« Harvard Crimson: Repeal the Second Amendment | Main | Going too far »
List of people barred by mental treatment doubles in size
FBI reports the list has more than doubled in size, from 175,000 to 400,000.
This sorta thing is why I didn't take umbrage at the bill proposed a while back to change things. It didn't add anyone to the prohibited persons list. It would have expanded the number of names on the list, but anyone who had been committed but was able to get a firearm because they weren't on the list would be liable for a felony charge anyway. It did give people on the list a way to get off, for the first time. A person convicted of a felony can in most states get his firearm rights restored after passage of time -- but there is no such procedure for a person who has had a mental committment. They're barred for life, period. I judged changing that would be worth having more names on the list, when everybody being added was already barred and would be set up for a felony charge anyway.
UPDATE: originally, the Fed rule was once a felon, always one, no matter what State law provided. Then the 1986 amendments to GCA changed that, and allowed State restorations of rights to restore Federal rights as well. (Exact execution depends on State law -- in AZ it was originally automatic, then gun rights took a separate motion (while other civil rights were restored automatically), then the legislature put in a detailed system where the person must wait so many years if it was some classes of offense, a longer time if it was in certain classes, and never if it was a really serious offense).
There's some area of dispute (for example, some States have "expungement" of records that doesn't really expunge them -- they're still on record and can be used to prove a second offense -- does that count as expungement of the conviction?)
6 Comments | Leave a comment
The sorta bill proposed would only make that sorta event worse.
How? If you get on the list now for a mental health reason, you're just screwed. End of story.
You made the following statement. "A person convicted of a felony can in most states get his firearm rights restored after passage of time --"
That is true however the key phrase here is in "most states". Here again the feds really don't care about "most states" laws. According to the feds, "Once a felon always a felon." And it appears that the grade or type of felony is irrelevant. I guess a felon could regain his firearm rights if he were to receive a presidential pardon. And, then again????
Another example of an unconstitutional exercise of federal bureaucracy.
What about The Louisiana "first offender pardon"? Does this type of pardon satisfy 18 USC 921 (a) (20)? It doesn't restore one back to inosence so a felon is still a felon with a pardon.
How? If you get on the list now for a mental health reason, you're just screwed. End of story.
If you get put on the list now falsely, you can challenge it at the FBI and in a court of law. There are a lot of busibodies that think "adjucated as a mental defective by a lawful authority" counts for more than you've claimed it does, Sebastian. It's not particularly fun, or particularly fast, but it actually has happened and worked, more than once.
If you're placed on it for a mental health reason correctly, you're just plain buggered. Of course, I don't see any of the cited bills changing that, at least unless you think you can prove to a bunch of psychologists and psychologist-appointees that you having a gun couldn't possibly have negative effects.
screwed. we played this before, FOPA had the same provisions. We see how assiduously they have been followed don't we?
Not everyone added is necessarily barred by statute, Mr. Hardy, at least not on the purchaser's side. Between the VATech event and simple busibodies, I'd wager that the number of false positives added to the list has skyrocketed. The sorta bill proposed would only make that sorta event worse.
With the bill, they'd have the ability to challenge it, and not just in a court of law like before, but to challenge it they'll have to prove to a bunch of said busibodies and politicals that they would not pose a risk if allowed to own arms.
Good luck with that one, by the way.