Conflicted
Much to everyone’s chagrin, I remain permanently conflicted on the subject of gun ownership for people who have been 302′ed in the wake of violent behavior. I hate to deny anyone their rights; on the other hand, I don’t understand why owning a gun should be a right. So the ambiguity comes, in part, from my gun-control politics rather than my mental health advocacy.
Now a task force in North Carolina is recommending a strategy to keep all people with involuntary commitments from buying guns:
Now-confidential information about involuntary commitments to mental hospitals should be used to deny handguns to people with such a record, according to a draft report of a task force’s recommendations on campus safety.
The recommendation is one of several that the task force plans to release Thursday. The News & Observer of Raleigh obtained a draft report of the recommendations Wednesday.
The task force recommends a new law that would require that counties provide information about involuntary commitment orders to the national background check database. The proposed law could prevent people with mental illness from buying guns.
Sounds Orwellian, right? On the other hand, as the Herald Sun reports:
Mental health information is provided to the system now. But it typically is not revealed unless the person applying for a gun permit signs a waiver.
So the change is in the waiver, not in the data collection — which makes the lede of this article somewhat misleading. The waiver change is significant, and that should have been the highlighted matter.
NC panel recommends gun permit changes for mentally ill
liz | 8:34 AM | Uncategorized
Unfortunately, it looks like only individuals with a history of mental health treatment will undergo scrutiny in the brave new world. America loves it’s guns and if focusing on the select few allows the majority to get weapons without oversight that is how it will get done.
Let’s have a contest to predict the blogs upcoming changes. I think :
1. LS goes blond, and
2. the newspaper sponsorship goes (more) mainstream
Liz, I share your conflict. My theory has always been that if I find myself in a situation where I think I need a gun, I should leave the situation, and yet, I don’t think people who haven’t been convicted of a violent crime should be precluded from owning a gun. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think statistically people who haven’t been committed commit far more gun crimes than people who have. Still it’s not that simple I know. I think civil commitment records should be a matter of public record to protect those committed though I also understand that’s not how it works out.
Reply: