NRA A+ Rated Republican Announces New Gun Control Measure

ATF Form 4473

It is not often The Shooter’s Log finds new gun control legislation being offered by the Republicans. Even more rare is a Senator with an NRA A+ rating proposing new gun control measures. However, before you get your dander standing on end, look at the details and make an informed decision. Then, leave your comments below to give your “informed” two cents.

Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) has received an A+ rating for the NRA. His current proposed legislation also has the backing of the NRA.

While millions of gun owners are blamed and slandered by politicians and the media every time there is a high profile shooting, there has been a strong link in each case to mental health that is for the most part, if not completely, ignored. This fact has not evaded the radar screens of gun owners, politicians or the media. The difference has been that the mainstream media and many politicians pushing gun control have chosen to ignore it.

Even pro Second Amendment lawmakers have not taken action on mental health until recently. As a knee-jerk reaction, I would say that was a good thing. Legislation is good when it is well thought out and well reasoned, not when it is slapped together in response to a news headline the day before. That is what makes Sen. John Cornyn’s (No. 2 Republican in the Senate) proposal worthy of a look.

Misleading Measure or Misleading Media?

Cornyn’s proposed the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which address the heart of the problem behind high profile mass shootings—mental health. The bill seeks to reward states for sending more information regarding their residents with serious mental health issues to the federal background check system. Beyond simply data collection—because we all know passing a law will not prevent another tragedy—the new proposed bill would also bolster programs designed to treat mentally ill people and handling confrontations with the mentally ill.

“This legislation will strengthen programs that promote preventative screening and crisis response training so that we can better understand and treat the factors which may endanger public safety,” Sen. Cornyn continued. “By giving our communities the resources necessary to recognize and prevent acts of violence, we not only protect American families, but help those affected by mental illness.”

Mental health is a touchy subject. While it sounds common sense on the surface, and is often billed that way by gun control advocates and politicians, the definition is often too broad. Many veterans return from overseas tours carrying a weapon one day with the government’s blessing, then deemed unfit to own a firearm the next when they are stateside. Why? Because they sought needed help for depression or stress and in the process had their rights stripped from them.

ATF Form 4473
Sen. Cornyn’s new bill would not change requirements already in place. It would provide an incentive for states to share mental health information for background checks.

Two years ago, the NRA and Republicans soundly defeated a Senate measure that would have expanded background check requirements; Cornyn was a big factor in ensuring that defeat. Cornyn’s bill will now compete with a new Democrat sponsored bill that was introduced about a week ago. The Democrat-led effort seeks to go much further than Sen. Cornyn’s. Nevertheless, Sen. Cornyn is breaking new ground that has some pro Second Amendment forces wary. He’s marching through seldom-charted territory by a Republican by broaching anything that could be considered gun control.

If the bill passes, some firearm purchases will be stopped. Many Second Amendment proponents do not believe there should be any sort of background check as our rights are granted by the Second Amendment. This has gun owners debating whether this the common sense legislation that is needed, or whether Sen. Cornyn betrayed his NRA A+ rating? Cornyn has a rich history of opposing measures that sought to restrict firearm ownership, but supported others that limited firearm ownership of the mentally ill. This new bill follows that line.

“Gaps in existing law or inadequate resources prevent our communities from taking proactive steps to prevent them from becoming violent,” said Cornyn, R-Texas, in a written statement.

The NRA is backing Cornyn’s proposed bill. This is not much of a surprise. NRA leaders have been on the record for some time stating the high profile shootings are not a gun issues but instead a mental health issues. Will Sen. Cornyn’s bill advance the effort to prevent the next tragedy?

1 Gun Store Etiquette

Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for NRA legislative affairs, said the bill took “meaningful steps toward fixing the system and making our communities safer.”

Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015

The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 is designed to improve outcomes for people with mental health disorders that come in contact with the criminal justice system through a number of actions, including:

  • The authorization of pretrial screening, assessment, and supervision programs to improve outcomes for people with mental illnesses by ensuring they are accurately diagnosed and receive appropriate need-based treatment that focuses on increasing public safety.
  • An increase in the use of treatment-based alternatives to incarceration for people with mental illnesses.
  • The establishment of a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of diverting eligible offenders from federal prosecution, federal probation, or a federal corrections facility, and placing those eligible people in drug or mental health courts.
  • Improvements to reentry programming for people with mental illnesses who are released into the community by authorizing the deployment of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) Initiatives, which are designed to ensure that people with mental illnesses receive treatment-based interventions.
  • The expansion of specialized law enforcement crisis intervention teams, which respond to and de-escalate mental health crises for federal law enforcement personnel.

The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 also includes reauthorization of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA), an essential funding mechanism that supports the use of mental health courts and crisis intervention teams in local law enforcement agencies. The bill would extend MIOTCRA for an additional four years, effectively filling critical gaps in the system, including providing additional resources for veterans’ treatment courts to help those suffering from behavioral or post-traumatic stress disorders. The bill also offers broader training during police academies and orientation as well as increased focus on prison- and jail-based transitional services and reentry programs that can help reduce the likelihood of recidivism.

Police Making an Arrest
The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 seeks to increase the odds of preventing a mentally ill person from passing a background check through increased mental health reporting.

Would Anything Change?

Arkadi Gerney, a gun policy expert for the liberal Center for American Progress, said prodding states to submit additional data to the background check system is “a good and smart notion,” but it would be better to push broader legislation “that covers all the gaps.”

If the antis agree, but think it does not go far enough, does that mean we should decide or oppose it? The current background check system already bars firearm purchases to people legally determined to be “mentally defective” and those who have been committed to mental institutions. Sen. Cornyn’s new bill would not change this. It would, however, provide more information on individuals who have already met the legal standard to have their gun rights suspended. Currently, states do not have any responsibility to share mental health information. This creates a gap in safeguarding the public versus practices.

“While potentially dangerous mentally-ill individuals are often known to law enforcement and local officials, gaps in existing law or inadequate resources prevent our communities from taking proactive steps to prevent them from becoming violent,” said Sen. Cornyn.

While Cornyn’s bill would not change the law or force state’s to comply, it purportedly would (these details are unconfirmed at this time) increase grants under the government’s main law enforcement program by up to 5 percent for states that send the federal system at least 90 percent of their records on people with serious mental problems. States providing less data could see grants from a broad range of justice programs penalized by the same amounts at the attorneys’ general’s discretion.

Well, that is about the long and short of what we know so far. How would you vote? Share your thoughts and concerns in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (620)

  1. With the continued demonization of gun ownership by liberal groups a case could be made that you are simply crazy for owning a gun and should have them removed from your possession. More laws will not change anything:see NYC, Chicago, Detroit, LA, NOLA tons of regulations no results, they will never learn.

  2. This is the typical, wrong-headed approach to “solving” problems that we’ve heard for over 100 years: more government.

    From the very beginning (early 1900’s, and probably before that), when lawmakers proposed banning guns, background checks, registration, etc. etc. it never curbed violence or prevented criminals from causing evil. It didn’t work back then, it doesn’t work today.

    Why in the hell would more of the SAME create a different effect?

    It’s always the same for EVERY problem, “We need more government!” Yet, problems worsen, or at best, see no improvement. Agencies, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. cry “We need more money! We need more laws! We need more regulations! We need more agencies! We need more! MORE!” And most often, they get what they demand…but the same problems continue at the same rate or even get worse.

    I’m tired of this spinning merry-go-round we call history…and I’m beginning to believe these “common-sense” gun laws are really not intended to deter criminals or terrorists, but the law-abiders that look at government with a wary eye instead.

    Perhaps with a carefully crafted definition – backed by bureaucrats with PhD’s and paid by our own tax dollars – we will all be diagnosed with a “mental illness” and lose the few rights we have left.

    Those with good intentions can unwittingly support very bad legislation. (i.e. Why didn’t the massive NSA/FBI surveillance program [Patriot Act] prevent the recent California Muslim terrorist attack, along with the others?) As the saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.”

  3. I no longer trust Cornyn and if NRA supports this “do nothing” piece of legislation, I have paid my last NRA dues. To me, this is an attempt to be PC. With all the words in this legislation, there still is no real obligation for states to submit mental health information. Look at what already falls through the cracks. Besides, once on a list how do you get off if you were wrongly placed there or are “cured”? This is just a pure piece of crap legislation, besides it’s the perfect scenario for the anti-gunners to add the amendments the really want to destroy the 2nd Amendment. I’ve said this already, but I’m going to say it again just to be sure you know, I DO NOT trust John Cornyn and especially the piece of legislation.

  4. I don’t trust anyone with any kind of gun control measure whether it is Democrat or Republican it all adds up to losing our rights!

  5. We do need to address the mental health issue but much like the terrorist watch list it needs to be refined in such a way that prevents overreach by the anti gun establishment and focuses only on those who pose a dangerous threat to self and others.

  6. How right you are. There will be nothing left but a memory of this once great nation that I and my friends and fore fathers fought to keep free. Freedom is not free. It comes at a very high price. Please think about that when you go to vote. And vote for freedom!

  7. What a horror show this would authorize…It’s an open door for corrupt Government and trumped up charges against individuals behind their backs at the Government’s …Where are the indivualsl privacy rights…gone with this excuice. Just go back and look at the rules Nazi Germany came up with, not to mention Russia, what short memories we have, I guess a totalaterian government will eventally come here if this type of legislation is conrinually considered just think of buracricy this would create, in an effort to subjate our 2nd Ammendment Consr
    titonal rights…If this type of legislation conrinues there will be nothing left of the Constitution and this once great country will nothing but a memory and the progressive liberalsc would have won and most of us will be living in FEMA camp on the Government’s dole…Orwell was way ahead of his time…It’s almost time to LOCK&LOAD!!!

    Germany, Russia

  8. The following is just a heartbeat away from happening to anyone: Patrick Coyle, a Deserted Spouse has been “imprisoned in mental health” for simply asking the State to help where his Wife is in desertion and for the children to be returned to the Family Home with him and the two children she left behind.

    This case opens up a horrifying parallel with what happened when Stalin imprisoned millions of Russians in the Gulags in Siberia claiming they must be mentally ill if they did not agree with Communism and the State taking control of everyone’s lives and Family.

    Patrick Coyle DOB 5th October 1973 is the Deserted Spouse and Husband in the Coyle Family and has been in mental health unit since 31 July 2015 against his wishes and without any evidence of a mental illness. His diabetes is poorly managed. He was wrestled to the ground by 9 staff, his mobile was robbed and returned broken. His second mobile has been robbed. He has been denied phone calls and visits. He has refused consent to being admitted there, to the assessment, to the diagnosis and to the prescribed medication and has requested release many times.

    He believes that he has been kidnapped to traffic his 4 offspring, 7, 8, 13 & 14 into the hands of the Social Services and his Wife who deserted him and took two of the children with her. You know the rest of the story.

  9. In almost every case of a mass murder with a weapon bought by the shooter, The failure in the system was failure to update the data base. No one to my knowldege has been held accountable for failure to update the database. Virginia Tech shooter had been to mental institutions but no mention of that in the database. Arizona shooter was never entered in the database. Colorado shooter not reported by his psychiatrist. No law will work if the weakest link doesn’t do their job. Hold them accountable at that level. The Sandy Hook shooting was a total breakdown. Firearms should not have been in the house. The mother payed for her collosal mistake with her life.

    1. @ Sam Vonn,

      Define failure. No one failed to do anything. The so-called “data base” is unlawful per the Second Amendment and thus it cannot, and will not ever be enforceable. The reason that, “No one to [your] knowledge has been held accountable for failure to update the database” is because nothing was done wrong, nor did any failure occur that anyone could be held accountable for in the first place.

      This is a Federal database only, and as I’ve already stated, it violates the Second Amendment, yet oddly it is the Tenth Amendment that prevents the Federal Government from forcing the States to contribute to it. That is why the Fed had to make contributions into it purely optional on a voluntary basis for the States that wish to participate.

      Even when the Federal Government and the few States do unlawfully contribute to the database, the Federal Legislation states they may only add names of individuals which have been lawfully adjudicated by a court as mentally insane. None of the individuals you’ve brought up were ever required to undergo such adjudication, and thus did not meet the reportable requirement anyway.

      So again, I challenge you to define failure. You can’t – because what actually happened here was life. It will always happen, if not with guns, then with something else. Just look at China – which has the same problem, but swords are used instead. China, as well as many other citizen gun-less countries, deals with hundreds of sword killings every year by their crazy and criminally insane. It’s just life, so be prepared to protect yourself and stop expecting the government to do it for you.

  10. if the clinically ill were put back in custody, where they belong, the number of nut case shootings would drop almost to zero. i don’t remember a single instance (but there may have been one) prior to releasing the disturbed into general population en masse where a nut job went on a killing spree with a gun. but then, it is barbaric to lock people away just because they are not capable of caring for themselves, are a predictable threat to the rest of us, or otherwise a victim of an uncaring society. we are only as strong as how the best of us treat the least of us.


  11. “You say, “we the voting public still have the power to put into power or remove from power those we feel can do the best job for us” Okay how about using some of that “power” to remove your president. He been there too long already.

  12. Dave, I’m not sure what you are drinking, but those people in D. C. can’t be trusted to write a bill correctly to preserve the rights of the gun owner. That bill will be loaded in gray matter so deep that one can’t understand it after reading it. If Obama were to sign this bill into law, we instantly know that we just got screwed.

  13. I live in Texas and was shocked when I first heard about this bill. There are some reports that the bill also includes safeguards against false accusations and clear legal standards to regain legally owning firearms and a mechanism to get them back before they are destroyed. If all that is true I could back this bill.

    1. @ Dave Jackson,

      There are some reports that there is a bill which also includes safeguards against false accusations and clear legal standards to always rightfully legally own firearms and a mechanism to never worry about their confiscation or destruction. If all that is true could you back that bill? If so, it’s called the Second Amendment. How’s it been working out for you?

  14. What is says NOW is not as important as the court rullings that have amended it.
    The court forced amendment process is what gives us many of the programs that are gutting our republic.
    We no longer have property rights. The govt can take YOUR house and land and give it to any private individual they think might make the gov’t more money.

    Not for public use like a road or other project but give it to a private individual they think will produce more taxes. This is just one of many.

    The water that runs off your roof is not yours, it belongs to the EPA.

    Nor are you standing between me and tyranny. Its already here.
    So knock off the chest thumping,

    I don’t need protection by someone who does not know who I am
    or what my capabilities are. — Icorps 1970






    Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.


    Icorps 1970?

    Icorps 1970?

    In Nevada, a Chinese King of the Hill
    Mr. Liu, a little-known Chinese business mogul, is the primary financier for a $1.3 billion plan to blast the top off a hill called Mount Hope just north of Eureka to remove its lode of metal called molybdenum

    The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971
















    USS Missouri (BB-63) (“Mighty Mo” or “Big Mo”)

    3 SURVIVED OUT 1418

    This explosion broke the back of Hood and the last sight of the ship, which sank in only three minutes, was her bow, nearly vertical in the water.[66] A note on a survivor’s sketch in the British RN Historical Branch Archives gives 63°20′N 31°50′W as the position of the sinking.

    Hood sank with 1418 men aboard. Only three survived: Ordinary Signalman Ted Briggs, Able Seaman Robert Tilburn, and Midshipman William John Dundas.[68] The three were rescued about two hours after the sinking by the destroyer Electra, which spotted substantial debris but no bodies.[69][Note 2]


  15. Gentlemen, while I applaud you for very eloquently using your first amendment rights to argue your second amendment rights, Your comments do not adequately address the issue at hand. People are dying at the hands of mentally ill persons with guns because somewhere along the line we the people have failed to be both accountable and responsible for our actions.

    Since the mentally ill are clinically proven to be unable to make a rational decision that would render their actions responsible and hold them accountable for such a decision; then the burden is passed to us the gun seller to be responsible enough to know that while it is EVERY American’s right to own a gun, not every American should or is mentally capable enough to possess such a deadly weapon. Therefore any information or policy that we could use to better ascertain that decision would not only safeguard society, but would help insure that those who are mentally capable enough to own and carry a gun would be able to do so for centuries to come.

    Herein lies the problem, who defines exactly what mentally capable is? We all know that the powers that be are famous for or should I say infamous for twisting and manipulating the law to fulfill their own agenda. So again, according to the Senator’s bill Who will decide what formula will used to determine exactly what defines mental illness? Is there anyone in Washington who we the people can trust to make a common sense, rational decision on our behalf?

    The Problem of guns winding up in the wrong hands is an age old problem that no law will prevent nor eliminate , but we the voting public still have the power to put into power or remove from power those we feel can do the best job for us, or take down those who fail to do so. Having sited the obvious, I believe that if such a bill to prevent the mentally ill from acquiring guns is to become a law, then such a bill should be written and passed by the people, for the people and must include safeguards to prevent politicians from using such a bill to take away or hinder the rights of the people.

    1. @ Johnny,

      There are major ethical as well as legal obstacles that can never be addressed through your philosophy. First there do in-fact exist many mentally ill persons that are quite capable of rational decision who can and do lawfully own guns. So that is out.

      In this Country every single person is innocent until proven guilty. You cannot pass Orwellian laws that systematically anticipate one’s actions and prosecute them to be stripped of their rights before they’ve ever even committed a single bad act. Yet that is precisely the fate you have advocated for some people here.

      And since you back that, at what point do we just go ahead and profile every man, woman, and child and jump straight to locking up the ones that meet the government’s pre-determined conditions as “most likely” to commit a criminal act? I’m sure that will be okay with you once the “formula” is figured out is “passed by the people, for the people”.

      You write as if you’d agree to this legislation if certain safeguards are put into place to presumably prevent government abuse that would hinder the rights of the people, yet time and again this same government has already proven they cannot comply with the current laws or the will of the people.

      A prime example of abuse is our Vets, and not just the mentally ill, that are placed into the FBI NICS and stripped of their right to bear arms simply for needing help managing their finances. Some Vets are forced into government assigned fiduciaries against their will or they will otherwise lose their benefits. There is no court, no adjudication, and no prosecution… they just get added to a ban list and it’s a done deal.

      Does that not beg the question – why the Federal government has singled out a particular class of Veteran citizens to strip of their gun rights while not applying the same policy evenly throughout the rest of society? It is because they know it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and society as a whole would raise hell.

      So instead they chip away at the areas they can give the illusion of control. Aging Vets dependent upon their monthly disability pay are an easy mark to start with. And now we hear of Obama’s attempts to start going after the elderly living on Social Security next. Again, another example of a system ran exclusively by the Federal side of government. Are things starting to look a bit conspiratorial yet?

      By law the Federal government cannot compel the States to report a single thing into NICS and many States refuse anyway to protect their citizen’s rights; so instead the Feds conspire to leverage the power we provide them through our own tax dollars by withholding that money from those Vets that have earned it rightfully through their service and bloodshed.

      This bill is simply an expansion of the same corrupt policy to gain more Federal control, nothing more and nothing less. It must be resoundingly rejected.

  16. You did actually read and understand what I wrote? The Federal Gov’t, through the courts amending the Constitution with no input from Congress or the States has fundamentally changed large parts of the Constitution. What this has done is given the Federal Gov’t powers it was never intended to have. What is says NOW is not as important as the court rullings that have amended it. The court forced amendment process is what gives us many of the programs that are gutting our republic. We no longer have property rights. The govt can take YOUR house and land and give it to any private individual they think might make the gov’t more money. Not for public use like a road or other project but give it to a private individual they think will produce more taxes. This is just one of many. The water that runs off your roof is not yours, it belongs to the EPA. Nor are you standing between me and tyranny. Its already here. So knock off the chest thumping, I don’t need protection by someone who does not know who I am or what my capabilities are.

  17. Icorps 1970
    The Constitution was intended to allow the Federal Gov’t to ONLY have authority over those things mentioned in the Constitution but the COURTS spurred on by POLITICIANS have turned it around to the point that NOW the way its read the Feds can do anything that it does not specifically prohibit.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
    shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [1]

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]





  18. agree with you about turning the “expressly granted” into “if not prohibited”. my reply was based more on the observations you made about the constitution declaring black humans were/are not whole persons, and thereby disrespecting their humanity and inherent value. the game is lost. we (or anybody) will never see the day the country returns to the constitutional republic envisioned by the founders. once the populace determines that freedom with responsibility is to be avoided at all costs, there is no going back. never happened in the history of the world. like any “system” in the universe, entropy applies.

  19. I would thing that one faces eternal court dates and bankruptcy trying to win the argument that laws which violate the constitution are to be ignored with impunity. Haven’t actually read/heard about a convicted felon winning an illegal gun possession case. Academics are great in seminars, reality bites !!

    Speaking of felons and guns, where in the constitution is there an exception for people held in jails/prisons? If 2A is absolute, incarcerated persons should be able to possess guns. No? Then preventing convicts from possessing weapons is an agreeable carve-out/exception. And from there we are arguing only about which carve-outs we like.

  20. peccatun Dei is correct….academically. The only formal, direct, “legal” way to alter the constitution is via the amendment or convention path. What is being overlooked is that there is a difference between “formal” and “effective”. Legislation can indeed alter any provision of the constitution, without formal ratification by the states. The simple truth is that if congress passes legislation and the president signs, the legislation becomes law, regardless of what the constitution provides. When politicians and the courts combine (conspire?), the constitution has little or no meaning. There is a mythical judicial tool to stop/correct political abuses, but judges are perhaps the most political of all (they want a “proud legacy”). The chief constitutional lawyer in the land (B.H.Obama) declared early in his first term, “…we can’t let the constitution stand in the way of doing the right thing.” Most jurists agree.

    So, one could argue that any legislation that changes the constitution (effectively) is not a “legal” or valid change, and is to be ignored. Good Luck with that !!

    1. This is why the Jury Trail was implemented. But if the jurors are chosen to be ignorant of their power or are never told then the jury trial is meaningless. Jurors are to vote their CONSCIENCE. According to John Jay (anyone who does not know who he is should inform themselves) jurys are to judge not just the facts of the case but the law as well. if the law is not being properly applied. If the law conflicts with the jurors conscience then they are to vote to acquit. But if you tell the court you will vote your conscience they will kick you out of the Jury Pool. So the Jury trial, our final protection, is disabled. Worse judges lie to the jury and will tell they they must take the law as the Judge gives it to them when in REALITY is a jury trial, trial at law, the JURY is (or used to be) the judge the judge is just there to maintain order in the court and the pass sentence. Look to “Fully Informed Jury” for more information. But if course people that will try to explain this are ignored, suppressed or made out to be a “kook” by the gov’t and their lackies in the “media”. So the unformed continue to be uninformed and the Gov’t gets its way in the Court Room.



    Where right secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; afford no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
    Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442.

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statue, though having form and name of law, is reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutional dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
    16 AM Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.

  22. have a look here:

    in short, slavery was permitted under the constitution.

    as to slaves not being whole persons, that decision (3/5ths person) was not done to slight black humans, but to limit the power of slave states to increase the number of representatives slaves states could have. slave states could import unlimited numbers of slaves, and since representatives to congress were based on state population, slave states could create more delegates that the northern states. the 3/5ths decision/compromise was a means of slowing or preventing the spread of slavery. the compromise had nothing do to with assigning limited value/respect to black humans as persons.

    1. The REASONS some court ruled in some way or another have little or nothing to do with what the Constitution actually states. For the Federal Gov’t to control something it had to be (according to the founders) WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION. But the COURTS have stretched the wording to the point its current meaning would not be recognized by the people that worte it. YOU are confusing what some COURT said with what the CONSTITUTION says. The Constitution was intended to allow the Federal Gov’t to ONLY have authority over those things mentioned in the Constitution but the COURTS spurred on by POLITICIANS have turned it around to the point that NOW the way its read the Feds can do anything that it does not specifically prohibit. The ONLY way the Constitution as written could be said to condone slavery was if it STATED that the black race could be kidnapped and made into slaves. It does not. As a result this was up to the individual states as the Constitution states. Here is another example of overreach and ignoring statements of the Founders. Today in a Jury trial the jury is told it must take the law as the Judge gives it or in some cases the Judge can overturn the juries verdict. How did this happen? Through corruption of out judicial system. I suggest you look up Courts at Law and Equity Court what the differences are SUPPOSED to be and what the truth is today. What is means is we have lost the 4th leg of Gov’t which is the PEOPLE rejecting laws that are passed though the legislatures, signed by the executive and pronounced “OK” by judges through voting their CONSCIENCE in the jury room. Now if this is done its “jury lawlessness” when in reality the jury is ABOVE THE LAW (according to John Jay). Dred Scott was a classic example of the COURT ruling not on the Constitution but on POLITICAL convenience or at worst racism. Dred Scott may be the first instance of the Constitution being ignored or rewritten by the courts.

  23. Uncontrolled courts are the highest form of “effective” changes to the constitution. as it stands, our history is not one of adherence, but of expedience. It has been 155yrs since a significant portion of the population said “no” to those in the country who believed “effective” changes to the constitution were legal and approved.

    The Game has been over for generations. We can get the popcorn and just enjoy the slow train-wreck, or we can pretend nothing matters besides ourselves at any given moment. There is no turning back; it is too broken to be fixed, and a large majority of the citizenry would come completely undone mentally if it were ever possible to return to a constitutional republic (called “democracy” by the masses).

    1. Yep, ole Abe’s war really made a mess of the free and independent. And most people think they are free. Instead of freeing the black slaves, Abe made slaves out of us ALL. When one is forced, at the point of a gun, to live and abide by laws he doesn’t agree, he becomes a slave. Abe stands squarely at the root problem with today’s version of the Second Amendment.

      “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

  24. does your mommy know you hang out on these forums? does she know how poor-mannered you are?

    i will gladly review the string, because i may have replied to the wrong commenter. there was a string under this posting where molon labe was discussed, and i was merely trying to add a bit of historical context to that discussion.

    hope your nap goes well. and maybe some cookies and milk to make it all better.

  25. curiously, the same US govt that argued (with guns) that no state could secede from the union allowed half a state to legally secede from the rest of the state. it would have been one thing if what is now west virginia had been declared the legal/legitimate state of virginia. instead, the US govt created as entirely new state from a portion of a state that had not seceded (since secession was considered null by the US govt). would the US govt (stetting the civil war aside) have recognized a west virginia if the real virginia had not attempted to disconnect from the rest of the union?

    yankees always want to have it whichever way they want it at the moment (remember, the worst racial integration riots/disturbances were in northern states).

  26. yep. and that executive order thing is really wide-ranging and allows a president to not let the constitution get in the way of doing the right thing.
    how ya’ likin’ it?

  27. Sounds kinda like what the VA is doing to vet, declaring the mentally incompetent and taking they’er gun rights. Who determine ‘ s if a gun owner is mentally competent, the govt ?

