Live Updates: Massive Tornado Damage Near Okla City…Kids Dug Out of Rubble…Homes Demolished…Triage Units Being Set Up…Multiple Others Touch Down

Watch Live Local Coverage of Tornado Aftermath

Politics

Lindsey Graham’s Gun-Related Bill Wants to Track the Mentally Ill — but Who Counts?

Mar. 18, 2013 10:23am Mytheos Holt

As a Senate bill designed to reinstitute the expired ban on assault weapons moves toward a full vote, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is fighting a rearguard action on gun restrictions for the mentally ill. The issue is one that Republicans have been pushing since the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., when mentally ill shooter Adam Lanza gunned down 28 people.

Lindsey Graham: Mental Illness Should Take Priority Over Assault Weapons in Gun Control

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (Photo Credit: AP)

Fox News reports:

A proposal on the issue was introduced this month by South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who on Thursday again expressed his interest in getting the measure passed.

“I believe that the best way to interrupt the shooter is to have a mental health system that actually records and enters into the database people who should not be able to buy a gun,” Graham said.[...]

Graham’s proposal would require that people found mentally incompetent be added to the National Instant Criminal Background System – the database for all new gun sales.

Graham and his allies see restrictions on assault weapons as overly broad, and also an attack on what amounts to an artificial category of weapons. However, many advocates for the rights of the mentally ill might reasonably worry about how broad the ban on gun ownership would be in the case of Graham’s bill. Just who counts as mentally ill?

The answer is that the bill defers to the court system to make the ultimate determination, though it does specify that only people found to be a danger to themselves or others, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of mental insanity, or in need of commitment to a psychiatric hospital, or in need of mandatory outpatient treatment, would qualify to be banned from owning guns.

However, there is no sign that the bill deals with a wider issue in the criminal justice system whereby severely mentally ill people commit themselves voluntarily so as to avoid mandatory court commitment, and the various restrictions that entails. Nor is it clear that such a loophole could be closed without concerns from privacy advocates.

Graham’s bill joins a fleet of gun control proposals in the Senate, most of which face long odds of passing the full body, given the likelihood of a Republican filibuster for most of them. However, given the bipartisan support that Graham has been able to rack up, his idea may be the exception.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (76)

soap on a rope
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:05am
Can South Carolina recall Graham? What happened to supporting and defending the Constitution?

In 1984, not loving Big Brother was mental illness. Maybe we’ll be 30 years late, but we’ll get there.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- pbrenda51
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:23am
  Yes, and what about the hippa laws and the rights of those who are mentally ill? “that guy” is stomping the Constitution into the ground
  
  Report this comment
- repairsea
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 12:11pm
  I agree. You do know that government has not been successful in tracking parolees, tax evasion, illegal aliens, their own payroll and inventory. How effective will they be tracking the mentally ill? And what will they do with them? Imprisonment? They always play catch and release now because the prisons and jails cannot afford to care for the mentally ill. The ACLU shutdown CA mental institution during Reagan’s appointment as governor. I think only the lawyers, ACLU and computer programmers will make money with this type of legislation. The government has become less and less effective.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 12:59pm
  “…in need of mandatory outpatient treatment”
  
  Translation;
  
  Every Child who was given medication for AHAD…. every single one of them. That was the purpose of the drugs in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
searching for the Truth
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:03am
Russia’s murder rate is 5 times that of the United States – it bears repeating . Russia has had the World’s worst school mass murder.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- redfish52
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:08am
  For those of us that have been given a prescription for an anti-depressant drug get ready. All of our medical records are on a national database and will be confiscated by the Federal Government. They will deem this sufficient reason to take your arms.
  
  Report this comment
- Jacksureshot
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 3:27pm
  Beslan was not perpetrated by Russian citizens, it was a terrorist attack by Chechen rebels. But overall the former soviet block is pretty damn violent.
  
  Report this comment
Bonnieblue2A
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:00am
“…., or in need of commitment to a psychiatric hospital, or in need of mandatory outpatient treatment, would qualify to be banned from owning guns.”

And how does an individual, once he/she is no longer need of outpatient treatment or the reason for commitment has been resolved, regain his/her RKBA? Will every woman who ever suffered from post-partum depression be denied their RKBA forever, even once this condition is no longer applicable?

