How the violent mentally ill can buy guns

With the 5000 gun shows and thousands more private sales outside the FFL dealer network, the following happens much more often.

In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn’t have to check out his history.

62% of private sales are done with people who can't pass a background check.

 

Problem is the 2nd doesn't allow for denying anyone that right.

 

I know here in Tennessee the required background check goes into your criminal and mental background, and you sure as hell better not lie on the form or you will immediately be arrested. DOes Oklahoma not have a background check?

 

Either it was not illegal for him to buy a gun, the state did not properly provide information to the federal government, or both.
In any case, nothing here indicates a need for more restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

 

NRA board members are responsible for the mentally ill? You're delusional.

 

Due process, through the court system.

 

Lanza murdered his mother, stole her guns, and shot up a school.
What law will stop crimes like this?

 

I would oppose Kasich, 0, Hillary, Kerry, you or any other person stuck in the liberal/progressive fantasy of violence from getting a gun of any kind..

This post from a self proclaimed mental health professional id the reason it is hard to get such laws on the books. If a Dc court deemed all gun owners crazy that decision was up held in the district court the SC would tie and gun would be unconstitutional.

Why not take a look at history and you will see that the right to bear guns was added to keep the government in the hands of the people instead of what we see happening right now. Hillary is ahead because the dem party chose her with no regard for the voters and the RNC is talking about do the same thing.

 

"According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions.”2 “The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.”3 Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.4"

It is more then 40% of all gun sales..

 

"right to bear guns was added to keep the government in the hands of the people instead of what we see happening right now."

The constitution does not give we the poeple the right to bear "guns". Guns are found no where in the second amendment. Neither is firearms. It's arms. Arms are any weapon you can bear including knives and hatchets, bows and firearms, specifically, the guns of the day, muskets. There is plenty of leeway to regulate firearms since firearms are not indicated anywhere in the second amendment.

 

Hey Bronco... in most every matter we are in agreement. You will not like my comments.

Reagan (*)(*)(*)(*)ed us. He released the mentally ill into the streets, dissolving the mental health safety net this country has always had protecting the citizens from the mentally ill. Since that time, getting someone committed for violent ideations has been really really REALLY hard ( http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/politics/virginia-politician-attack/index.html )

On this point, I side with the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag socialists. We need a safety-net to protect the citizens from the mentally ill... and, as fate would have it, the mentally ill need help... which I am willing to throw tax dollars at. How about you?

 

You're sure right about that. Before that time I was working for the state and they transferred me over to a pilot program agency to educate the welfare recipients and get them into the workforce. That very successful agency went belly-up when Reagan was elected and one of the first things he did was cut social services and threw open the doors of the mental institutions and the problem we've had w/the homeless mentally ill has never been resolved.......and probably never will be. Those in the position to do something about it just don't care.

 

The vast vast majority of murders in the US with guns are done by none of those who could pass a background check, they're known as thugs, criminals, or just low life pieces of fecal matter.

There are 100's of thousands of straw purchases that are known each year by the authorities, and yet there is only a handful of prosecutions

 

Good question on how Oklahoma do background checks. Another serious problem is our government prosecutes very few who do straw purchases, so keeping guns out of the nuts or bad people is just another failure of our government, and another law is not going to fix the one's they already don't enforce

 

To the first response, "Gambling Addiction" is a mental illness.

Unless they HAVE done something wrong you can not punish them by stripping them of their rights. Otherwise they're not really rights, they are privileges.

 

Ummm.... Healthy black people commit crime at an identical rate to the entirety of the mentally ill population.

You sure you want to go down this path?

 

If you'd like to discuss it like an adult, please leave the irrational emotionalism out of it. Adults look for solutions that balance the need of people like you to feel safe against the need for people like me to remain free.

Free people are assumed to be sane, responsible and law-abiding by default, until their actions prove otherwise. Background check and other preemptive type laws laws indicate that government assumes all people to be insane, irresponsible and criminal until certified otherwise...by government.

I'm all for keeping firearms out of the hands of those cannot be trusted with them...so my question to you is, why do you and the government keep allowing them to walk the streets free, rather than keeping them locked up? Why must I submit to background checks and prove my sanity and integrity, despite a spotless record of legal behavior and public service, so that the criminals and the insane can walk free under the wacky notion that they will obey the same laws the rest of us do?

 

I hear ya, and I agree, not dealing with crazy people is a huge problem. The murder rate has been going up like 200% since the Ferguson nightmare, and they get all the guns they want by burning down a town and just taking them with no consequence

 

So you are responding to another posters comments to me, and then you make it personal

Pot meet Kettle

You don't have to prove your sanity in a background check, the background check will indicate if you have and violent tendencies. If you've been arrested and convicted for any violence whatsoever you should not be allowed to buy a gun

 

Not violent. Over eating is a mental illness too, but also not violent

 

because noone can define what "mentally ill" is. and how do you define who's violent. I'm not violent, but if I kill someone, I am.... how do you stop that prior to becoming violent

 

Thats what I find hilarious really. It seems like every single time a shooting gets national attention the left wing huffs and puffs and talks only about making it harder for the law abiding to buy or obtain guns. Never do they mention about getting hard on criminals , or those who sell guns illegally , or those who steal guns, or those who use guns in everyday illegal activity. Apparently to them the key is keeping guns out of the law abidings hand like criminals give a damn about those laws.

We need to make harsh punishments for the criminals I mentioned above, to the tune of 20+ years, no early release per weapon you either illegally own, or for being part of a straw purchase. ANd they need to strictly enforce it.

But it is never talked about.

 

I am completely sympathetic to your OP and agree that not nearly enough is being done to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. I would add that not nearly enough is being done to prevent criminals and terrorists from being able to purchase guns anonymously too, but that's for another thread on another day.

As to the bold, green above, ask yourself why politicians haven't acted on legislation that would help solve the problem, even though the majority of Americans and the majority of gun owners want them. There is a reason and it does not have to do with the Constitution. I'll give you a hint: it has three letters.

 

I agree that stricter enforcement and harsh punishment might help, if we had the space in our for-profit prison system, but we don't. Our prisons and jails are overcrowded now, and violent convicts are released early all the time because of it. The US has more people in prison than any other country on Earth, including China, and they have a billion more people than we do. That's not percentage of the population either, it's raw numbers. So we are already jailing tons of people, but we are also letting them out early. Since we are in this situation, we might have to look at other options additionally.

 

Either it was not illegal for the guy in the OP to buy a gun, the state did not properly provide information to the federal government, or both.
In any case, nothing here indicates a need for more restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.