ATF Form 4473, Question 11f Plus: idiot liberal email of the day

posted at 11:37 am on April 18, 2007 by Bryan

The form is online here. When purchasing a firearm, you have to fill this form out. Question 11 deals with reasons to be denied purchasing a firearm, and section f reads:

Have you ever been adjucated mentally defective(which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have been committed to a mental institution?

Prior to a 2005 revision, it was question 12f so if you’ve seen the form you might remember it that way instead of 11f.

It’s a Yes or No question, and according to my friend in the gun business, it’s routinely the most laughed at question on the form. Because, of course, if you’re schizophrenic with a history of violence and you’re stalking someone, you’re going to be totally upfront and honest about that question.

The entire section on the form is laughable. If your true answer to part d, “Are you a fugutive from justice?” is yes, how likely are you to answer accurately?

As far as I know, question 11f is the full extent of a mental health background check for anyone purchasing a firearm. Your mileage may vary according to state law.

To the extent that there is any legislative solution that might prevent another Cho, and I’m not at all convinced that there is, perhaps it ought to start with making it a little harder for anyone with a history of mental illness to purchase firearms. Rather than just making it harder for everyone, across the board, to be able to defend themselves from someone like Cho when they finally snap.

Update: This just in to the Hot Air email bag. It’s a doozy.

Bush may be somewhat partially responsible for the shootings in Virginia because he has created a climate
of violence, war, killing, hopelessness, and futility. The young man is essentially responsible but he was for
four long years in that school and no one seemed able to welcome him, make him feel at home, show him
friendship and belonging to the group. Imagne living in a dorm situation (suite) with some one and not ever
being able to make eye contact or get his attention. Bush, in his operating as the President has set a tone
of ingoring the law, law-breaking, and low-rating Congress and anyone else who did not agree with him, In
not supporting proper laws to control mayhem and murder, he has also contributed to the American ambiance. He has never understood that he should speak intelligently and rationally to Americans, most of
whom are smarter than he is. Any one who wants to really understand Bush and his impact on those around him should read Kitty Kelley’s book about the Bushes. Sincerely, MPM

I have no doubt that you’re sincere, MPM. I also have no doubt that you’re a fool for thinking that Bush and this “climate of fear” or “ambience” had anything to do with Cho. Cho was mentally unstable and popped. Blaming that on Bush is, to put it mildly, unhinged. It’s of a piece with Bill Clinton politicizing the Oklahoma City bombing, and it’s despicable. As a country, we’re no longer able to unite around anything because this kind of opportunistic point-scoring.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I’ve never understood why they bother with that stupid form. Anyone buying a gun for criminal purposes will simply lie. They need to put more emphasis on I.D. verification by the dealer and let the FBI take it from there.

RedWinged Blackbird on April 18, 2007 at 11:50 AM

The only problem, is that in some of the school shooting cases, the weapons were either stolen or borrowed.

However, I agree that Mental patients should be kept away from firearms.

Kai on April 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM

The question is, why aren’t people who have been committed put in the database so they can be denied? Why aren’t mental health professionals required to enter people in the db who they believe, in their professional opinion, are a danger to themselves or others?

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM

This ranks right up there with those stupid questions they ask at airports:

Have you received any packages from strangers?
Did you pack your own luggage?
Was your luggage in your posession at all times?

Because we know terrorists would answer honestly anyway, right?

TexasRainmaker on April 18, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Yes, but HOW would you determine someone’s mental health unless they’ve been locked up in a psych ward or something? Will they feds have to note if you’ve ever been prescribed drugs for depression or anxiety? Yikes. This is another case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Like some other commenter said, if Cho couldn’t get a gun he’d build a bomb.

pistolero on April 18, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Like most other government forms, there is always a series of questions to allow you to commit perjury. Apparently it is easier to get a conviction for perjury in most cases than it is the original crime.(Scooter Libby)

brtex on April 18, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Well giving false information on the form carries a min 5 years in the federal pen. In that respect it is useful in keeping criminals behind bars, which in my belief is the most effective means of gun safety.

jones on April 18, 2007 at 12:02 PM

The idea isn’t to prevent lying, it’s to have a record they lied so that they can be punished if something happens and they were found to have lied. It also gives law enforcement legal grounds to confiscate a person’s guns. Same idea when you sign your tax returns, etc.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Yes, but HOW would you determine someone’s mental health unless they’ve been locked up in a psych ward or something?