  28. It seems like we are loosing sight of what is going on here this is a discussion about a supposed republican senator who wants gun control that the NRA is backing. Now for years I have been told that the NRA was the defender of the 2nd amendment but now they are backing a senator that wants to restrict the freedoms of the people that have supported the NRA for many years and all law abiding citizens. That is just wrong any way you look at it. so lets stay focused and put a stop to this senator and the NRA’s madness and take our country back in this next election!

    1. @ george from fort worth.

      Well you know, up until June 1863. There WAS NO West Virginia, NOT ALL Virginian’s were Southern Sympathizers. In the 13 or so Counties of Northern Virginia, about half were Northern’s (Unionist) all just living side-by-side with the Southerner’s, Neighbor’s…

  29. Have read in history books that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS reported to Lincoln that if the southern states took the matter to trial, the outcome was not certain, in that the Chief Justice could find where the southern states had done anything wrong.

    Whether slavery be good or be it evil, it was enshrined in the constitution, and the northern states were attempting to limit a constitutional provision through simple legislation (restricting the right of new stated to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery). The northern states were attempting to modify the constitution without the nasty process of ratifying an amendment.

    1. Since the Constitution does not mention slavery it would be up to the states at least until the late 19th or early 20th c. It was a COURT that decided that blacks were not human and thus had no rights not the Founders. In fact IIRC several founders wanted it banned. But it was not something that could be done at the time if they wanted a Constitution to pass. So it was lost in “compromise” it was a good idea at the time. but they likely did not think that a panel of Judges would rule that a black man was not a man….

    2. Since the 13th Amendment specifically addresses Slavery, I assume your intent was to say that the Constitution as originally passed does not mention slavery. While the word itself may not appear, slavery was indeed referenced in the original document. Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1 refers to the importation of people. More to the point, Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 contains the widely misunderstood three fifths compromise. At the time the Constitution was drafted, the northern free states did not want slaves counted in the census as they could not vote, but their inclusion would have expanded the congressional power of the southern slave states. The southern states of course, wanted them counted as whole people. The three fifths compromise was reached as a way to keep the southern states in the union, but to prevent them from having an overwhelming majority in the House or Representatives.


    ‘Come and take them.’
    When Xerxes requested: ‘Deliver up your arms’, King Leonidas’ defiant reply.Note: It would have been said with the bitter taste of, ‘If you think your good enough…’. Leonidas’ actual words were ‘Molon labe’ (μολών λαβέ) using Dorian Greek. “Molon” is a participle that means “after you come” and labe(λαβέ) comes from the verb lambano (λαμβάνω) that is still in use in modern greek and as imperative (λάβε in modern, λαβέ in ancient) meaning ‘take’. In ancient greek with one or two words you can have a very specific meaning like this. The exact translation in modern greek would be ‘αφού έρθεις, να τα πάρεις’ or ‘ερχόμενος λάβε τα’ or not in exact translation ‘έλα να τα πάρεις’.

    1. Guys like you piss me off trying to sound intelligent but falling way short. I know that I do not need a lesson on Greek and do not care to have one you are so off topic it is stupid. What does anything you wrote have to do with Senator Corn hole and his legislation? Nothing!

  31. ‘Fraid I must, must I tell you, enter here.

    There are two types of restrictions to consider: direct; effective.

    Regards altering the constitution, direct “modification” would be a constitutional amendment ratified by the states (or constitutional convention). Effective “modification” would come through congressional legislation or presidential order.

    One can argue that non-constitutional amendment “modifications” are not valid, but the courts say they are (in most cases, including the round-up of Japanese-Americans during WW2, which violated multiple rights). Any law that effectively restricts exercise of any constitutionally recognized/guaranteed right is, in reality, a “modification” , however brief the alteration is. Another example of non-amendment restriction is the various state and federal laws regarding permanent removal of the right of felons to KABA. Indeed, if 2A is absolute, the government cannot forbid people in jails to KABA. (if one thinks that restriction is OK, then we are no longer talking about absolute rights, only admitting there are certain non-amendment restrictions we like).

    Theory vs. reality? Principle vs. reality? The effect of non-amendment restrictions vs. God-given rights?

    Reality wins every time.

    1. The problem is activist courts that contain judges that are put there to allow the Constitution to be “modified” by Unconstitutional laws that are then ruled as Constitutional by the Court. The SCOTUS that allowed the Japanese to be sent to concentration camps is the same court that gave us social welfare which James Madison stated was not in the Constitution and Federal gun control which is shown to be far from the intent of the Founders if we read THEIR writings on the subject. See Federalist Paper #46 by James Madison for one of the explanations of the Second Amendments REAL purpose and one of the reasons for a STATE controlled military IE militia according the the Founders. So the courts are completely unreliable in this regard. I.E. Telling us what is or is not Constitutional. If they ignore the WORDING and THE INTENT and historical rulings then what good is their ruling? If they invent rights from whole cloth (abortion and social welfare). Then we have Obama telling us that he will transform the legal system. This by appointing more activist anti-Constitution judges. Do this long enough and its a done deal. And in started in the mid 1930s so its been going on for a long time. They have though court mandated “amendments” literally turning the Constitution inside out so up in down, right is left and Unconstitutional is Constitutional. Bingo the US is fundamentally changed and it has not been for the better. We are so socialist now, so totalitarian that the Founders would be starting another revolution to restore our lost liberty. Worse it cannot be turned around. Hitler said if you incrementally remove rights and freedoms in small steps that by the time the people wake up its to late. We have reached this. When the Federal Gov’t can BAN the manufacture of MILITIA arms we have a serious problem. Then we have loss of property rights and a host of others that nobody seems to even know about.



  33. The Militia Clauses gave Congress authority for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” the militia, and “governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”,



  34. We don’t need laws on the books which mark people who are mentally ill and then fails to keep anyone safe. What we need is a federal concealed carry law and good training. Tyrannical state governments, like the ones in California (my state) and New York, leave us defenseless. They want us to let the police handle these situations, but that kind of responsibility takes minutes when what you really need is some responsible, sane person with a gun to defend themselves and others.

    1. Technically you are correct when you say we need a federal concealed carry law.” But we already suppose to have one. It’s called the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately our tyrannical government ignores the 2nd Amendment.

      Before Abraham Lincoln invaded the South, the 2nd Amendment was honored by the government, and one was not restricted in right to carry nationwide. Lincoln’s centralized government changed all that, and made slaves of us all.

      Under the circumstances I would like to see the national concealed carry law, but I’ve have my doubts it will ever make it.

    2. @ fair.

      Technically, it was the Confederacy that attacked the Union Forces already Stationed in the Manassas Junction in 21 July 1861. The Confederacy arrived by train, too the Battle. From a Historical Note it was the Confederate South that Invaded the Union North, FIRST…









  37. Take a look at what Oregons new registration of hun buyers . Sellers and the midfle man dealer
    Oregon dtate bill 914A.
    Under the added portions to old gun laws they now require that the State Highway Patrol which in both Oregon and Wa the patrol run state secrrt security services, has an office with phones to aid transfers and to keep records.
    In Oregon ypur medical records are already accessed furing background checks but new bill empowers the medical profedsion into part of judicial police state.
    In Oregon a PTSD institutionalized or as an outpatients gun rights are decided by Dr. Who files a brief for court.
    So while Suffering from PTSD is not a crime in itself if deemrn unable to posess firearm yhe sheriff of your home county is notified immediately and your name goes into the State fed.crime data base.
    EVen if one does not know reason that you are refused , they can delay for many hours and even days as they will get back by phone or mail, IF gor some reason your name is upon any of the new Oregon data bases and you apply for transfer as even private now requires middle man and all three undergo backgrounds , be afraid if delayed as they have to by law call the local cops immediately.
    Oregon will maintain your data of mental supervision for as long ss you are under it, and by their definitions its pretty damned easy to be classified as mentaly disturbed by Oregon Mefical rules under this law
    The state patrol and Oregon State Medical will maintain your records for five years from application.
    Oregon gun dealers as in Washington comply becase even on consignmentd they fee both sellrr and buyers checks.
    Vets who act normal have all kinds of exemptions,that are not available for non military; as the empire rewards their mercs in many ways,, cannot have them and cops gettingpissed off.
    They just recognize that many vets are fn nut cases but not as fruit loopy as those Constitutionalist.

  38. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said anyone who would give up a freedom for security deserves neither, or something to that effect. This bill is an all out freedom grabbing law! That is all there is to it. Anyone who believes that this is going to do anything to stop mentally ill people from killing others is out of their own minds. People are going to murder others even if they have to use a screwdriver. Then what out law screwdrivers? It just keeps snowballing.

  39. Apples and Oranges. Mental health problems are just that. Stop making it a gun control problem. The issue is not the gun, hatchet, pepper spray, car or baseball bat but the lack of care. Address the issue, perhaps the affordable care act isn’t worth it’s salt.

    1. The U.S. Government is making it a gun control issue not us Vets. Your statement is ignorant at best, you must be an Obamacrat who has never served and trying to simplify that which are Government has complicated!

  40. If anyone wants to know what the founding fathers thought about restrictive firearms and specifically FEDERAL firearms laws then look to Federalist Paper #46 by James Madison. There are others that address the Militia as well but you will have to search for them. Don’t have them off the top of my head. The Federalist Papers were written to EXPLAIN the Constitution to the public prior to ratification. BTW Patrick Henry was opposed to the Constitution since he said it would only work if administered by HONORABLE MEN.

  41. Who else can NRA turn too?
    NRA will get dues wether you are or are not judged mentally incompetant.
    Cornyn is o independent minded individual , he kisses GOP Senate leadership wether in mens rooms or in public, he is McConnels hatchet man and a sycophant to AIPAC and Blumburgs billions.
    That a man in as high a position in GOP would come forth with this type legislation should ring the town square alarm bells whenever other top GOap appear.
    NRA has to go along or lose all access to political powers in both houses, if you find doors closed, for even a little while you havr lost all standing in power brokers eyes.
    NRA lost their cajones to soft living a long long while ago, and likeany a d all organizations that suck up to political parties they became part and parcel of the parties interest noy yhe groups they were supposed to be representing.
    Think NRA has no one to turn too that does not demand a bowed or down on both knees who can gun owners turn too.

  42. Being in the military and being diagnosed with PTSD is not a crime so why are veterans being treated like criminals

    1. When martial law is declared, and it will be, the government does not want A small Army/Militia to fight against them. I am a Marine Vet with PTSD as well, but, I have not received anything nor have I been contacted by any Govt agency. asking to give my guns up. Come and get them (Molon Labe) muzzle first!!

    2. @ Rob Ruk

      Molon Labe translates to “Come and get it”, there is NO word for THEM in ancient Greek.

  43. I know your explanation has helped me understand a little more. Thank you. I sure wish that the NRA would get away from this senator for all I can see is bad coming from this!

  44. Ok here we go!!!! Look we where starting to become a civilized society. And we just back stepped some home. Unfortunately there is only one way to stop a mentally ill person from hurting others. Shoot them first. Allow more people to legally carry in more public places. And I guarantee all these crazy people shooting crap will almost disappear. Problem solved. Facts are facts, the places we hear about people being shot. Are usually places where people are not permitted to carry.

  45. aahhh. good question !

    answer: the libs, lefties, socialists, low information voters, whatever, are terrified of terrorists. muslims will quickly kill you for any real or imagined offense to mohammedanism. non-muslims are considered easy pickins. muslims will likely be exempt from any formal gun confiscation.

  46. What about the mass shootings by Muslims? Will they ban all Muslims from firearms ownership or travel by any mass transit?

    1. @ Icorps 1970

      What about the Mass Shooting by Anyone? A VAST Majority of the Mass Shootings that have taken place, were NOT Muslim’s.

  47. Another slippery slope. The Gov’t will get to determine who is “mentally ill” I bet they already have a psych who thinks owning a gun is a sign of “mental illness”. Complete BS that will just give the gov’t more control of everyone’s life.

  48. The Cornyn Billl must be stopped. The devil is in the definitions of what is “mentally deficient.” Read this article about the changes and how it will eliminate gun ownership and gun rights.

  49. High profile? Every shooting is high profile these days. The only HIGH PROFILE shooting that i know of was when JFk was killed/ assassinated. So lets call it as it is, it dont matter how crime with a weapon is committed ie knife, ax, rope, rock, bat ect. Its the social media and media/news that condemn firearms for violent against blacks and whites or other.

  50. if what you say is true (and it si), legislation cannot alter the constitution or any of its amendments.

    which was precisely the issue in 1860. northern states were trying through legislation to restrict the right of new states to determine for themselves if slavery be permitted within their state boundaries.

    the southern states should have taken the US govt. to the supreme court to settle the issues.

    1. Well, I think the southern states had in mind to take the US Govt. to the Supreme Court to settle the slavery issue, but Lincoln invaded the South before a peaceful solution could be found. In fact, Lincoln refused to meet with southern leaders over the issue and instead invaded the South by blockading Charleston Harbor.

    2. @ fair.

      It might have been Resolved in the Court’s, but for it wasn’t for the Assault of Ft. Sumter in 12 April 1861. The Confederacy SEALED there fate on that one day. Any Negotiations was Broken, that day…

  51. Sen. Cornyn’s bill seems to have split the run rights community with the NRA being pro and the NAGR being against. It seems to be basically an attempt to motivate state and local governments to take the effort to report people to the background check system who are disqualified under the law from buying or even owning a firearm. I think that we all agree that dangerously mentally ill people shouldn’t have guns. However, how that is determined is the big question.

    There have be concerns that the ACA (Obamacare) will enlist your family doctor to ask about you ownership of firearms and report it to the government. Or, the VA banning certain veterans from owning guns. So a bill like Cornyn’s should be taken likely. On the good side it doesn’t expand the criteria for people being placed on the “banned” list.

    What I’d like to see is that something pro-gun rights be added to the bill. For example a provision to block the BATFE from banning ammunition or restricting the material that it is made as has been in play recently. Then I find something like this more acceptable.

  52. Poor Stan has his President’s mixed up. It was actually Jimmy Carter who stopped funding for Mental Hospitals. I lived on Long Island in NY and we had three huge mental institutions: Kings Park, Pilgrim State in Brentwood and Creedmore in Queens. These places housed thousands of mentally ill and many were released because the State could not sustain them once the Federal Aid dried up. So having the mentally ill not cared for properly started well before Clinton’s time.

  53. Family, friends, medical professionals, clergy, etc. in our local communities are much better suited to deal with the mentally ill/disturbed than out of touch politicians in Washington DC. It only requires common sense, diligence, and a genuine effort. The second amendment is clear and concise and doesn’t need to be interpreted with legislation that just continues to gum up the legal system. No more bills, let the second amendment stand as it was intended.








  55. We must stop the Cornyn bill. It is a hand in glove to the mental health agenda that Obama has devised. Please read my article on News With Views posted today. The NRA must back down from the Cornyn Bill and we must make them do it.

  56. Woody, thanks. I do believe that is the article. Glad to see someone else read it as well. I normally do not write about things other than purely my own opinion without having some documentation handy. So I felt a bit uncomfortable with that post because I really could not remember who wrote it or where I read it since I read a great deal. Thanks again.

  57. Sorry but I feel your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being modified is incorrect. In order to belong to a Militia when they were first formulated in this Country an individual had to furnish his own weapon. Thus you had to be a gun owner before you could even join. Thus the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment does not apply just to people who are in a militia.
    Read some of the historical perspectives and study the language at the time of the writing and you will see that most of the challenges to the 2nd Amendment do not hold water despite the rulings and infringements we have already suffered at the hands of the politicians and courts.

  58. I went to a psychiatrist, when I was in the service she told me there are many types of alcoholics, if you drink on new years only and look forward to it you’re deemed an alcoholic. Hundreds of definitions of the disease. Now if someone gets roadrage shouldn’t they be labeled unstable, or just get a ticket. Theres no end to this. Domestic violence, are they going to address that. Thanks for all the comments, I’ve learned a lot.

    1. Here’s a thought. How about quit even looking in the direction of the second amendment? “And shall not be infringed upon.” Why do theses idiots sit up in Washington and just think of new laws to pass. You want to fix something? How about starting with $19 trillion in budget depict. We don’t need more gone control, we need government control.

  59. The gov has already gotten the VA to ask about guns in the home and they are even now passing the info as to if you have taken “mode altering” drugs as a script from VA. Even when it was 10 or more year prior and not currently. When was the last time a PSD vet shot up a school.

  60. I fear this legislation will adversely affect Veterans from accessing mental health for fear of being labeled. Bad legislation. It shouldn’t be passed. Families know they have a member that isn’t quite right and need to step up and warn authorities about them and not enable them by allowing them access to weapons.

  61. Claiming the Second Amendment is “subject to interpretation” is just the liberal’s way of saying they know what it really means, but reserve the right to re-interpret it at their whimsical pleasure.

    Likewise, only a feeble and corrupt individual would contend, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is also “subject to interpretation” simply because it was written thousands of years ago and would have us believe we are incapable of fully understanding the intent of the words from back then.

    Grow a spine people and stand for something. These words are quite plain enough for any commoner to comprehend. To hide behind corrupt men in robes waiting while they re-interpret your God-given freedoms is nothing short of cowardly and weak.

    One thing is inarguable, and that is “Shall not be infringed” is used but once in the Constitution. Only a fool would allow themselves to believe that wasn’t done so intentionally to draw more attention to those words for specific emphasis.

    1. Watch out for NRA. They are coercing the states to change their state constitutions from “shall not be infringed,” to a judge made rule called “strict scrutiny.” NRA claims that a judge’s decision under strict scrutiny is stronger than “shall not be infringed.” What a load of horse manure. It’s too late for some states who have already had their constitution changed. NRA is selling the states out.

      And Mark Levin wants an Article V Constitutional Convention, so the US Constitution can be changed likewise. We live in troubled times folks. Wolves in sheep’s clothing or some very stupid people all around us.

  62. So… they should have written it in a way that didn’t exist at the time..?
    We can easily translate it into modern English. The trouble isn’t in the translation, it’s in the free interpretation that ignores all historical context and the 1000s of writings of the signers that clearly outline their intentions.
    For those that would insist it be spelled out in no uncertain terms they added “shall not be infringed”; a phrase that has the same meaning now and it did then.

  63. A fundamental constitutional right should never be revoked without true criminal cause. The opinion of a psychiatrist or other person about the possibility (risk) of a criminal act is completely subjective and unprovable, making one person’s rights subject to the whim of his accuser, no matter how well intentioned that person might be. No one knows what some other person might do with certainty.
    If viewed objectively, the number of people who will commit one of these heinous acts will remain unchanged, while literally millions of persons would be denied their Constitutional rights without any evidence of a crime just for seeking treatment, or thought to need treatment, Who would you trust to make that judgement about you?
    John Cornyn has abandoned us for his political elite progressive buddies and this, along with his willingness to vilify those who would resist the progressive agenda is the proof.





    THEY ARE C O M M U N I S T / S O C I A L I S T..etc



  65. I am sorry that I cannot document what I am about to say but a while back I read an article where the author had asked a historical linguist a series of questions regarding the 2nd Amendment as written based on the language at the time. To make a long story short the linguist responded that there is nothing written in the 2nd Amendment that prevents people from have any type of firearms nor having those rights infringed in any manner. He did not agree that that wording as written then allowed Government to interpret it in the negative manners it tries to do so today. Not trying to get into this between you and G man, but that is what the man said. Again, I am sorry I cannot provide the documentation but that is what I read.

  66. It is a Federal crime for any organization or individual to release details of anyone’s medical history. This legislation would legitimize government violations of individual medical privacy rights.
    The definition of “Mentally Ill” changes weekly. When a bureaucrat decides that anyone who would want to own a weapon is “ill”, this legislation could become a vehicle for the persecution of legitimate gun owners.

  67. I have to agree with Monty, good point, but before we can make the punishment fit the crime, we will have to do something with the unelected liberal shills in the black robes! Otherwise nothing will work.

  68. Screw all you so called supporters of the Second Amendment who dares say:
    “So go ahead and compromize on all the other Amendments as you like, but the Second Amendment is the linchpin …..
    WTF does that come from All Rights as written in the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed, the Second Amendment cannot stand alone, what the hell is itprotecting other than someinesbfat ass from a badmguy.
    A Second Amendment advocate is a Constitutionalist no if ands or buts, the Second Amendment has but two purposes and that portion for use againsbdomestiv ensmies is a means of last resorts.
    The other portion is in defense of s foreign nations invasion. Note the fn invasion , and not us invading.
    The very last and most drastic step can only be used when there are no other lawfull or administrative means or ules in effect to gaim redress of our grievances.
    Sorry but judt so you can still own a gun while rest.of Constitution is shredded is the fn attitude that government and military lie when they say they are protecting the Constitution.
    That yoday we in US are on brink of losung evrry Right, you have already compromized the 2nd multiple times and in milultiple ways; and placed the nation under the most moraly and criminaly corrupt governance in our history.
    Again the 2nd is not to protect ypur guns but to remind us that we must protect the Constitution by whayever.fn means we can in order to avoid that last bloody and irretrievable strp.
    One such strp isbto flood this fat assed senators home distric with snto podtrrs .There are already multiple groups who want jim impeached and recalled.
    They are part of not just domedtic Citizensnhun tights gruoup but internationaly asnwell that represents millions og hum owners worldwide..
    And for heavens sske kick the NRA out the fn door and swing all our “Allegiance to the Second Amendment Foundation and its partner group CitizendnRight To Keep And Bear.Srms.
    Long past time we stopped lidtening to those who give away Rights that the Condtitution did not givenUs but that staye what cobstitution is dupposed to represent.arts of Constiyution so they can be safe.

  69. The words “Shall not be infringed ” are stated just for that purpose. The words “Shall not be infringed” means their is NO COMPROMISE . Once any regulation or compromise is given there will be more and more regulation and so called compromise. Every single law or regulation that has Been written and revised, regulated, compromised has been time and time again revised, re-regulated re- compromised. The Constitution was designed to be revised only in certain areas as needed. The Second Ammendment was NOT one of them. The Second Ammendment was designed to remain intact without revision in any form. It’s Primary design is to ensure a Tyrannis Government as we have today will not be able to Infringe upon the Nation’s Second Ammendment rights and disarm Americans. No Revison, No Regulation, No Compromise period !

  70. Read up on gun control in Germany from the 1920’s until the fall of the Nazi’s. You will see “good gun control gone bad”. Trust the Feds? No thanks I trust and believe in the Constitution and God.

  71. Infringement, is what you accept when dealing with the elected officials Democrats and Republicans. Think about it, do criminals have jobs, therefore do they purchase medical insurance, and do they pay to register their firearms. No they don’t, and negotiations with politicians is like doing business with criminals they make laws that affect everyone else.

  72. Shall not be infringed means exactly that. who gets to decide mental illness? Communist countries have been declaring anyone who opposes them mentally ill and locking them away until they have been reprogrammed. The Constitution was written in a way that even the layman could understand its intent. Even the supreme court does not have authority under the Constitution to make changes to the Constitution or even to decide what is or is not Constitutional. This a power they assumed back in 1825 or so. The American people are the final arbiters of the Constitution! That being said, I happen to believe that liberalism is a mental disorder.

  73. You sound as though you could work for John Kerry at the State Department, give the other side everything they want and get nothing in return. If you’re going to rewrite that part about “shall not be infringed” then you need to get something in return, like “National Right to Carry”.

  74. Sounds like the republicans and the NRA our getting in bed with the democrats and it is bad enough the way it is, the republicans have already turned on their supporters I would hate to see the NRA do the same thing.

  75. To be clear, I am a major 2nd amendment supporter and firearms owner (otherwise I wouldn’t be on this site). Therefore…

    1. Any and all constitutional rights have some sort of regulation-it’s not unconstitutional to regulate, it’s not a free-for-all, therefore….

    2. If we all agree that criminals and certain mentally ill patients should not possess firearms, then how do we do that without some record keeping and background check?

    3. If we want to protect our freedom to move and live freely anywhere in the U.S., how do we keep tabs on criminals and mentally ill folks who move, and their prior state of residence doesn’t want to share information?

    4. In my line of work, to solve a problem you do it by listening to and adopting good ideas, including compromises. I have never seen a problem solved by a posture of blanket rejection to any and all ideas proposed. That’s not problem-solving, that’s not a Democracy; that’s a dictatorship. And a dictatorship is just not American.

    1. what part of not one more infringement don’t you understand? it is always one more law one more cave in keep it up and their will be nothing left for the dam politicians to take away on either side . every time there is a shooting all gun owners are blamed and the reaction is lets surrender a little more. I say hell no fight back for a change for once.

    2. @ The Rubes,

      You are not a Second Amendment supporter, you just think you are. Anyone can self-proclaim anything they choose to about themselves, but that doesn’t make it so. And while I am sure you truly do believe you are a “major” Second Amendment supporter, a real supporter knows what “…shall not be infringed” actually means.

      A true supporter will defend that line to their death without compromise. An earnest supporter knows it is impossible to ever allow compromise. Why… because of all the many words written into the U.S. Constitution, none were written with such clarity and unwavering intent as the Second Amendment.

      The Founders were much closer to the recent memory of all the blood shed to free this country from a tyrannical king, and so they knew they must write the Second Amendment in such a special way, with the most emphatic and definitive structure over all else, so that it guaranteed there would never be any confusion by future governments as to its permanent intent above all else.

      This is why the Second Amendment has stood the test of time. Sure there have been corrupt men on both sides of the bench to challenge it, but in the end, there is a reason it has always ultimately prevailed and eventually wins back the day in reversals.

      And should the day come that you do see the Second Amendment fall, pack your bags and flee this Country because we are truly doomed as a once great Nation.

      So go ahead and compromise on all the other Amendments as you like, but the Second Amendment is the hinge-pin holding it all together. And if it does get pulled, it will force all other freedoms to tumble behind it. The Founders knew this quite well, and thus intentionally wrote the uncompromising words as “…shall not be infringed”.

    3. Very well said. You are one of the few to grasp the intention and its meaning. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON” should be studied by all of those who wish to challenge or compromise our Second Amendment. People should wake up and understand that this well documented and clearly stated Amendment is already in violation in many ways.

      Infringe implies an encroachment clearly violating a right or prerogative

    4. @ G-Man

      That’s the problem sir, it isn’t written in “Clarity”. The Oxford Dictionary used in the Writings of the Amendments in the Constitution, was published in 1690. Almost a Century before, and almost 325-year difference from That “Shakespearean” Old English with Today’s Modern American English. An “Inch” in 1690, is not the same as an “Inch” in 2015.

    5. @ G-Man.

      That’s not entirely true, Sir. The 2nd Amendment was “Modified” in 1916, when the “Militia” was DISSOLVED to become the US National Guard through the National Defense Act of 3 June 1916.

    6. @ Mikial,

      The Second Amendment has NEVER been “modified” in any form since its Ratification in December 1791.

    7. @ G-Man.

      Everytime you attach an ACT to an Amendment, THAT’S the Modifier. Thomas Jefferson added the Insurrection Act to the 2nd Amendment in 1807. Woodrow Wilson, Abolished the “Militia” in 1916, another Modifier.

