In the wake of the horrific Sandy Hook Massacre of 2012, the Obama administration adopted a regulation preventing mentally ill people from buying guns. Today, the Senate voted 57-43 to eliminate that rule.
“By a 57-43 margin, the Republican-led Senate voted Wednesday to repeal an Obama-era regulation designed to block certain mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. The vote, which approves a House resolution passed earlier this month, now sends the measure to the White House for President Trump’s signature.
“President Trump, who campaigned as a defender of gun rights and a friend of the National Rifle Association, is widely expected to sign the measure.
“The rule on the verge of rollback would have required the Social Security Administration to report the records of some mentally ill beneficiaries to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Those who have been deemed mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs — roughly 75,000 people — would have been affected by the rule, according to NPR’s Susan Davis.
“It was implemented by former President Obama after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, which saw 20 students and six teachers killed at an elementary school by 20-year-old Adam Lanza. The Hill reports that the rule was set to take effect in December.”
Are they crazy?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
It appears to me that the leaders of our country are mentally ill!
LikeLike
What a country. Universal health care is off the table, off the charts, out of this universe, no way no how. But guns? By all means more guns, more guns here, more guns there, more guns everywhere under all possible conditions at all times. Whoopee! What could possibly go wrong.
LikeLike
Sorry but I can’t fault the rollback of this rule. It was far from a measure to restrict the severely/ violent mentally ill from gun purchase. Here’s what the ACLU said (in part) in urging its repeal:
“…In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
“We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm…”
LikeLike
Thank you for that clarification B35!
LikeLike
I’ll go with the ACLU’s recommendation on this one! As I do and have done for decades with their recommendations.
LikeLike
Seems to me Duane that you told us that you are a gun owner and i think even an NRA member,,,but that could be faulty memory.
I disagree with both you and Beth. The ACLU is wrong on this issue. And a court ruling becomes stare decisis and can be used in attempitng to advance further gun control laws, particularly ownership by mentally ill people. No where is it written that the ACLU functions as our Oracle at Delphi.
LikeLike
Ellen, Yes, faulty memory to a degree but I fault you not as I wouldn’t expect anyone to remember those particulars about me. I’ve stated that I’ve been a member in the past of three of the most despised organizations in the country-the NRA (a couple of years back in the 80s), the NEA (12 years, 94-06 until they did almost nothing to counteract a complete railroad job against me) and the ACLU (in the 80s also for a few years). Out of the three I would only rejoin the ACLU.
Yes I am a gun owner and user. But I don’t see what that has to do with the price of tea in China as my beef is discriminating against those with mental illness just because they have an incapacity in some area. And that is just dead wrong in my book-heinous even. First they came for “the defectives” to paraphrase Martin Niemöller’s insightful quote. It is that discrimination that I condemn.
Your choice to not agree with the ACLU on this on. But I’ve found that over time they have, in the vast majority of instances, been on the right side of justice through constitutional means, even though some of the causes they have supported, see Skokie, are considered by many to be abhorrent.
And you are correct that “No where is it. . . .” And I never said it was.
LikeLike
Thank you Duane, I too see this issue as discriminating against the mentally ill. Protecting 2nd Amendment rights is very low on my list of priorities, in fact I wish gun ownership were a privilege to be earned/ revoked under the law (like driving a car). But if the govt can revoke that right on the basis of ‘needing a representative payee to manage SSDI benefits’– from a list easily obtainable by the govt– what’s next? Other easily-obtainable lists. Other rights revoked. Very bad policy!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can see that some neurotic patients like those that have OCD shouldn’t be lumped in with someone with a severe psychosis. Overall, people will mental conditions should stay away from guns. We are more interested in protecting the rights of everyone to have a gun more than protecting people from gun violence.
LikeLike
Can’t agree with your last statement, rt. Seems a tad hyperbolic. And again, I see this as an issue of discrimination against some who have mental health concerns. The fact is that very few who do killing of humans have mental health issues, unless of course one would define anyone who kills another as having mental health issues.
LikeLike
Because mentally ill people need more access to guns! Now that’s crazy!