NO! This is about controlling people and denying rights. Those bent on mass murder will find a way just as did the young man who committed the murders at Sandy Hook. The law and human life means nothing to people bent on destruction and taking away the rights of others will solve nothing except to advance the agenda of the UN Small Arms Treaty…….to first register and then disarm all Americans.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bob4096
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:57am
Rather than thinking “what can we do to fix this?” can we find some leadership whose first reaction to a social or economic issue is, “what laws can we repeal to fix this?”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bob4096
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:54am
Great. This is just what we need to do to discourage anyone from seeking help from mental health professionals.
Unintended consequences?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Priscilla King
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:54am
  Maybe what needs to happen is that mental health care providers move back to helping depressed people fix the facts so that their feelings will follow, instead of automatically rushing to prescribe medication for the feelings.
  
  Report this comment
Polarized America
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:51am
.
The United States Gov’t is giving most of us a mental illness

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
searching for the Truth
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:50am
Need to start electing politicians that remove laws – call them law-removers, instead.
Log in to Reply Reply
critterbait
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:50am
So does all the loon’s in DC count???
Stand with God and be on the right side… YOU CANT LOSE…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
spirited
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:47am
That list should include those who are (and seek to be) elected officials.

Since elected officlas have a direct impact on –more– lives
than any gun touting murderer has to date,
they should be at the top of the no-guns-for-you list.

Oh, and while our leaders are busy regulating and restricting:.
Mandate mental competency testing
a prerequisite
for being put on any ballot
and/or
for selection by an elected.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Dodsfall
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:46am
This type of legislation is full of potential unintended consequences. The number of people who refuse to get needed mental health care will undoubtedly rise if they are to be entered into a government database.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
FeliciaJewel
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:44am
I’m done, is there anywhere to go to get away from all these nuts? So tired!!! So tired!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RJJinGadsden
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:43am
C-o-m-e O-n South Carolina! You guys can do a lot better and have in the past.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- coachsmac
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:50am
  We will try to correct this in 2014. Hopefully we will have some one conservative to run against him!!! I really wish Nikki Haley would challenge him!
  
  Report this comment
termyt
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:42am
The mentally ill have a history of using their 2nd Amendment rights to infringe on the Right ti Life of others. Therefore, it is reasonable to infringe their Right.

Does anyone believe, however, that our government is capable of drawing the correct line in the sand between harmless and harmful mental illness?

Anti-Rights folks should jump on this and then push to define anyone who has ever seen a counselor for any reason to be on that list. Perhaps ask if a prospective gun buyer has ever felt down or depressed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- booger71
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:56am
  Or how many of you have taken “anti-depressants” that doctors routinely prescribe to quit smoking? If the government has excess to your medical files (and they do thanks to BarryCare), they do not distinguish why you took a certain drug.
  
  Report this comment
- Priscilla King
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:50am
  Booger makes a good point…inadvertently. If you take antidepressants to quit smoking or avoid mourning, or if you take cocaine or LSD at a party, you have about a 10-20% chance of becoming violently insane. Should we let doctors continue to hand out antidepressants as if they were Vitamin C? If so, shouldn’t we have to live with the idea that 80-90% of the people who take the antidepressants will be unfairly suspected of violent insanity, which they will never develop?
  
  Report this comment
- spirited
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:55am
  Watch out matured women !
  Horomone replacement therapy has been replaced with low-dosage anti-depresants.
  
  >New Rules: Mental illness to be redefined -first.
  
  Report this comment
iluv2bfree
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:41am
We have heard over and over again Glen Beck is crazy. so he would loose his guns…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- smokie
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:03am
  According to the government, they can deem anyone who so much as moves an inch to the left or the right crazy. The definition will shift daily until anyone who breaks a nail will be sanctioned.
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:40am
This man is an idiot and needs primaried in the worst way. Hell, I’d vote for a stinking democrat to get rid of Lindsey Graham.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Bonnieblue2A
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:40am
Mandatory mental health screenings for all federally elected representatives and bureaucracy appointee heads( HHS, DHS, Dept. of Treasury, all other alphabet agencies), including the POTUS’s cabinet. These people do much more destruction to our nation than any mass murderer.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Advection
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:58am
  Bravo!
  
  Of course, you’d never see any such requirement. It’s laughable because the first duty of every politician is to exempt themselves from such requirements. And the ironic thing is that their arguments for their exemption ALWAYS refer back to the Constitution they hate.
  
  Report this comment
coachsmac
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:38am
This is nothing but another attempt to take away rights. The people recently who have murdered so many people didn’t own the frigging gun they used to kill people. They either killed the owner and stole the gun or just stole it outright and then went on their deluded and insane rampage. Sen. Graham is walking a fine line in SC right now, if we didn’t have so many people who voted straight party he would be relieved of duty!!