    8. @ Michael,

      I can’t state this more plainly… there simply is no such process in any shape or form that is known to any official government entity or in our history as a “modifier to the Amendments”. It simply does not exist anywhere other than within your own personal definition that you’ve decided upon.

      The authority which allows the Federal Government to create ACTS (Federal Legislation or Laws) is conveyed by the Constitution. The Constitution’s authority comes from the collective power of all the States. In other words, the States are what give the Federal Government their authority to even exist and require that any Amendments to their (States’) collective document must be ratified by three-fourths of all the States for any changes whatsoever.

      In addition, the President was intentionally left out of the Constitutional Amendment/Ratification process which is a procedure exclusively required only by actions between Congress and the States, but never the President. Therefore, in no stretch of the imagination would President Thomas Jefferson or President Woodrow Wilson EVER be involved (as you claim) in ANYTHING having to do with a change to an Amendment; that includes amending, ratifying, or as you put it “modifying” an Amendment in any way.

      More specifically, even when the Congress and the States do decide to change an Amendment it is done through a new Amendment which usually abolishes the old Amendment to create a new one with the new changes or additions. Even then, it is a long and major undertaking which is why Amendments are not considered often or taken lightly. Even still, it never involves the President.

      So now that you better understand the strict and arduous aspects involved, hopefully you will more clearly understand why there is no authority nor has there ever been a process by which a President, or Congress for that matter, may “attach an ACT to an Amendment” and thus it is impossible to EVER “modify” an Amendment as you’ve claimed.

      I hope this has helped.

    9. @ G-Man.

      Then tell me ONE “Official” Recognizable Militia, that STILL Exists Today in 2015.

    10. @ Michael,

      Your interest in the militia is yours alone to pursue and has no bearing on my correcting your inaccurate belief that a President can somehow sign into law “modifications” to the U.S. Constitution in any way.

      Furthermore, testing me about the militia will in no way change the outcome that you are completely wrong about your Constitutional “modification” theory.

      However, since you asked about the current Militia…

      Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which has never been “modified” to this date, clearly states: “The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.”

      That Constitutional Article still stands and as such the militia is alive and well in 2015, and “Officially” recognizable as the Organized State Militia Forces commonly known as the National Guard and elements of the U.S. Coast Guard. Some states such as Texas also maintain their own lawful official organized militia forces under the Governor and are in addition to but completely separate from the National Guard or Active Duty forces. They are known as the Texas State Guard and answer to the State’s Adjutant General.

      Beyond this there exists the Reserve Militia which consists of every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 to 45 and who is not already in the National Guard. By law they are all required to register for this Militia Reserve between the ages of 18 to 25. The must all register into a system known as the Selective Service.

      And finally, former members of any Armed Forces are also considered subject to call-up as part of this Reserve Militia. Various tracking mechanisms are in place to recall such individuals and even extends to Military Retirees for a specified number of years after they retire. Retirees are required to report their status annually for this period.

      I really hope this puts an end to your quandary over the Militia and your belief that the President can “modify” any aspect of our U.S. Constitution.

    11. @ G-Man. TO @ Michael ON Constitutional Amendment/Ratification process


      @ G-Man.
      TELL YOU ONE “Official” Recognizable Militia, that STILL Exists Today in 2015.






      AND “ALL “ I DO


    12. @ G-Man.

      I Really Hate coming the “Head Butting Blows” with you Sir, but the 2nd Amendment has had at Least 28 Riders/Attachments/Act’s (Whatever you want to call them) added to the Amendment since 19 December 1791. And those were just one’s I could find, in a few hours…

    13. @ Secundius,

      There appears to be a fundamental yet extremely important concept that is lost to both you and Michael about how the Constitution is required to be applied. This will be my last attempt to have a go at explaining this once and for all. I ask that you clear your minds of any preconceived notions and focus on the words I am about to impart…

      There simply is NO OTHER PROCESS to change, alter, or modify any aspect of the Constitution or any of its Amendments except by the procedures which were originally provided by the Constitution itself. That process is clearly covered in Article Five of the U.S. Constitution. This is a bedrock principle that must be adhered to otherwise the Constitution is pointless.

      The only reason Congress can make laws and the President can sign them into existence for execution is because the Constitution provides for their authority to do so. Such an activity is considered an Act of Congress and is why we know each passage as an “ACT”. But an “ACT” is simply nothing more than Legislative Action or Federal Law; just different terms for the same exact thing.

      Now follow me closely here… Each and every Legislative Action is only considered lawful when Congress carries it out in strict compliance per the authority of the Constitution. So when Congress makes laws, they may only do so for the purpose of enforcing the Constitution as it currently exists and without “modification”.

      Any legislative action that leads to the creation of laws may only ever cause an effect which furthers the Constitution but never “modifies” it. Therefore it would be completely unlawful for Congress or the President to make or sign a law that causes in any way the creation of, as you put it, – “Riders/Attachments/Act’s (Whatever you want to call them) added to the Amendment”.

      So much is it an unlawful act to create laws which “modify” the Constitution that the Founders knew to build in protections against this. I present to you the third branch of the Federal Government known as the Judicial Branch; whose sole purpose to even exist is to ensure no law ever “modifies” or violates the U.S. Constitution. They serve no other purpose.

      Any time a law is perceived to “modify” the Constitution, even to the slightest degree, we call it an “unconstitutional law” and have a right to redress that before the Supreme Court. Hence the thousands of cases read about as brought by the Federal and State governments as well as individuals on a daily bases against bad legislative acts that appear to “modify” or be in violation of the Constitution.

      While absorbing this process, you must keep in mind that none of the Federal aspect would lawfully exist without first obtaining the authority which ultimately flows exclusively from the many States. It is the States that make the Constitution exist and thus gives life to a Federal (National) Government.

      And because the States are collectively the actual owners of the U.S. Constitution as represented by the people, that is why they and they alone are the ONLY ones allowed to ever “modify” the Constitution through a three-fourths majority ratification process.

      With overwhelming lawful documentation and history establishing this process and our entire Country having been established and dependent upon it, I hope now you all will see how impossible it is for the Federal government to unilaterally create laws with “Riders/Attachments/Act’s” that are “added to the Amendment” without State Ratifications. It just does not exist.

      In closing I wish to say, any laws you feel have “modified” the Constitution rather than further its purpose are in-fact “unconstitutional” and I would advise you to address the Supreme Court over such issues immediately as it is your right, as stipulated by the U.S. Constitution.

    14. I must disagree Michael. The Constitution can only be modified via the amendment process, not via Acts of Congress. In addition as the militia is essentially the whole of the people, it cannot be dissolved. The Right is a birth right or natural right however one chooses to frame it. The Second Amendment does not create the Right, it bars government from restricting it. What the militia act did do, was end the appointment of officers to train the militia.

    15. @ peccatun Dei.

      About 70% were Congressional Acts, Sir. Even in the ACA Act, 419 Voted, 257 Democrat’s and 162 Republican’s Voted For, NOBODY Voted Against It…

  76. I am deeply concerned, as mentioned in the article above, that mental illness is too broad a term, and that it might hinder gun ownership by the very people that need it most. Should a single mother be denied the ability to protect herself because she suffered from post partum depression after child birth? Will she not seek treatment for her depression, knowing that it might prevent her from purchasing a weapon to defend her or her children with. How many seniors are out there who have taken, or are taking, antidepressants (prozac, zoloft, celexa, and others) and may not even be suffering clinical depression? Do they ignore their symptoms at the risk of being labeled with mental illness, or lose their right to own a gun? How many people have had a bout with depression sometime in their lives, whether from loss of a loved one, economic disaster, etc. that might have lost their “right” to own a firearm? Would it make confiscation inevitable? What about our troops’ families here at home? I can’t imagine very many not nearly overcome with worry for their loved ones, as well as our troops concerned for their families here…especially if they can’t be here to protect them. Where would a government draw the line between depression, worry, anxiety disorders, and just missing a loved one? I think we’re on really thin ice here.

  77. This is more bovine scatology from another highly functional sociopath lawyer and parasitic career politician! After decades of being bent over by these members of the arrogant intelligentsia the American people should know by now not to trust these guys and gals. So, let me walk you folks through this slowly. First, look at Cornyn’s “glamour shot” photographs; the stylish and tailored suit; the big friendly polished smile; the perfectly cut and styled hair; the bold gesticulations. This is textbook stuff. Now, slowly read his comments:

    “This legislation will strengthen programs that promote preventative screening and crisis response training so that we can better understand and treat the factors which may endanger public safety,” “By giving our communities the resources necessary to recognize and prevent acts of violence, we not only protect American families, but help those affected by mental illness.”

    Now, go back and read the comments again very slowly and think about the words as you read them. Go, on; I’ll wait. Finished? Do you get it now? This pure unadulterated meaningless psychobabble designed to promote the obscene notion that more legislation and government nanny-state programs can solve problems. Remember Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  78. legislation will not stop executive orders.

    legislation designed to be a little bit bad now in order to avoid legislation that will be really bad later is a fool’s game. legislation is dependent on whichever group mounts the most votes. the constitution was designed to prevent legislation that limits our civil rights. how did that work out???

    1. @ george from fort worth.

      You couldn’t, even if you wanted to. Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandum are Written into the Constitution granting Presidential Powers in curtain cases…

  79. I will not support this law, I have seen how our government will take and change the definition of whom they consider to be mentally unstable or problematic to fit their agenda. Basically anyone who disagrees with them. They do not need another way/law of disarming the citizens.
    Do you people remember what they called the American Indian when they fought for their way of life? How every treaty was broken?
    And we are to believe anything coming from a more corrupt group of people now? Not hardly.
    It was easy for them then and easier for them now to make changes of a few words or interpret the law to fit their needs. They can’t be trusted.
    They have already made a play to disarm those receiving social security. A real dangerous group of people…right.
    I do not feel that the “powers” that be will follow the intent of this law, rather abuse all information that they acquire and use it against the very public that they are supposed to represent/protect.

    1. Anyone can get a gun, buy one off the streets, steal one from a home, or take one from a cop. The ways of getting a gun are endless.
      Making it harder to get one legally will only make the black market on weapons more lucrative and then more of the wrong people will have guns.
      The best way to stop violent crimes…using a gun or not, is to have severe punishment. Death in most cases. Make the punishment fit the crime.

  80. Please don’t pass this legislation. Its all a play on words . . . .

    Consider those who have “volunteered” themselves to go into an institution in order to get their lives straightened out? Now they cannot own a firearm to defend themselves? Are their lives worth less now because they’ve been institutionalized?

    1. Worse than that , now there will be people who specifically avoid any kind of help that had the potential for putting them on a ” No Gun List ” for fear of that happening. So ten yrs after this bill you may have an apparent improvement in total mental health cases nationwide when in fact there may simply be more people who are avoiding it because of this bill, on top of people avoiding it already because they do not want to lose their job or drivers license or custody of their children etc.

  81. Why doesn’t Senator Cornyn propose a stand alone mental health reporting bill that is in no way connected to the 2nd Amendment, or NICS check. The states can then deal with the information in the proper way. I know, I know, some states will abuse the information. However, you know how this will be treated if connected to the NICS check. Instant removal of 2nd Amendment rights for every gun owner who has a headache. If we give an inch, the gun haters will take the whole damn enchilada.

  82. On the surface the legislation seems reasonable, and I concur that being able to temporarily limit or restrict someone’s access to a firearm under such conditions is a good thing. However, before supporting such a bill there are many more questions that need to be answered and various controls that need to be put in place to readily assure that the owner of the firearm(s) is rightfully re-united with their property with no unnecessary delay once they are once again deemed fit to possess the weapon.

    For example, once someone is deemed “unfit” to be able to own, or possess their weapon(s), who assumes control of them; and for how long? I have strong concerns that once weapons are seized for “safekeeping” it will be much harder to undo or reverse the process. We’ve all heard stories about the difficulty in correcting simple motor vehicle record errors; just imagine the red tape involved in getting a record of some sort of mental issue or instability removed from a file. That which has been seen, is never unseen, therefore, any record of mental treatment will likely always be open to someone’s scrutiny as to whether the person should ever be permitted to possess a firearm again.

    Also, there’s no mention as to what happens should someone be required to forfeit their firearms and that person does not have a personal representative to secure them on their behalf. Would there be a cost for storing the weapons?

    On the surface this seems like a reasonable process to ensure that those who have some degree of mental issues do not and cannot gain access to a firearm. Conversely, since the government is known to routinely overstep their bounds and in addition, is well known for their poor recordkeeping, certain protections need to be built into the law from the outset, including penalties for those entrusted to maintain records and oversee the program should they fail to protect the rights of the citizens who must comply with the law.

  83. Bill Clinton is responsible for all the school shootings, all the mass shootings that started when he was the White House Occupier.
    Bill Clinton closed down the nations mental institutions and flooded the streets with homeless, mentally ill patients, All of the school shootings, and all of the other mass killings have been done by KNOWN mental disturbed people. In most cases these people were being treated by a Doctor for mental illness. Had all the mental institutions not been closed down by the SEX ADDICT that was occupying the White House, chances are these killings would never have happened. All you have to do is look at the people in DC and you can see the pattern they have set into motion. You cannot completely control a society of people as long as they have the ability to DEFEND themselves The goal of DC whether it be Demoncrats, or Retards, is to disarm, and render the American people helpless to defend themselves. Then this CORRUPT, TYRRANICAL, DICTATOR, REGIME, that we call our government, can enforce GENOCIDE on AMERICA. If the SHEEPLE of this country think it cant happen here, you better PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS and take NOTE! That is exactly what THER plan is, The mass killings that have happened since Clintons OCCUPATION is BLOOD ON HIS HANDS! And now we will have Hillary the HAGG OCCUPYING the White House!

    1. @ Stan.

      The only CORRUPTION I see is on Capitol Hill (US Congress). What TYRANNICAL act is being performed. What DICTATOR and, or REGIME. The only GENOCIDE, I know of is being performed on Egg Laying Chickens infected with the Avian Flu Virus. If your Going to Spout Out the BS, be sure to have the FACTS to back-up you claims.

  84. I would say7 no here as well and the NRA should know better. This will not solve the problems and only stigmatize the veterans coming back. They have been trying this for some time now. Go back and look at Executive Orders from 1/2013. It is not the mental illness that we are having trouble with. It is the method of treatment. The SSRI medications are poison to the brain and 40% of users exhibit some level of PSYCHOTIC behavior. Hence your problem, but Pharms make big money here so the reall issue will not be touched.

    1. @ Greg

      There WERE NO Executive Orders issued in January 2013, their were Twenty-Three Presidential Memorandums issue that month, though. Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandums ARE NOT the same things.

  85. While I am a life-long Republican & a Life NRA member I am capable of expressing my own views on so-called “gun control”. While the political scene changes and politicians jump on one bandwagon or another, very few approach the mental health issue with common sense. Laws are already in place to safeguard the general public. What is lacking is sharing of information from local officials & providing adequate resources for those who are deemed “mentally unfit” to possess a firearm. We cannot place our trust in bought & paid for politicians who care only about their own vote getting agenda or holding the party line on issues that really don’t even affect themselves, just us normal, everyday Americans. We have been blessed by our Creator in this country with founding fathers who understood the struggle of oppression, the essential rights of every citizen to work for a living, protect what is theirs & strive to better themselves & their family. The USA is the ONLY nation in the entire world that is founded on the principle of our Creator, God, His natural law that is imprinted on every human heart. Our forefathers understood the concept of military strength, advances in weaponry, science and warfare yet they emphatically & unanimously CHOSE to include the 2nd Amendment to guarantee for all Americans the right to keep and bear arms. That right shall not be deprived of any law-abiding citizen. That simple statement is ingrained in the fabric of what it means to be an American and no politician or group of wrong-thinking, disillusioned, pseudo-intellectual so-called “progressives” has the right or authority to alter or do away with that right.

  86. This proposed legislation is rife for abuse. It accuses someone of a crime and denies a Constitutional protection without any crime being committed. There is no due process here. Anyone can decide to “report” anyone else if they don’t like them or are just some anti-2nd Amendment idiot spewing vitriol for political gain. The rule of “unintended consequences” stands ready to jump all over this one!

  87. I would vote against this bill because to me it sounds just another law that will not be enforced which we do not need. We already have too many of those on the books now. And who is to determine who is mentally ill and by what standards? It could come down to anyone on pain meds may not be able to own fire arms which would be totally wrong! You cannot leave an individuals rights up to the government to decide whether they get to keep their rights except in the case of a known felon!

  88. Do not support this legislation! Who gets to determine who is mentally disabled? The federal government does and no matter how hard you try to limit their control, if you pass this, they will find a way to use this against all gun owners/buyers. Do not give in.


    1. I would suggest that you read the whole article (bill) in it’s entirety before unloading these disparaging remarks. If the bill is backed by the NRA, they have read it, understand it, and approve it. It’s the antis (Dems) that need help to bring meaningful legislation to the forefront.

  90. This is a great idea ! It opens the door wide enough to get a decent amount of people on board so then any out burst mistake in communication. Any piece of evidence that can incriminate these people that believe they can defend themselves will be used against them .Until it will be a mental disorder to believe you can defend your self .THIS IS OUR GOLDEN TICKET TO TAKE THE GUNS AND WE HAVE 2ND AMENDMENT GROUPS GOING FOR IT ! AHH THE BEAUTY OF IGNORANCE!






    (HITLER, STALIN, MAO…etc )




    THEY ARE C O M M U N I S T / S O C I A L I S T


  92. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the only solution our Federal Government has for any issue is to stick a bandage on it, cover it up. Heck, they only make a half-hearted attempt at pulling the wool over our eyes anymore. Do we really, I mean really know whats happening behind closed doors? Is our “Government” truly transparent? Is Gun control their version of the “ole’ bait and switch”? Are we focusing on this while we are about to be blind sided by something larger? We have too many choices to make. Too many directions to look in. We have to come together. Throw out our pride. Realize that we cannot do this without help. “WE THE PEOPLE”, used to mean something. It will again, but unless we come together, unite, and stand as “ONE NATION”, the outcome may not be they same as it was when I founding fathers spoke those words.

  93. First of all who decides who is mentally ill? To what degree?
    I would say that this politician is mentally incompetant because he is ignoring his Oath to Defend the Constitution and doesnt know what infringed means. How about these pussy cops who are always drawing a gun when and or shooting unarmed people or pets because they are fear everything. Its too bad we have such ignorant and the least qualified people making Laws. When I grew up everybody had a gunrack in their truck Schools had shooting teams and Sears sold Guns thru the Mail. What changed? No this is a terrible idea since it would put the judgement call in the hands of bought and paid for burracrats.

    1. Like the above writer, you need to read the whole bill before leaving comments like this, and with the NRA’s approval, I would back this bill in a heartbeat.

  94. We don’t need any more legislation gumming up the legal system. I feel Cornyn is just pandering for votes, and that could do more harm than good.

  95. No new gun control measures. Period. 3000+ new laws and regulations were passed last year. Why? Because politicians need something to do?

    If someone lies on a purchase application/ background check then they should be prosecuted.

    We are tired of new laws infringing on law abiding gun ownership, but being thoroughly ineffective when it comes to criminal use of firearms. Maybe obama can appoint a panel to determine which of us are worthy of our rights and which need to be re-educated.

  96. To: Crowbar, Alabama:
    Section 26 of Alabama’s State Constitution appears to be intact. Perhaps you are referring to a specific Bill?

    1. @ Carl

      I’m not 100% positive, but I think “Crowbar” is referring to 1840, Alabama vs. Reid.

  97. I agree with zmortis. De-link mental illness and gun control. Work harder on helping the mentally ill. That’s positive. Politicians will be likely to abuse the link to gun control.

  98. Crowbar said, “NRA – SHAME ON YOU!! for supporting any measure that would put any citizen’s Right to Bear Arms under the scrutiny of a committee or court.” I agree 100%

    As for my state, some idiot at NRA supported changing our state constitution gun rights amendment from “shall not be infringed” to “strict scrutiny” a change that will eventually destroy our guns rights in Alabama.

    “Strict scrutiny” is a judge-made rule that can be changed at ANY judge’s whim and perverted desire. “Strict scrutiny” has no place in ANY constitution. The “mentally ill” excuse is already being used by judges to deny military veterans their second amendment rights. How far will a gun hating judge take this new law? The sky is the limit.

    How stupid can the NRA be, promoting judges above the Second Amendment.

    1. WELL SAID! We as a people should look more into mental illness, but having any one persons decision on someones rights is foolish and irresponsible.

      CRAZY! Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result!

  99. The media seems to be exploiting and exaggerating “firearms related violence” furthering this administrations agenda. There are enough gun laws, they just need to be enforced. Let us examine the agency that controls the gun related laws, the ATF (BATFE). Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The truth is when you compare the number of people killed by firearms violence to those caused by alcohol and tobacco you realize that firearms cause a very miniscule percentage of deaths as compared to alcohol and tobacco. Maybe more energy should be expended on control of the truly destructive items of life, alcohol and tobacco. The media and politicians would do well to research the true statistics. Think America !

  100. What has happened every time “We the People” back off and allow the Government to modify our Constitutional Rights? People seem to forget that every time, and that is EVERY TIME, they have stretched the envelope a little further then first stated that they wanted to do. Not a lie, just a little deviation. All of their little picks at our rights are adding up and we are loosing them. This administration has done far more damage then you realize. Just wait a few more months. Then you will see what has been in the working for years.

  101. A direct quote from the article: “Many Second Amendment proponents do not believe there should be any sort of background check as our rights are granted by the Second Amendment.” Anybody see anything fundamentally wrong with this statement?

    The Second Amendment does not “grant” us anything. Rather, it prohibits government from infringing our inherent and unalienable right to own and use arms for preservation of life and liberty. Get it “right” CTD!!!

  102. John Cornyn is an arrogant, self-aggrandizing RINO that NEEDS to be voted out of office.

    NRA – SHAME ON YOU!! for supporting any measure that would put any citizen’s Right to Bear Arms under the scrutiny of a committee or court. You would put millions of lawful, safe, stable, conscientious firearms owner’s at risk of being “mentally adjudicated” out of their right to own firearms just to address the miniscule number of “crazies” that commit crimes with firearms.

    Also, if crazies cannot buy a firearms legally, they can buy them on the street. Criminals seem to easily buy weapons on the street …. so why can’t the crazies?

  103. The wrong people are making the calls. Anti-gun government officials only enforce the laws they want to. Any opportunity to take advantage of an opening provided by people like the good senator will be exploited. If the people are really dangerous, lock them up, don’t just take their guns. If prescribed drugs make them dangerous, maybe someone needs to give the drugs a second look for whether they should be used. The 2nd amendment does not read.. ‘shall not be infringed unless some doctor, judge, senator, president, police officer, or other self proclaimed or anti-American zealot/expert decides to infringe because they are smarter than everyone else’. Two thumbs down for any additional legislation damaging the second amendment. If they must legislate, it is time to write some legislation to strongly enforce the 2nd amendment for the states where these rights have already been infringed!

  104. I get concerned when a new law on gun control is passed because it starts with good intentions then congress turns it into something to control the public. Another gun law makes me nervous because we have thousands that are not enforced.

    1. Steve, Great point! Suppose auto dealers had to check NICS, before selling a car to someone.

  105. I’m fine with a bill that seeks to provide more aid to the mentally ill. I’m not fine with tying it to “gun control” for the mentally ill. This simply leads progressives and fascists to defining mentally ill as anyone who desires a firearm because government diagnosis of “paranoia”. De-link these two issues.

  106. Totally opposed. What is defined as ‘mentally ill’? When are you ‘healed’? Who decides? Why can’t those with said mental illness just get a gun be private sale or theft? How far back will states submit their data?

    I think it’s a set-up for massive gun confiscation. If it can be manipulated or abused, we already know the liberals wil do that. I want to repeal every gun law that isn’t the Second Amendment. None of these so-called mentally ill mass murderers are so crazy that they attack anyplace where they would expect someone might shoot back, like a police station. No, we don’t need this law.

  107. “Many Second Amendment proponents do not believe there should be any sort of background check as our rights are granted by the Second Amendment. ”

    The author is an idiot. My rights are not *granted* by any government action, policy or statement, nor can they be revoked.

  108. this is back door gun control . like we are to stupid to see it . also who’s side are you on (cheaper than dirt ) if you think this is not going to get out of control. here is an example your wife dies from breast cancer a long painful death. and your sad. dose this mean you should not have guns ? trust me that will happen. look what they are doing with social security . next is people on Obama care will have to give up their guns in a few years to keep their coverage . so in short this is GUN CONTROL nothing else !

  109. If the reporting of “mental defectives” will apply to members of congress and the present administration, I/m all for it!

  110. What concerns me about this, is where does it stop? Once the federal government sets a precedence for looking into people’s mental health records, and deciding through those records wether someone is eligible, or not, to exercise their amendment rights, who’s not to say, that at some point the future, a future which we cannot at the moment imagine, that it becomes possible for someone in an authority position to arbitrarily deem anyone they choose as mentally incompetent, even if that individual is not a danger to themselves, or to others. . . .

    I do realize that this respected Senator from Texas is proceeding with good intentions, but it seems too much like a Trojan Horse.

    This sort of legislation can be used, or manipulated in such a way, that it will come back to haunt us all.

  111. Look at what details Mr. Dolbee,all you gave was generality’s, maybes and some maybe certainties, innuendos all in an attempt to not dtep on GOP and NRA leadership
    No background and not even mention this bill is a Lindsey Graham and Cornyn bill that they promised to bring out in Dec 2013 and Jan of 2014.
    Both doing so awjile after meeting AIPAC and then publicly lauding Ny cIty Msyor Blumbergs crime and gun restiction policys..
    What is hiding behind this bill is hundreds of millions of dollars for HMO private and cprivate public charter school corps and medical professionals with private practices.
    Not one damned dime will go to help the one with mental problems.
    Remember this is a lifetime of gov recording your med and judging your mrntal healthIs a man twice divorced mentally stable if he complains about alimony payments, check your states child protective services.
    Next GOP under Agenda 21 stands to rake in billions from the new core educational format.
    They own the charter softwRe and textbook along with heavy gov prorams they and demos passed for fed purchase of PS laptops and electronic books.
    The stratification and designatoion of 2/3rds of our future citizens into only fit for service oriented o cupations means they will only be allowed a weapon as mall security or militar.These smiling Bas …s are killers and NRA has their head up butts once more just as they did back when they threw out Mr. CHRISTOPHER NEAL KNOX.
    We gun owners got the shaft playing GOP macho but they are no more than thieves paid for by the public and Corporate boardrooms.