Easy – you require the medical community to enter people in the background check db. Same as requiring teachers and medical pros to report suspected child abuse. Simple solution. You give people in the db a due process procedure to get off the list.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:05 PM

and I’m not at all convinced that there is, perhaps it ought to start with making it a little harder for anyone with a history of mental illness to purchase firearms.

And how do you think we’re going to do that? make them carry a little card that says “mentally unstable?” or better yet, put another restriction code on drivers licenses – maybe “n” that stands for “nuts?”

pullingmyhairout on April 18, 2007 at 12:06 PM

I’ve had this exact discussion with someone in the past. So, here is a very possible scenario to keep in mind. Let’s say a woman get a divorce from an abusive spouse. She seeks care from a mental health facility to work on depression… etc due to her abuse. But, this abusive spouse begins to stalk her later. Is she not entitled to protect herself as well? I know that most of us thin kwe are only talking about serious mental health issues. But the question is who decides the level of mental illness in these cases? One does have to be careful when just saying Mental Health Patients should ne own firearms. Many people we all know and are perfectly safe has at one time been a “mental health patient”.

hoosierken on April 18, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Easy – you require the medical community to enter people in the background check db.

we have something called confidentiality. this bird won’t fly.

pullingmyhairout on April 18, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Why aren’t mental health professionals required to enter people in the db who they believe, in their professional opinion, are a danger to themselves or others?

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM

They are required to report to proper authorities if the client is a risk to himself or others. Short of that, HIPAA privacy standards stand in the way of release of private medical information to anyone not involved with their care.

HIPAA laws and info here.

sunny on April 18, 2007 at 12:08 PM

If Cho couldn’t get a gun he’d build a bomb.

The worst school killings in American history still remains the Bath School disaster of 1927, wherein bombs killed 45 and injured 58.

a4g on April 18, 2007 at 12:10 PM

So they don’t actually verify is the person answered truthfully or not?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Esthier on April 18, 2007 at 12:15 PM

HIPAA needs to be fixed. We can’t let people with serious mental disorders easily buy guns. That’s, well, insane!

We can shield sellers from knowing the exact reason the purchase was denied so confidentiality can be maintained. The person being denied will have to contact the authorities to get the exact reason and be informed of the appeal process.

Maybe he would have built a bomb or something, but it would have been harder and increased the chances of being caught before the act.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Actually, as I recall one of the common symptoms of schizophrenia is the inability to realize that anything is wrong in the first place. It’s one of the major reasons schizophrenics tend to not seek treatment on their own, and also stray from their medication regiments.

But I guess the form isn’t asking the applicant for a judgment on his or her own faculties, but a factual question about a legal finding. “Adjudicated” is a very specific word. Even if you checked yourself into an inpatient psychiatric treatment program, and spent several months there, you still would not have been “adjudicated” to be mentally defective by a court.

Blacklake on April 18, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Also, it’s probably worth noting explicitly that, so far as we know at this point, Cho was never adjudicated to be mentally defective.

Blacklake on April 18, 2007 at 12:24 PM

But the question is who decides the level of mental illness in these cases?

Exactly, HoosierKen. That’s the one thing that bothers me about this discussion. You have people who aren’t “crazy” who use mental health professionals to get through rough times in their lives. You also have people using these same professionals who are truly mentally ill. Who decides who can get a gun?

BacaDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:28 PM

She seeks care from a mental health facility to work on depression… etc due to her abuse. But, this abusive spouse begins to stalk her later. Is she not entitled to protect herself as well?

You require people to be entered into the db only when it has been determined that the person is a danger to themselves or others. You give them an appeals process to allow them to be removed from the list.

Also, it’s probably worth noting explicitly that, so far as we know at this point, Cho was never adjudicated to be mentally defective.

They issued a constraint order and took him to a special mental health facility because they had to power to involuntarily commit him. If that’s not being found to be mentally ill then I guess I need a new definition.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:29 PM

HIPAA needs to be fixed. We can’t let people with serious mental disorders easily buy guns. That’s, well, insane!

How would you know if they have a serious mental disorder? Only a tiny fraction of the mentally ill have court documents on record testifying to that fact, and personal medical records are confidential. So the only alternative would be to make people go through some sort of psychiatric screening. Not only does that seem logistically impossible, considering it would introduce a significant time delay as well as a huge degree of individual judgment from a potentially politically-motivated third party, I’d say it pretty clearly constitutes infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

Blacklake on April 18, 2007 at 12:30 PM

But the question is who decides the level of mental illness in these cases?

A board certified Psychiatrist or psychologist who has examined the patient and determined the person is a risk to themselves or others.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Geeze, I can’t believe that the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) isn’t on top of this. Talk about discrimination!

http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/E-News/20023/October_20022/House_Passes_Our_Lady_of_Peace_Act.htm

k2comp on April 18, 2007 at 12:31 PM

They issued a constraint order and took him to a special mental health facility because they had to power to involuntarily commit him. If that’s not being found to be mentally ill then I guess I need a new definition.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:29 PM

At the press conference this morning, they said Cho voluntarily committed himself after they took him there.

BacaDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I’ve never understood why they bother with that stupid form. Anyone buying a gun for criminal purposes will simply lie

It’s so if they lied they can use it against them in court.

like Bigolddog said

The idea isn’t to prevent lying, it’s to have a record they lied so that they can be punished if something happens and they were found to have lied.

Drtuddle on April 18, 2007 at 12:33 PM

At the press conference this morning, they said Cho voluntarily committed himself after they took him there.

He was still Committed. That’s the point here. If he said no, they would have probably done it involuntarily. How do I know? They specifically took him to “Access” rather than their own facility because “Access” had the power to commit him involuntarily.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Have you received any packages from strangers?
Did you pack your own luggage?
Was your luggage in your posession at all times?

Because we know terrorists would answer honestly anyway, right?

In theory, these questions are designed to catch the “ignorant mule” – someone who accepted a package or a bag from someone else without knowing there was a bomb inside.

Lehuster on April 18, 2007 at 12:42 PM

He was still Committed.

No, he wasn’t. To voluntarily be in treatment is not the same as being legally committed. You might even be right that he would have been committed had he not voluntarily admitted himself, but we’ll never know. As things actually turned out, he was not adjudicated to be mentally defective (even if he was, in fact, mentally defective). Hence no public record legal documents, only private medical records. And I’m optimistic that you don’t believe the act of purchasing a firearm should constitute forfeiture of one’s right to medical privacy (not to mention the bureaucratic nightmare of National Mental Health Databases and the other Orwellian hells that would entail).

Blacklake on April 18, 2007 at 12:44 PM

He was still Committed. That’s the point here.

I understand. I was just making the distinction between a voluntary request for help vs. getting forcefully committed.

One argument in this discussion is that the identities of those who are committed involuntarily should be in a database somewhere for use in checking firearms purchase applications. Quite honestly, I don’t really disagree with this eventhough it still bothers me from a privacy standpoint.

The distinction is do you only enter the involuntary ones in the database and leave out the voluntarily ones?

BacaDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:45 PM

No, he wasn’t

It’s a distinction without a difference. He was mentally ill. They got a confinement order to take him to Access. He was a danger to himself and others. He had no business being able to purchase a gun. The system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Mental health professionals should be required to report such people so they can be prevented from buying guns. Just like they are required by law to report suspected cases of child abuse.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:49 PM

You lost me at adjudicated incompetent

Kini on April 18, 2007 at 12:55 PM

see our lady of peace act

k2comp on April 18, 2007 at 12:56 PM

The distinction is do you only enter the involuntary ones in the database and leave out the voluntarily ones

You enter everyone who a licensed mental health professional has determined to be a danger to themselves or others. You give people a process for getting off the list so you have no abuses. There is no reason to let dealers know why people were denied so privacy is maintained.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:57 PM

I was on anxiety meds for several months when I quit smoking. Come to think of it, it’s a miracle I didn’t shoot anyone during that time….nevermind.

RedWinged Blackbird on April 18, 2007 at 1:03 PM

This ranks right up there with those stupid questions they ask at airports:

Have you received any packages from strangers?
Did you pack your own luggage?
Was your luggage in your posession at all times?

Because we know terrorists would answer honestly anyway, right?

Those questions aren’t meant to identify terrorists, so it is irrelevant how a terrorist would answer them. The questions are designed to identify an unknowing dupe of whom a terrorist is taking advantage.

nico on April 18, 2007 at 1:06 PM

all I know is that his roommates stated that after he expressed a desire to kill himself the police took him to an outpatient mental hospital for a few days, THAT should have been good enough to qualify for the mental part.

AND if any of the girls he stalked would have put a protective order against him he would have been denied

Drtuddle on April 18, 2007 at 1:14 PM

The qualifier for a YES answer on the 4473 is bieng commited against your will by COURT ORDER, that is how they theoreticaly know you have a mental history because the court is a gov entity, Cho was not ordered by the court to undergo treatment

Drtuddle on April 18, 2007 at 1:15 PM

It’s a distinction without a difference. He was mentally ill.

It’s a distinction with a profound difference. To be adjudicated mentally ill is to be found so in a court of law, which produces documentation in the public record. To voluntarily seek treatment generates only private medical records. Public records can be checked. Private records cannot.

Blacklake on April 18, 2007 at 1:20 PM

all I know is that his roommates stated that after he expressed a desire to kill himself the police took him to an outpatient mental hospital for a few days, THAT should have been good enough to qualify for the mental part.

So police officers should have the power to make a decision that would prohibit you from ever again legally exercising your 2nd amendment rights? How would you reconcile that with the right to due process?

Blacklake on April 18, 2007 at 1:25 PM

The SCOTUS has ruled already on the 4473. A form 4473 cannot be used as evidence of perjury, because you can be imprisoned for failing to fill it out.

So … the form cannot even be used as evidence of perjury. It has no use whatsoever, other than giving the BATFE a means of tracing the past ownership of a given firearm.

Kristopher on April 18, 2007 at 1:30 PM

So police officers should have the power to make a decision that would prohibit you from ever again legally exercising your 2nd amendment rights? How would you reconcile that with the right to due process?

It should be enough to prevent him from buying a gun until a qualified mental health professional pronounces him fit.

The idea here is to keep mentally ill people from buying guns and killing 31 people in cold blood.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Why don’t civil libertarians and the ACLU have a problem with line 11f?

Valiant on April 18, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Plus: idiot liberal email of the day

I look forward to tomorrows edition of this feature.

:)

JayHaw Phrenzie on April 18, 2007 at 1:41 PM

MPM, MrPostModernist??

Viper1 on April 18, 2007 at 1:43 PM

It should be enough to prevent him from buying a gun until a qualified mental health professional pronounces him fit.

The idea here is to keep mentally ill people from buying guns and killing 31 people in cold blood.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 1:31 PM

I understand your arguement here, but it would take an act of Congress to accomplish. Not that it would be necesarily a bad thing.

Otherwise, there would need to be a competency hearing for every client who opposed the removal of his/her right to own a gun. Everyone is innocent (until proven otherwise)and therfor entitled to every and all US citizen rights.

sunny on April 18, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Not that it would be necesarily a bad thing.

I didn’t word that quite right. No one should be able to remove any rights simply because someone sees a shrink. And the default should not be the removal of rights until reviewed.

Someone smarter than me must have looked at this before and seen the legal issues.

sunny on April 18, 2007 at 1:50 PM

The question is, why aren’t people who have been committed put in the database so they can be denied? Why aren’t mental health professionals required to enter people in the db who they believe, in their professional opinion, are a danger to themselves or others?

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Ever hear of that right to privacy? Of Course you have. Have you ever read it in the Constitution? No you haven’t. Do you think the Left will give that RtP up? Not as long as it protects their mass murder of infants.

Tim Burton on April 18, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Concerning the reader email: Pity that Bush Derangement Syndrome doesn’t limit the capacity to type. Under that logic, Teddy Kennedy is responsible for all drunk driving related deaths in this country due to the climate of intoxication he’s exuded for the last few decades.

-Bryan @ Sanctuary Blog

Prophet on April 18, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I have no doubt that you’re sincere, MPM. I also have no doubt that you’re a fool for thinking that Bush and this “climate of fear” or “ambience” had anything to do with Cho.

I agree. MPM obviously suffers from the advanced stages of BDS. Is there anything that Bush can’t do in these liberals’ eyes (other than good, of course)?

Rick on April 18, 2007 at 2:06 PM

I’m taking a Glass-is-Half-Full approach to the idiot liberal email of the day. Since I have never seen one of these before, it seems safe to say that MPM is even more idiotic than the average unhinged liberal that emails you.

So, from the standpoint of the overall mental health and literacy of the tinfoil hat left, MPM is apparently a fringe player.

So…this is a good thing. Right?

Jaibones on April 18, 2007 at 2:14 PM

MPM is not unique. I was listening to a call-in show the morning after the massacre, and some people seemed ready to blame the massacre on American culture and even foreign policy, one caller citing 24 and the Iraq War, without any argument from the show’s host and guests. This was even after it was revealed that the shooter was a Korean national. He didn’t spend his early years in this country and he doesn’t seem like a big Bush fan, especially given his characterization of public college students being “rich kids” and “deceitful charlatans.” (In fact, that language almost makes him sound like a Kos kid! Should we instead say that DailyKos created a culture of blame and hate?) So as much as anti-Bush liberals might want to blame everything bad in this country on Bush and the Fox Network, that doesn’t quite stick given the evidence that’s been presented so far.

That being said, we must be careful with what to do regarding the mentally ill and weapons. If some depressed teenager in a gun culture family decides that she doesn’t want to be committed because she’ll never be able to have a weapon, it is to her detriment, especially when you consider how many people have mental issues in their teens, nearly none of them presenting any threat to society years after these problems are addressed. Maybe someone who was committed within the last two years or five years (like Cho) shouldn’t be allowed to have weapons, but the blunt tool of politics makes it likely that new laws will make anyone with a bout of teenage depression a second-class citizen forever, barring a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.

calbear on April 18, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Sorry, Bryan, but MPM is right.

Imagne living in a dorm situation (suite) with some one and not ever
being able to make eye contact or get his attention.

Oh, except that part. The roommate told CNN he tried to talk to the shooter several times, and he ignored him. Oh, and the part about most Americans being smarter than Bush. Oh, and the fact that the two other deadliest shootings happened under Democratic Administrations. Oh, and the fact that the school and surrounding area were “gun-free zones”. Oh, and…

Never mind.

amerpundit on April 18, 2007 at 2:29 PM

This is so idiotic. Acoordingto him/her, Bush made the college less friendly. I’m sure the littlest moonbat wrote this.

Ouabam on April 18, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Wait, there’s a problem with the way we deal with mental illness today?

Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever read anything like that. You learn something new every day.

