You gotta love the South Dakota legislature. They don’t let little things like “fact” or “science” get in the way, as they’ve repeatedly shown in their ground-breaking attempts to somehow legislate away climate change. They flaunt their world-respected power, voting on United Nations resolutions as if the United Nations gives a rat’s ass what the South Dakota Legislature thinks. This week, they’ve continued to flash their “conservative cred”. Hey, they’ve got competition from the Kansas Legislature and other red-state wackos! Gotta prove who is the MOST conservative!!
To that end, yesterday a committee killed a bill that would have restricted firearm access to the mentally ill in South Dakota. The law would have submitted the names of “dangerous” individuals to the federal database used for background checks, ensuring they wouldn’t have access to firearms. Currently, South Dakota does NOT provide that information, meaning the mentally ill, including those deemed to be dangerous, could sail through a background check and buy firearms.
Makes sense, right? Restricting gun access to people who have been deemed to be dangerous? A no-brainer, right? HELL NO!! THIS IS SOUTH DAKOTA!! Remember, we’re trying to compete with the Kansas’s of the world for who can be the most conservative, be it in denying evolution, legislating away climate change, or ensuring that a bunch of hairy old white men in the South Dakota Legislature control what women do with their bodies.
CRAZY PEOPLE HAVE GUN RIGHTS TOO!! Even people deemed to be DANGEROUS have gun rights!! YOU’LL TAKE OUR GUNS WHEN YOU PRY THEM FROM OUR COLD, DEAD FINGERS!!!! Rep. Melissa Magstadt said she was “worried” about taking the right to bear arms away from the mentally ill before they had committed a violent act, even if mental assessment indicated they were dangerous to themselves or others. BRILLIANT, Ms. Magstadt!! We wait until AFTER they commit a violent act before even considering taking away guns from crazy people!!
Rep. Scott Ecklund said the bill would “add to the struggle of people with mental illness”. Yes, because NOTHING soothes the mentally ill like having a cache of weapons. It’s MUCH more important that the dangerous mentally ill have gun access and, evidently, less of a “struggle”, than it is to protect the rest of the population!
Kudos, South Dakota Legislature!! Kansas, here we come! You may (currently) have us beat on wacko evolution legislation, but we DARE you to touch our conservative cred on the issue of guns!!
I would think that not denying weapons to mentally ill folks opens the door wide for those coming up from other states to come to SD to get their weapons fix. Seems that the federal Govt should be able to override this even as some states, like MS< NE< KS are making their own end runs around Federal abortion laws, with passing laws that a doctor cannot perform abortions if he/she is alredy not on staff at a local hospital, and then, they have the hospitals refuse admittance of the doctors to the staffs, if they perform abortions. And 4 Planned Parenthood clinics were closed this week by that ever-radical WI Governor walker. There must be some way SD can work with law enforcement and the fed. Govt to keep guns out of the hands of the ill.
I have a mentally ill cousin and he hunts with us all the time. Carries his own gun and pulls his own trigger, kills his own game. If he is able to do that then why would we want to take his 2nd amendment away from him. Our amendments were put there for a reason…… So everyone was equal. I don’t care if you take guns out of people’s hands, they will just start grabbing knives and killing with knives or bats or anything else for that fact. Taking guns away doesn’t solve anything…. But putting a gun in everyone’s hands solves a lot. Think about it, a guy is walkin into a theatre with mass killing on his mind…… He’s not gonna do it if he knows that everyone in the building can defend there selves in a few seconds. Just because a few people deside to be insane doesn’t mean everybody in America should suffer. And the biggest school shooting to date happened back in like the 1920s. It’s our right to bear arms and its only gonna cause a civil war if they keep pushing it and taking the guns from “mentally ill” people is just the start of what’s to come so I praise South Dakota for turning that down and standing up for what is right. I will be the first one pulling the trigger on anyone who tries to take my guns so I’m either gonna be dead or a survivor with his guns. More than likely dead but I’m willing to give that sacrifice.
Stand up for your rights….. Quit laying down and being silent!
Jack,
You’re making the same false argument that groups like the NRA make…that restricting ANY gun rights will eventually result in ALL guns being taken away. It’s JUST NOT TRUE. Heck, I’m as liberal as they come, but I used to hunt too, and I’m not advocating taking away people’s guns for hunting and the like.
It’s one thing to provide a gun and take your mentally ill cousin with you hunting. That’s great! Yes, in that situation, they should have the same right as anyone else.
But this law would have reported DANGEROUS mentally ill, people who are deemed to be a hazard to others, or to themselves. Do you REALLY think it’s a great idea to provide them with guns, without any restrictions? Someone who has been evaluated to be a DANGER to the public as a whole?
Those in favor of gun rights have fallen for the same ridiculous arguments made by the NRA, that ANY restrictions are bad. C’mon. Restricting gun access to criminals and dangerous mentally ill people is just common sense, and in NO WAY affects legal activities such as hunting or gun ownership for responsible citizens.
The new EO, as far as I can find out as it has not been put up yet, will over-ride HIPPA in all states and require doctors to report anyone who is mentally ill.
Now comes the question, who is mentally ill? Sen. Feinstein is being reported as saying ALL veterans are mentally ill. Other gov’t officials are saying that the act of taking anti-depression drugs means your are mentally-ill. What about the very religious or the outspoken pro-gun advocate? Or the widower who talks to his doctor about being down because his wife just passed away? Who decides? If a person has been found insane by a court, let the court report, but keep our confidential doctor patient relationships just that confidential and private!
This doesn’t even touch the history of using mental illness as a way to get rid of or imprison those who would speak out against a tyrannical gov’t. Allowing gov’t to decide who is insane and requiring doctors to report, history proves, is a very dangerous road to travel.
Thank you, SD State legislature!
Pardon the language…but…wow. Give me a fucking break.
Yes, ALL veterans are going to get their guns taken away. Yes, ALL people on anti-depressants will get their guns taken away. Yes, all WIDOWERS will get their guns taken away.
Great example of the irrational paranoia from those on the right who think GOVERNMENT is the root of all evil.
Great example of making a series of strawmen to state what MIGHT happen if we allow our evil government to (GASP!) actually try to PROTECT our children from crazies with a gun.
It’s damned scary to see the kind of nut-job arguments the gun crazies come up with to defend ANY rights to weapons.