  112. All of our recent mass murders have a common denominator. Psychotic drugs had been prescribed. It is one thing to be prescribed necessary medication. It is another to build an arsenal or armory immediately following without a check by the local sheriff or police dept, If you just started, your prescription, take your time putting that self contained SWAT arsenal together. Some objective criteria should be able to be applied. REASONABLY

  113. It all reads good, however what will the power of the government do to
    us with PTSD? (turn over your guns or we’ll cancel your disability pension.)
    The government has already performed some illegal activities. What would it hurt to perform one more act against PTSD veterans in the name of public safety. It’s hard to trust politicions, when they go to DC broke from the campaign. When they leave DC every bodies rich. Except the tax payer. I’m just not sure…………………

  114. It’s extremely disappointing to think that the NRA is backing this. I keep seeing “mental illness” and how to help keep mentally ill people out of prison and put into programs to “possibly” help them. But I see no clear definition of “Mentally Ill”. If this passes, it is going to backfire on the NRA, and the mole agent who gained the trust of the NRA and Republicans, Sen. Cornyn will have achieved his mission. An open ended mental illness law against guns with no clear guidelines on what and whom this will affect. But I promise you one thing, Your going to find that we have an epidemic of mental health issues in this country if that bill gets passed. As it stands now, at least in the state I live in, if you have someone with a mental health issue living in your home, you are not allowed to have a gun in your home. So, simply having a family member in your home is going to rid you of your means of self protection! All you people who have a kid, wife, husband, daughter…. any family member seeing a psychologist, psychiatrist, or taking medicine for anxieties or panic attacks… or epilepsy, the list could go on for miles in ways to have your guns taken from you due to mental health issues. And we would have the Republicans to thank for it… And what are you going to say then? They will tell you, “The NRA even backed it!”
    I think it is best if it is simply left alone. They lie every time something happens and say this doesn’t happen in countries with gun control… there is no violence or murder anywhere but here. And everyone just follows along… yeah… where there are no guns, there is no violence. Chicago is worse than a war zone, yet no guns allowed… Where are guns not allowed? I can think of 2 places very fast… Schools and Theaters. Where do we keep having these shootings? Schools and Theaters.
    Come on, they were looking into banning pressure cookers after the “Boston Bombing”!
    Why do we keep having the same people somehow involved in all of these events? 1 person has been at 5 of them! A woman who supposedly died in Sandy Hook was telling how horrible the bombing was in Boston! Children’s pictures being used and parents in other parts of the country saying stop using my kids picture! And we have pages popping up on the internet a day before, a week before, a full month before some of the incidences even occur! I’m saying how does it happen… You and I both know how and why it is happening. It is happening so that people like this Senator can get people to rally with him for the sake of a “Safer Community”. These people do not have you in mind when they are coming up with these things. They go to a place that is not under the same law as the rest of the country that they are passing laws for. They are immune to the laws that they pass over us. Every election we are told, “If you want to change it, go and vote.” and you have seen for yourself that is not the cure. We thought the Speaker of the House was going in to start repealing the Affordable Care Act. What has he done? He has cried a lot. He has agreed with the Dems… a lot… Basically, he didn’t do what people believed he would do after he said he would do it. But he is only one example.
    We need to stop hoping and voting based on hope and hoping and wishing that this guy will actually do right by us….
    We need to start demanding as citizens to stop taking our rights. We vote for someone because he says he will work on making things better, then we see that all they are working on is removing our rights.
    We need to stop allowing the media to racially divide us. We need to stop listening to our leaders who try to keep us racially divided. We need to stop fighting with one another and start acting like we care about the future of our children.
    You can laugh and call me crazy all you want, but you will not find fault in anything I have said. If you don’t know about anything I have said, do a bit of research. If you can’t do that and just prefer to think what a wack job I am, that’s fine. do that if it makes you feel better. But I just ask that you stop and think about all the things you are not allowed to do because of something someone else has done. Your guns are being taken away from you right alone with the rest of the rights that you used to have.

  115. Not sure where you get these notions from reading this article. The only thing they are doing with this bill is giving the states money so they can do a better job of reporting what is already required in the current laws. If the NRA is backing this it is because they do not see this as potentially harmful. They have been advocating more of a focus on mental illness generally and with relationship to firearms since most of the mass shooters have had history of mental problems. Makes sense to me once you get past the paranoia. How this any different than preventing felons, non citizens, domestic abusers etc from getting a gun? Of course, in any of these cases there must be due process which is true for even murderers. Here in Colorado they just gave a life with no parole to the movie shooter who killed a whole bunch of people. He was not judged criminally insane but he did have a history of mental issues that went unreported because he had
    verbalized doing violence. Perhaps all those deaths could have been prevented if someone had done something before the fact.

    1. @ dprato,

      I’ve read you comment several times now so I am compelled to correct you. There is no law that requires states to report any of this information. Since it is strictly a Federal Database, reporting by the states is purely voluntary. The 10th Amendment prevents the Federal Government from compelling the states to report anything to their databases.

      As for the money you believe to be considered additional funding to help states do a better job at reporting, instead it is actually the withholding of grant funding in order to punish states that don’t report. That has been is a tactic of the Federal government for years. They take our tax dollars and withhold them from the states until they bend to their will. That is how the Federal government finally got all states to change their drinking laws up to age-21… by withholding highway funds from states that would not change the law. They did the same to get them to lower the Interstate speed limits.

      Most states refuse to participate fully because they are protecting yours and my interests and privacy. It’s not just mental health they want reported. Are you aware that the Federal standard expects doctors and hospitals to report drug addictions? There are no formal adjudications when diagnosed as a drug addict, yet if a doctor does report it, the federal database will gladly accept the information and ban that person from owning a firearm.

      My own mother, a very prominent Houstonian got addicted to painkillers after a vehicle accident years ago. It lasted 6 months and she sought help. She is way past that now, but had her doctor reported her per the whims of the Federal government, she would have been stripped of her right to bear arms today.

      Please come to understand there are several ways your name can land in this Federal database and they do not always guarantee your right to adjudication first. That is simply a standing defiance to the Constitution and is why so many people take issue with these background checks. Its intent is great, but its reality is unlawful and dangerous to our freedoms

      This legislation is simply not something anyone should be getting behind once you know the REAL details. I am just trying to clarify for you is all.

  116. There once was a government that was very much into controlling’mental defectives’. There favorite word was HEIL! This is nothing more than the old behaviorist doctrine that only mentally ill people can commit crimes. This is, of course, nonsense as hate, envy, and pursuit of power (to name a few) have all been motivators for any number of massacres.

  117. Who decides what is considered mentally ill. If I have a bad day and fly off the handle at someone or rant about my bad day on Facebook, am I then considered unfit to carry a firearm? I believe this would lead to abuse by the gun grabbing community to remove as many guns as possible. My vote is squarely against this. We already have laws in place and there will always be cracks in the wall. Vote NO!

  118. I think you are all correct. They are trying to make it look like they are helping stop gun violence but they are just trying to take more guns. Example, my wife was suicidal after she lost her first husband. She was labeled SMI (seriously mentally ill) for a few years. Now she is fine but she cannot own firearms because at one time she was depressed and suicidal. She trying to get it changed but that is not easy especially for our troops coming home. If they make it easier to get unlabeled as easy as it is to get label mentally ill I might agree with this bill.

  119. Lets review the news stories that are prompting this proposed legislation. In each case the weapon(s) was/were obtained outside “the current legal channels”. How will introducing more rules to the current list of laws stop these people who are not using the current law to obtain their weapons? No matter how “well meaning” Mr. Cornyn’s bill is it wouldn’t have any effect what so ever on stopping these tragedies.

    The common denominator of all of these shootings has been that they have occurred where the shooter knew he would have no resistance ie a “gun free zone” and he obtained his weapon outside of the current legal channel. If a politician truly wants to propose a law to eliminate these tragedies he would work on one of these two elements. A “new law” effecting gun ownership will do nothing to stop these shootings.

    Formulating rules to safely eliminate gun free zones would go a long way in stopping these tragedies. Writing these rules is of course a very simple thing to do. The problem will be getting the anti-gun mindset to agree to trying them for they are not after “safe gun rules” they are after “no gun except mine rules” and they will not discuss the merits of any other situation.

  120. Our Govt. officials are elected to serve us, not rule us. I feel that more legislation on this matter would do little or nothing to serve the law abiding citizens of this country. Family, friends, medical professionals, and local communities are much better suited to deal with mentally ill/unstable than out of touch politicians. It just requires common sense and a genuine effort.

  121. I don’t really like NICS, but it is the only way we now have to prevent felons and the mentally ill from buying firearms in a store.
    I have thought before that reporting truly mentally ill people to NICS should be done more by the states. There seems to be a PC feeling that no one should be called mentally ill, I guess and doctors probably feel or are are limited in reporting on patients.

    I am concerned with the mention of “The authorization of pretrial screening…”. That was mentioned in the summary bullet points of the act. Could that mean automatic screening for mental illness before any trial? I would hope not.
    •The authorization of pretrial screening, assessment, and supervision programs to improve outcomes for people with mental illnesses by ensuring they are accurately diagnosed and receive appropriate need-based treatment that focuses on increasing public safety.

    Mikial’s comment at August 9, 2015 at 4:53 pm was very informative. One of his comments was, ” Requires that real adjudications take place before an individual can be determined a prohibited person under federal law. Full notice, hearing, the right to participate, and the right to counsel are required.” That is an improvement, but I don’t think it covers my concern. The other details mentioned all sounded like improvements to me.

    From what I have read here I think that I can support Sen. Cornyn’s legislation, but learning more about it is necessary.

  122. The individual states can maintain any mental health records. Anyone purchasing a gun would have the state records checked for such information. If there needs to be a two part check in the background process fine. The state can forward this information can be made available to the Feds on each inquiry. Perhaps even a prequalification could be done within the state before a purchase is completed and could be kept on hand with the state and made available to the Feds instantaneously. For any of this to work though the laws will have to be changed regarding doctor/patient confidentiality. Very complicated stuff!

  123. Is this really a matter for the Govt. to decide? A few rare incidents happen and the Feds feel they must legislate an end to it regardless of what the majority of citizens think. Same thing when a couple atheists are offended, down comes the nativity scene, ten commandments, and prayer in school. Are we not a nation that is supposed to be run by the people for the people, not by a few over the rest of us. Govt legislation has created the gun free zones where virtually all these massacres have occurred. I strongly believe that a law abiding well armed citizenry is the best deterrent to many of the incidents that have occurred. Bottom line, let the majority of law abiding citizens deal with these problems, not a few out of touch Govt. officials with a less than steller track record of working FOR the people as the Constitution states they should.

    1. Politicians do this to stay popular. In reality they do nothing to solve issues as the mentally ill. Most of these politicians do not even read the bill before voting on it (ie Obamacare).

  124. You cannot trust these gun grabbers at go to dr. And you donor feel well,dr.says your depressed and bingo they come and take your guns,it’s just a disguise to get your guns.

  125. Does anyone remember that we are 18 going on 19 TRILLION in debt. We have welfare for illegals, socialized medicine, and coming soon free college for illegals citizen children. We do not need another mismanaged government bureaucracy. It would most likely “accidentally” identify conservatives as a mentally ill group. One commentor had it correct. We need to be ready, willing and able to stop these “incidents” before they become massacres

  126. ok, time to bring this out of the shadows.

    gun-grabbers are not interested in reducing gun violence by/among criminals or gangers. the grabbers are only interested that people who look nice (like the grabbers), or are of a certain intellectual, educational or economic standard do not need to be afraid someone who looks like them will just fly-off and start killing people who look like them. criminals are not “people like them”, they don’t live among or know any criminals, and besides, criminals killing each other is a good thing. the rare and random killing of the “pretty people” is just an unfortunate (for someone else) part of living in a safe society.

  127. nice you think/declare/believe laws restricting gun rights are unconstitutional and void. so what? how does that change anything? it is one thing to run in circles, scream and shout. it is another to take concrete steps to turn things around. protesting doesn’t get it. politicians look at protests as either a guide to where the votes are, or a simple safety valve to let people blow off steam. which of these two categories are we in? we can feel good talking to ourselves, but i don’t see any political action committees springing up all around the country, opposing bad laws and recalling representatives (joke) and senators.

  128. I am inclined to wait and see the full bill. I am almost ashamed to say it, but I really don’t trust the legislators when they start twisting and negotiating the bill. Congress has a terrible track record of delivering what they promised or intended. That goes for the republicans as well as democrats. e have had the wool pulled over our eyes too many times.

  129. Camel sticking nose under the tent again.
    This will brand people who seek mental health treatment.
    Will not effect truly crazed or criminal.
    Kowtowing to anti gunners who want conserves to “do something”.

  130. @WuzNtMe:

    Very well put…virtually all of the massacres are in gun free zones.
    We definitely need more stories like those in Armed Citizen to be told.

  131. No joe, I’m asking how his military life could be effected by his condition. I thought helping him would increase his future, not decrease it.

  132. There was a time when family and friends could bear the responsibility of watching out for each other. A mentally ill person would be taken in and cared for by their family and friends; watched over and prevented from hurting themselves and others. I won’t get into a discussion about why we can no longer rely on that, but we can’t.
    I can’t see giving that responsibility to the government, though. It doesn’t take a very active imagination to see why that’s a bad idea.
    So, like it or not, that responsibility still rests on the individual. Perhaps not the responsibility of caring for the mentally ill, but certainly the responsibility of protecting ourselves from them. Your chances of being gunned or hatcheted down in a movie theater are statistically miniscule, but your personal safety is no one’s responsibility but yours.
    We need more stories of good people with guns stopping bad people with guns, rather than massacres that go on until police show up.
    It may not be warm and fuzzy but the solution is to be prepared and to end these massacres before they can become massacres.

    1. I couldn’t agree more. It would be nice if we still lived in a country where neighbors still knew each other by name. I know in some area of this great country this still exist, unfortunately in many others it does not. However a federally funded state sponsored “I’m gonna report you” seem really far from the answer to this problem. Gun owernship is not only a right but a responsibility. I know many responsible gun owners but never do any of them make national headlines. The media reports the horrific and ignores the teriffic. We put too much faith in government to fix our problems. I personally will continue to leave my faith in God, my family and friends, and my patriotic brethren. God bless

  133. Problem is the track record and a trust issue. I just just trust any of them. How can you tell when a politician is lying. When there mouth is moving.
    Having a open mind is good. Turned 58 today. I learned a long time ago a open mind doesn’t get you squat when it comes to these people.

    1. Yeah, what’s more likely; that this guy is introducing ground-breaking new ideas out of his deep love for his country and for liberty? Or, that he just found another way to generate votes for himself in the next election?

  134. Who decides who’s mentally ill?? The government, Who’s trying to take our gun’s ?? the government, Where are all the mass shooting’s?? Gun free zone’s. Who’s done all the mass shooting’s??? Liberal democrats, Do I trust Cornyn ?? HELL NO.

  135. We don’t need more legislation. We need stronger enforcement of existing laws, prosecution of criminals, and treatment of the mentally ill. Better public education on these matters would be helpful too..stamp out the bad info being spread by Obama, Bloomberg, and their minions.

  136. Mental health would need to be determined by at least two certified doctors totally separate of each other. Not for a law enforcement officer or some politician to decide. Would they also be stripped or have other civil rights infringed such as the right to vote or free speech? I am afraid if we give them one inch they will take a mile. This sounds similar to what El Presidenta wants to do with persons on social security not being able to managing their financial affairs. Shall not be infringed is fairly simple and clear to me.

    1. During the Korean conflict in the service it took Three (3) doctors to sign a section 8 form. Those doctors worked for the government.
      There shouldn’t even be any discussion on this anyways. Give em and inch they’ll take it ALL.

  137. DON’T DO IT !!
    If you wanted to own a whole city block and no one would sell………Just buy the houses 1 at a time at the right time till you now OWN the whole city block. Takes a little more time but in the end you still got what you wanted didn’t you ?

    Think about that

  138. Coming soon after this odious law is enacted will come new definitions of mentally ill. One of these will undoubtedly include the insane insistence of the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. These rules will be pronounced by bureaucrats. Not by elected representatives of the people. But, y’all are for the most part sheep. Baa Baa Baa.

  139. John Cornyn votes with the Democrats 90% of the time. Michael Barry is right about this Guy! I don’t trust him !!

  140. I like the idea behind proposed leglsiation, but I’m concerned the Govt could hijack medical records as a means of back door gun control.

  141. I have nothing against any laws that keep guns out of the hands of people that intend to do harm but who decides what is mental illness? As with all “Common sense” gun laws how will it be misinterpreted by those that want to abuse it and is there any remedy if you think they are wrong? All it takes is a mental health worker to decide that you are dangerous just for being a gun owner and you are labeled mentally defective and reported. I have encountered people with such a fear of guns that they would consider me dangerous just for owning a gun and exhibit such fear that i would consider it a crazy reaction. This law needs to be looked over carefully for any flaws that can be reinterpreted by anti gunners in writing before being submitted or we will be handing them another weapon to be used ahainst us.

    1. Veterans with PISD are not part of that nut job group so please leave us out of it




  143. @ Mikial,

    The doctors asking their patients about guns is overwhelmingly true and not just a rumor. The problem was so bad that a federal appeals court just ordered doctors in Florida to stop doing it. If they violate the new ban, they face license suspensions and disciplinary action from the Board of Medicine. Hopefully this will set a precedence throughout other states.

    But the fact it was a large enough complaint to make it into a federal court which demand evidence, should stand as proof to you that it is a large issue and not just rumor.

    My family and I have also personally experienced our physicians asking about guns on many occasions during unrelated visits. Relatively recently I was put on orders and deployed to the middle-east a few years ago – which placed me and my family into the TriCare Military Medical System for a year and a half. The gun questions were routine for them to ask during things as simple as check-ups.

    Prior to deployment they asked me about guns (to which I denied ownership), so I later instructed my wife and kids on how to answer should they get asked at a visit. My wife informed me while I was deployed that one of our daughters was taken in as a precaution to a fever. During that session they were asked if there are any guns in the home.

    I was so pissed that upon my return during my exit physical I decided to question the medical staff on their gun inquiries. Their response was something to the effect that it is beyond their control and was part of instructions to do so by Command Directives. The gun questions were slipped in with the other polling “Questions of the Month” like, “Do you regularly wear a seatbelt?” or “Would you like more information on birth control?”

    Please trust that it is a real issue and growing.

    1. G-Man, I’m not sure where you got the impression that i was saying anything about doctors asking about gun ownership not happening, because I haven’t even addressed that in any of my comments.

      Further, I’ve had a doctor’s offices ask that question on the new patient paperwork. I was so pissed about it, that I walked up to the receptionist and told her that it was an invasion of my privacy to even ask any questions about whether i owned guns or not, and then threw the paper with that question left blank on her desk and told her i would find another doctor and not to even think of charging me for the visit or we would all be in court with a lawsuit for violation of my privacy. I left and never heard another word from them.

    2. @ Mikial,

      That was meant to be directed toward dprato. Please accept my humblest of apologies.

    3. @G-Man

      No worries, Brother.

      All good. CTD really needs to do some work on this blog so that when you hit the “Reply” button, it actually goes to the comment you wanted to reply to.

    4. I did not know we were having a problem, but I will alert IT to look into it. Thanks for being involved. ~Dave Dolbee

  144. We have a 15 day waiting period in commie land Calif.. I do believe that those who have a mental problem should be prohibited from owning weapons. We do not need any more of Obama beating on the drums to take our weapons..

  145. No this is a fact they don’t care if you already have guns the measure is intended to keep veterans with PTSD from buying new ore more guns im a veteran of Bosnia and Iraq and in Texas if you have a fiduciary and have PTSD you are added the NICS list and you are bared from buying guns and more specifically hand guns

  146. What part of shall not be infringed did Cornyn, R-Texas forget

    The 2nd amendment should not even be discussed by anyone in Washington. If there is a mental health problem it should be handled by the state.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – 10th amendment

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  147. Keep in mind before you depart that when you display the voice of reason even when that voice is not popular you serve the very essence of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Supreme Court Douglas indicated that the most important reason for having a First Amendment is for people to be able to challenge the thoughts of others so that they think about their own positions. So I would suggest you stick around and do your thing despite your perception that people may disagree with you. You are challenging them and that is precisely what they need whether you change their minds or not

    1. @dprato,

      I am assuming you are replying to me, but one of the technical shortfalls of this blog is that the “Reply” button on the emails does not actually connect you to the comment you want to reply to. So if I am mistaken, my apologies.

      Thank you. You are what I would classify as a level headed person and a gentleman. I am only trying to help all of us and our cause. So, I will hang tight and see if anyone else will stop freaking out long enough to at least discuss the pros and cons.

      The important thing is, these are the people I relate to the most and agree with. The people that if the SHTF I would stand by.

      I hope they will all remember that.

  148. For what its worth, my 11 year old is seeing a psychologist for adhd. She said we have 2 choices, one of them if we choose it will keep him from a government job. He wants to go in the military. We are forced to make a life changing decision. So I ask you what happened to doctor patient privilege.

    1. Are you asking why your 11 year old son’s doctor is able to talk to you about his medical treatment and why it’s not confidential? It’s because a minor child legally cannot consent to medical treatment to begin with. It must be authorized by a legal guardian who is the medical proxy.

  149. As an NRA member and avid gun owner, I have no problem with legislation to keep guns out of the hands of nut jobs, gang members, drug dealers and anyone else who lives anti-social lifestyles. If any of these “mass shootings” prove to be verifiable, all the perps appear to be less than able in the brain housing group.

  150. Yes but if people read what is being proposed there is nothing new here except and incentive for states to do a better job in providing information already required by law. It seems folks have taken this issue and blown it to all the extremes. The truth of the matter is that most of not all of the recent mass shootings have involved people with known mental problems or simply terrorists. The mental health issue is a valid issue and tying mental health to gun restrictions is no different than tying being a felon, being convicted of domestic abuse, not being a citizen all of which are on that form you fill out for a background check. I am not in favor of many of the restrictions we know have but I do believe the mental health issue is a valid one and I think we need to examine what is or has actually happened against all the projected happenings people fear on here without as you have pointed out relying on single incident cases. I did acknowledge however this was one conversation with one person. I have never been asked a question at my Dr’s office about gun ownership despite reading in many different places that it was part of Obamacare which I detest. So we need to balance reality against rumor and heresay.

    1. @dprato

      Thank you. We need to stop acting like the foaming at the mouth fanatics the antis paint us to be. A law that can be written and voted on while we have a majority on both houses is preferable to Obama’s executive orders. But no one wants to consider this, so I’ve said my piece and there is really nothing more to say except this.

      If the antis would get on this blog and simply copy some of the comments and rants and threats here, they could send it to the media (which they own) and use it to present us as a bunch of uneducated rednecks.

      I have owned and shot and carried guns since I was a child. I have served in the military and spent 2 1/2 years in Iraq as a private security operator getting shot at by crazy fanatics, I’m a member of 4 gun rights groups and I am very active politically to protect our rights. I have nothing to apologize for to anyone. Ranting to each other on this blog and threatening to quit the NRA isn’t going to get anyone very far.

      Save your anger and venom, because i’m dropping off the thread. If you want to preserve your rights, then think like dprato suggests.

  151. Funny, didn’t see anything in the second amendment about mental health issues.This is by far a dangerous issue. One they get this through it will be expanded and perverted. Personally I blame the pharma company’s that push there crap and the doctors that dispense and prescribe the drugs. I say NO to any more restrictions. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

    1. While it sounds like a good thing, to ban crazy and dangerous people from buying gun, be careful in how the law is written. Who’s to say some future politically correct definition of what “crazy and dangerous” is might just include people who own more than 2 guns and shoot animals in the woods. I’m all for the mentally ill getting the help they need, but tying that to a right guaranteed by the constitution is a very slippery slope.

  152. Just for the record I spoke with a friend of mine who is a veteran army ranger with three tours in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. I specifically asked him if he was being prodded at the VA for information about his gun use etc. He said that unless he is actively verbalizing hurting someone they are not permitted to release any information regarding his mental state to anyone outside the VA. nor do they question him about his ownership or use of firearms. Now I realize this is only one discussion with a person who is and has had mental counseling at the VA. So I don’t know if this is being blown out of proportion or we are not getting the correct facts.

    1. “I realize this is only one discussion with a person who is and has had mental counseling at the VA.”

      Perhaps more importantly, it is only a single VA facility.




  154. First of all, let’s be very clear. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do NOT confer ANY rights. These two documents acknowledge and guarantee pre-existing rights that were granted to every man and woman from God. As such, they cannot be taken or removed by any man or government. They can only be surrendered by the owner.

    Secondly, I strongly believe that ANY laws against the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional and are void. This includes registration, 5 day waits, restrictions about the number of rounds in a box magazine, back ground checks, whatever. What part of “shall not be infringed” is so confusing to people?

    Thirdly, I would be very curious to know how many of these shooters were on prescription psychotropic drugs (Ritalin, etc.) at the time of the shootings? I suspect that the majority are.

    Finally, let’s remember that all these mass shootings occurred in “gun-free zones.” I would make sense to me to get rid of those instead.

  155. Psychiatrists are often at odds in court over just who was mentally ill when they committed a crime. They are also noted if not famous for declaring very dangerous people “not a threat”. So it seems to me this whole business of who is mentally ill to be more subjective than objective. So if a shrink believes that any one who desires to be armed is mentally ill what is to be done? I do not trust this.

  156. I will stop supporting NRA, starting today. This bill does not address details about “seriously ill”. I have PTSD and I am seeing PTSD therapist every 3-4 weeks and psychiatrist who presribes me medicines to keep my symphtoms down. I was never violent or had a tought of being violent but it looks like this bill would very much affect me, as there is a long record of me going to seek for help, because of PTSD’ symphtoms. If they are going to target me (I had bever been commited to mental institution or was legally deemed as “mentally defective”).

    If if it wasn’t for my firearm that I didn’t have to use but just mere posession and presenting when I found 2 burglars inside my apartment while I was taking a shower, I could have been dead (I need to say they were probably unarmed, since they stormed out the same moment i drew my gun).

    And now somebody wants to put me inside some very broad group of people just because I have PTSD (who cares if you violent or not), then I withdraw all and any support to NRA, who backs such a bill.

    I will be calling them tomorrow to cancel my membership and express my opposition to their support of this gun control bill ( you can still chose to call it something else but all I know and care about, is that I can see I might (probably) not be able to keep my home defense weapon and CCW weapon anymore).

    Don’t they realize that this would discourage people to seek help, fearing it will cost them their constitutional right? I do. Maybe I should say to my therapist and psychiatrist that PTSD dissaperad to avoid being stripped of my rights? Yeah, it really is serios as that.

    1. I hear you brother I’m frustrated with this I’m going to stop going to the VA because of this sh$# and im going to sue the VA for my right to bare arms

    2. Honestly. This really is bad news for many. Like myself, most never felt violen but can’t sleep, have nightmares and suc…and with this, it looks like you are better of by buying the OTC slep aid than go to a qualified medicine practicioner. I know that I will get well in couple of weeks. I will just say I found peace in that Chinese thingy…

    3. Do you currently reside in the Democratic People’s Republic of Kalifornia? If so, be afraid. Be very, Very, VERY afraid. Oh, and don’t try to buy a gun.