Veeshir on April 18, 2007 at 2:37 PM

You need to have some faith in the professionalism of the medical community to differentiate between somebody who is depressed and somebody who is suicidal or homicidal. And, you give people a process for getting off the list.

The alternative is what we have today where a suicidal/homicidal person can buy 2 guns and kill 31 people in cold blood. Then, these massacres are used by the Left to push banning all guns. So, we better get serious and fix this or we will all lose.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Wow. MPM really puts the “teh” in “teh crazy”.

natesnake on April 18, 2007 at 2:44 PM

I guess its a short walk to go from, “Bush made bin Laden and all other terrorists into homicidal maniacs” to “Bush made everyone who ever went crazy into homicidial maniacs.”

BohicaTwentyTwo on April 18, 2007 at 2:44 PM

You want to know what else Bush did?

He gave me a spastic colon.

True.

Google it.

natesnake on April 18, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Bush pulled the trigger too.

Ian on April 18, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Bush also stole one of my socks from the dryer three separate times in the past year. Now I don’t have the mates. He also sent Karl Rove to secretly turn off my alarm clock last week while I was asleep and that’s why I overslept. Not only that, but he also let my dog back in the house and closed the doggy door so that I had to clean up poop when I came home from work.

That sorry Jackleg!

Matticus Finch on April 18, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Why do they have this question on the form? Why do they ask if you have ever been convicted of a felony? Why to they have DO NOT CROSS signs on each corner so that your quest to cross the continent ends at Board and Market streets?

TO COVER SOMEONE ASS! If you lie their’re off the hook!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 18, 2007 at 2:57 PM

This may come across as crass, but what the heck:

I can kill more people in less time with a dump truck. Fact.

Some people snap and they want to hurt others. When there’s a will, there’s a way.

natesnake on April 18, 2007 at 2:59 PM

I’m taking a Glass-is-Half-Full approach to the idiot liberal email of the day.
Jaibones on April 18, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Oh, I think that glass if full-to-overflowing!

eeyore on April 18, 2007 at 3:02 PM

So Bush is responsible for some nut going on a rampage in Virginia? Then I guess it only follows that Clinton carries the blame for Columbine, the spate of other school shootings during the ’90s, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Right?

jaleach on April 18, 2007 at 3:03 PM

I can kill more people in less time with a dump truck. Fact.
natesnake on April 18, 2007 at 2:59 PM

But isn’t it the Drivers fault? Or is it the fault of the manufacturer of the Truck? But then again the Truck can’t go any where without gas and Bush controls all the Oil so…it’s BUSHES FAULT!

3 degrees of separation.

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 18, 2007 at 3:07 PM

3 degrees of separation.

Game. Set. Match.

natesnake on April 18, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Kitty Kelly. That explains everything. I bet he gets all his history lessons from Hollywood, too. Bonnie and Clyde were just poor misunderstood people. Che was a real hero and so is Castro. My 82-year-old mother just called upset because she read in the Enquirer or one of those rags that George and Laura are getting a divorce. Wasn’t there a post on here that we are becoming dumber? Good God, Lord help us.

Glynn on April 18, 2007 at 3:14 PM

responsibility dodging hypocrat shapeshifter

Drtuddle on April 18, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Questions for potential gun buyers are not going to help. People who break the law will lie. Duh.

I will speculate that the death toll would have been much lower if students and staff at VT were allowed to carry guns. Or, perhaps, the event wouldn’t have even happened.

Fatrap on April 18, 2007 at 3:15 PM

I guess it only follows that Clinton carries the blame for Columbine, the spate of other school shootings during the ’90s, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Right?
jaleach on April 18, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Nope. That was Reagan (and Bush 41). Clinton did his best to undo the violent attitudes they had instilled, but just too much damage had been done. Right, MPM?

eeyore on April 18, 2007 at 3:18 PM

So Bush is responsible for some nut going on a rampage in Virginia? Then I guess it only follows that Clinton carries the blame for Columbine, the spate of other school shootings during the ’90s, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Right?

jaleach on April 18, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Obviously it was Newt Gingrich and the Republican-controlled congress who caused all of that.

