South Dakota HB 1229

[Armorer07]

This bill, from my understanding, has been created to keep "dangerously mentally ill" persons from owning guns. I will be doing more research on my own however, I feel this could be a form of incremental encroachment on our right to bear arms. If this bill works how I understand it to be designed it would be the same as disallowing felons to own or buy firearms, which I think is understandable. I don't know if this is the correct area to post this, and I don't want to create lots of bickering and strife, I would just like to know what some of you think about this South Dakota proposed House Bill. Also, if anyone has done research on this bill I would appreciate if you could add to this conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Graham]

This bill, from my understanding, has been created to keep "dangerously mentally ill" persons from owning guns. I will be doing more research on my own however, I feel this could be a form of incremental encroachment on our right to bear arms.

People who are sufficiently mentally ill to be dangerous to themselves or others are already prohibited from buying guns. How does it 'encroach' on the 2nd A?

 

[Armorer07]

I guess I have a feeling that after this law passes the next thing will be mentally ill, then anyone suspected o being mentally ill then anyone who they deem necessary. I don't know, just looking for input I suppose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kurt]

2014 Session - Bill History

As I read it seems it is for some one who was not able to stand trail by claiming insanity or it being declared . This really does not seem to encroach on the rights of the average person as I read it. Don't really have a problem if some one was declared insane at one point not having a gun. I also like that if they get straight there is a review process for them to regain it.

 

[SledDog]

The determination of "mentally ill" will be a huge factor. Who does it, what is the basis, what about post-treatment, that sort of thing.

 

[kurt]

Maybe I am reading it wrong but it would be a person who in court could not stand trail due to claiming insanity. So its not like they pick a guy off the street and have him evaluated. So as long as a guy doesn't do any crazy shit and end up in court and then claim insanity you should be safe. As a state as a whole we are pretty pro gun as about every truck has one riding in the back window. Common sense is still evident here as opposed to the coasts I am more worried about the feds than I am out state govt when it comes to firearms rights.

 

[kraigWY]

What is "dangerously mentally ill" and who defines it.

Under due process or determination by a court is one thing. But any one else I say NO. Example, a Vet seeks counseling for PTSD gets put on the list, even with no proof he is a danger. Everyone has PTSD of one sort of another. Doesn't mean everyone is dangerous.

Not only does this deprive on of his God given rights, it also causes vets to decline help because of the stigma, or his rights.

Slippery slope, by passing Due Process.

So I'd like to see how this bill is worded. Not just the bill but the legislator intent.

 

[Armorer07]

What is "dangerously mentally ill" and who defines it.

Under due process or determination by a court is one thing. But any one else I say NO. Example, a Vet seeks counseling for PTSD gets put on the list, even with no proof he is a danger. Everyone has PTSD of one sort of another. Doesn't mean everyone is dangerous.

Not only does this deprive on of his God given rights, it also causes vets to decline help because of the stigma, or his rights.

Slippery slope, by passing Due Process.

So I'd like to see how this bill is worded. Not just the bill but the legislator intent.

This is also what worried me. It seems like a common sense yes this makes sense law but, shouldn't the fact that the person in question for something bad enough to plead insanity already show up on a background check?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk