- Feb
20
2013
In South Dakota, the lunatics don't just run the asylum; they arm it.
Rep. Bernie Hunhoff (D-18/Yankton) brings House Bill 1180 to the House Health and Human Services Committee. Hunhoff's original plan was to have the Yankton County Board of Mental Health review the records of all patients of the Human Services Center upon release, ascertain whether they were dangerous, and prohibit the dangerous characters from possessing firearms. Then Rep. Hunhoff pared HB 1188 down to subject only dangerous folks who are involuntarily committed for mental illness to loss of their right to buy or possess a gun.
The Department of Social Services, the state sheriffs association, and the court system all lined up at committee to say this narrow bill was good public safety legislation.
But for Republican Rep. Leslie Heinemann (District 8, pay attention!), Blaine Campbell, Manny Steele, Scott Ecklund, Jenna Haggar, and Melissa Magstadt, telling dangerous lunatics they can't carry a gun is just too much. Because dangerous lunatics are key to fighting crime and stopping tyranny, those six legislators voted against the amended HB 1188 in committee yesterday.
Ugh. Virginia passed legislation like this after the 2007 Virginia tech shooting. Maryland is taking up legislation like this now. The only reason to oppose this bill is the paranoid fantasy that we Democrats are going to take over the government and every county mental health board and lock all of you Republicans up in mental wards...
...for which, when you make crazy votes to protect the ability of dangerous, mentally ill people to carry guns, we might be able to make a provable case.
14 Responses to “House Republicans Kill Plan to Keep Guns Away from Dangerous Mental Patients”
Reading this legislation, I see a couple issues with it:
Section 17: Allows hearsay to be admitted as evidence. I don't feel that's a good precedent to set. If we cannot get direct testimony to prove someone is dangerous, we shouldn't be proceeding. The bar is already low enough to restrict rights based upon threats of violence.
Generally, though, people who are involuntarily institutionalized are already prohibited from purchasing & possessing firearms under 18 USC SS 922. It intrigues me that we need this law at all.
You went pretty heavy on the word "lunatic" Cory. Let's not forget these are people with mental health issues.
The question this amended bill addressed is: "Should mentally ill people who are a danger to others be able to purchase guns?"
The answer these 6 Republican legislators arrived at is, "Yes."
Your right Rorschach. for those 7 legislators the supposed right to own a gun outways anything else.
It's crazy. You can regulate guns without harming the supposed 2nd amendment right to own firearms
"The only reason to oppose this bill is the paranoid fantasy that we Democrats are going to take over the government and every county mental health board and lock all of you Republicans up in mental wards"
When you you keep pushing Hitler's agenda (in a paranoid fear of guns), a sane person, not a paranoid person, would be wise to give pause. How many times has Cory and his ilk attack Christians as being mentally ill?
[editorial note from CAH: how many times have I attacked Christians as being mentally ill? None that I can recall. I'll double-check with my very mentally healthy ELCA seminarian wife.]
"The bar is already low enough to restrict rights based upon threats of violence." Really? As I understand it, SDCL 22-14-15 prohibits firearm possession only by those convicted of crimes of violence (including misdemeanor Domestic Violence convictions) and felony drug convictions.
SDCL 22-1-2(9) "Crime of violence" defined as any of the following crimes or an attempt to commit, or a conspiracy to commit, or a solicitation to commit any of the following crimes: murder, manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, riot, robbery, burglary in the first degree, arson, kidnapping, felony sexual contact as defined in § 22-22-7, felony child abuse as defined in § 26-10-1, or any other felony in the commission of which the perpetrator used force, or was armed with a dangerous weapon, or used any explosive or destructive device
SDCL 22-1-2(10) "Dangerous weapon" or "deadly weapon" defined as any firearm, stun gun, knife, or device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which is calculated or designed to inflict death or serious bodily harm, or by the manner in which it is used is likely to inflict death or serious bodily harm
If not acceptable, please see the NRA's synopsis of SD gun laws here: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/south-dakota.aspx
If you need to shoot someone before you are penalized by not being able to have a gun, then you should get in a car accident before you should get a ticket for speeding. But there are both present and past high ranking Republicans in the wild west south dakota who sped a lot and did not want it on their record to lose their liscense or simply did not show up in court.