Kitty Kelley did write a book on Nancy Reagan, though. Maybe Columbine was her fault somehow… all of that “just say no” talk was just so mean!

Dave Shay on April 18, 2007 at 3:18 PM

The purpose of the form is that the person who lies on the form and gets caught has committed a federal criminal offense.

slp on April 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Yesterday on MSNBC (yeah, I watched a little of the gun control coverage), some f*ckin’ nutjob from CEASEFIRE-NJ
actually said on national television that every gun purchaser in New York and California is interviewed for mental stability. WTF!?!?!?! Maybe he was talking about this question on the form. Maybe he meant, the salesman behind the counter, expert pyschologist that he is, asks some questions. But when I purchased any of my firearms, NO ONE interviewed me. I can’t believe what a lying sack ‘o sh!t this gun-grabbers are.

Andy in Agoura Hills on April 18, 2007 at 3:30 PM

The purpose of the form is that the person who lies on the form and gets caught has committed a federal criminal offense.

slp on April 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Really???? No sh!t sherlock. But guess what, person or persons are already DEAD.

Andy in Agoura Hills on April 18, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Bush may be somewhat partially responsible for the shootings in Virginia because he has created a climate
of violence, war, killing, hopelessness, and futility.

Um, no.

Respectfully, I’m effing sick to death of hearing about “hopelessness.” Kucinich’s stupid campaign slogan was “Hope Begins.” Next-door neighbor of mine, City Year (AmeriCorps Jr.), aims to “restore hope and idealism.” Guess what, Jack? I never lost hope. Don’t flatter yourselves. My sense of hope will never hinge on who’s sitting in the White House this particular day of the week. If Hillary’s elected, do I have carte blanche to shoot up an elementary school?

Imagine living in a dorm and not ever being able to make eye contact? Boo-forkin’-hoo. Imagine hearing your child was just shot by some insane kid the day before graduation.

Bush Derangement Syndrome has taken a huge bite out of my mental well-being, but I maintain hope that it will pass.

saint kansas on April 18, 2007 at 3:35 PM

YES, Read Kitty Kelly. God knows she is an icon of truth. How do people like M.P.M become so twisted in logic?

GoodBoy on April 18, 2007 at 3:41 PM

“As far as I know, question 11f is the full extent of a mental health background check for anyone purchasing a firearm.”

The states are required under section 103 of the Brady Act to report to NICS felony convictions, committment to a mental institution, and misdemeanor domestic violence (when the defendant is represented by counsel) as per the Lautenberg Amendment.

georgej on April 18, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Really???? No sh!t sherlock. But guess what, person or persons are already DEAD.

Andy in Agoura Hills on April 18, 2007 at 3:32 PM

And that’s the point of the post. The Brady Bill was started because a mentally ill person shot President Reagan and Mr James Brady. From what I know the system’s only way to preventnt a mentally ill person from a gun is a question asking a person if they are mentally ill. Does NICS even have a database of mentally ill people? It’s not a crime to be mentally ill so it wouldn’t be on the crime data base.

Drtuddle on April 18, 2007 at 3:43 PM

To Andy in Agoura Hills:

Many were making the point that the form has no purpose.

I just pointed out the purpose of the form.

Of course, the form does not prevent this tragedy. In addition, as noted, the computer system used by gun shop owners does not have any information to verify the accuracy of the answer to question 11f.

I recommend in the future that you stick to the facts and leave out the curse words.

slp on April 18, 2007 at 3:44 PM

To Andy in Agoura Hills:

Many were making the point that the form has no purpose.

I just pointed out the purpose of the form.

Of course, the form does not prevent this tragedy. In addition, as noted, the computer system used by gun shop owners does not have any information to verify the accuracy of the answer to question 11f.

