will certainly go a long way in improving the situation. That and, of course, arming the responsible folks
What if the “responsible folks” crack???
That’s exactly why I say it won’t eliminate all shootings. There’s no way to protect ourselves 100% from everything other than to live in a bubble.
If you are shocked over the deaths of these precious children, and are an anti gun liberal….how on earth can you be pro choice(pro abortion). Abortions kill thousands of precious children each year before they even have a chance of taking their first breath.
Hypocrisy in the highest order.
In the State of Maine does one have to show proof of gun registry in order to buy ammo?
No
………..and just what kind of mental illness will be shared?
Furthermore, I am having a difficult time accepting the shooter had Asperger’s Syndrome and would like to see out of school testing/evaluations/ ( not the school psychololgist) second opinions to include a psychiatrist for children in the future.
There is a percentage of children who go ” unchecked” when parents decide to home school. Therefore, home schooling rules and regulations need change— so that children can be indentified or continue to receive services in the community and not fall through the “cracks”.
Once again the liberal whiners jump on the bandwagon of patient privacy in order to allow the unintentional sale of weapons to the unstable. Oh… these people are a very small minority and it isn’t fair to require everyone to be reported. What is not Constitutional is the requiring of everyone to be denied a RIGHT for the feeling of the few. This only serves to serve the gun banners agenda. Isn’t it just amazing how they simply cannot do anything without a financial windfall for their personal pocketbooks? They all require the “necessary funding”. While expecting everyone else to work for “the good of the community”. A simple requirement that mental health issues should be made mandatory for anyone who has been i seen by a practicing shrink for anything with full and detailed reports made available to those who clear purchase notifications (aka NCIC checks) and those people can very well be licensed professionals but should NOT be someone with a personal agenda.
“A simple requirement that mental health issues should be made mandatory for anyone who has been i seen by a practicing shrink for anything with full and detailed reports made available to those who clear purchase notifications (aka NCIC checks)…”
Do you have any idea how dangerous this would be? (Oh, and unconstitutional as well.)
We can try to set/enforce more stringent criteria for people with mental illness but what about the “average”, mild mannered person who experiences extreme stress? He/she may already own guns and have no history of mental illness. I’m not even sure how people who sell guns can obtain accurate background information when MI and SA information is so protected by HIPAA.
There was a failure of the mental health care system both in the school and on behalf of the Mother and her son. Our society has long denied permits like driver’s licenses to those considered enfeebled or mentally handicapped or likely to be drug/alcohol impaired.
We now have integrated health care records, isn’t it time to use them?
I hate to harp on a theme but liberals have strongly resisted integrated patient/recipient records and this massacre is the price we pay for Liberalism.
“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
“If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things.”
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933
I am not for disarming the American citizen nor am I for the government knowing 100% who has how many guns, but the Brady quote you reference appears to be false. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus_brady.html) The Hitler quote also appears to be false. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership) You don’t help the cause by spreading false and inflammatory quotes.
Get rid of assault rifles
That is not what the banners want. They want to ban firearms form the hands of the people. When they said lets ban the cheap guns the law abiding owners said ok. When they made up the NFA the law abiding citizens said ok. When they said to sell firearms you needed a license we said ok. When they said background checks we said ok. When the Clinton ban passes we the law abiding citizens said ok. We have obeyed all the laws jumped through all the hoops crossed all the t’s and dotted all the I’s.
When is it enough? Why do we who obey the law ( we being 99.999 percent of firearm owners ) pay such a high price for those who do not. Even more so when you realize it is a right the only right more important tot he founding of this nation was the right to free speech!
Please define “assault rifle”.
There is no such animal! …But The Communist Chinese government, via its state-run media front Xinhua, has called for Americans to be disarmed. China suggests that Obama exploit this tragedy to push his gun control agenda that he is in the best position to promote it,” while blaming the National Rifle Association for curtailing previous attempts to regulate firearms in the United States.