“The answer is that the bill defers to the court system to make the ultimate determination, though it does specify that only people found to be a danger to themselves or others, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of mental insanity, or in need of commitment to a psychiatric hospital, or in need of mandatory outpatient treatment, would qualify to be banned from owning guns.”

This to broad a reach, allowing the Government to decide who is mentally competent to own a gun is assinine at best!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
old construction worker
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:37am
Fine, as long as I’m the one who decide who is mentally ill.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Zipit
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:37am
HAH! Get ready for some more regulation through OBAMACARE, that will authorize the hiring of another couple thousand IRS agents, that will have the authority to determine whether or not you fall into the category, “Mentally ill”!

We’ll end up with more mentally ill people, than those on permanent disability, unemployment, and food stamps!!!

Come to think of it, maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a weapon if your on unemployment, and we are paying for you to eat! That makes at least some sense!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
searching for the Truth
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:36am
They need to leave the Second Amendment alone, period

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Advection
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:36am
Nobody wants the mentally ill to have guns, but the problem is that politicians cannot be trusted to write just laws anymore. Many of our politicians admit that they don’t give a damn for the Constitution, and it’s their goal to take away our liberties and freedoms and impose their will.

Therefore, while I don’t want the mentally to have guns, I’d rather that they have guns than allow politicians to enslave us. A nut with a gun is FAR less dangerous than a politician with a pen ANY DAY!

Keep your damn “laws”, Lindsey.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 4:23pm
  If gun ownership is a right it shouldn’t matter if you are sane or not. The right of free speech includes the right of crazy people to say crazy things. The right of free assembly includes the right to associate with people that nobody in their right mind would be caught dead with. If there was a sanity test on freedom of religion, we would only have about half as many sects in this country as we do now. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right if it does not include the right of crazy people to own guns for crazy reasons.
  
  Report this comment
aPatriot0311
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:33am
The life we live is one of short and sweet fractured moments in time. What do we remember? The first kiss we had? The last high five? The moment we got high score at the arcade? Is any of this important in our lives? No, it is not. So why are these trivial moments so important to us? The reason for this is that memories are attached to emotions, scent and taste. This is the reason when you bite into a caramel covered apple from the fair you remember the days past when you were but a child. When you smell the gym you remember the pain, sweat, and tears that you left on the mat in high school, and when you feel sad you can close your eyes and see that very moment that brought you so much misery.
So what do I remember? I remember swearing an oath of fealty to this country. The country that gave me everything I needed, and for that I would gladly give my life to defend at any cost. In this oath I swore to God on high that I would protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic, and what we have is an infestation of both. When the president stops caring for the people that give him the power he no longer is the president, he is a dictator. When congress would rather stab each other in the back then work to an agreement to help curb a madman’s spending problem, we have civil unrest. The people of this great nation lost faith in the very people who are supposed to embolden the great American philosophy; Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. With everything th

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:32am
Mentally ill has one definition that is unstable and that could be a great number of the ones that were voted into office. Look at our economy and debt and judge yourselves along with others.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
joey g
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:32am
when “GOOBER” speaks people listen…..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AmericanStrega
Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:27am
“I believe that the best way to interrupt the shooter is to have a mental health system that actually records and enters into the database people who should not be able to buy a gun,” Graham said.[...]

Adam Lanza didn’t buy the guns he used at SandyHook. So how would this new law have stopped him?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- oldguy49
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:34am
  democrat graham is just talking to hear himself talk……………the only way to stop evil people with guns is good people with guns………..history will tell you this is true
  
  Report this comment
- redfish58
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:35am
  Not saying it’s a great plan, but in Charleston SC a woman walked onto school grounds and tried shoot school employees but did not know how to fire the gun. She purchased the firearm at a pawn shop even though she had a extensive mental health history. He’s catching flack over that incident.
  
  Report this comment
- 1FreeVoice
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 10:52am
  3 words: moving the goalposts
  
  First it’s the mentally ill which meet this criteria
  then it’s family of the mentally ill who they may be able to get a gun from
  then the criteria shift…
  …what requires “mandatory outpatient treatment”? change that a bit…
  What other tweaks can they try?
  
  Remember the DC press conference where the ***suit said he and others in the administration agreed with Mao that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun; why wasn’t the next question why then does our government now wants it’s citizens disarmed and powerless?
  
  Report this comment
- Priscilla King
  Posted on March 18, 2013 at 11:52am
  Yes. Banning individuals from buying guns merely encourages desperate people to steal guns. People with serious mental illness (such that they need medication) need full-time supervision.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.