LikeLike
The teen ager who destroyed so many lives at Columbine was not merely an OCD sufferer…nor was the deranged man who murder little children and their teacher at Sandy Hook. There are way too many guns available too easily in the US. Laws now on the books must be enforced and new tough laws as well.
I have a bias and was a founder of Women Against Gun Violence in Santa Barbara County in the 1990s. Guns are only meant to kill living things, animals and people. Animal flesh is available at low prices in grocery stores for food, and people deserve to live in peace and without the fear that a crazed person will use this deadly weapon against them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adam Lanza was a very disturbed young man. He brought an AK-47 Bushmaster to the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct. He killed the principal, six teachers, and 20 children.
Insane Websites popped up to claim there was never a massacre at Sandy Hook. It was “staged” by the Obama administration to promote gun control. All the adults and children were actors. One of Trump’s favorite talk show hosts, Alex Jones of InfoWars, has been peddling this garbage.
LikeLike
Well said. I can’t for the life of me understand why assault weapons are sold to the general public.
LikeLike
Totally agree the issue here is easy availability of guns of every description– indiscriminate sale. I would like to see the sale of weapons/ ammunition inappropriate to routine game-hunting subjected to proven job-related need & registration. Like target-practice? Rent from an array at a target-shooting place & return when you’re done– like bowling shoes. Fancy yourself a collector? Collect something else. In a society like that, an Adam Lanza wouldn’t have his mother’s collected arsenal at his fingertips.
LikeLike
Define assault weapon, please. As far as I know they are not available to civilians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I meant assault rifles.
LikeLike
Then no, those aren’t available to civilians. Can a repeating rifle, shotgun, handgun be modified to become a fully automatic weapon? No doubt, but fully automatics cannot be bought by just anyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good to know, but many of those types of weapons seem to be on the streets.
LikeLike
And the key word is “seem”. It would be interesting to see how many truly fully automatic weapons are recovered every year by the police/law enforcement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And by fully automatic I mean squeeze the trigger and multiple shots ensue without letting off the trigger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correcto mundo!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Come visit LA, Duane…and most American cities, where all the assault rifles and other repeater weapons used to kill many victims with one spray, are available to all comers at gun shows and on the streets out of car trunks of local entrepreneurs.
LikeLike
Been a while since I’ve been in sunny Southern California-35 years or so.
I’m sorry for you all that the law enforcement doesn’t enforce the laws that are already on the books. And that may be an impossible task! If so, I’d rather be armed than dead, but then I don’t have those worries-just the run of the mill rednecks who talk a lot of shit but know better than to back it up as they will end up in prison were they to use their guns unlawfully around here.
LikeLike
Those who blame these terrible events on mental illness seem to be the crazy ones.
The guns purchased in the Sandy Hook event were legally purchased by a “sane” person: the mother. The guns used in Columbine, Bono, and the majority of school shootings were all purchased legally by “sane” people.
Children, grandchildren took those weapons and used them for violent acts. So the mental illness law makes no sense, and does not offer protection if tre facts are considered.
So what do you want next? Test all the relatives to see if they are mentally ill? Where does it end? In-laws? Third generation? Neighbors?
The OWNERS of the guns in the majority of these shootings were not the perpetrators.
Make gun shows as accountable as a regular gun shop. Create a document that stays with the gun. Each seller signs off on sale, purchased cannot get gun until license is verified and transferred.
But blaming a percentage of the population for something they had nothing to do with is plain bad.
LikeLike
Jared Lee Loughner purchased the gun with which he committed the Tucson massacre. James Holmes: (from Wikipedia) On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased a Glock 22 pistol at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora. Six days later, on May 28, he bought a Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun at a Bass Pro Shops in Denver.[73] On June 7, just hours after failing his oral exam at the university, he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle.[60][74] All the weapons were bought legally and background checks were performed.[75] In the four months prior to the shooting, Holmes also bought 3,000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3,000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet.[76][77] On July 2, he placed an order for a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, two magazine holders, and a knife at an online retailer.[76][78] He also purchased spike strips, which he later admitted he planned to use in case police shot at him or followed him in a car chase.[79]
I agree that the overwhelming majority of people with psychiatric problems are non violent and not a threat to others. However, in my opinion, guns should not be easy to purchase.
LikeLike
No one who is mentally ill should be allowed to purchase guns.
Sorry to offend the gun owners, but I oppose gun ownership by anyone except military and police.
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
Totally agree, Rudy! This Obama rule is nothing more than a pusillanimous, cynical bone thrown to proponents of gun control (including me)– trampling on the rights of a weak, easy-to-prey-on group to do it. Despicable.
LikeLike
You really think all mentally ill people are “weak, easy to prey on”?
You think this applies to only OCD and non threatening minor mental illnesses?
Wow…far from a reality assessment. I see the children who are battered by insane parents, and left in closets without food, tortured to death. And those schizophrenics who claim god speaks to them and tells them to kill.
The preponderance of the dangerously mentally ill who are in Ca. State Hospitals and prisons have NO anger control brain mechanisms, and they torture and murder without conscience. They should NEVER be allowed to buy weapons of any sort.
As Diane states, guns belong only in the hands of police…and even then they must be monitored carefully….too many shootings by police of young people of color all over America.
Interesting how differently many of us face these issues. Big surprise to me.
LikeLike
Diane, I did not know you were opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Are there other constitutional provisions and rights you are opposed to?
I support the ACLU on this issue. The fact is, that mentally ill persons are much more likely to be a victim of crime, than to be a perpetrator.
LikeLike
Charles,
The Second Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right of every man, woma, and child, regardless of psychosis, to own a Bushmaster.
LikeLike
Here is the text of the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (emphasis mine)
You need to read the entire amendment.
The right of individuals (the people) to keep and bear arms, was re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
see https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
Of course, there are restrictions, none of our rights are unlimited.
Are there any other constitutional rights, that you are opposed to?
LikeLike
I support the Constitution as amended. Do you count black people as 3/5 of a voter?
I read the second amendment differently from you. I don’t want to live in a society where every citizen is paving a gun.
Someday we will have a president and Congress brave enough to ignore the NRA.
LikeLike
Interesting! I used to work for the US Census Bureau. The original text of the Constitution, counted three fifths of ” other persons ” (slaves) for representation and taxation. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise)
Slaves were counted as 3/5 for taxation/representation, but slaves did not vote! Only white male property owners had the franchise.
Today, I count all black persons and voters, the same as everyone else. If I go back to work for the Census Bureau, I will do the same.
What specifically do you read (or not read) in the 2d amendment? The meaning is clear to me, and the Supreme Court.
And what do you mean about ignoring the NRA? The NRA has about 3 million members. There are about 270 million firearms in the USA (Pew Research http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/)
That is about one for every man, woman, and child in the USA. Politicians, who ignore citizens who own firearms, do so at their peril.
Would you favor, confiscation of 270 million weapons?
LikeLike
No. My meaning is that people w/ mental illness are poorly-protected by our society, they have very little power as a group, speaking politically.
The rule in question does not apply to minor mental illnesses, but definitely would include persons not considered violent/ danger to themselves/ others. For example, bipolars on SSDI who have been placed (with their own testimony as well as others) w/a rep payee because they periodically blow their check on manic shopping sprees. Also SSDI recipients SSA considers mentally retarded enough, or sufficiently afflicted by encroaching Alzheimers, not to be able to manage personal finances.
The point is not that these people should or should not have a gun. NICS (the background check system) already accesses three data bases which provide all available data on the various felonies, mental adjudications etc that would disqualify for gun purchase per fed law. Throwing this list into the hopper is just an empty gesture that serves to further stigmatize the mentally ill by appearing to criminalize the impaired.
LikeLike
There is such dichotomy within the continuum of mental illness…from agoraphobia or OCD which are harmless to others, to deep psychosis and lack of the ability to evaluate and monitor ones behavior. Cannot lump it all into one package. Those who are known to be deeply psychotic should NEVER be allowed to buy, own, borrow, use, any weapons, particularly repeater guns that kill all in one swath of firing…as happened to dozens of 5 year old little children at Sandy Hook.
