A group of bipartisan senators introduced legislation on Wednesday aimed at keeping firearms from the hands of the severely mentally ill.
Sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), the proposal is designed to clarify which cases of mental illness disqualify the patient from buying or owning guns.
The hope, Graham said, is "to ensure that those who have been declared an imminent danger to themselves or others aren’t legally able to obtain a firearm."
"I would expect overwhelming bipartisan support for our legislation,” Graham said.
Lending the bill a huge boost on Capitol Hill, the National Rifle Association (NRA), which helped write the bill, quickly released a statement Wednesday endorsing the measure.
"This bill will create accurate definitions of those who pose serious threats and should be barred from the ability to buy or possess a firearm, while protecting the rights of law abiding citizens and veterans," Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz2OBUj4o5c
You have drawn your line that any effort must include a ban on semiauto firearms. My line is that it doesn't. Since that issue is apparently dead in the water, let's hope your side brings forth some proposals that don't disproportionally affect the law abiding.
Yes I read it. And? So now the right wants to do something about mental health care? After decades of the "mind diseased" liberals and their wild ideas have been screaming for serious funding and focus on mental health? So what does that earn the GOP? A gold star too? For presenting someone else's ideas that they have criticized as a subject for years? So excuse me if I see the right's BS attempt to "compromise" for what it is. And that goes for pretty much everything and every subject since Obama took office.This was in the post you responded to, did you completely miss it?
Senators introduce legislation to block mentally ill from buying firearms.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz2O70n2l4o
Maybe I am trying to say if you present yourself as the moral compass as the right does, then respond to what they call and deride as political games with political games, maybe you deserve a bit more of a whipping for being counter-productive AND a hypocrite.
excerpted for points regarding schools and mental health. You can read the full list here
- Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
- Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
- Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
- Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
- Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
- Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.
Not including semiauto firearms disproportionately affects the law abiding who don't want them available. Yes, we still pay taxes and have rights, too. Yours don't out trump ours.
We have all pretty much made up our minds on the semi auto issue.
Might as well move the conversation to other ideas, we are just going around in circles here.
On the other hand, you don't have the right to feel safe, and you do not have the right to be free from dangerous things. You can certainly have legislation enacted to make you safer, but you aren't defending your rights, only your life.
Of the two, I feel that the rights of the citizens as a whole are more valuable than any number of individual lives.