Better background checks?

[Atypical Liberal]

So according to CNN, the Arizona shooter is probably mentally ill:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/10/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1

"Investigators have not found anything connecting Loughner to extremist groups, the law enforcement official said. They believe Loughner was unemployed at the time of the shooting, according to the official.

Months before Saturday's shooting rampage, one of Loughner's former teachers at Pima Community College said he saw Loughner as a threat and kicked him out of class.

Loughner was "physically removed" from an algebra course in June -- less than a month after it began -- instructor Ben McGahee told CNN.

Loughner voluntarily withdrew from the school in October after being suspended, the college said in a statement. McGahee said Loughner sometimes shook, blurted things out in class and appeared to be under the influence of drugs at times.

"I was scared of what he could do," McGahee said. "I wasn't scared of him physically, but I was scared of him bringing a weapon to class."

The 9 mm pistol used in Saturday's shootings was purchased at a gun store in November, FBI Director Robert Mueller told reporters Sunday. And a law enforcement source said the suspect tried to buy ammunition at a Walmart store, but was turned down because of his behavior. Another Walmart store later sold him the ammunition, the source said.

When Loughner tried to enlist in the Army in 2008, the service rejected him for reasons it says it can't disclose due to privacy laws. But an administration official told CNN on Sunday that the suspect had failed a drug test."

Loughner was physically removed from school because of his behavior. He was unemployed - probably because he was too unstable to hold down a job. Walmart once refused to sell him ammunition because they thought he was too unstable (kudos to them - I did not even know they would do that).

Yet this guy purchased his firearm in a gun store, which means he passed the NICS instant background check. Which means he had no disqualifying criminal or mental history on record.

Yet he was crazy as a loon, and people knew it.

Now I'm not hot on the idea of Canadian-style background checks as a prerequisite for firearm ownership. I don't want to have to get permission from some government functionary who, on a whim, might decide that I should be able to own a firearm.

But clearly we've got a problem with crazy people getting their hands on firearms. Now the laws were strengthened afterward, but remember that Seung-Hui Cho was also known to have mental issues and he bought his firearms legally and passed the background check also.

Personally, I think we need to have better infrastructure for reporting, treating, and tracking mentally unstable people, so that their identities get put into the NICS database. I think there needs to be a less stringent requirement than simply being "adjudicated mentally incompetent" or being "involuntarily committed to a mental institution". Certainly if you are kicked out of college for behavior problems that ought to be a red flag.

[hedgehog]

1. I am unfamiliar with the Canadian system. How's this for a proposal :

Everyone's name goes on a list of people eligible to purchase a fire arm. The default assumption is that you are allowed to own a firearm. If you know of someone who should not have access to firearms, whether because they are, in your opinion, mentally ill or apt to fire the gun in anger, you can alert a special court to your concerns. Maybe if someone gets a restraining order against you, you automatically get a review from the gun court. If you are convicted of certain crimes, you automatically are referred to the court. Maybe if you are a gang member, the police can ask for a review.

I don't think anyone thinks criminals should have free access to firearms. The problem is, often the first crime a person commits involves a fire arm. WE need to keep guns out of the hands of some people before they hurt someone.

[lawodevolution]

12. you have rights as long as someone else doesn't want to turn you in and take your rights away

this is garbage.

[PavePusher]

13. Cool! At last we will have a system we can use to inform on people!

No-one would ever be able to abuse that! Oh, wait a minute...

[jody]

2. What law do you propose to prohibit a person from exercising a civil right that is also inalienable?

[hedgehog]

3. We already restrict the ownership of firearms. It is hardly an inalienable right.

Among the inalienable rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" . Millions of city dwellers are prisoners in their own homes, in fear of their lives, because of guns in the hands of gang members. Just as the right to free speech does not confer the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, we need to find a balance.

I live in a rural area. My neighbors hunt on my property and give me a share of any deer they kill. I was smiling Christmas morning listening to them firing some new guns while checking the sights. (Please excuse my errors in vocabulary.) So no, I don't own a gun and have never held a gun. But yes, I know and approve of people who do own and use firearms. But, we need to find a better balance.

[jody]

4. Are you saying our Constitution does not recognize "inalienable rights"?

Doesn't SCOTUS recognize "inalienable right" as "pre-existing right" in DC v. Heller?

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

[hedgehog]

5. Two words: Dred Scott

The Supreme Court has been known to bend the law to suit current opinion.

[jody]

8. # 3 said RKBA is not inalienable but SCOTUS says it predates our Constitution. n/t

[hedgehog]

10. SCOTUS can and does change its rulings as new data emerge.

[Atypical Liberal]

6. We already have them.

What law do you propose to prohibit a person from exercising a civil right that is also inalienable?

We already have them. For example, if you have been convicted of certain felonies, you are prohibited from exercising that right. If you are adjudicated mentally incompetent, you are prohibited from exercising that right. If you have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, you are prohibited from exercising that right.

Maybe if we had better access to mental health care we might catch more people who are mentally incompetent, and be able to flag them as so being.

Maybe if you are kicked out of higher education for mental issues, they should be flagged as such.

I'm not saying that everyone with a mental health issue should automatically be prohibited from owning firearms. But maybe they get flagged for a more comprehensive background check than a simple yes or no from NICS.

[jody]

9. Current fed law prohibits from owning firearms those who have been adjudicated as a mental defective

or been committed to a mental institution.

Are you satisfied with that or do you want to give government more authority to take away a civil right other than approved by courts?

[Atypical Liberal]

11. You are making the assumption.

You are making the assumption that we cannot have additional ways to take away this civil right also approved by courts.

Here we have another mass shooting where the shooter had an obvious past history of mental instability.

There should be a way to identify these people when they present themselves as mentally unstable.

[TheWraith]

7. The problem is that no one can seem to find an acceptable legal definition.

You already can't buy a gun if you're flagged as mentally ill. But that's a bar that not all mentally ill people reach--and more to the point, "dangerous" and "mentally ill" aren't synonyms. There's plenty of dangerous people out there who are "sane" by medical definitions.

Furthermore, you need checks and balances. Getting kicked out of college for "behavior problems"? Who defines behavior problems? In a right-wing bible college, that might be having premarital sex. In other places it might be being the class clown a little too often, or demonstrating against college policies. You can't have an arbitrary and unregulated definition that doesn't include human discretion to appeal.

So how exactly DOES one produce a better, SIMPLE definition of someone who is potentially dangerous? Frankly, I haven't yet heard any that inspire confidence, particularly when most are an overreaction to what is, in fact, a few very rare incidents. More people were killed in gang violence on Saturday, just in any one or two major cities, than were killed in that parking lot. But nobody seems to care quite so much about them.