The Second Amendment speaks only of gun ownership for a “well regulated militia”. (that means like The National Guard) but for.not for any individual and/or predator who roams our streets.
LikeLike
I beg to differ, Ellen. The 2d Amendment applies to the PEOPLE, as well as the militia. The Supreme Court held the right to be an individual right, as well as a collective right.
The right of individuals (the people) to keep and bear arms, was re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
see https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
I was driving through downtown DC in 2008, when the decision was announced. I blew my horn, and shouted a big “WAHOO”!
I feel differently than some people do about firearms. I have lived in a communist dictatorship, and an Islamic kingdom, where all private firearms are prohibited. I also lived in Germany for two years. As I walked though the gas chambers at Dachau, I thought to myself- “What if the Jews had guns?”
LikeLike
Sorry posted incorrectly- meant as reply to Ellen’s 1:08pm comment.
LikeLike
Responding to your first para only, Ellen– as I’ve said, I’d prefer 2nd Amendment didn’t exist & gun ownership were a privilege to be earned/ revoked, like driving a car…
Yes the spectrum of mental illness is very wide. We already have fed & state laws on the books which forbid gun ownership to those dangerously mentally-ill in state prisons & hospitals– as well as to those who have committed two or more crimes related to drug or alcohol consumption.
What needs to be considered: brain science is very young. Clinical practice on the ground is miles behind the research. Insurance/ access to appropriate treatment is scanty. Many mistakes are made both in dg & treatment. Add to that the fear & stigma of mental illness provoking legal over-reach (which causes under-reporting). Tying laws and bureaucratic implementation to such a shaky scaffold risks restricting rights to many capable citizens while protecting nobody.
“Protecting nobody”: consider that our mass school shootings have been committed by young men at the typical age-onset for severe mental illness. Forget about trying to catch them w/laws. They are a tiny percentage of those w/onsetting severe mental illness. Most of this small slice will likely have received no treatment yet, due either to negligent/ weak family support, &/or to stigma/ fear/ denial by family. If they have seen someone, it’s early stage, too soon to distinguish them from the pack & assess danger to self/others & duty to alert authorities… then consider that the red flag– the ‘duty’– is only reqd in a few states.
My concern relates to the steady social creep criminalizing mental issues. We already have schools stepping in w/soc workers & school-psychs as early as age 5 or younger, pressuring dg/ treatment of poorly-defined dg affecting learning: ADD, ADHD, & the various emotional-disturbance disorders. Often these kids end up being treated by well-meaning GP’s [child & adolescent psychiatry is a rare & expensive specialty] w/drugs which in some– mostly those who were showing signs of as-yet-undg bipolar disorder (common enough, affecting 1/70)– provoke psychosis & hospitalization by teens. God forbid they were not talked into committing themselves, now they’re on The List. If they admitted they ever smoked a joint, they’re [inappropriately] placed in a dual-dg pgm, surrounded by addicts, & now they’re on two Lists!
Rare? Check in at dbsalliance.org (formerly bipolarparents.org) & find tons of families trying to (a)access appropriate treatment & (b)fend off the long arm of the law.
LikeLike
I can’t speak for all states but in California, where participated some decades ago in longitudinal studies on ADD, ADHD, and other learning disabilities, as an educational researcher, it was/is a sad fact the due to budget constraints, many students with learning disabilities (and this is in no way a mental illness Issue) particularly in inner city schools, were/are not tested until they act out in class, usually as they enter puberty.
In grammar school they can be attentive and often cover for their learning disability, particularly dyslexia, with memorization . However, around 7th grade when school work is ever more challenging, they cannot cover, and often these students are very bright but become class clowns and disrupt the class.
More informed principals would have them tested, and finding their learning disability, some were sent for counseling or other avenues, but I observed that some principals were not informed enough and this was a major problem for their decision was often to suspend them..
Suspension was common and too often when they were/are on the streets during a school day, they are picked up by police. This whole scenario set/sets them on the path to the juvenile justice system. In the county in which I worked then, two judges became advocates for these kids and Teen Courts were developed with the partnership of the schools and Dept of Social Services and law enforcement, in order to give them alternatives and keep them out of the system. Teen Court was very successful in most cases.