  157. To beg and entice each state to provide this info is ridiculous.
    Why not just change the Hepa law to mandate the reporting of the info of a person that qualifies having their gun rights curtailed. Then make everyone from the shrink to the persons in the local, state and fed system responsible for seeing the info placed in the back ground check system liable to law suits if the info is not forwarded and placed in the system in a timely manner. Even with all this someone is going to slip through.
    Now to Gun Free Zones. Even if info is forwarded not every person with a mental issue is going to be known, some have problems but refuse to get help and the court system can take a very long time to get someone into treatment against their will. Also even if someone is in the system it won’t be doing anything to stop private sales or just someone getting access to someone else’s guns.
    A Gun Free Zone should not be enforceable unless the access to the Zone requires going through a security screening like is seen at airports and state and federal government buildings. The carrying of a weapon in any place that wants to put up Gun Free Zone or no weapons allowed signs should instead simply say NO OPEN CARRY.

  158. “They” don’t care if the nuts cases are on meds or not,”they” just want to take ALL our guns so “they” can smash us like the useless eaters/goyim “they” consider us as!!!

    1. Not trying to be nasty but thinking like that is part of the problem. Stop watching Faux news and try thinking for yourself. Educate yourself on the people that want to represent you and stay away from people that only have one agenda. Being a long time gun owner and ex combat vet I don’t want anybody taking my guns away and I don’t remember any serious politician advocating such.

  159. Any restrictions put on gun ownership should also be applied to voters. After all, isn’t the “pen mightier than the sword”?

  160. Yes this sounds great. Now define mental health. Define treatment. What the hell are you trying to get me to agree to exactly?

    Its never enough. Sick people are still going to do sick things. The sicker the person is may not be known until action is taken by the affected person. Seems arming more people will narrow the effect of doing criminal actions to the public. Also declaring no prosecution of arms carrying public when used to defend the public.

    Used to be Laws were to protect the People, and the people had the responsibility to respect the law. As a further measure people carried guns and respected the consequences there-of.

    Now, all anyone proposes is another non respected allready “LAW” and still no one will carry a firearm or respect the law.

    Who will turn in the “Mental Unhealthy”? Who will oversee the treatment of this mental illness? Who will decide how long a mentally ill person remains so? Who will pay these “professionals”? These bozos are armed with something society decides is more powerful than a firearm, its called a diploma with supposed tempered education and some kind of experience. Yes all this comes later…. That is the trouble, another tragedy and still later. NO LAW WILL DO WHAT RESPECT FOR THE LAW WILL DO!

    So here we are. Stabbing at a sickness few will admit they have to varying degrees (yes including me); Even fewer fully understand; Still fewer correctly diagnose; and still fewer offer or explaine a treatment. .

  161. As I have read this, it will require the reporting of personal medical information to some government agency. Unless a patient gives permission for that information to be used, then it would violate the Federal HIPPA act, which is already a federal law. And, whom would be reporting this information; a Doctor? That is a violation of Dr., patient confidentiality! It would be best not to open any more enigmas that the Federal Government can use to disarm the public.

  162. Seems this would drive more people to buying weapons on the black market if they felt they had told the wrong person they were decreased or angry. There are thousands of laws on the books already covering all cir umstances. Throwing more money at it does not solve anything.

  163. I do have a few concerns. I know a few good people that take certain prescription drugs that are for anti-depression but they take them as a sleep aid as prescribed by a doctor. That may be a red flag for a mental issue.

  164. I would say this law like many others is playing on heartstrings and not actual facts. And one in the position to be reviewing,creating, or passing laws one should be completely mindful of the facts and only partially mindful of their feelings. First pass a law that says if you don’t have a high school diploma you can’t vote then we’ll worry about voting the right officials, and then, and only then we’ll worry about passing laws based on facts and not feelings.

  165. I agree with sakovkt and norm. Keep the feds out of our lives. Homeland security has already listed veterans, Christians and Conservatives as terrorists. Giving the feds more data only increases their future ability to limit our freedoms. When you visit your doctor and answer “yes” to any of the mental health questions, you are going to be included in a data base.
    Laws don’t prevent crime. They just add on when a crime has been committed.

  166. I wonder how many of the people freaking out on here and accusing the NRA of selling out have actually looked at the bill? We can’t just sit back and always be on the defensive, we have to propose laws that actually make some sense. This one mandates due process. So before you all start flaming me, how about educating yourselves a little.

    Details of the legislation include:

    The bill will stop the Obama administration’s Social Security Administration and other agencies from defining as “prohibited persons” those who meet arbitrary criteria such as having a representative payee assigned to their account.

    The bill will stop the Obama administration’s Veterans Administration (VA) from throwing veterans into NICS simply for having a fiduciary assigned to their account.

    Veterans who have been swept into NICS under previous VA rules will be given the opportunity to have their case reviewed in a full hearing. Requires a specific finding that the veteran is a danger to self or others. Veterans who are not found to be a danger will have their rights restored and will be removed from NICS.

    Requires that real adjudications take place before an individual can be determined a prohibited person under federal law. Full notice, hearing, the right to participate, and the right to counsel are required.

    Provides funding for the states to forward records of mental health adjudications which meet the new due process requirements outlined in the bill.

    Recognizes state orders restoring the firearms rights of individuals under state law.

    Requires AG to remove individuals from NICS in cases where rights have been restored or procedures failed to provide adequate due process protections, as with the VA program.

    1. So as a 45 year old Veteran with military PTSD how do i go about getting my rights back ? we shouldn’t be forced to higher a lawyer and go to court someone should stand for Veterans rights next thing you’ll be doing is limiting benefits so Veterans cant afford to go to court and fight for there rights

    2. I thought we elected John Cornyn to stand for us not against us WE THE PEOPLE

    3. Victor, there are 2nd Amendment attorneys in most all states. Ask your local gun rights organization or contact the USCCA. They have programs, like insurance policies, that help gun owners who are being railroaded by the government.

      The thing all of you have to do is get plugged and and network, rather than just ranting and jumping up and down on these blogs about how you’re going to fight to the death. My preference is to try to avoid that, if at all possible.

      Yeah, I have my contingency plans, my emergency supplies and my training. If it comes to that, I’m there, but I would rather the USA not turn into Yemen or Afghanistan. I’ve been to those places and seen it and it ain’t pretty.

    4. @ Mikial,

      Here’s the thing, there is not a single part of this proposed legislation that is not already currently in the law. So the chief complaint here is really that by re-introducing the same old thing in a new way simply opens a door for the other side to tweak it into something we really never wanted. That is why you keep reading posts that say – “These laws are already on the books”.

      One must understand that within the world of professional politicking if you are not constantly introducing new bills, your historical record of your time spent in Congress looks weak. For this reason many legislators constantly introduce bills, of which, contain a lot of redundant fluff and regurgitated laws that already exist.

      One of the most humorous and yet wasteful tactics is when they introduce bills to create new laws to mandate the enforcement of old laws that by law aren’t an option to not enforce to begin with. It is quite ridiculous and there are scores of websites out there to track such antics.

    5. @G-Man, agreed on the stupidity of redundant laws being introduced, and I don’t trust the government as far as I could throw Michelle Obama, which wouldn’t be far, but we can’t just sit back and rely on being able to stop bill after bill that attacks our rights. We have to take the initiative. This bill helps short circuit Obama’s agenda.

      My real questions is what do all of you propose then to at least slow down these nut cases slaughtering people in public venues? Every time one of these idiots do something, the media and the antis use it against us, not to mention the loss of innocent life.

      @Victor Kinbrough, currently you’re already up the creek with no due process, this bill is designed to provide due process and stop Obama and his goons from simply taking your rights.

      You know, folks, you have to fight the system from within the system. All you people jumping up and down and screaming about quitting the NRA are doing the antis work for them.

      I agree that gun free zones are stupid and I never obey the signs. I carry in deep concealment and I am quite capable of taking out the bad guy, but I can’t do that until he does something and by then the damage is done. We have to do something or the Libs will use our very inaction against us.

      You have to fight on every front and with every asset available to you.

  167. Won’t this disarm millions of veterans and retirees being treated with Xanax or Cymbalta. They will use any excuse to disarm the people.
    How many cops or military in service now do you think use the same drugs?

    1. Just sugar coating. The real problem with gun violence lies in young animals in the inner city ghettos, with low IQ’s, no fathers, and no education. This is just a “feel good” piece of legislation that will have no effect on the psychopaths who go into a church or movie theater to shoot.
      Let’s go for minimum 10 years in prison with no parole for gangbangers caught with a gun, and adopt a national stop, question, and frisk policy for police.

    2. Ferd, your post reeks of racism. Apparently you think gun rights are the only ones anyone should have, and that so long as they aren’t low income folks. You know who that tends to be, right, especially in the inner city? Most “gangbangers” don’t commit mass murders, either, and they rarely do any of their shootings with rifles. Good god, man. Apparently you’ve never heard of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. I am honestly ashamed to share my country with people like you.

  168. Our society seems to be declining for complex reasons that are difficult to explain. We all need to remember that we are responsible for the safety of ourselves, family and friends. We need to rely on each other and not our governmental and legal systems which have become massive and disconnected from what is truly important. I am disapointed with my state senator and the NRA for pushing this legislation. If passed it could have a few shining moments, but could easily be used as leverage for future damaging legislation. Life is hard in this world and sometimes we all go through times where we are not at our best. I wonder how many good people there are that sometimes may need a little help to get their minds and focus back on course, but do not seek help for fear of being branded mentally ill and losing a cherished right. There is no easy answer if there is one at all, but this legislation is not the answer. Live Free or Die.

    1. Great post Todd. My only disagreement is that the reasons our society is declining aren’t that complex, or difficult to explain. I can do so, as well as tell you how to fix it. The problem is the terrifyingly small number of people who are actually willing to open their minds and listen, and then put in the work to make a better world.

  169. Again,it seems like we are all suspect for something we MIGHT do and must thus be further restricted in what we may or may not be able to possess.

  170. Won’t this disarm millions of veterans and retirees being treated with Xanax or Cymbalta. Keep in mind Cornyn is not a conservative but establishment Republican, who votes with Democrats and Obama all the time. Do they have pics or tapes on him? We know you support incumbents all the time, because of their overwhelming chance of re-election. Don’t be so sure this time.

  171. The problem with these kinds of bills is the loose and capricious application to a broad range of people the legislation was not intended to impact. Yes, mental illness has been a cornerstone to the mass shootings over the years, but the thing being overlooked is that since the 80’s all but about 2 of these mass shooters have been taking some form of mind altering drug for depression. While those drugs may help some (?), they drive a small percentage to levels of homicidal suicide that they might not ordinarily achieve if not for the so-called “treatment”. Read the fine print on those drugs, it’s all there. Yet, the pharmaceutical companies continue to rack in the dough while gun owners take the heat for the side-effects of their mind-altering drugs. Just because it’s prescribed, doesn’t make it a good drug, and does not free the drug companies from liability. This is what the legislation needs to address, but it won’t due to the power of the pharmaceutical companies.

  172. SORRY!
    Get the Feds OUT of our lives, not even more deeply intruded.
    Let states handle their own problems!
    And, this is not a mental health issue.
    It’s a law enforcement issue, in which the Feds, themselves, don’t prosecute or incarcerate criminals.
    Try enforcing laws we do have before writing some more!
    Frankly, anyone who thinks al this violence, lately, is a mental health issue probably ought to see shrink, himself.

  173. Cars kill more people than guns and homicides with guns drops lower each year….If a statistic is improving you dont change anything..
    Cars on the other hand are killing more people despite seat belts and air bags so why not do a background check for DUIs before selling a car to this potential …Cars arent protected under the constitution. And ironically in our area the gun background checks are done by the Highway Patrol.
    Why not just put a star on the Drivers License for no felonies and no
    domestic violence and all gun buyers would be good to purchase…Thanks Rod

  174. I’m a Texan. I LIKE John Cornyn. He’s pretty level headed. I don’t know how he got trapped into this. I can’t believe that he would believe that the human mental status is so easily defined. The facts suggest that MOST of us, under the right circumstances are capable of violence of ANY magnitude and it’s almost always (by nature) beyond reason. There were NO restrictions placed on the second amendment. We, as responsible human beings, really have to accept that we ARE human beings. We would, eventually, include anyone whose ever been involved in a bar fight as mentally unstable. Some people (documented) only need 1 drink to become qualified mentally unstable. Should we take away alcohol? Tried that. We don’t, always agree with each other. We don’t , always, get along. Why are we trying, so hard, to draw a line that’s already been drawn, a couple hundred years ago.We knew THEN, that there would, always, be some of us who feel that certain (most) other people shouldn’t have as much rights as we have. That’s why we wrote the constitution and amendments. Then we elect people to try and take those rights away. And, folks, It’s the BEST system EVER on the planet. But, come on! Here we are trying to GIVE rights to people who aren’t even BORN yet, at the expense of people who are.

  175. Crime cannot be prevented by ANY law. Every law passed creates another lawbreaker.

    Crime prevention is not the duty, responsibility or purpose of law enforcement, so how can any enforced law prevent crime? Only way to prevent a crime is when a physical body is at the right place at the right time to intervene. Period.

    Until you are convicted of a crime, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Never did like the NRA. GOA all the way!

  176. John Cornyn is a RINO and has personally gone AGAINST Most of the Conservative Movement Including controlling of Firearms.

    He is a Suck@ss Liberal in disguise and NOT To Be Trusted Under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

  177. Here is my issue. A simple comment to a Dr could lead to the elimination of your civil rights. “Dang doc, sometimes the world seems to be moving to fast, and I can’t keep up” a simple moment of feeling pressure mentioned to the wrong person at the wrong time and BAM your rights are history. Will it stop at the 2nd amendment? Will it eventually limit your ability for free speech? Or your right to vote,
    This could open doors best left bolted and boarded up.
    The only way I could get behind this is if the case files were send to a minimum of 3 unaffiliated doctors without names or reason for review looked over the case file, conducted a phone interview with the person in question and ONLY if all three found an overwhelming chance of violence. If one says there is not an imminent and overwhelming chance of violent behavior then no they should not be stripped of their rights to make some politician seem like they care

  178. I agree with Senator Cornyn’s proposed bill but I propose adding Interstate Commerce of information on known mentally ill individuals or at least require states to enter that information into the Federal Data Bases. Doctors should also be required to enter some annotation in Federal Data Bases when treating individuals for any form of mental illness, deep depression or PTSD. This information should become a basic part of any background check for purchasing any firearm or ammunition.

  179. John Cornyn is a RINO just as much as Bone-er, McCornball and Chrissie Christie. This is just another backdoor gun control measure. By all means! LET’S increase the likelihood of a of a false positive on the instant check. By all means!

    Let’s see here. Joe Blow (or Jane Roe) has a crisis, trips out temporarily and ENTIRELY VOLUNTARILY checks him/herself into a psych ward or private MH facility. The person is never adjudicated or even formally evaluated by ANY court. But the mere fact that the individual was sufficiently concerned to utilise the MH benefit which is included in their employer’s healthcare package and checks out after a 72 hour evaluation period is reported to FedGov along with the fact that the individual was prescribed an anti-anxiety med and a sleep aid.

    Some years go by. The person is no longer taking any PSYCHOACTIVE DRUG (anti-anxiety med or sleep aid) but naturally is not in any database. The person goes to purchase a target pistol. DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! BUZZ! BUZZ! BUZZ! BUZZ! BUZZ! RED ALERT!!! RED ALERT!!! DANGER,WILL ROBINSON,DANGER!!! POTENTIAL DANGEROUS WEAPON PURCHASE BY PERSON OF SUSPECT MENTAL STABILITY!!!!!!!!!!!

    Can you spell “false positive”, ladies and gents, boys and girls? Isn’t it a already a federal felony for a “prohibited person” to purchase a firearm? Isn’t anyone who fails the instant background check BY DEFINITION a prohibited person? Why would attempting to purchase a firearm with knowledge of being prohibited person NOT constitute a felony?
    Prosecutor to witness/defendant on the stand: “Mr Jones, is it not true that in 20XX you spent time in a mental institution?”

    Jones: “Yes.”

    Prosecutor: “And did you forget about the time spent you spent in treatment for a SIGNIFICANT PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION prior to attempting to purchase a DANGEROUS WEAPON?”

    Jones: “No.”

    Prosecutor: “Just to make sure we are all on the same page here. Mr. Jones, is it your testimony that you were fully aware that you had spent a CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME in an INSANE ASYLUM prior to attempting to purchase a device which was capable of ENDING MULTIPLE INNOCENT LIVES!? Is that your sworn testimony in this courtroom today? Well? IS IT?!?!”

    Jones: Looking anxiously at his attorney who is sitting back eyes open wide, mouth agape “Ah, uh huh.”

    Prosecutor: “Your honor, the Prosecution rests. Move for a directed verdict of ‘guilty as charged'”.

  180. If I understand this right it is the federal database that approves of disapproves the sales of firearmes but they have no real information about the people they grant or deny firearms sales. Is this correct.

  181. Out of all the anti gun mess and left wing “republicans”. The one single piece of the puzzle that I have always, and continue to, never see is any measure taken to remove any firearms from the hands of criminals. This is just one more of millions of ways that I’ve seen to take guns away from legal owners. If the situation becomes that mental health professionals become the government’s “tattle-tales” than those individuals that believe in their 2nd amendment rights will be much less likely to seek the help they need.

  182. Response to Turk – I agree there are too many gun laws already. However, your statement that there are as many bad cops as there are criminals is quite thoughtless and ungrounded. Maybe you could so a ride-a-long with a police patrol and see what the police actually have to deal with.

  183. My biggest concern with any bill like this are the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans and those who are receiving Social Security. It is not these groups that are committing these mass shootings. They should be receiving protection from Obama’s executive orders.

  184. They have enough laws now that control the guns and they will try to make it so no one will be allowed to have a gun. They can make it if a person takes an aspirin they will be disqualified. it is too bad that there are those who commit crimes or shoot people including the police, do they plan on running tests on the police as well. I know a Sheriff that is not qualified to be a sheriff yet he has be elected 4 terms in a row and still is not qualified or does he have an oath. There are as many bad cops as there are criminals that shoot people just because the have a gun and a badge. Keep the laws the way they are, they are strict enough.

  185. Cornyn’s comment of “By giving our communities the resources necessary” is my first Problem. Why does the Fed have to give it. I want to see my fed gov’t shrink, not given more reasons to grow. If his proposal was to reduce taxes so that states have the ability to collect more revenue and handle this on the state level, I might be more in favor of it. This should be a state’s rights issue.

    Sorry John, you do not have my support. Sorry NRA you have now given me another reason not to support you. My vote is NO.

  186. This topic of gun control, from my point of view, is very similar to a lot of other topics in which if not all, almost all is already legislated but lawmakers under the pressure of the “electorate” (or at least “certain” part of it) keep issuing newer and newer laws of the same, making an intricate web that perhaps they themselves would be unable to deal with. This one is an example of it: laws disqualify the mental ill to purchase or to keep guns, don’t they?, so why we need another law of the same? Is not enough just to enforce the existing laws (which is what happen in most cases)?

    I, as a gun owner and a gun’s fan, wouldn’t have any inconvenience, for example, that my guns would be registered by some authority, but which one? And worse: registration is part of the anti-guns zealots. In general I would be willing to discuss any better policy to govern gun fanatics’ activities BUT (and here comes a big “BUT” in capital letters”) as today a very important fact is that the overwhelmingly majority of anti-gunners are composed by zealots (at least from my point of view), and the ultimate goal of this guys is finish sports weapons.

    So, besides of any other reasonable reasoning, I understand that any concession made in favor of anti-gunners agenda just grant them one step towards their final goal; they do not think, they do not feel, they do not reason,… they just want to terminate gun ownership and sports, so I won’t be willing to concede “one step” on their favor, even by joining well intentioned Sen. John Cornyn’s proposal.

  187. I am a gunsmith that owns a small sole proprieter business, basically I fix guns for folks in my garage. I also have been diagnosed with P.T.S.D. and several types of anxiety & have trouble with flashbacks. My Dr. Pushes the subject of disability very hard due to the combination of my physical and mental injuries. My gunsmithing business, in a county of less than 4,000 people is slow & doesn’t make much profit, but the profit it makes is very much needed. Am I to understand that my NRA (of which I have been a life member of for years) is backing a bill that could possibly take away my FFL and along with it, my livelyhood? I’ve given up on the “two party joke” and registered Independent years ago because I no longer wanted to be part of the “great american smoke screen”. I never thought I would see the day that I would have to be so disappointed in my NRA. Mr. Heston ,I’m sure, has missed a dinner or two over this due to indigestion.

  188. NEVER,
    we want the law to be VAGUE as possible,

    UNDER THE GUISE that they are exercising their FREE SPEECH,
    with the IGNORANCE of

    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.


  189. Who will determine mental condition? As an attorney representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky and later the criminally accused or an individual in some sort of competency hearing I long ago concluded that in a contested proceeding you will have psychology/psychiatry appearances on both sides claiming the person is either “mad as a March Hare” or fully sane and able to handle their affairs. Then the jury or judge will decide, oftentimes enough wrongly. Which leads me to provide the following anecdote about proposed legislation:
    Proposed legislation sponsored by Sen. Duncan Scott and passed in the New Mexico Senate 1995 Session. It was vetoed by the Governor:
    “When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, he shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts.
    Additionally, he shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than eighteen inches in length and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand.
    Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides testimony, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong.”

    That to me is the current state of learning in mental health.

  190. NRA should not support any expansion of illegal gun purchase regulation. They well know this one is another foot in the door. First lets get rid of the current system. Then the courts can prohibit the possession by the mentally ill as determined if that is necessary. The chance for abuse by the govt will happen as it always does. I say a strong NO NO NO,

  191. While not absolute, our Rights will prevail only as long as we are willing to stand and fight. So far as SCOTUS is concerned, they appear not to be above making it up as they go along-evidence recent decisions. Evidence also the history of numerous agreious decisions such as Dred Scott, decisions during the Roosevelt #1 admin, the Wilson admin, and the FDR admin. Skepticism of the gov isn’t paranoia, it’s a fact!

  192. You need to get up to speed on Executive Overreach. Sure, a nut job may hurt some of us but, loss of our Liberties hurts all of us!

  193. This legal effort like so many others is misdirected. The problem with mental health issues is HIPPA. HIPPA places the sole control of mental health analysis and treatment in the hands of those that are mentally ill.
    NO ONE can even get someone that is mentally ill evaluated or tested.
    I know, I live with someone with mental illness and it took over four years and near suicide before they could get some help. And that help was just to “stabilize them” (read drug them into submission) not to help them recover.
    All of those that shot up schools / churches / etc were know to mothers, other students, neighbors, friends to be ill and to have expressed the desire to do bad things to others. The only problem is HIPPA does not allow anyone, Dr, Lawyer, Police, Judge, family member, parent, anyone to get those that are mentally ill some help.
    Why don’t we put a call line in where those that we know are planning bad things or acting out in a destructive way can be reported. Then we need to change HIPPA to allow family to seek medical help for evaluation of the mentally ill to determine what if any help they need. And we need to have some authority / process that allows this evaluation to be accessed by individuals concerned with mental illness.
    We need to change the process we have in place now that does not allow for identification, analysis, and treatment of the mentally ill if we want a different outcome. Another law will not help. We need a process to identify, intercede, and treat those bent on doing harm to others or themselves. Mental illness is the dirty little issue that everyone wants to hide from. It needs to be aggressively identified and treated just like any other illness. We have an emergency ward for physical illness, why do we not have an emergency ward for mental illness?? We intercede in physical illnesses or wounds, why do we not intercede in mental illnesses?? We need to fix the root problem, not skirt around it AGAIN!!

  194. I say NO. this legislation gives power to the state to decide what the definition of “mental disorder ” if the supreme Court can rule obama care as being constitutional, I’m not going to throw myself into any Cort as to if I’m mentally ill or not. I have ptsd from 16 years of military service. Does that make me more or less likely to get a background check refused? Should I be able to Cary a concealed weapon, as I have legally for years, or not? Because I get nervous in crowds and I don’t like traffic, because I have nightmares seeing my friends dieing, should I have my second amendment rights revoked? I’m not going to leave my future in the hands of some buracrat who has never met me.

  195. “It would provide an incentive for states to share mental health information for background checks.”

    And, were ANY of these ‘whack’ killings prevented by some “background check?” Just as when my doctor starts asking me if I’m a gun owner, he no longer will be my doctor, I want not to have my “medical history” available to any government!

    One of the latest whacks, who killed 9 in church, was either given the gun, or the money for the gun, by his father. Some “clerical error” by those ‘passing’ his background check got him the gun! If your family, or friends, don’t know you are a whack, what is available to “share?”

    Mr. Cornyn and any others concerned with the “mental health” of America’s citizens should ‘read up’ a little on why we have so many mentally ill “walking the streets” of America:

  196. Sorry, I’m not with you on the abandonment of the NRA. I’ve found them honorable for too many years. As with most things Washington, there’s a lot to this matter. I wholeheartedly that sound and precise definition must be attached to this proposal to preserve our freedom as well as to prevent bureaucratic and Administrative overreach by way of interpretation. As far as the NRA is concerned, we are the ones that are most feared by the Left.

  197. While I understand and agree with the view that the federal government can no longer be trusted to defend our rights and liberties, the pragmatist in me must point out that no Right is absolute, and there are abundant examples of that in SCOTUS decisions. For those who wonder why the Supreme Court takes some cases and not others, there are generally two types of cases that they take: cases where appeals courts have taken opposing views and cases where there are two or more rights in apparent conflict with one another, and it is felt that an appeals court has not struck a proper balance between the two. As the oft paraphrased quote goes:

    “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins. ”

    Or as Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. put it in 1919:

    “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

    So even as we defend our right to keep and bear arms, we need to recognize that the courts will never see it as an absolute. We must engage in conversation and educate those not actively involved. To walk away and refuse any discussion, is to invite the opposition to define where the balance lies.

    1. Our rights are absolute. You have to demand your rights not merely ask for them or you will loose them. The Federal Government might not think so, and yes the Supreme Court is PART of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court is not the decider of our rights or if things are constitutional. We the people are, it’s called the Tenth Amendment . The Declaration of Independence also has some ideas on the subject.

      “Refuse to comply” – James Madison’s Advice

    2. I vote an absolute NO on ALL gun control !!! As you so aptly put it ” the courts will never see it as an absolute”. WE CANNOT GIVE ONE INCH !! To do so opens the crack for an invasion into the Second Amendment rights of EVERY American. The laws already in place are more than efficient to protect us all. Enforce these BEFORE even considering ANYTHING new!

