West Allis Alderman Fights Back Against Unfunded Mandates  |   Home  |   Good Times

Bill To Include Mental Health For Background Checks Passes Senate

I’m OK with this bill.

The state Senate unanimously passed a bill Tuesday that would require gun dealers to check whether someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health reasons before selling them firearms.

The move is meant to help prevent shootings like the one at Virginia Tech in 2007 that killed 32 students and teachers.

Gun dealers currently have to conduct background checks through the state Department of Justice, but the checks don’t include information about mental health commitments by state courts.

The bill passed without debate and now heads to the Assembly, which like the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle has supported the idea in the past.

As the bill is written, the courts would have to declare if someone is unfit to possess a gun and notify the DOJ.  The courts would also have to notify the DOJ if a person is returned to being deemed fit to possess a gun.  Then the DOJ includes this information in the criminal background checks that they already do and the gun dealers are already required to request.  So the gun purchasers are afforded due process in the court system regarding their mental health status and it provides a reasonable layer of regulation for preventing nuts from legally buying guns. 

I don’t think that it will have any substantial effect on the true nuts who will find a way to get a gun, but it doesn’t strike me as overly onerous.  Nobody wants a nutjob to have a gun.

Posted by Owen at 1746 hrs
Firearms + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. Bottom line for me: this is a slippery slope.  Just watch.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2010 at 2048 hrs
   
   
   

2. Okay, I’m intrigued.  Why is this a “slippery slope”?  Seems like common sense to me.

   Posted by scott on March 02, 2010 at 2101 hrs
   
   
   

3. Are there strict limits on what is considered “unfit”?  If not, then that could be a potential problem.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2010 at 2134 hrs
   
   
   

4. I think this will have absoutley no effect.  Who is going to go all through all the motions of going to court several times.  Further, if a person does go to court, who will put up the defense- the State? 
   What if the person can’t afford to go to court, will the court appoint someone at government expense?  All the person willl do is get a gun off the street instead of going through the process.
   It’s just a feel good bill that won’t work

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2010 at 2335 hrs
   
   
   

5. It’s “common sense” ONLY if the process of declaring a person “unfit” is completely uncorrupted and uncorruptable.  I’m not sure I see a politically-driven process <courts> as meeting that standard.
     Does the bill have a means for contesting these declarations?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2010 at 2336 hrs
   
   
   

6. Given the lack of specific language in the post…

   It seems that the State should consider ‘adjudicated’ conditions, which are pretty cut-and-dried, based on ‘harm to self or others’ considerations.  In almost all cases this is determined by a psychologist/psychiatrist and USUALLY the adjudication is made at the behest of the party’s family.

   Of course it could be manipulated, but that part of “1984” has not yet become commonplace. 

   Give Holder/Obama another 5 years or so, though….....

   Posted by dad29 on March 03, 2010 at 0935 hrs
   
   
   

7. Here’s the bill:

   http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB-44.pdf

   Posted by Owen on March 03, 2010 at 0938 hrs
   
   
   

8. Yeah, not a bad bill – as Dad29 notes the definitions of being adjudicated as mentally ill are rather clear cut, and the criteria for same (and the process through which one is labeled) rather protective of the individual as well as heavily involving mental health professionals (of which I am one, FWIW).

   Notice also that the definitions do not cover voluntary commitments, and that there is an appeal process involved. There is also no mention of anyone who would seek psychotherapy or counseling for their own difficulties in functioning. So, if you and your spouse went to therapy two years ago this (as I read it anyway) would not apply to you. If your spouse had you committed to a hospital, however, - a lengthy and involved process, if one wants it to last beyond the 72 hour hold (which anyone can get), the bill would apply to you.

   In essence, this bill would address only those individuals that have come to the attention of the court, and as a result of that attention been found by mental health professionals (usually two of us, with consensus being needed) to be mentally ill and had their cases adjudicated accordingly.

   Slippery slope? Perhaps. But the protections in this bill are stronger than those in other states (most notably my adopted home state of Florida), and they have not seen an erosion of either CCW rights or gun passion in general.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1134 hrs
   
   
   

9. Yes, the law does appear to give substantial protection.  Could it be abused? - probably, but at that level, what’s written in the laws probably won’t make much difference.  I looked up the Wisconsin gun laws - you have my most profound sympathy.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1215 hrs
   
   
   

10. All the handwringing over this is just pure comedy.  But at least most of us agree that it’s not going to open the Seventh Seal of the apocalypse and that’s something.

    Posted by scott on March 03, 2010 at 1219 hrs
    
    
    

11. “Pure Comedy”?  Well, I guess if you consider being distrustful of government regulation in any form “comedy” then it might apply..  I suppose if “feel good” legislation like this keeps them busy and unable to impinge on more serious things, that’s a plus.