Things are different recently in LAUSD since they no longer suspend these kids…and it is driving many teachers up the wall, for crowded classrooms with 40 adolescents jammed in can be chaotic…. but then medication and/or biofeedback seemed to be the choices offered parents. I do understand your position, and so much ed literature talks of too rapid use of Ritalin. Many educators rely on medical intervention for they cannot have a single individual disrupting the class.
I am not an expert in this area, but used to work with the court systems to keep these, mainly inner city boys, OUT of the system.
Therefore, I have no trained and educated opinion either way in my role as a researcher/observer, but I do respect your opinion and will do some more reading on the latest interventions. The study I was part of a decades ago actually had the school psychologist recommend the Amen Method of biofeedback…similar to the Betsy DeVos ‘wealth maker’ biofeedback industry now. But then is was a new idea in just trial stages and I have no data, no stats, on the effectiveness of biofeedback.
I would welcome some more current professional information from our teachers and other school experts about all this. And of course our great in house researcher, Laura Chapman.
LikeLike
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Ellen. You bring up the other side of the coin: where early intervention is non-existent (typical now more than ever due to slashed pubsch budgets, kids also end up on the wrong side of the law. At the early stages, differences which affect learning & behavior may or may not relate to mental illness, which usually doesn’t manifest in noticeable mood disorder until teens or early 20’s. But it doesn’t matter: early intervention in the form of small classes/ more 1-on-1 can go a long way toward boosting self-esteem & encouraging self-mgt, which provides a foundation for dealing w/later challenges.
The overall issue, I believe– both in medical mismgt & too-late intervention/ inappropriate legal intervention– is lack of social commitment/ dollars, applying cheap/quick ‘fixes’ while ignoring down-the-line bad/ expensive results. Commitment to educating all– i.e., no longer relying on multiple suspension/ expulsion– is a good start, as it brings the need for better solutions to public attention.
So glad to hear LA has Teen Courts, I googled & seems they still have lots of them. I looked up my upstate-NY home town, where we had Youth Court in the ’60’s (I was a ‘lawyer’): happily found that a few months ago they’re proposing to re-establish them & note that other NY counties are doing that with success.
LikeLike
B35…one correction of your comment …it was not LA where I worked with Teen Court, but it was a mid sized county on the Central Coast of California.
LikeLike
Here’s a link to a post in the Huffington Post about the roll back of the SSA rule on gun ownership. Its author is Josh Horwitz,Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He explains the transformation in his thinking about gun ownership for those diagnosed with mental illness. Like our host on this blog, he changed his mind when the facts did not bear out his viewpoint. Well worth reading in its entirety.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58a601bce4b0fa149f9ac332
“I have felt this discomfort listening to the recent public debate about the Social Security Administration (SSA) rule that prohibited those with a mental health disability and an appointed representative payee from purchasing or possessing firearms. The policy, which Congress recently voted to repeal, was the Obama administration’s effort to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. President Obama deserves a lot of credit for doing everything in his power to reduce America’s gun violence epidemic. Unfortunately, by focusing the prohibition directly on a mental health disability, the rule furthered the mistaken belief that mental illness is a major cause of violence.
Research shows that mental illness alone is not a significant risk factor for interpersonal violence, and an appointed representative payee tells us nothing about additional risk of violence. Rather than focusing on mental illness, we should be looking at evidence-based risk factors for dangerousness, such as a history of violence or substance abuse…
Unsurprisingly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and those legislators who pledged fealty to them also found the SSA law troubling – they find any regulations troubling. And they supported this repeal for one irresponsible reason: they want everyone to be armed, no matter who they are, what their behavior demonstrates, where they are carrying, or how they obtain their weapons. The NRA does not care whatsoever about stigmatizing those with mental illness. If they were serious about addressing the shortfalls of the SSA rule, they would have simply passed a law repealing the policy. Instead, they utilized the Congressional Review Act (CRA) – a sledgehammer of a process that has only been successfully used once in congressional history – to prevent re-visitation of this issue in the future.”
LikeLike