  198. Absolutely NO! While this discussion centers upon the “mentally ill” as schizophrenics, psychotropic users, and psychiatric patients, *That’s NOW*. Just wait until the term “mentally ill” is applied to anyone who owns a business or does not totally support President (Chelsea) Clinton’s policies.

    For at least the last 100 years, every piece of national legislation eventually metastasizes into a Progressive tool for destroying Constitutional America.

  199. Anything at all will be construed to pertain to one’s mental health. Whatever the psychological terms may be, and there is one for everything, we will all be diagnosed with some kind of this or that ophobia or —philia or —esis. Whether you collect gems, bugs, or guns, there is a term for it, and it will be used against you. I vote ‘No’. Unless the laws pertain only to ‘real’ psychoses accompanied by true physical dangers, no!

  200. I recently went to the VA for back pain, thought maybe a kidney? It was muscular in nature, but a short time later I received forms from the VA in the mail. Seems insurance wouldn’t pay the VA unless all ‘sensitive’ info related to my latest visit were released. Enclosed was a form authorizing release of my complete medical history. Another form to decline. I declined. No mental health issues, but alcoholism in my past. Now sober 11 years. The govt will use ANY excuse to strip us of our rights-Don’t fall for this one.

  201. Problem will be what the anti-gun dems will tack on to it. I doubt it will make it without amendments. I.E. The 2nd suffers the GOP louse again

  202. I agree health issues are private but I am more that willing to waive that right to privacy to purchase a firearm, in the interest of public safety of course. Most states allow private party transfers of firearms so adding a mental records check to the criminal background check will not prevent an unqualified person from obtaining a firearm.

  203. Since the NRA gave us Obama “TWICE” by supporting unelectable candidates, I have NO reason to trust their position again.
    While the mental health issue needs to be addressed it does not actually have anything to do with public violence using firearms. Firearms are too easy to acquire by illegal means.

  204. I don’t support!!! You are establishing a precedent along the parth where the next step could be having to have a mental evaluation before buying a gun. I don’t approve of the NRA supporting this proposal to appear more moderate. I don’t approve of the federal government withholding benifits to states for approvals or votes in general, this is similiar to my offering each representative and the state money for a vote. Let the merit of the idea stand on its own!!!

  205. I have to go to gun owners of America. Give the Gov I in. they always take a mile, absolutely no,no ,no. If the nra trust the gov, they need to regroup.
    Just asking for abuse. I say never.

  206. Devil is always in the details. I believe there isn’t any argument about keeping “crazy” ppl from getting guns. Just WHO defines those people? Will it expand into gun bans for certain meds? Personally I say LIBERALISM is s mental disorder but would not advocate takeing their 2A rights away. Would any politician use this to leverage against a group they do not agree with? “IRS” now being used against certain political groups. Who protects our rights? 2A helps us all keep our rights and may stave off the boot of operative Gov.

  207. I vote no cause they are people who have anxiety that some people Cale a mental disorder and its just like when u have a big interveiw for a job u are verry nervous but does that mean u are a threat to soceity no!!! And it is only another step to preventing gun ownership there is no way to stop killings what are u going to do ban knives pipes cars everyday people get in their cars they are facing death lets focus on banning cars and see what happens and good way tofix some of the problems are to make harder punishment for people who commit capitol murder please help fight for our rights our soldiers fought for all our live s this needs to be against the criminals and it would affect innocent law abiding citizen s

  208. I think the NRA should step back and reassess their support for this bill. ANY new legislation creating NEW restrictions on the Second Amendment and gun ownership is a NO WINNER in my professional opinion.

    The ability to weasel between the cracks by the sleazy political garbage is too great to support this bill.

    There are laws on the books already to address this issue. You don’t see the useless scumbags enforcing them do you???

    One brick at a time build a wall folks, just give the bricklayer enough time to wall you up for good…….

  209. Today if you support this act, you will be designated a “GOOD GUY”, But when enacted you could be designated a “BAD GUY”. But who is going to make that decision ? This alone disturbs me. I personally know many people who are getting the benefits based on PTSD. I think this is just another step in the direction of eliminating those people from ownership of their weapon. Therefore my response is no ….

  210. 25 years years ago my parents were social workers who worked at mental hospitals. People with mental problems were sent to these facilities for help and rehabilitation paid for with federal and state funds. When these mental hospitals were shut down these patients were sent to their families to take care of or given some money and a bus ticket to a place of their choice. Yes, our government chose to close these institutions and put them on the street for the families,public and the police to take care of. This is one reason we have so many of these mentally ill living under bridges, on sidewalks and incarcerated in our prisons because they pretty much have to break the law to get help for their conditions. This leaves more of the same incidents that have happened in past years to continue. As for Thad Cochrans proposal, anyone can label a person as crazy or delusional and you will lose your 2nd amendment rights or go through hell and a lot of expense trying to get them back.

  211. Just another bunch of words subject to Government Perversion by bureaucrats. No more Federal regulation! Surely Sen. Cornyn can be more productive.

  212. I als9 believe that it will only takes a baby step to turn this into an abuse. I also believe that the NRA’s support of this is a betrayal of their memevers and trust. This said, I have already cut up my NRA memebership card and returned to the NRA with a copy of thus head line. Any furter support of mine will go to the Gun Owners of America.

  213. Nothing mentioned about the elderly who can’t have a gun because they can’t keep up with their bank account. Some are calling that a mental health issue. No, I say this kind of legislation is just another way to twist anything into gun grabbing. Let’s wait until there is a conservative administration (God willing) with some common sense. Then we can talk about it.

    1. I say no to this bill just another way to start the government to get their hands on our guns.If the NRA backs this I will not support them in the future! I am a member now but will no sign up next year!

  214. I agree, the liberal agenda has used the strategy of drawing a line in the sand, then crossing it. They will never be satisfied.

  215. I read this bill was also about giving due process to veterans and social security recipients who do not manage their own money. The president is trying to strip these people of their firearms without any due process and this bill would establish guidelines to give people recourse if singled out

  216. Something has to be done to curb the horrible acts being committed with firearms. I believe we all have to agree upon that one fact. If in fact the majority of these killings are being committed by people who are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own firearms under current laws, why would anyone opposed to these acts, be opposed to providing another tool to law enforcement to aid in preventing the violence. Prior comments concerning the fact if they don’t have a gun to kill with they will find some other way is true. However, access to a firearm makes it that much easier to kill. It’s time to start treating the mentally ill prior to their committing some act of violence that puts them in jail, rather than somewhere where they can get the help they need. If Senator Cornyn’s Bill provides that, then it sounds like a step in the right direction.

    1. @ Bud Schrickling

      A FART will make a Sound too, But eventually it will Just SMELL.

  217. Generally, I’m ok with this – Two thoughts, however:

    First – Is there a mechanism to appeal being put on the list? If you are not a felon, there should ALWAYS be recourse once you are on the list. As it stands, if you get put there, you have very few options (if any) to getting off of the list. This law hopefully includes appeal options. If not, I’d have a harder time supporting it.

    Second – A bit of a nitpick to the author… This sentence bothered me as every firearm supporter should know better: “… as our rights are granted by the Second Amendment.” No – they are not granted by the second amendment – they are protected by the second amendment. In other words, we already have the ‘RIGHT’. A right isn’t granted by anyone or any thing – it just exists. It is crucial that we get this right. If a right is granted by the government or it’s founding/controlling documents, it can be taken away, and those on the anti-gun side who constantly ring the bell that the 2nd amendment must be repealed will continue to get closer to making that happen if the pro-firearm side has conceded that the government has the right to take that right away. The second amendment guarantees that the ‘right’ of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Gun owners and supporters must NEVER fall into the trap of believing that we are granted rights by the government. We are not. The only purpose of the Constitution is to establish the boundaries/limits and ‘constitution’ of the federal Government – not the limits on the people. We the people are not governed by the Constitution – the government is.

    Just my two-cents… 🙂

  218. Presently there is no datd base of “mental defectives, mentally ill or those ever confined for ttreatment to a mental institution” or words to that effect on the dreaded 4473. A person can check the box “no” and no one really knows the true answer. There are a couple of issues to be resolved before Sen Cornyn’s bill can work-!. A change in the HIPPA Laws to allow the release and exchange of mental health info, 2. An agreement of exactly what is the definition of “mental illness” that can keep someone from owning a firearm.. 3. There must be due process if a person wants to challenge a ruling the he/she is mentally unfit. Many Politicians have gone on record characterizing veterans as mental defective and not able to own firearms according to the likes of Dianne Feinstein and Carolyn Mahoney just to name a few. Because a Soldier or Marine have been diagnosed with PTSD does not unilaterally and automatically disqualify them from owning a firearm. These pesky little issues need to be worked out before this bill becomes law. Sen Cornyn’s bill is a step in the right direction. But the issues that I raised have to be fairly dealt with before any votes are taken.

  219. If you want ‘ Disability SSI’ find a ‘shrink. Tell him/her you are nuts They will fill out all the necessary papers and you get your monthly stipend. The feds have access to MANY shrinks that will declare you ‘nuts’. You put it together and kiss your ‘weapons’ ”good-bye”.If you feel I have NO respect for FEDS & Psychiatrists, well—- you’re RIGHT. By the way, from personal experience, NRA has an odor problem too.

  220. Mentally-Ill by what standard? Who gets to define what mentally-Ill is?It should take a court finding of mental illness,not just a Doctors opinion, or an Attorney Generals opinion.There should never be anything, in any law, left to the opinion, or discretion, of an Attorney General! Without more concise language this is a bad BILL… PERIOD…NRA is wrong on this one.

  221. If there were a way to do this and not have it eventually perverted in such a way that “anyone” could be marked as “mentally ill” by the authorities it might work. I see it as another [possible] stepping stone to removing the rights of Americans; another way to control the population. Something like this needs to happen where it is not ever directed at weapons of mass killings, but only for the benefit of people who truly need mental help – not restriction of their rights. It has to work for the people first; for their health and betterment. If it is tied to gun rights it must fail.

    1. “residents with serious mental health issues to the federal background check system.” That is the question. Who or more importantly, what bureaucrats will make that decision. It certainly will never be by a board certified unbiased person or agency; therefore, it will, despite the original intention, turn out to be another control mechanism of the government to restrict gun ownership and a building block to restrict Americans’ liberties.

    2. No more gun control what does the government not understand about the 2 amendment.Gun does not work and never will and if the NRA backs this then I’m out of the NRA.11

  222. If you’re saying that Veterans cant own guns after they fought for everyone’s freedom than that’s wrong you’ve turned you’re back on the very people that defend this great nation military PTSD is not a mental condition its a combat injury no one should be able to tell a veteran that they cant buy a gun ore own a weapon if this bill is designed to take guns away from veterans than i will not support it nor will i vote for john cornyn veterans should be exempt from gun control laws

  223. what they don’t get is why someone like you doesn’t appreciate their efforts to please those they count on to keep them in office.

  224. Mental health issues are complex. While I feel most citizens want to prevent “crazy people” from owning firearms, the main issue here is defining which mental health issues will prevent a person from buying and possessing a firearm.
    Will this bill be one of those feel good laws that sounds good but in reality does little or nothing to address the issue of want rules should be place regulating the legal ownership of firearms. Then there is the issue of once a person has been classified as having mental issues, how long is the ban in place?
    Senator Cornyn is well meaning, but who defines what mental issues issues would prevent gun issues and diagnoses an individual.

  225. Why is the NRA kissing Sen. Cornyn’s ass? He must be a big donor. It’s clear the political door swings both boys for money. I’m surprised by the rhetoric and hypocrisy in the article trying to convince law abiding citizens to side with this measure. As an NRA member I’m disappointed in the idea that after years of lobbying you would cave in and side with a witch hunt measure; that’s what it is, a witch hunt. Mentally ill, on what level? What about returning veterans. With measures like this it’s just a matter of time before every veteran diagnosed with PTSD/depression will end up on a federal gun ban list. More invasion of privacy is not the answer.

    Respectfully submitted

  226. More big government, more wasted tax dollars, more infringement upon personal liberties. Cornyn is not our friend.

  227. I believe in the fourth amendment and fifth amendment in as much as the 2nd amendment. Under such legislation some people’s rights will always be violated. There will never be a proper and fair overseer of mental health issues. And finally such legislation will not prevent most if not all of these attacks. So sorry I will not support this effort and the NRA should know better.


  229. Will not prevent future attacks on anything just another thing to waste time and money on the fact is that if someone wants to do that they will find a way to do it

  230. what don`t politicans get? The constition,of course. Keep taking the peoples rights away in the name of safety and we will have none.What is this at the bottom,something to submit us to a mental test? 3 plus what + five?

  231. You are saying right now the federal Gov. does not have a reliable list of mentally impaired people in the USA. However they do have a list of all criminals & felons. Even though this list exists our policing authorities are unable to keep felons from acquiring guns so what makes me think if another law was passed they could enforce it?

    1. You’re right Dan, the feeds have paltry info about mental health patients, because HIPPA and other regulationstuff discourage or outright prohibit mental health providers from listing patients as”community” safety risks until they actually commit an offensive act against themselves or others. Changing these regs to make it mandatory to report people with diagnosis of mental illness that could lead to an unfortunate act might just keep a few from getting guns they would use to harm innocents. I’m not saying this will stop all, but if it stops even one incident, isn’t it worth a good honest look?

    2. I agree no one republican or democrat wants we the people to be free. they just waist money and blow a lot of hot air to keep someone happy

  232. This is pure and utter nonsense. Diagnosis of mental illness is inexact. The Soviet Union had people locked up for decades for the mental illness of disagreeing with the dictator in power. Who determines who is mentally ill and who will regulate the regulators?

    Sharing information relative to guns does not solved the problem of a determined mass killer – sane or not – using pipe bombs, molotov cocktails or any other number of weapons killing many people. Leave the Second Amendment rights of self-protection alone.

  233. These laws will only increase problems, as Americans will avoid seeking help, afraid they’ll lose their right to ownership – After all we’ve seen the democrats ideals of enforcement with our borders, spinning laws to favor their ridiculous ideological agenda while our people are assaulted, raped and murdered – NO THANK YOU

  234. This plan sounds good if the government officials are honest in their administration of the law, and willing to honor the Constitutions separation of powers. Remember “Defense of Marriage Act”, Immigration Law, the 2nd Amendment trying to outlaw certain types of ammo and any law those “leaders” don’t like. It will not matter who America elects to Congress one more President like this one or one more Supreme Court Judge our 2nd Admendment gun rights are toast.
    Sorry guys I’m a Texan but I don’t trust John Cornyn anymore. Yes, he was once a conservative but is now just another a Washington power broker. This Bill is not an answer to gun violence but yet another tool for an “Obama” type to declare any gun owner “Mentally” unqualified to own a gun!

  235. I’m sorry , but I do not see the need for more legislation. This issue is addressed on the current application for background check.
    Opening the door for the federal government to obtain any health record will never “protect”anyone .
    Mmmm? What if they change the definition or standard by which “mental health ” is measured???

  236. I think almost everyone, including many in siding the gun community, have drunk the kool-aid sold by the government knows best crowd. The Declaration of Independence states our God given right and responsibility to maintain ourselves free from any oppressive government. The 2nd Amendment is the Founders guarantee of the ability to exercise that right. As they gave no exceptions or exclusions or limits of any kind there constitutionally are none. If we as a people believe that some among us, for whatever reason, should be denied that most basic of rights of self protection against tyranny and oppression then it should be done properly; through the amendment process. Those in government wish to remain there as they have used the system, legally and otherwise, to siphon powers and authorities not intended for them. We as a people have fallen asleep at the wheel and allowed this nation to veer far from its original course. Any unauthorized change to the 2nd is an attack on the Constitution as a whole. Without it we have no method of preserving freedom and liberty.

  237. Just wait until they start classifying those with mental illness as individuals who…
    are Christians with a delusional god fantasy
    are climate change skeptics
    are those against homosexual marriage
    are those that shop at WalMart..etc…etc…etc

    It will be-
    “Turn in your guns take the mark of the beast or we’ll shoot your daughter.”

    Then line up, the ovens are hot

  238. They are already in power now and the law has not changed and those items are reportable now. The system is dependent upon the states.
    I understand the distrust but it is the mentally unstable who are committing most if not all of these mass shootings. The law is in effect now and is ineffective. This bill is only an incentive to have people do a better job of reporting. I do understand the paranoia however. There is no trust in the Government and people don’t believe anything anyone does or says.

  239. Linking mental health to gun ownership is a slippery slope and assumes the system will use common sense in the discrimination process. I am also a private pilot. My wife and I separated about 10 years ago. I was not at all violent but I was depressed. My family doctor prescribed an anti-depressant that was helpful, and I used it for several months to get over the initial shock. My license was suspended even though I had been off the anti-depressant for 6 months when I had my next medical. I was eventually reinstated but ran into another mental health issue when I late took lunesta as a sleep aid. Yes…….. that is a mental health issue as well. The FAA would obviously prefer that I fly sleepy and depressed as opposed to rested and calm. And this is in a non-political system. I go backpacking with 5 separate MD’s, 2 of which are psychiatrists and 3 are family practice. All are liberal and I think most people that have spent that much time in college are as well. While they are obviously very bright, they are paranoid of guns and I do not want them to be able to decide whether I can own a gun, or carry concealed. Big government policies tend to impose “one size fits all” rules and in todays politically hostile environment on gun issues, I am confident many of us will lose our privileges to own and carry. Rules will be made and cases will not be considered individually. If I can lose my pilots license for small “bumps in the road”, I can easily lose my CC license.

    1. I’m with Bill here. I’ve seen the subjectivity of the mental health people, and seen non-dangerous people demonized. I see no reason to trust the feds with even more information linked the background check system.

    2. Bill,
      I agree whole heartedly. I, too, had similar experience in regards to my captains license which is renewed through the USCG. I now have to go through physicals on a yearly basis instead of every 5 years (renewal period). The government wants me to fit in a round hole and I’m a square peg. You just can’t trust the government to have common sense in regards to what rights they deem necessary for you have. This is s slippery slope I don’t want to go down with my second amendment. I agree with some of the other commenters that my right “shall not be infringed”, and I’m going to stick with that position.

    3. Here, here, Bill. Antidepressants are among the most frequently prescribed medications in the U.S. with about 13 percent of the population taking them at any time. Furthermore, particular segments are more likely to have them prescribed than others. Thirdly, psychiatric professionals treat a relatively small minority of these, with most being treated by GP’s, FP’s, and IM’s. If you want to say those with a psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia, for example, should be subject to special scrutiny, fine. But such sweeping generalizations are indeed a very slippery slope.

  240. Fix the mental health system. let the vets deal with their issues if they want or need a gun get help. Leave the 2nd amendment alone. Some people with mental illness are not a threat, At least wait for Obama and the anti gun gang to vacate the white house.

  241. YOU allowed it, YOU wanted it… AND…. YOU voted for it too!

    How are you liking it now………..SHEEP?

    Democracy at it’s best, Liberty at it’s finest.

    YOU better be serving and paying your elected “Washington Masters”.

    “Ain’t Freedom Grand”……..Fresh Mutton Stew is on the dinner menu.

    Order up!

    1. Typical NRA submission to gun laws. NRA never saw a gun control law that they did not like.

  242. NO NO NO An NRA A+ rated Senator? Just a toe in the door to keep it ajar for future infringements on our Constitutional Rights. A novel idea might be to enforce the laws we have on the books at this time!

  243. as the 2nd amendment was included in the bill of rights as a bulwark against a tyrannical government intent upon subjugating, and enslaving, its citizenry, it beggars the question: why do not the mentally ill deserve the same protection against government tyranny?

  244. The idea that the government is somehow going to stop crazy people from doing crazy things is utopian. Beware of laws taking us further down this path. Totalitarian states, most notably the USSR, used “mental illness” as an excuse to put nonconformists in the gulag. Before you dismiss the notion that we could ever go there, consider all the places the federal government has gone in the past century that our founders could never have imagined.

  245. I believe this. Bill will work.Our mental health system is broken.I for one do not want a mentally disturbed person or any one else with a serious mental condition to hurt any one of us with a firearm.I also believe that if a person that has been treated for mental illness and had a positive outcome should have do process to prove they can own a firearm.

  246. Putting an additional check box on the federal form is all well and good, but it can and will be lied about. I am a life member of the NRA and stand with them on most issues. However, my proposal is this. Anyone buying a gun in addition to filling out the federal form must provide a document from a doctor assessing to their mental health. Now the docs probably won’t like it because it makes them somewhat responsible and the HEPA people won’t like it because one has to give up a bit of privacy about their health. But, the latest shootings show that all of these people had a history of mental health issues and should never been allowed near a gun or much less been able to purchase one.

    1. Cliff’s suggestions are sound even if they prove a pain in the ass for doctors, et al, especially at gun fairs. Like it or not (and most NRA supporters don’t) acquiring a gun should be a little more arduous than a stroll in the park. I’ve purchased my handguns from a not-distant sporting-goods store where I had to fill out a lengthy form — for each gun. Asking my doctor for a note attesting to my sanity is an extra step well worth the taking.

    2. Cliff’s suggestion would effectively mak the medical community the gatekeeper of the Second Amendment. Given their history on personal firearms ownership, I do not trust them to be stewards of my Constitutional right.

    3. David I agree. To take someones second amendment rights away, it should take a trial. A doctor shouldn’t be able to unilaterally strip someone’s rights away.

    4. I agree with David on this.

      For starters, there are a large number of folks who don’t have a “Regular Doctor”. I would bet that a majority of folks only go to a doctor when they are sick, and then it is probably one of those “Minor Emergency” clinics or the emergency room.

      I retired a few years ago, and until I turned 65, I did not have a regular doctor. For those folks who do have a regular doctor, other than seeing them for a yearly physical, how much does that doctor really know about the person’s ability to safely and legally own a handgun. Real doctors are not like T.V. doctors, who are deeply involved with patients lives and families.

      If real life doctors become the gate keepers of who can and who cant own a firearm, a majority of them will take the the most risk avoidance path and say “no gun for this guy”

      On the other hand, I have a dentist who is a gun owner, shooter, staunch 2nd amendment supporter. Whenever I have an appointment with him, we wind up talking guns and politics long enough for his assistant to remind him that he has another patient waiting.

      The thing about laws, and gun laws in particular, is that we need to judge them, not on the spirit of the law, but how they are likely to be enforced and/or abused. Just look at how the anti gunners have tried to nuance the very straight forward language of the 2nd amendment to try and say that it only applies to state militias ??

    5. content blow is copied verbatim from the America Medical Association web site. Do we really want these people approving gun ownership?

      Gun Violence
      Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions and the horrific school shootings in Newtown, CT, has increased the sense of urgency to find workable solutions to reduce the epidemic of gun violence and the culture of violence in America. In a January 8, 2013 letter to the President and Congressional leaders, the AMA along with 51 other national specialty societies and state medical societies urged the nation to strengthen its commitment and resources to improve comprehensive access to mental health services including screening, prevention and treatment. The letter acknowledges that while the vast majority of patients with mental illness are not violent, physicians and other health professionals must be trained to respond to those who have a mental illness that might make them more prone to commit violence. Based on long-time AMA-HOD policy, the letter also calls for renewing and strengthening the assault weapons ban, including banning high-capacity magazines. AMA supports S. 150, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

    6. @ David H.

      NOW, Things are starting to make sense, the Presidential Memorandum with the Gun Control in Association with Social Security. Was delivered in 16 January 2013…

  247. Cornyn’s involvement in this endeavor smacks of the same kind of Republican nonsense where they think they need to buy into a Leftist agenda so they “can control it.” It’s all camel’s nose under the edge of the tent.

    Everybody knows the definition of mental illness, recently, seems to vary not according to science but according to politics, and anybody with a touch of historical knowledge knows that mental health “professionals” are a chief tool for abuse used by Leftists for generations now. I keep seeing Vets thrown in to these discussions, but I sure don’t see them making the news as the culprits in mass killings. What I do see are Lefties whacked out on overprescribed psychotropic drugs – prescribed by these so-called mental health care professionals that are going to be the arbiters of who can own a gun or not. I note Nidal Hassan was one of these same individuals. The APA is also an organization that sanctioned and censured it’s own members for the temerity of assisting the DoD in its efforts in the War an Terror.

    I don’t know when the last time anybody seriously used “rule of law” in a sentence and even with the SCOTUS, plain English can mean something entirely different than the clear meaning of the language.

    Cornyn and the NRA need to wash their hands of this, it’s a guarantee that it will be abused. I know its cliche, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, just think of Bush and the TSA/DHS.

  248. I called the NRA about thisissue and all they did was read from a script. They do not care what the other bills the Sinister or Representative has supported. The NRA only cares about 2nd Amendment issues. They gave their support to Whorehouse Hairy Reid. Need I say more? Cornyn is just another Worthless POS RINO. I stopped supporting the NRA (Nasty Reject Association) when they caved in on the Cop Killer Bullet Ban. I support the other Gun Rights Groups but will never ever support the NRA again

    1. Naturalist, what is it about “cop killer” bullets you find defensible? To put the question even more directly, why do you opt for their availability? I can imagine several answers but am curious to hear one from the horse’s mouth.

    2. “Cop Killer Bullet” was a phrase conjured up by the “Anti-Gun” groups to get rid of projectiles used in gun ammunition. Bullet Proof Vests are not impervious to all calibers. There are several conventional calibers that are not classified as Armor Piercing that will penetrate a bullet proof vest with ease. If the bullet does not penetrate the vest the energy from the bullet will injure the person wearing the vest or can possibly cause death. There was no problem till the “Anti-Gun Groups made it an issue and the NRA compromised on the issue.

    3. Thanks for the reasonable reply, Naturalist. And yet I’m still puzzled over the need for rounds specifically designed to penetrate body armor. Or am I wrong about their purpose?

    4. You are wrong about their purpose. Armor Piercing Bullets were designed to penetrate metal long before Body Armor or Bullet Proof Vests were around. There has been no bullet designed to penetrate through Body Armor or Bullet Proof Vests. Different Calibers and Bullets have different characteristics. Bullets in different Calibers have different depths of penetration or no ability penetrate in certain materials.

    5. So called body armor and bullet proof vests is a misnomer.

      “bullet proof” vests come in different ratings. Some lighter ones can defeat small caliber rounds, maybe up to .38 special. Some will defeat rounds up thru +p 9mm and .45 and 357.

      The typical vest worn by LEO’s will not stop typical hunting rifle rounds from even .30-30 soft point, and certainly not .30-06 or larger.

      Now, the big question. How many cops have been killed by any “handgun bullet” that has penetrated their vest?

      So, that is the big elephant in the room. If you can start to define some bullets as “Good” and others, “generically bad” as a reason to outlaw, then it only becomes a matter of time before the number of bullets that are bad far outnumber those that are “Good”.