See the comment on Lautenberg Amendment

Andy, I still recommend in the future that you stick to the facts and leave out the curse words.

slp on April 18, 2007 at 3:47 PM

The form cannot serve the purpose you state.

You are required to fill out the form, or go to jail. Since it is mandatory, the SCOTUS ruled that information on the form has immunity status, and the form cannot be used as evidence of purjery committed on that same form.

Useless!

Kristopher on April 18, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Sorry … “perjury”.

Kristopher on April 18, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Eric Harris had to take drugs for his anger management-”the autopsy reports showed that he had Luvox in his system at the time of death.”

Charles Whitman had anger problems and suicidal tendacies:”Whitman mentioned the visit with Heatly in his final suicide notes, saying that the visit was to “no avail”. By the summer, Whitman was prescribed Dexedrine.

Although Whitman had abused the drugs that he had been prescribed in the past[citation needed], the autopsy could not establish if he had consumed any prior to the attacks.”

Cho is in the same category:”In 2005 Cho Seung-Hui was temporarily detained and declared mentally ill and a danger to himself or others by a Montgomery County, Virginia district court. Following psychiatric evaluation, he was ordered undergo outpatient care and released.[30][31] Some reports state that Cho is believed to have been taking psychiatric medications for depression,[32], but there is no record of this in federal prescription databases.[33]”

It’s a mental problem!

Drtuddle on April 18, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Kai on April 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Wow … Fire up the police state … Piss off someone with access to the database and suddenly you are on the list. Maybe you would like the Japanese system? You will receive an annual visit from the local precinct to stop by and ‘evaluate’ you and your family, just to make sure you aren’t a rabble rouser.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2007 at 12:02 PM

The Second Amendment, like the other first ten, are inalienable rights. Meaning, you can’t even forfeit the right, much less law enforcement acting against them. Moreover, there is a duty to self preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. When the government violates the Second Amendment (which it already has), are you ready to forfeit self preservation?

I can’t quite believe what I am reading on this page. Chuck my liberty in the tank for some perceived security? No way.

Want to stop a K-12 school shooting … Arm the faculty and let them carry.

Want to stop a university shooting … Let the adults carry their firearms.

If you think the ‘state’ will solve this problem, you are fooling yourselves. Free men carry weapons, slaves don’t.

AZ_Redneck on April 18, 2007 at 10:18 PM

A day later and MPM’s “logic” is still pissing me off.

“Climate of hopelessness?”

We’re at the tipping point of catastrophic global climate change. We’re in a “quagmire” and an unwinnable civil war. 9/11 was an inside job by our own government. And AIDS is going to become a heterosexual epidemic. And the oceans are all dying. And bioengineered foods are going to mutate the human race. And second-hand smoke will give you cancer. And the government is tapping my phone and reading my library records.

Damn you, Bushitler!

saint kansas on April 19, 2007 at 7:32 AM

saint kansas on April 19, 2007 at 7:32 AM

Yes – let’s not forget that the Bushitler now has the power to conjure up hurricanes and tsunamis. The force is stong in him – feel the power of the dark side.

Rick on April 19, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Any one who wants to really understand Bush and his impact on those around him should read Kitty Kelley’s book about the Bushes. Sincerely, MPM

All one needs to know about the ‘intellectual’ MSM.

Entelechy on April 19, 2007 at 12:42 PM

MPM, of course…

Entelechy on April 19, 2007 at 12:42 PM

We have entered a new era in lefty thinking where anything bad is six or less degrees of separation from President Bush. Crazy Korean kid shoots up his college? Bush is to blame. Global warming? Bush! Economy is terrible (even though it’s not): Bush. Had some bad clams and now you’re sick? Bush, obviously. Nematode infestation in your garden, squirrels in the attic, garage door stopped working? Bush, Bush, Bush!

Tantor on April 19, 2007 at 5:03 PM