      To be honest, I haven’t had a NICS check done on me in so long (AZ has CCW, which bypasses that BS) I really didn’t connect to it as serious.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1227 hrs
    
    
    

12. Yeah, it’s pretty funny. 

    Proposal: Prohibit people, who have been adjudicated so mentally incompetent as to be involuntarily committed to a mental institution, from purchasing firearms.

    Not life-changing proposition for most Wisconsinites, to be sure. But I guess it’s just exercising due diligence.  Nobody really wants someone that mentally ill to own guns, do they? Of course not.

    Now the funny stuff.

    Right out of the gate m.jaymes warns: It’s a “slippery slope. Just watch.”

    Dan has a whole list of head-scratching legal concerns, including whether we will have to incur the expense of court appointed lawyers for the hordes of crazy people fighting for their second amendment rights. He also opines that “they’ll just get them off the street,” causing me to wonder: Why restrict gun sales to violent felons?

    Hartly warns us that this is a bad idea until such time as the entire “politically-driven” American legal system can be made “uncorruptible” (sic). “Could it be abused? - Probably.”

    dad29 is holding on to reality with at least four fingers on this one, but even he can’t resist making a gratuitous 1984 reference.

    So let’s recap.  Proposal to prohibit duly adjudicated crazy people from purchasing firearms = slippery slope, corrupt legal system, could be abused, 1984.

    Yes, I did get a chuckle out of it if you must know. 

    Finally, always remember: If we outlaw crazy people’s guns, then only crazy outlaws will have guns!

    Posted by scott on March 03, 2010 at 1258 hrs
    
    
    

13. The text of the bill seems reasonable and the ideas behind it seem reasonable as well.

    Of course…. anytime I see a Democrat and a gun control bill, I look for a guy with a bucket of grease and a paintbrush lubing up the slippery slope. It’s been my experience that liberal folks are often only too happy to exploit any legislation or ordinance that they feel would be a tool to make more unarmed citizens.

    Ignore the man behind the curtain at your own peril.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1308 hrs
    
    
    

14. You forget scott that until 1973 the DSM-II included homosexuality as a mental illness. Don’t you think that some folks got committed because of trumped up charges? I do believe that until the 70’s, in WI you did not need more than a complicit psych’s word to get someone involuntarily commited. Also remember your psych history. ADD afflicts huge numbers of children and young adults in this nation. Many are sent to institutions for treatment and many more are heavily medicated. To what end? To babysit chemically. I am the last person who wants to see many of my former clients get hold of weapons. Hell many of them would not be allowed near my house with a knife or even a match but we in the industry who are argueing for this forget our history and what defines mental illness and how that has, in the past and yes even today, been abused badly. We are in a position where a large portion of the population is considered to have a mental defect that can and I am afraid will be used by the unwashed idiots that seem to come up with such broad and far reaching laws. Can an alcoholic be commited involuntarily? Yes, it happens all the time. Can they be violent? Yes but it is not a required reason for involutary commitment. Can an alcoholic recover to the point where they live the rest of their lives without incident? Yes. We allow many who I would deem very dangerous to drive and yet they would not be allowed to own a weapon. I distrust my govt in these matters and would only agree to a bill such as this if it were very specific and focused.

    Posted by fishaddict on March 03, 2010 at 1620 hrs
    
    
    

15. Scott displays his uproarious sense of humor, leaving thousands rolling in the aisles as he pompously declares ALL thinking to be out of bounds.

    Scott’s rehearsing for his TOTUS role.

    Posted by dad29 on March 03, 2010 at 2127 hrs
    
    
    

16. What about those who plead as a defense to criminal charges temporary insanity or not guilty by reasons of mental dieses or defect.  These cases generally end up plea-bargained without a legitimate evaluation.  The DA doesn’t want to put the person in jail and agrees to this so they can go a mental hospital or be put on probation with the requirement of counseling. These folks have been adjudicated to be mentally ill, but it is all just an administrative way for the criminal system to not put otherwise sympathetic criminals in prison. 

    This bill ignores that reality.  A court accepts or rejects a plea and thus, these cases are adjudicated.

    Also, go read the bill – this goes much, much farther than a court finding of mental illness.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1230 hrs
    
    
    

17. I’m actually less concerned with mentally ill people, or those who have committed crimes. I’d prefer that legitimately troubled folks did not have a gun… although most gun control laws really just keep the honest law-abiders from being armed. The nuts and the crooks have no problem packing a weapon.

    I’m more worried about some of the nanny type left-leaners continuing to expand the definition of mentally ill. Let’s face it, there are folks over on that side of the hill that would eventually declare eating at a fast food place or driving a non-hybrid to constitute mental illness if they though they could get away with it. When the people who want to disarm us start offering new laws that do so, I am always, and rightly, suspicious. I would not mind a few protections built into the bill that do not easily allow it’s expansion.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1517 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.