    6. I am not out to kill a cop and never have been, but, you can take these rounds out of law abiding citizens all day long and it will not stop criminals from getting them. Unless you think all legal gun owners are criminals? The “bad” guys have body armor too, remember the LA shoot out,? a citizen with an APR could have changed the outcome and maybe not one cop would have paid the ultimate price. You can bet the drug cartels have them!

    7. “Cop Killer” is a catch phrase by libs to describe any bullets they don’t want you to have. DuPont had to quit calling their kevlar vests bullet proof due to the fact that if you have a big enough bullet, any armor can be penetrated. To stop a 30-06 round(a common hunting round) at less than 100 yards, the vest would have to be so heavy that the cop could barely move. The common body armor cops wear is only designed to stop small to medium caliber pistol rounds commonly used, such as 9mm. At close distances, larger pistol rounds will probably go through. Perps with experienced hand-loading capability will easily be able to fabricate their own penetrating rounds anyway. Perps committing armed robberies are starting to wear body armor to deal with cops and armed homeowners, so I think civilians need as much protection as government.


    To U.S. Senator John Cornyn and my U.S. Senators:

    Whereas: The right to keep-and-bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;” and,
    Whereas: The recently proposed legislation by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) aims to expand government bureaucrats’ ability to strip law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights without trial or due process; and,
    Whereas: Bringing up yet another gun control bill for a vote would only serve to open the door for gun-grabbing lawmakers to take on even more anti-gun proposals.
    Therefore: As a Second Amendment supporter and patriot, I urge you to OPPOSE the “Cornyn Gun Control Act.” Instead of surrendering to Barack Obama’s anti-gun agenda, we should be resisting it by fighting to abolish existing unconstitutional gun controls.

    1. I just signed the petition. F the NRA. I let my membership expire years ago and have no intention on returning. They are no better than the Congress or the Senate. They seem to cave on everything

  250. I think people need to read the bill more closely. All it does is give States incentive to report what is already reported under the law. Furthermore the NRA would not have supported this bill if they did not think it would do little or no harm. Some states like Colorado have already started to improve their mental health system and other states are in the process of doing so as well. As I have stated before while not a perfect system our judicial process works quite well and the pro gun folks have won many battles in the courts to preserve our rights as well as defeating the comprehensive gun control law they attempted to pass a couple of years ago. You know as well as I do that any serious attempt to take our guns will result in a call to arms that they cannot win. The vast majority of the vets, the military and law enforcement will be on our side as well as the 100 million gun owners in this country and the Federal Government in particular will be held accountable. In Conn and NY 85 and 95% of the gun owners refused to register their military style weapons. That should tell you something.

    1. Who is going to be “elected” to determine the extent of mental illness and who is going to be “elected” to determine mental illness? It will be the anti gunners, the tree huggers and the bought and paid for “politicians” who have NO CLUE or doctorates or licenses to make legimate decisions. Besides, once they are elected they will turn on AMERICA.

  251. Not to go into great detail I will say that I do have some mental health issues. However it doesn’t affect me from being a responsible gun owner. The problem is that there are so many different mental disorders that pose no threat. So why should there be an across the board law that potentially will say that anyone who has a mental disorder no matter what that is will automatically be banned from owning a gun. So us responsible gun owners who happen to have some type of mental disorder will lose the second ammendment rights when there are people who pose a bigger threat whom will still be allowed to purchase guns. We are not all criminals so why should we be treated the ones.

  252. The real problem with Mental Health and NICS checks is that there really isn’t any definition of “Mentally Defective” — DoJ is currently trying to include anyone declared unable to manage their own finances under this category. “Mentally Defective” needs to be stricken from the existing law and replaced with a term that specifically encompasses ONLY “a significant threat to self or others” – then WITH THAT DEFINITION IN PLACE – it will be time to strengthen the reporting requirements.

  253. It really is simple in force the laws you already have before making new ones that is common sense. The laws work if enforced just like in Sandy Hook he was able to purchase a gun because the system worked it was his mother’s fault period. She showed him how to use a gun and allowed him access to them knowing her son had mental issues. I believe in putting blame where it belongs not trying to punish the many for the few. The 2nd Amendment clearly says not to be infringed upon so any law made is a constitutional violation. It really is that simple. Maybe some need to go read the Federalist Documents as well as the Bill of Rights and Constitution.









  255. I just received an email tonight from the NRA about this same bill. When you read the NRA spin on why they support it and they leave out all details that Dave Dolbee provided us here, heck any red-blooded American would get behind it. I am seriously considering withdrawal of my support to the NRA and doubling up on my NAGR membership.

    See their spin here…

  256. I firmly disagree in that this bill doesn’t go far enough but it is on the right track, at least in spirit. I affirms that the healthcare system we have today, which was deregulated. The core of the issue isn’t that NICS is broken or lacking in how it works. The healthcare system, even with the ACA in effect, is still a profit based industry that has no desire to treat mental illnesses. Do not force people to purchase healthcare from any company, nor allow companies to steer the ship for their own benefit instead of the benefit of the people receiving care. Instead, healthcare needs to be nationalized and standardized so that every person has access to the right care at any time, and without the stigma of if they can afford treatment or not. Patients should not be stigmatized about their mental health should they need care, and if they do seek help and treatment, they should not be punished for doing the right thing in helping themselves.

  257. It’s not a gun issue, it’s not even a mental health issue. It isn’t much more than a parenting issue. That’s where the fault lies. They allow things to be viewed that shouldn’t be by children. They allow them to reach out into a world that burdens their minds with thoughts and images that they can not possibly or rationally understand. It also doesn’t help that the public schools institutionalize them before they have a chance to even make it to prison. Children do not need facebook friends or reluctant parents, rather they need people who will pull for them, people who care.

  258. Sadly, we can not trust the republicans anymore. They are not any more conservative than a liberal. Only a few real conservatives remain, being Ted Cruz one of them. They gave away gay marriage to the supreme court, overiding the Constitution. They gave away selling baby parts and even trying to cover them at planned parenthood. We need a new conservative party that have its mind on place. A party that is based on common sense, values and personal responsability. All this other cases in this time have been just testing the waters. They have been measuring how they can take away rights and modify the Constitution, and to what point before there is a revolt. And the worst is that they are suceeding . No one is doing nothing , and they keep nipping away a piece at a time. Hitler showed them that by taking all by force at one time you wont suceed. But by taking it in small bits and pieces while you reprogram them everyday with propaganda , you succed. Ordinary people and the sheeple mass gets programmed everyday by their silly tubes , and by big powerful agendas , in which no one really knows what is happening but the one on the top. When you ask any one individual their excuse for so much ignorance and disinformation , and even ignorance of the law they will tell you that they are just “doing their job”.

  259. Just another politician giving a knee jerk reaction. We don’t need anymore legislation or gun control. A person set on mayhem, will do just that regardless of any law. It’s just another way to lose our rights.

    1. As noted above, this is not more regulation — it is a push to get more compliance from the states on the existing laws. There are a large number of states that have not, and do not, provide the required information that they have available to the background check system. This puts some teeth into that requirement by telling the states to either comply or lose some federal funding. In point of fact many of the states not complying are the ones who receive the most federal money. Others have said we don’t need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have and this is a move to do exactly that.
      I’m an NRA member myself and I don’t always agree with them on issues, I do on this one. I own numerous handguns and rifles and have gone through a background check when purchasing each and every one of them. I also have a CCW with an even more thorough background check made to obtain that. I don’t have a problem with background checks and no one really should. My only concern is that the record of the check and the results might not be erased as it is supposed to be.
      I agree with the adage that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. We need to work hard to keep the guns out of the hands of those unwilling to use them responsibly regardless of the reason they might not do so.

  260. Senator Cornyn says he wants to fix the background check system. Fix the system? The system is the problem. Get rid of it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringe means limit or encroach. Anyone who is not threatening, attacking, maiming, or murdering another person is not committing a crime by the simple act of going armed. Repeal all “gun laws.” They are an infringement.

  261. The trouble with any program that limits or prevents gun ownership is that the laws are interpreted differently according to which party owns the white house and the hidden agenda of those in office…the Patriot Act for example permitted LEOs to go “rogue” against the American people…illegal searches and bullying of travelers is an every day thing right here in America… (not to mention the ATF and Nevada ranch owners) for example…we need to set limits that can’t be abused…so the new law can’t be used as a pawn of anti-gunners

  262. Criminals and mentally ill people rarely obtain guns legally so legislation will do little or nothing to curtail their actions…just lead to more restrictions on law abiding citizens. Government needs to stop systematically taking our rights and freedoms from us. The 2nd amendment is clear and precise and needs to be left alone by the elitists in D.C. Full prosecution of criminals and treatment of the mentally ill is the answer.

  263. We have to deal with mental health! We need to ensure that the 2nd amendment is not touched. If your a person with mental health issue that could hurt a person or people with a gun you should have a gun! If your are me tall healthy that you can have a gun. Who is to declare who is healthy and who is not. If you have multiply arrests and a violent, that may mean that your not healthy. If you have to take drugs to keep you from being violent, you may not be healthy. I know, opinions are like asxxxoles and everyone everyone has one. But we as American and mental health professions included need to figure to to stop the crazies( just a term) from getting guns. Our exsisting laws I thought were to do that already. Can we first maybe try to enforce the laws we have. Gov. Needs to making rules as they go. Congress needs to get together and make things happen. I’ll stop there. Thx.

  264. My copy of the constitution is incomplete. the para in the 2d ammendment that makes exceptions to “the people” whose RTKBA is completely missing. Someone please link me to a correct copy of the document so I can get rid of the copy I have.

    Oh, you are talking about “common sense” and reasonable exceptions? Why are mentally challenged and felons who complete their jail time targeted for “common sense” and “reasonable” restrictions? Are we not just saying there should be 2A restrictions, but only those we like?

  265. Wouldn’t that be congress creating legislation directed at a good majority of those in congress? Their actions over the last 30-40 years lead us to believe that few of them are mentally stable. The citizens of this great country need fewer restrictions on them, not more. This looks a lot more like campaign/election year flim-flam than sensible legislation.

  266. I stopped reading after they said, reward states for reporting info. Problem with that is mental health falls under hipaa laws. With the hipaa law mental records are private and can’t be disclosed without the patients permission. Unless they change hipaa laws there can never be mental health records included into a background check like nics

  267. How many liberal progressive health care workers would relish the chance to take away our second amendment rights . Florida has had to take steps to control out of control Doctor who has stated that he wants to take away all the firearms. Nope we don’the need anymore overreach by politicans or physicans.

  268. Don’t believe it. While mentally ill people shouldn’t have a gun, no law will stop someone from getting one if they want one bad enough. Just because they are ‘ill’ doesn’t mean they are stupid. Gun free zones are the ultimate problem. Even ‘ill’ people know better than to try to shoot up a place where they know there will be others armed and ready to defend themselves and their families. That’s why you don’t hear about the James Holmes and Adam Lanza’s of the world walking in and shooting up a police station…hmmm…too many guns around. A law that restricts the rights of the People only serves to empower the criminals who ALWAYS ignore those laws themselves.

  269. Mental health, innocent until proven guilty. Exactly how would this be decided? There is a existing process to determine legally mental health. Requiring states to provide ayes/ no answer and using such as a criteria for approving the purchase of a weapon is reasonable. Legislation beyond this is not necessary.

  270. To give an inch invites those in government to take a foot. Remember the income tax was to be temporary. Many toll roads were supposed to be limited to paying off the bonds. The definitions were changed not to protect the innocent but to the advantage those writing future laws. Push for mental health but don’t tie it to gun control giving the anti-gun people a inroad.

  271. On the surface the idea of preventing a mentally ill person from obtaining a weapon sounds noble. That concept has merit. My first question is what level of “mental illness” will they use as the benchmark. Does a person have to be obviously defective? It is estimated that one out of every 10 Americans use a prescription antidepressant. Would this qualify? Now the Hippa laws ( patient confidentially) have to be compromised to of all people the Federal Government. All in all we live in a society that has a heavy gun culture. The occasional episode that all of us gun owners hate to hear may be a price we have to pay for keeping our Second Amendment Rights. I do not trust our government do do the right thing.

  272. In Florida, the state can take away your driver’s license if someone anonymously reports that you are a danger to other drivers. You have to prove that you are physically and mentally competent to get your license back, and you cannot face or confront your accuser, much less even know who he is. There is no check against someone using this “law” to maliciously harm a neighbor over nothing more than bearing a grudge.
    It will be interesting to see if there are provisions in this law that would allow any liberal on the street to report you as mentally deficient because you are a tea party conservative… they think we all are anyway!

  273. these kind of laws will not stop some nut case from getting a gun if he has planned to shoot a bunch of people I say leave things as they are we all know we cant trust congress and we certainly cant trust a gun control Democrat !!!!! the Redrat Airborne !!!!

  274. I agree mentally ill people should not have guns , but this might be a foot in the door for our goverment to classify all ex millatary mentally unstable because of combat! Or any one of us because of the slightest circumstances. This is just another ploy from the Obama adminstrations radical view of anti gun laws. Remember this the first thing communist dictators do to take the guns away from the people so they cant defend themselves when lead to excution,

    1. That is 100% spot on. For instance you are in heavy vehicle traffic and some other driver cuts you off since they are on their cell phone not paying attention so you blow your horn to warn them as they are moving into you and there is a collision. You pull over to exchange insurance and drivers license information, at the inattentive driver blames you for the fender bender..and before you know it you’ve raised your voice as a Cop pulls up he see’s you… all of a sudden you are the one who is out of control, and deemed a risk to society, and must give up your firearms, and have psychiatric treatment,,, thereby prohibiting future firearm ownership.

  275. This bill first surfaced a year or two ago. When read in it’s full form, it prohibited any person treated for PTSD disorder without any hearing before a judge. The background check just eliminated them. Murder is not a common act for a PTSD victim, anymore than the general population. Many people not serving in combat suffer from PTSD. many are women who were assaulted or abused .
    The problem with gun control laws is they always have unnecessary backroom additions to appease the liberals. We cant trust the Republicans to stand up to the Democrats in any negotiation. The Cowards always cave and then say” It’s the best we could hope for.”

  276. NO WAY! Who decides the mental health of another? Who knows and how are these individuals qualified? Since I have experience in this area for a few years I have found a vast incompetence in the field of Mental Health Doctors! Misdiagnosis is common because they do not comprehend or been taught to look at one key area. More of the older and experienced ones know. The younger ones have less experience than the patient himself. I would rather have a patient diagnosis me than the government. This is really scary. Less government control people!

  277. The Democrats in Congress will not vote in favor of this bill, most Republicans will. In 2013 the GOP offered an amendment for the Senates anti-gun bill that would focus on funding and keeping guns from the mentaly ill and for stronger prosecution of violent gun criminals and more funding provisions aimed at school gun safety instead of the Democrats gun bill that could not pass and was mainly aimed against law abiding citizens. The Democrats declined and voted the amendment down. The Democrats could have gotten something pertaining to guns into law that had some teeth and help for the mentally ill but instead Sen. Harry Reid got the amendment killed and so the people got nothing.

  278. The 2nd amendment is perfect, there is no need for any changes. Remember the old saying, if you give up your guns to make plows you will work for the ones that own the plows.

  279. 2 yrs ago I had an operation at my local hospital. Afterwards, when reviewing a copy of my records, there were “patient notes”. Among these notes, they said I was unstable on my feet [ Lie #1], I was prone to falling [Lie #2], and I suffered from severe depression [Really big lie # 3].
    I’m physically fit, work as an engineer everyday for the past 30 yrs, with a full family and social life, yet this is on my hospital record, and they refuse to remove it. I’m still fighting this. Do you still want to know what I think of this law!

  280. If the NRA backs this effort by Cornyn, my poor senator, I will discontinue my membership in NRA. I have become more skeptical of the NRA in the past few years and if they support this so called “common sense” effort, they have my last dime.

  281. As a,physician, I have to say no. The area regarding mental health diagnosis is vague and not reliable. The why of a certain behavior is not taken into consideration. Should the man who was temporarily depressed even to the point of suicide because his wife or child died, be forever unable to purchase a firearm? How about the person,unwillingly forced to accept a psych diagnosis to avoid a wrongful criminal conviction? Way to many very grey areas. Who is to decide in those grey areas? A liberal politician against gun ownership? A county clerk with an 8th grade education? A psychiatrist on the state payroll (liberal politician in all but name?)
    Simple answer, no.

  282. This is a health issue and should be addressed by health officials. NRA, do not compromise our rights. False testimony of good people could be a double edged sword. No Bill. Get the health issues corrected, like helping those who need help.

  283. My understanding of this law is that the Feds are requesting/requiring the mental health records of everyone in every State, so as to keep firearms from the hands of the mentally impaired.
    IF this must be done , it should ONLY involve those persons who have been legally adjudicated mentally unstable – and ONLY when that person attempts to purchase a firearm. NO other (blanket) records should be given to the Federal Authorities.
    THAT would be a further infringement of our Rights.
    No one has proposed (under this law) restoring the Constitutional Rights of the individual(s) involved, upon being ‘cured’ of the nental illness they have suffered.
    Troops returning from service abroad, who suffer from PTSD may have their 2nd Amendment Rights taken from them, yet there isn’t any provision to return those Rights when they ‘get better’
    Any law that infringes on our Rights MUST HAVE a means of restoring those Rights to the individual(s)
    Being ill doesn’t mean we no longer have the Rights shared by other Americans.
    They may be ‘postponed’ but they must NEVER be taken – permanently.
    God Bless America

  284. This sounds good and all. But seriously though, more control and regulations is not the way to go. We need to make a stand on all of this. How about we just treat the mentally ill. And not add to background checks. His bill is good up until the point where it adds to backgrpund checks.

    Look we cannot determine whether someone is planning a hanous crime or act based on purchasing a firearm. We are innocent until proven guilty. Treat the ill and we would not have this issue.

  285. No. No. No. Once the bill is introduced, it is open for all kinds of amendments and additions, subject to back room deals. Do not give one inch to gun control. I fear just a crumb will start a feeding frenzy the liberal gun haters. NOPE, NOT ONE INCH!

  286. As a practical matter, doesn’t this law directly contradict the recent HIPPA legislation? Mental health records are, after all, HEALTH records. There’s the problem, too, of whether or not the diagnosis was correct. Doctors as a whole, let alone psychiatrists and psychologists, don’t have a very good track record on that. This is another “sounds good; sounds logical” proposal that doesn’t hold up well to close scrutiny.

  287. Since most of the mass shootings are committed by people with serious mental issues, this is where the problem lies, so we need to face it. Any such determination of “irresponsibility” needs to be refutable in court, possibly with some sort of public help for costs.

    I like the idea of getting something in return. How about reciprocal carry licenses, or background checks good for a period of time for future purchases?

  288. The devil is in the details. I am a 72 year old vet that has been on anti depressant medication for probably over 20 years. Raised a family, held a job, and served on local school board. I own multiple guns, but have never had any arrests, or dust ups with police. Will I still be given an extra look because I take anti depressants?
    I also like good bourbon!

  289. How long before a citizen is deemed mentally ill due to opposition to gun control or ownership of a firearm? Who will make the determination? As the frog in the pot of water, one more degree of temperature at a time, one more degree of control at a time until we’re all are in very hot water. This is just one more step in the process of stripping us of every constitutional right we ever had.

  290. A couple of my main concerns with this proposed legislation is who determines the definition of so-called mental illness and how that definition will undoubtedly morph farther down the trail to include anyone that expresses any kind of opposition however mild to any government policies. The current treatment (or lack of it) of our returning Veterans by the VA and some other agencies is despicable. PTSD is very real however that doesn’t mean everyone that requests help is about to go off the deep end and start shooting but that is the way they are often treated if they dare to ask for help. The other thing that jumps out at me is the federal government trying to gather even more information on law abiding citizens than it already has and abuses. I say this would mainly affect law abiding citizens because criminals only rarely try to go through “legal” channels to obtain the firearms they use so I can’t see this legislation having much if any affect on that category of violators. The federal government has a track record of continually passing more laws that are presented as being for the public safety while at the same time doing an abysmal job of enforcing the myriad of laws already on the books. Our Second Amendment right is already being suppressed by over twenty thousand laws ( all levels of government) but criminals by definition do not obey the law so what makes anyone believe they will suddenly pop up and cheerfully report themselves to the bureaucrats that are supposed to determine who is mentally ill? I don’t think so. One last point for now is with every dollar the feds “give” to the states to entice them to comply comes more federal control over state policies under the threat of not getting federal funding for this or that.
    I am an NRA member but do not support their backing of this feel good, sounds nice on the surface, type of legislation that will only result in more infringement of our basic right that was not supposed to be infringed in the first place.. I don’t believe in passing more laws that can potentially be used to strip even more people of the right to keep and bear arms even though they have committed no crime.

  291. First off, I’m a 2nd amendment person to the core. Here’s the thing though, I don’t want a wacko purchasing a gun at my local gun store, using it to let loose on my neighbors and the other wacko political anti-constitutional idiots using it to restrict your rights or mine. In other words, as long as this ONLY passes information on the NICS system on people who NEED to be restricted, I’m good with that. That’s what the background checks are supposed to do. And yes, I’d prefer nobody know what I have in my possession, but it is what it is. Would you rather head it off at the pass with something that truly makes sense or let Senator Scheemer and his actress puppet determine the outcome

  292. As was stated by a previous commentor, anyone who wants a weapon, criminal, mentally ill will go to what ever means necessary to obtain one.

    The NRA seems to be trying to apease the gun control advocates by supporting this legislation. The problem would be all the riders or attachments added that would change the meaning.

    Finally, the 2nd Amendnent is perfect as written.


  294. I commend the senator for the gallant effort,but in order for it to work all these programs need to work together. I don’t see it happening, our local police are under funded and over worked. In small towns like mine the only way to buy a gun is from a dealer.He knows just about everyone and uses good judgment on any sales. But bigger cities you will not have that everywhere.
    Inforce the laws we have. Provide free mental health services, because anyone who needs it,probably can’t afford it, don’t let the Media sensationalize shootings so others won’t try it, maybe in despite cry for help or a way to commit suicide. So No I do not support it at this time.

    1. the problem is not “mental illness,” it is the prescribed drugs by psychiatry that is causing the problem. I’ve done my research. In nearly every case of mass murder or suicide you will find these psych. meds involved and usually it occurs “after” a person “stops” taking the drugs that is when the tragedy happens. These are dopamine drugs that leave the person in a deep state of psychosis and depression when they stop taking them. We need to eradicate psychiatry(aka .”the industry of death”) Then and only then will our society become sane again and in many other ways as well………..

    2. I see it as a camels nose under the tent issue. This won’t do anything to appease the gun control factions. How the mental issue is defined can change overnight.

  295. “While Cornyn’s bill would not change the law or force state’s to comply, it purportedly would (these details are unconfirmed at this time) increase grants under the government’s main law enforcement program by up to 5 percent for states that send the federal system at least 90 percent of their records on people with serious mental problems. States providing less data could see grants from a broad range of justice programs penalized by the same amounts at the attorneys’ general’s discretion.”

    This is a problem for me. First of all it is a violation of the HIPPA regulations in my opinion and secondly it is both blackmailing states to provide those records, rewarding those who do and penalizing the ones who don’t. Doctors now days are already gouging insurance companies for money every time they see someone, just think what they will be like when they see a potential bounty on each patients head! Insurance companies will soon figure out a way to get their two cents worth and also apply pressure to reveal the names of anyone whom they deem unfit. I have always thought the people who preach there will be door to door confiscation of guns to be a little paranoid, but this is a strong first step in that direction. If the NRA continues to support this type of legislature, I will revoke my Patron membership and stop giving them money.

  296. 1963 Communist Goals read into the Congressional Register Jan 10 1963
    38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

    39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

  297. This is a BAD Idea – A Sell Out.. I will drop my NRA membership again, as in when the NRA supported Harry Reid, if they support this attack on our Constitution. I came back when they back off on their Reid support, but I will cut my NRA card up this time for good.
    There is no protection built in to this law to prevent it from becoming a ‘Cancer’ to all Americans. It is a law ‘approving’ more restrictions to our 2nd Amendment. Sen. Cornyn has proven many times he can not be trusted to protect our Constitution. He only has an A+ rating with the NRA, because he panders to them and the NRA takes NO other stances of politicians in mind except their support of the NRA. Cornyn needs to be run out of Washington and moved to California as for as this Native Texan is concerned.

  298. I have a problem with, yet another, gun control bill when we’ve learned that there have been failures at all levels of the current screening system. Let’s support enforcing the laws we currently have without adding more “Kooks to the kitchen”, so to speak. Spend money or start holding agencies accountable for their failures. Follow-through with threats of firings or sanctions against the bureaucrats who are dropping the ball. If we clean up the systems we have, far fewer individuals will fall through the cracks and end up hurting masses of people.

  299. RE: Bill: I am forced to agree with Bill, as I’m not convinced that our government is able to discern the sane from the insane. Look at those who are supposedly representing us in D.C, and I rest my case.

  300. I fear that a bill to prevent a few more mentally ill people from obtaining firearms could be misused against those who are not mentally ill. And like those in the criminal element, those with mental illness will find way to obtain firearms if they really want them. The second amendment is already written. We need to stop trying to alter it’s meaning.

  301. The First order of business is to have THOSE IN GOVERNMENT WHO
    aspect of the “Mental Health Standards” the government Proposes…..

    CLEANSED OF THE MENTALLY “DEFECTIVE”, we can then focus on
    the metal health for those with access to “small – arms”. EG: citizens.!

  302. We all need to be very skeptical about any kind of gun control proposed by congress. The Democrats no longer respect the Constitution. They want to do away wirh the 2nd amendment litle by little. They will not be happy until all Americans are unarmed. Unarmed Americans are more easily controlled. The political class wants to protect Their own hides while They push Their Socialist agenda down Our throats. We are one election away from losing Our right to bear arms. Remember this when You vote in 2016.

  303. Here’s my proposal: Repeal the NFA weapons act and I’ll go along with it.

    DO NOT GIVE SOMETHING UP, WITHOUT GETTING SOMETHING IN RETURN!!!!! [and it must be written into the bill, not a sideline empty promise…]

    1. Everyone needs to look at the big pic. Who is going to equivalent who has the right to have a fire arm. A tree huger with a PhD? Ok yes some people don’t need to have a gun. But what if they say you can’t have one because your wife or kid is taking a pill that is classified with a mental illness. Like Ritalin or xanax

  304. In some respects as far as liberties we already have a tyrannical government so I am not really for the government deciding who and who is not crazy.

  305. No way!! They will twist and turn this into something else! You cannot trust Washington ! Already they want to take guns from people on disability who have someone do their checkbook! No trust

  306. Mental health a serious problem when it comes to guns. Seems like every one of these mass shootings in the media in recent years is perpetrated by a nut case, and not by your typical gun owner.

    I think it makes sense to try and make the existing background check system actually do its job of weeding out those with valid criminal or mental health issues. Not everyone is stable enough, or responsible enough, to own a gun. Most people, yes. But not everyone.