Steve, I apologize - my intent was to say the bar on restriction within the bill was already low enough to include threat of violence.
Should people with a criminal history of violence be allowed to possess firearms? No. Should they be able to restore that right eventually? Yes.
Should people with mental illness who have a history of being violently dangerous to others be allowed to possess firearms? No. Should they be able to restore that right eventually? Yes.
Should people with mental illness who are alleged via hearsay to have threatened someone, but have no history of violence, be allowed to possess firearms? I don't know. I don't like the implications of allowing hearsay to be admissable. I'm not sure I like the implications of restricting rights based upon a threat alone.
Roger,
We're not talking about needing to shoot someone first, we're talking about demonstrating violence. For me, a history of criminal violence is enough to say we have a compelling interest in infringing upon the rights of an individual.
To use your analogy, should we revoke someone's drivers license because they ~might~ get in an accident in the future, even if they don't have a history of traffic violations/accidents?
I would argue no. However, if that person accumulates enough points from traffic violations, their license is revoked for a while - hopefully before they get in that accident. It's not unreasonable to judiciously restrict rights based upon past history... but I worry about restrictions based upon speculation.
I think Cory made this point earlier. Maybe I did, but I don't recall getting an answer.
People accept that freedom of speech can be limited: no one can yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire because that use of speech is danger.
I have yet to see anyone acknowledge a similar limitation with guns. After Sandy Hook happened, everyone jumped on the bandwagon that steps should be taken to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill who pose dangers to themselves and others. This bill, which would accomplish that act, gets voted down in committee.
Actions like this one make it seem as if guns are becoming a secular fetish with idolatrous undertones. If the first amendment has limits why does the second amendment not have limits?
We should be mindful that had this been enacted Stace Nelson and others suffering from the stress of military service would be disqualified from owning firearms.
"I have yet to see anyone acknowledge a similar limitation with guns. "
LK, I would hope my comments above would indicate an acknowledgement of such limitations. The key is to have rational conversations about what are judicious limitations versus what are not judicious (e.g. knee jerk reactions such as restricting certain types of firearms because of bayonet mounts or pistol grip stocks).
HB 1180 has merit. I'm getting down in the weeds of what should or shouldn't be in the bill, but I accept the premise that violently mentally ill people should temporarily have their rights restricted. For me, the debate hinges on determining who is violent, and how we come to that conclusion.
I like that Mr. Hunhoff left off people who may be a danger to themselves. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to not seek help for addressing suicidal thoughts because they were scared they'd never be able to hunt again. I like that we're not talking about people who voluntarily commit themselves - nobody should be punished for seeking help.
I guess one question I have - if SD supplies the list of names generated from HB 1180 to the Federal Government for their NICS, do we have the ability to take those names off if they've successfully proven they are no longer a danger to society?
"I have yet to see anyone acknowledge a similar limitation with guns."
You don't have the right go into a crowded movie theatre and start shooting people with your gun.
There you go LK.
Thanks for such a serious and thoughtful reply Steve. Was that response from a Masonic handbook or did you think of it all by yourself?
Bob Ellis is clearly too mentally disabled to own a gun:
http://dakotawarcollege.com/on-evolution-the-first-two-syllables-are-evil-you-know/comment-page-1/#comment-150529
Understood, WayneB. The threat clause you speak of could be viewed as far-reaching, unless considered within the context of a criminal conviction or statements reported directly to a qualified mental health professional, physician, etc. In fact, the sentence immediately following said threat clause states the same.
A simple threat allegation, unless both imminent and credible within a certain totality of circumstances, seems unlikely to come into play in the proposed reporting and sharing of information designed to prevent a dangerous person from buying/possessing firearms. Good discussion. I think this was a good bill.
Leave a Reply