[Popeye]

U.S. Congress may act to keep guns from mentally ill

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-04-22T200927Z_01_N22218055_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-CRIME-SHOOTING-LAWS.xml&src=rss

Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:09pm ET
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prompted by the Virginia Tech massacre, a U.S. Congress reluctant to tackle gun control may pass limited legislation to help keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, lawmakers and aides said on Sunday.

"Given the horror that happened at Virginia Tech, I think there's a real chance of passing this," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, told "Fox News Sunday."

A Republican leadership aide agreed, telling Reuters, "If there is a consensus, and it is in lieu of knee-jerk draconian measures, (the chances are) probably really good."

Congress was initially hesitant to respond to the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech on Monday with any vow to toughen gun-control, a politically divisive issue.

In fact, Democrats, who had earlier championed such measures, including a since expired 1994 ban on assault weapons, effectively abandoned the issue when they won control of Congress last year.

Yet after it was determined that the Virginia Tech killer had been admitted earlier to a psychiatric hospital and deemed "a danger to himself and others," lawmakers dusted off previously rejected legislation.

Seung-Hui Cho, a Virginia Tech student, took his own life after fatally shooting 32 others. He had bought two handguns in Virginia but his mental health had not made it to a federal registry.

The proposed bill would provide money to the states to help update the national instant-check background system with mental-health adjudications, which ban firearm purchases.

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Charles Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and gun-rights proponent, has teamed up on such legislation with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a leading gun control advocate.

Appearing with Schumer on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, voiced support.

So did Sarah and Jim Brady, two leading gun-control advocates. They have helped lead the charge since Jim Brady was wounded in the 1981 attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan. He was Reagan's press secretary.

"We're not working to take handguns away from people. But what we do believe is that we need to curb the availability of these weapons to prohibited classes: felons, fugitives, and of course in this case, those who have been adjudicated mentally ill," said Sarah Brady who appeared with her husband on CBS's "Face the Nation."

A bill passed by Congress a decade ago and named for Jim Brady, required an instant background check for gun buyers.

"What we had here, unfortunately, as come out in the last day or so, is that the system did break down," Sarah Brady said.

(Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai)

[7.62mmFMJ]

A shame that they did not ask any conservatives for their opinion.

[Mustang Sally]

What we had here, unfortunately, as come out in the last day or so, is that the system did break down

that's a no-brainer.

[Zen900]

Why the anger? Come on now. Spill?

[Rookie_Rover]

that's a no-brainer.

I disagree. the system did NOT break down as The Brady Bunch would like you to believe. This was not a war, it was one kid who didn't fit in cliques getting the idea to kill those who had harmed them. Not the fault of guns, but the fault of a lunatic. With his prior habits of trying to garner information about firearms, had he not had a ready made on, he'd have manufactured one of his own design.

There is a system that failed. If he was a "danger to himself and others" why was he released from the building with rubber walls? If I have a dog that is a known biter, he doesn't come off the chain! If he even gives me one reason to think he might do harm to someone, he stays right at the end of a chain too strong for him to break. If I can't get his ideals in direct coincidence with mine, he'll be taking a ride to the local vets office. It's a sad way to handle the situation, but unlike some "medical professionals" in the psychiatric field, I'm not the kind to put a danger to society back into society. Had the medical system worked, he'd be under supervision and taking medication to keep him from going off.

As for the bill proposed, its hooey. I'd be safe to say that 99% of all Citizens have had their days when they needed to talk to somebody about what is on their mind. should that be put in a registry and used to prevent that person from owning a gun 35 years after the fact, when they are completely different people who no longer have any mental instability?

Just a backdoor way to make it harder to maintain our rights. Much along the same lines as imrpinting individual bullets with a micro-chip that can be programmed with the name and address of the purchaser. It is just a scheme to make it more difficult to buy and use a gun for any purpose, be it sporting or otherwise.

While the VA incident was unfortunate, if any blame can be laid out, it should be laid at the feet of the psychiatric hospital who put Cho back into our society. The weapon was irrelevant. A madman would use whatever he could find, be it a gun, a sword, or a rock.

[7.62mmFMJ]

There is no fix for this that will not abrogate even more of our rights.

If we live in a free society, :censor: is going to happen.

Again, we look to the government for a cure worse than the disease.

The cure is armed citizens - but that did not really come up. Of course, with Upchuck Schumer speaking........................

Armed citizens are free citizens. Win-Win.

[Saunders]

The system?

Sounds like the hippie stuff I heard on a daily basis in th 60s.

A word that means whatever someone wants it to mean and therefore has no useful meaning.

[NavajoNPaleFace]

Call me a leftist pinko but I, too, think that verified nut jobs do not need to have guns.

That law already exists.

My fear is that the Democrats will slowly strangle the life out of law abiding and responsible gun owners rights.

But as far as keeping whackos from having guns....that seems fair to me. I have a man living within 1/4 mile of me that IS a "certified" mental case as the result of a Korean War injury (or so they say). He is on medication and under some form of VA out-patient care and I cringe when I see him walking the road carrying a machete and angrily and threateningly screaming at everyone he sees. Now, imagine him with a gun. Oh...boy! LOL

[7.62mmFMJ]

Who defines mental illness?

Right now we have the "danger to themselves and others" standard which is usually hung on a person AFTER an incident.

Do we now move to prior restraint?

Hillary and Upchuck and Boxer would probably be thrilled to flag your file because "you have an unhealthy like of guns."

[Chuck Langenderfer]

They will fix it so that ANYone who ever took prozac et al will not be able to own any gun-unless you are a (D).