    My concern is that the system could be abused or overreaching. Due process is important. After all, gun ownership is a Constitutional right, so restricting it is a very serious matter.

    And there is also the issue that guns can be acquired via other channels, like theft or purchasing on the black market, so even a “perfect” background check system may reduce – but won’t fully stop – guns from getting into the hands of deranged killers.

  307. Once again, we’ve been lied to by our Republican representatives. We don’t need more gun control, since there are already laws preventing the mentally ill from making a firearms purchase.

  308. Unbelievable!

    No pro-gun Senator should be proposing a “Gun Control” bill of ANY Kind!

    Once you get in the system with mental conditions, your done! There is no checks before an entry is made that is good enough!

    Fund mental health care, fund the homeless, but NO MORE Gun Control of ANY Kind!

  309. Why is it a surprise that a Republican would support gun control? There have been plenty of examples of that, including the previous GOP presidential candidate (Romney supported an assault weapons ban as governor of Massachusetts).

    Sure, Democrats are generally worse on guns, but that doesn’t make the Republicans pro-Second Amendment. How many Republican politicians publicly support the reversal of gun laws that are already on the books? No one who believes, e.g., that citizens shouldn’t be allowed to purchase armor-piercing ammo or newly manufactured machine guns can claim to support the Second Amendment. That amendment is nothing other than the expression of the right of a people to overthrow a government that turns tyrannical.

    Republicans are also arguably more aggressive than Democrats in pushing for strengthening the military-industrial complex and the domestic police state (though both establishment parties are guilty of this). There’s a very simple equation at work here: the stronger the government’s standing army, the less effective our firearms become as a bulwark against tyranny. I am not arguing against maintaining a nuclear deterrent, a good naval fleet, or other true means of national defense. But groups like the Taliban and ISIS pose less threat to people on US soil than lightning strikes. And the more effective the US military becomes at fighting those guerrillas on their land, the more effective the US military will be at fighting Americans who refuse to turn in their guns and bow to tyranny. Don’t think “our” troops will follow orders? The Bonus Marchers, the Kent State protesters, those who saw gun confiscation after Hurricane Katrina, and many others might disagree with you.

  310. Sen. Chuck Schumer is also behind this Bill. Right after the theater shooting in Lousiana, he and his second cousin Amy Schumer held a press conference here in New York to support more Federal Funds to States that report 100% and denying funds to those that don’t. Until this shooting, where Amy Schumer’s movie was playing, she had not said a thing about gun control or any other shootings. Now suddenly she is “upset” about it. All this Bill does is create a “pay for play” scenerio with the States, baiting them with Federal money that they should be receiving regardless. We all know that the gun control crowd works in baby steps. They take an inch here, an inch there and soon they’ve completed the mile. Here in New York, the SAFE act addressed mental illness and the result was that any Veteran diagnosed with PTSD was put on the mental illness list. We all know that any military personell who have served in a combat area suffer from some degree of PTSD. They are fighting for the Freedoms of the United States, only to have those Freedoms denied them when they return home. Accepting any measure of gun control what-so-ever is just one more step in the direction of a complete disarming of American Citizens. We don’t need Politicians in Washingtion that comprimise for the sake of Political Correctness. We need Fighters that will stand their ground and support the Constitution. You don’t see any Politicians on the Left comprimising, they have all dug in their heals with such nonsence as “being on the right side of History”. That side is destroying Liberty.

  311. IF the Government DIDN’T have an agenda to disarm America,as per the UN’s desires,it might be possible to find some common ground on this issue,but we KNOW that,at the root,anything the Government does regarding the Second Amendment’s “correcting”,”improving”,”clarifying” or “reinterpreting” is only to enable the Government to take America’s LAST refuge of freedom-our GUNS. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny of government.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    Look at the things our Government has done to its OWN Citizens so far-How many of the Rights referred to in our Bill of Rights can you find that OUR Government HASN’T attempted to “correct”,”improve”,”clarify”(while changing the meaning) or “reinterpret”? Until we have a Government we can TRUST,we must take the God given,Constitutionally protected RIGHTS in that Bill of Rights at FACE VALUE. They’re perfectly explicit in their meaning-NO changes are needed,and they’re as relevant NOW as they were when they were authored. What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” don’t they understand?

    1. What part about the privacy of ones medical records condition that is
      being missed, you have to sign a release for someone to get your records.
      or is that just a fable ? But all in all no one has any rights when it comes to the government of the people by the people. It seems that as soon as
      one gets elected by the people, they forget the people and join the good ole boys crowd. Gun rights is in an evaporation stage, and getting worse.

    2. Why dont people like this guy and ALL POLITICIANs address the overwhelming Gun Crime and Gun violence in the Black communities across America ? They are Spinelees and Scared to speak the truth. They could also Demand FBI statistics & Police of Racial makeup of these criminals and offenders. When it comes to Blacks these gutless politicians are like the 3 Monkeys, tired of their BS.

  312. More crisis training/drills are the exact vehicles law enforcement and the government want to stage events that then “go live”. Vote against this bill.

  313. one of the problems I see with this is it will enable anti-gun politicians to add amendments to it in the future. most of the mass killing shooters got their guns from other family members, they did not have to buy them. once you open the door a crack, it will them be wide open to those who hate guns. the ones that should no be allowed to have any kind of firearms is all the militaries of the world. thus ending all wars. then you can take all the knives and swords away next, etc., etc. if you think politicians will not attempt to change this legislation later, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can let you buy very cheaply.

  314. I’d want to hear what Congressman Tim Murphy thinks of the bill. Rep. Murphy is a trained Psychologist, unlike Sen. Cornyn. The danger from any bill of this nature, is that future changes can change a well intentioned law into an oppressive restriction.

  315. A couple of issues here. As a clinical psychologist, do we disregard the enforcement of HIPAA. As a combat veteran I also worry about our returning veterans with PTSD. For some, going to the range it is therapy. For others who want to further the dismantling of the 2nd amendment they have an opportunity to perform a blanket expansion. Example, POTUS wants to keep weapons from all people that are disabled on Social Security. That would leave our military Paralympic competitors without a place to compete or the ability to have a firearm.

    I see this as just another wedge to use in diminishing the 2nd amendment and placing information into the hands of who knows who that must be left between Doctor and patient.

    My short answer is absolutely no!

    If we are really concerned about death then perhaps we need to look at car and school buses that exponentially have more tragic deaths than the firearm and while the auto deaths are increasing the firearm deaths have decreased. Source: Federal Statistics

  316. While well intentioned, this legislation is woefully misguided and incompatible with a free and open society.

    The misplaced focus here–as is always the case with progressive ideas masquerading as “common sense”–is on preventing an individual’s abuse of their freedom by pre-emptively depriving them of it. A free society does not do this. A free society accepts the risks of freedom and only deprives an individual of it AFTER they have acted in a way that demonstrates they can no longer be trusted with that freedom. This is why the whole notion of gun control—in particular, the Background Check—is so dangerous. It promotes the idea that dangerous individuals can be prevented from hurting others while remaining free. This is not possible.

    The fact is that if someone is too dangerous to own a gun then they are too dangerous to be roaming free in our society–period.

    As such, there is only one response to this issue that will make our society meaningfully safer while preserving liberty for all. The response in both cases is to permanently remove the dangerous individual from society through due process. This means that violent criminals need to receive life sentences without parole. And people who are violently ill mentally need to be institutionalized. With the latter, this should not apply to all individuals with mental illness but only those who have demonstrated through their actions that their illness is too severe to allow them to remain free.

  317. Text of the 2nd 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. End of Discussion

  318. As other have stated, the definition of mentally ill will change. If you have been adjudicated into a mental institution, then fine.

    My concern is that this will morph into the idea that people who are seeking help for a troubling time in their lives but are not chronically mentally ill, will have their firearms rights removed permanently. Just as what happened with misdemeanor domestic violence.
    Sen. Schemer had legislation that would remove firearm rights for veterans who were seeking help for PTSD. That’s not right.

    1. Mr Parker-you’ve hit the nail on the head. We know,from years of experience,the Government won’t leave ANYTHING “as written”;they consider it normal to add to,change the parameters of,modify the meanings of or completely re-write everything introduced to Congress for consideration,and ALWAYS to give THEM more power,more control,more,more,more…..

    2. Great call Mr. P! Why is the mental health issue ONLY tied to acquisition of firearms? To be fair, why not tie it to obtaining drivers licenses (vehicles kill too)? I mean if they are really serious about the MH issues! There are a plethora of things MH issues effect within the context of keeping the public safe! Why isolate firearms and the 2nd Amendment? Because this is the niche in the armor… politicians need the “see, I can reach across the aisle” for their campaign reelection.
      This WILL morph! This may also keep some people and especially Veterans from self reporting, because of the “I will lose my 2nd Amendment rights!” This is not a good policy, PERIOD! Does anyone remember the McCarty ism period in our history? Lots of “reporting” on others… Now take my firearms if I’m depressesd? What will I have to do to get them back? Ya Right!

  319. He sold out Ted Cruz , now he’s selling the rest of us out, gun owners beware. A Texan , gun owner and Life member of the NRA. OOW

  320. All I foresee happening is a 1000% increase of people being put into mental institutions. It’s just another method to marginalize and control those who believe in absolute freedom.

  321. Nice to meet you folks. I’m new to this type of communication so, please pardon my blunders. I’m an old f**t, an blunders do happen. The problem with virtually all gun control legislation, since at east 1968, is the audience it is aimed at as well as the reason we are targeted to begin with! I have never witnessed placing great discretion in the hands a bureaucracy is ever a good idea especially when the underlying bureaucracy is lead by a hostile philosophy. The main problem, as my old eyes see it, is the inability of some social and legislative segments, to confront, for whatever reason, their privileged special interests. Witness the happenings on the west coast recently, or in Feguson. Gun Control, in my humble opinion, is merely a distraction. To the current point of mental issues legislation, I can’t imagine the horror of the perverbial midnight knock on the door, behind which stands a social worker with a policeman in hand, to force upon a fellow American, a bureaucratic interpretation of mental health, that will cost the victim thousands to fix. Thanks folks, appreciate the feedback.

  322. I am going to go on record as being against this bill by
    Senator Cornyn. I think he is really not with the 2nd Amendment at all and off base on all counts. If there is any doubt go against . And I have doubts and am against this bill. Senator Cornyn has consistantly gone against the conservative base of our party and I don’t trust him with this at all…

    1. I would have to reserve my opinion until more of the, “innards” are revealed. Cornyn has been a RINO ever since he’s been in office, and has done every thing in his power to screw the American people and his own party. Without knowing any more, just off the top of my head, I would say (Hell no!) No matter what rating he’s given by the NRA, doesn’t mean a thing, the NRA has gone against the wishes of the people and their members before!

    2. This is true about the NRA going against the wishes of its members.
      I had renewed my membership to the NRA for 5 years and they signed me up for some credit watching site that was billing me $129.00 mo. When I found out about this my membership ended. I asked why they would do that and they replied with its a good deal to do this. Without my permission, I should have sued them.

  323. This is not a good thing. The only thing this will do is ENCOURAGE the Federal Government to take guns away from ANYONE WHO EVER WENT TO A PSYCHIATRIST FOR ANY REASON. In addition, every one knows CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY LAWS AND THEY GET THEIR GUNS BY ANY MEANS THEN CAN. So what does that change – not a damn thing!!! NO MORE RESTRICTIONS are needed!! What is needed is MONITORING OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT – CAUSE THAT’S WHERE THE BIGGEST “DISEASE” IS!!!!!!!!!

  324. What would be the DSM (diagnostic manual used in psychiatry) criteria for determining incapacitation to use a firearm? Who would make that decision? I agree with the writer above that medical information is protected by HIPPA provisions. I do not believe the process will lead to the expected outcome of reduced deaths by Firearms. Also, one must consider other venues for attack as well (knives, hatchets, bombs,cars,etc). All of these are accessible without a mental health background check. Mental health and violent deaths by all means are not cause and effect; I would suggest a mild statistical correlation. I depart from supporting this potential bill and encourage NRA to reconsider.

  325. I am not in favor of more restrictions that can be manipulated for other reasons. A doctor determines your mental capacity. Look how this is abused and misused in the Judicial System. The same abuse could and would be used to continue to dis arm law abiding citizens. More laws are not needed, enforcement of the ones already there is a better solution. Hold people accountable for their actions. Case in point is John Holmes!

  326. We ALL would love to feel safer knowing this “law” would do something to protect us from the mentally unstable. Unfortunately, as Mr. Gillham has pointed out, we have already allowed our flawed government far too much intrusion into our individual lives. MY senator, Mr. Cornyn, has unfortunately succumbed to the notion that his bill would NEVER be utilized to take guns away from the very people he has sworn to protect – the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN; he should know BETTER than to think that liberalized legal think tanks and anti-gun wingnuts in this country would NOT bastardize his law into something he never imagined! To add just another avenue that (undoubtedly!!) could allow ANYONE to usurp our Constitutional Rights is not palatable!! Unless Senator Cornyn and his proponents can absolutely GUARANTEE that his law would never be used for such backdoor attempts to – in ANY way – curtail the rights of the law abiding, mentally STABLE citizen, then I submit that the bill is just so much bovine fertilizer!! Sadly, Mr. Cornyn could NEVER make that guarantee!! Therefore, even though I am an avid hunter and Life Member of the NRA, I would wholeheartedly have to vote a big ‘NO’ to this proposed bill….. The better solution would be to pass a law that ALL gun free zones be abolished, and that we be allowed to defend ourselves any time, any place…. the ability to stop a would be, mentally ill criminal from killing or injuring a multitude of other people is to stop him BEFORE he has opportunity to unload his magazine and/or reload!! Whether or not the “mentally unstable” shooter would take pause if he was aware that others among his potential “victim list” were armed, at least it would give other innocents a fighting chance to remain alive if SOMEONE was at least shooting back!!

  327. Addressing serious mental conditions should be a priority. Determining which ones are life threatening to self or others is a difficult task at best and should be left to the professional in that field. The question remains where will the line be drawn and who will “draw” it. We are all in agreement that the issue should be addressed but not allowed to ab-used by Bloolbergers to include every petty excuse that can be attributed to a mental condition.

  328. Wrong , wrong and wrong. There is already in the law a provision for the mentally ill. There should be nothing more added. Sending more information to the federal government would be just a way to lose more rights. The thing is that under the leftards and Obama , their definitions of who is mentally ill, using the atheist and satanic APA, could include Christians and people that just dont support the current agenda. If your kid thinks he is a dog or a pig, you get medical help for them, but if they think they are the opposite sex, then if you try to get help you are a bigot and all the rest of insults the leftard media wants to put on you for just defending your right to be normal. While we have the leftard propaganda and agenda running in this country, and the traitors from the republicans that are selling out their conciences for money, we can not allow a single more invasion of our privacy or give the federal government more tools to rape and abuse us like they have been doing. Many republicans are selling out. We need real conservatives. The Constitution right is very clear. Why they dont start targeting the real root of the problem in depression , which is the murder/ suicide pills? Big pharma is controlling this country with their money while they invent every day new “illness “to treat with their murder pills. Look for info on the Neurontin trials and the like. All these anti depression pills have shown to induce murdering and suicidal tendencies in people who never even though about suicide or murder. There are a lot of other ways to treat depression and it dont have to be with something that makes you worst. Cut Big Pharma funding and lies and investigate all the suicides and murders under the influence of this pills, and then we could talk about more stupid do nothing laws.

    1. Joe, you are so right! I have been investigating this for nearly 20 years, and you are so correct. I hope others will read and understand what you’ve stated.

    2. I dont have to chill out. Im ok. This is happening so you need to get informed. This is happening even inside our military. They have many groups already targeted. All the massacres in the last 30 years have been done under the effects of psychotropic drugs. The federal government have already targeted many Christian groups as hate groups. You really need to get your head out of your TV and whatever CNN and CBS feed you and start looking around and see what is happening. Psychotropics drugs and Big Pharma are a mutil BILLION dollars a year business. You can go back , take whatever pills you take to chill out and continue to be a good sheep. I am giving my opinion based on facts and the way this country is going. You can give your opinion too, but you have no right to try to silence another person voice.

    3. There problem with him taking the “chill” pills, is that under legislation like this he could be seen as mentally unstable, and thereby lose his right to keep and bear arms.

    4. All gun control advocates believe that gun owners are crazy. This should not see the light of day.

    5. Just for the record, Joe, I am an atheist liberal—who owns guns and supports the 2A. I realize it is difficult to wrap your mind around that, but there are more of us than you think. A lot more. Think it over.

      In my informed opinion, anyone who adheres to a dogma based on a haploid zombie, written over a period of a thousand years by Iron Age misogynist goat herders who believed the Earth is flat and whose sincerely held religious beliefs include owning property consisting of women and human slaves is the very definition of insanity. And yet, here we are debating that definition in an echo chamber of conspiracy theorists who still have their guns and ammo despite decades and decades and decades of garment-rending and teeth-gnashing.

      Thus, the “chill pill” prescription.

  329. The only problem I see with this is the fact that they use this as an excuse to disarm a person.
    What they do when they find out that a person owns any weapons is to target them for mental health issues. Then you are in the hands of their coconspirators and it’s left up to them to decide. Knowing that psychology schools were the first to be undermined by the Soviets in their plan to undermine America as per Nikita told Nixon while slamming his shoe this bill will not work until that mess is cleaned up.

  330. A totally useless piece of legislation. The shooter in Connecticut stole his weapon/s from his mother. Black Market weapons are everywhere, and ATF helped to added to that inventory. The nut on the street, and the gang bangers can and will get weapons without background checks. Government cannot control this problem. Community and family are the only viable solution, and even local effort will not be fool proof. When big government is involved in determining who is sane, and who is insane, we could all be ultimately disqualified from exercising our Second Amendment rights. Just what the left wants. No thanks!

  331. This sort of control needs to be in the hands of the people not the Federal Government. I’ve seen to many laws twisted and people abused. As it is we have more Government than we can afford now. I hope the next President knows how to defund or hand out pink slips.

  332. This could well be a bit of a slippery slope toward more draconian gun control measures. My experience with liberals of all kinds is that if you give them anything, then their response is always: “Thank you very much, here’s what I want next.” Senator Cornyn’s attempt to remove guns from the mentally ill will no doubt only be seen as a good “first step.” More measures will be coming. Best not to start down that road.

  333. Senator Cornyn is on the right track. Those of us who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should do every reasonable thing we can to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Gun laws should only be written by those in the gun culture, but we’re overdue for coming up with reasonable ways to keep guns from criminals and crazies.

  334. I believe that Melvin is mostly right the issue is the illegal channels not the legal ones. I most every one of the recent mass shootings the gun was illegally acquired. The only exception is when the system did not work (imagine that, a government system that does not work). I believe that it is impossible to stop the illegal channels. Anyone who has looked closely at a Sten gun knows that most anyone with a little mechanical acumen and a little time could make one. Keep in mind that the Sten was a 9mm submachine gun. Between digital printers and small inexpensive CNC mills it is easy to make functioning firearms completely off the radar. Compare the state of machining technology today to when Browning invented the BAR. In a free society it is virtually impossible to prevent someone from making (let alone buying) a gun if they are willing to do it illegally.

  335. And I quote, “, there has been a strong link in each case to mental health that is for the most part, if not completely, ignored. This fact has not evaded the radar screens of gun owners, politicians or the media. The difference has been that the mainstream media and many politicians pushing gun control have chosen to ignore it.”
    The connection is psychotropics. Limit, ban, make illegal the prescription of “mood enhancers”, elevators, anti-depressants without the one-on-one supervision their prescribing requires and guess what? Problem Solved.
    “Health Care” in the U.S.A. has turned us into a chemical nation. Every one of these “shooter senarios” has been attached to prescription drugs, except of course the ones they won’t release the information on.
    NO ONE, not Cornyn, Obama, Murthy, Boenher, Porter; NOBODY is addressing this root of the issue. Until they do, when they take away our guns, they will have to start on the kitchen knives.

  336. If the bill would not add new categories to the prohibited list, but merely augment information available (to whom?) across state lines about people already prohibited from possessing firearms because of legally adjudicated mental health issues, then why does it especially have to be tied to gun purchase screening? Wouldn’t it be a HIPPA issue?

    The obvious risk here is that antis will find more and more criteria denoting “mental illness” or “antisocial attitudes” to be used by regulators and administrators to deny possession even when there has been no legal due-process to establish it.

    The biggest contributor to gun violence by the mental ill over the last few decades has not been the NRA but the ACLU whose lawsuits prevented involuntary detention and treatment of dangerous mentally ill patients–proven so by their own actions, police and court records generated through due process.

  337. This bill does nothing but give the government an excuse to take guns away from people willing to abide by the law. Get a doctor to declare someone mentally incompetent and their guns are gone.
    Those not willing to abide by the law.. (and those are the only ones we really have to worry about.) won’t’ be affected in the least. John Cornyn may have an A+ rating from the NRA… but he is NOT an A+ conservative. I would request that the NRA take a closer look at Mr. Cornyn’s rating.

  338. “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”

    – William Pitt

    LOL, as if any law will prevent someone hell bent on killing folks, from getting their hands on a gun??? As well, for everyone that supports this crap, just wait, the US Government is making most everything a disorder. It won’t be long that you will not be allowed to own a gun because of the medication that you might be taking! Hell, I heard a commercial on the radio the other day for “Shift Worker” Disorder.

    What could go wrong with this guys ideas anyways??? He is 100% “MuriKana” …

    – Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)

    – Voted YES on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)

    – Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)

    – Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

    – Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)

    – Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

    – Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

    – Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)

    – Voted NO on restoring $565M for states’ and ports’ first responders. (Mar 2005)

    – Voted YES on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)

    1. Oh yea, I forgot to mention that this is all a “common sense” ploy for Communism …

      The Communist Takeover Of America – 45 Declared Goals

      Communist Goals – Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

      (as read before Congress in 1963)

      #38) Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

      #39) Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

  339. Do the gang members and other repeat violent offenders that do most of the crimes care about any new anti 2nd A laws or acts the burorats pass? How about the illegals? The foreign occupying, UN Agenda 21 powers that run the US gov want to disarm the American people. Any new laws/acts will aid them.

  340. This isn’t a good idea !!!!!!!!! Once passed, they will add more and more to it. It’s always go for the law abiding citizen. They have enough laws on the books, all they have to do is enforce them.

  341. While you gentleman debate valid points both pro and con to this proposal the major problem to me lies not in this but in the avenues open to those of criminals and mentally ill in acquiring firearms, not through legal channels and the availability abounds. That’s why any means of gun control through legal channels is minimal at best for denying ownership to those types of people. In all honesty I couldn’t support such a proposal because it does nothing to control the availability of illegal arms that are open to anyone anywhere. I’m not saying that law enforcement doesn’t do anything, they do what they can when they find it. But there is one agency that is established to do that very thing. Yet they do not either have the man power or authority, etc. to do that job efficiently, the ATF needs whatever it is that it is lacking to enforce and eliminate illegal outlets for firearms. I already search anyone that wishes to buy a firearm from me. And it has revealed in one instance someone with a questionable background thus I didnotsell to this person. I believe the majority of responsibly armed Americans wouldn’t sell to those of uncertain backgrounds. At least I do not, it costs me a fee to search these persons but it is worth it to me to be certain that I am not providing an unstable person with the means to commit any atrocities. Just to clear the air I am very pro 2A and an endowment life member of the NRA. The truth of all this I believe lies in the responsibility of the citizens not the government, the government is ment to serve us not the reverse, that is why we have the problems that we have now, we have allowed the government to grow far beyond its original mandates of the constitution. And to beat all we have criminal corruption at every level especially in the White House.

    1. Very well articulated… It is the responsibility of the public not the government to guard are life and property. When we demand a service from the government we then become dependent on that service. It’s time to share the responsibility with one another and stop relying on the government for everything under the sun. The government offers two things… they are broken promises and more government….

    2. As a Texan, I’ve always supported Sen. Cornyn, but he’s apparently been breathing that rarified political air in Washington D.C. too long. Being around evil doers like Schumer, Reid, Feinstein, Boxer and others seems to have that effect..
      The arming of American citizens is a better approach, since a good man with a gun will be more able to stop a bad man (e.g. mental defective, criminal, or jihadist) with a gun. How about reporting all the news when a gun is used to save a life and not just when it’s used to take one. The real questions are who controls the information and who decides who’s mentally defective. I’m sure the British once thought American patriots were crazy. No more votes of mine will be wasted on Sen. Cornyn.

  342. I’m glad to see there is at least the appearance of common sense in the Senators propasal. I am not totally opposed to some form of background check because I obey the law to start with and have nothing to hide. There are a lot of morons out there who can’t seem to grasp that idea however, and should be checked out.

    BUT(!)…I have always thought it was totally asinine to check a person’s qualifications to own a gun against and empty data base! Are you kidding me? The way the current data base is handled it is probably certain 90% of the wacos out there will slip through the cracks.

    My regret with the Senators legislation and the mentality of lawmakers in general, is that no one has the balls to make compliance mandatory! Everyone one is worried about the ACLU or Bloomberg or some other ignorant ass hole crying foul over rights of privacy or doctor/patient privacy.

    If we want true safety for all, there has to be a compromise somewhere along the way. The ignorant don’t understand that concept, and those that do don’t have the balls to demand it.

    The “anti’s” can’t simply keep pushing for total bans on guns. Total bans don’t work…remember prohibition? All that did was unlease the biggest crime wave the country has ever seen. Banning gums will do the same.

    And to make matters worse, Congress had its own boot legger!! Those same pompous bastards that banned alcohol for the masses blatanly broke the law on a daily basis.

    Make compliance mandatory but include safe guards to protect individual rights. Tell Congress to get its head out of that really dark place its been keeping it; quit pissing on each others shoes and arguing; and compromise on a good meaningful bill. The problem is people…not guns.

  343. The problems I see with this legislation is that it will certainly lead to “universal background checks”..AKA registration of all gun owners.

    I simply do not trust government with registration lists.

    Also the slaw needs to embrace the recent rulings by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Tyler v. Hillsdale ( that says lifetime prohibition to owning firearms because of a involuntary stay in a mental hospital is unconstitutional and that the prohibition much show that the person is currently a danger to themselves or others. It also discusses other limits as well.

  344. More laws… Great! Not that there are so many as in hundreds of laws now.
    You see, reporting that a person is not capable of having a weapon will stop that person from stealing one and killing someone right???.
    Just like the double yellow lines in a road stops a car from hitting you head on because you see it’s against the law to cross them. Can anyone say Sandy Hook, he was refused a weapon at a gun store but still found a way. Bottom line, the ONLY way to stop a BAD PERSON with a gun is a GOOD PERSON with a gun period. And I don’t want to hear about having more police even though my family and friends are police because not one of them in their combined 130 years on the force have ever stopped a murder. Not one LEO has EVER stoppe