Previous Post
Next Post


The Firearms Coalition writes [via]:

Gun rights advocates around the country need to be on the lookout for an insidious new tactic being launched by Mike Bloomberg and his mercenary minions. The strategy: use the wide acceptance of the idea that the mentally ill should not have access to firearms, as a front for prohibiting a broad array of “normal” people from possessing guns or ammunition. As with most things, the devil is in the details. What is mental illness? Who is mentally ill? How mentally ill must one be to warrant revocation of a fundamental human right? Who makes that determination? Who is “normal,” and how “normal” do they have to be to own guns? Recently . . .

One of Bloomberg’s pet politicians, Ralph Northam, whom Bloomberg spent over a million dollars to get elected as Lt. Governor of Virginia, spelled out the plan during a “gun violence” symposium. The event turned out to be a gun control meeting discussing a strategy of trickery and deception to get firearm restrictions passed through legislatures by hiding it in bills dealing with mental health.

My friend Philip Van Cleave, the President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, was at the meeting and reported that Northam was very candid about the plan and the sneak attack strategies for bypassing committees and public comment, and preventing rights groups from being able to mount opposition until it’s too late. He particularly lauded the Connecticut and New York models where both states used “emergency” legislation to pass draconian bills with no hearings, no committee votes, and no public input. He also discussed strategies to gain support from rights leaders by quietly negotiating deals to keep a bill “clean” and leave out overt anti-rights provisions, while concealing the provisions that seriously threaten rights.

It isn’t often that we hear anti-rights extremists openly admitting their true strategies and objectives. Someone has probably since suggested to Mr. Northam that the first rule in executing an effective, secret plan might be to not announce the details of the plan in advance.

Thankfully that advice can only come too late because the cat’s out of the bag and rights advocates are mobilizing.

VCDL is taking a very smart approach to this challenge. They have already begun assembling a working group of mental health professionals and civil rights attorneys to review all mental health-related legislation and make recommendations. Other grass roots organizations will undoubtedly be following their example and seeking out knowledgeable assistance. The ACLU, a group, which has historically shown animosity or indifference towards the Second Amendment, is seriously concerned about threats to privacy, due process, and equal protection that often arise in mental health bills, and they could be an important ally in the coming fights.

While this anti-rights sneak attack is just getting underway, you can be sure it is well planned and well-funded, so expect to see a flood of bills dealing with mental health in general, and firearms access by the mentally ill in particular, introduced in Congress and state legislatures nationwide in the coming months. These bills will be promoted as “common sense,” but they will contain definitions so broad that hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of regular folks who have been, or are being, successfully treated for common, minor, mental and emotional issues will be denied their right to arms as “mental defectives.” People suffering from mild depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, even women treated for PMS, could be lumped in with violent schizophrenics and the criminally insane.

In Connecticut, they banned firearm possession by anyone who voluntarily checks themselves into a mental health facility for any reason. While that ban is temporary for now, expect it to be incrementally increased in the future, just as the new law increased the duration of bans for people involuntarily committed. The result of the prohibition for voluntary commitments will undoubtedly be that some people who should remove themselves from the troubles of the outside world for a time to get needed help, will choose to forgo that option rather than be treated like a criminal. This is of particular concern for our returning veterans.

Rights advocates are going to have to be extremely diligent to catch the threats that are on the way. One advantage we have is the arrogance of our opponents. Just as Northam arrogantly described the sneaky plan – without anyone in the “legitimate” media taking note of the proposed chicanery – expect Mike Bloomberg to make his support for the bad bills rather obvious. An easy way to tell if any legislation is bad – or at least that it deserves extra scrutiny – will be support from Bloomberg and his various front organizations.

Liberty is a never-ending struggle. Be prepared to respond to these bills, and take action now to warn your elected representatives about the coming sneak attacks.

©2013 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Identifying some of the people who for mental health reasons are dangerous with guns could stop some of the violence, but it’s hard to do. Another problem is that the person who owns the guns may not be the one with the mental health problems as happened in Sandy Hook. If insurance was required that would pay victims even if someone other than the owner did the shooting, then the insurers would be asking questions about inappropriate family members. Authorities in some provinces of Canada do ask about families of gun permit applicants.

    • If one is worried about being shot then an appropriate response would be to purchase a large life insurance policy. However, Roberts would probably be onboard with a tax to be paid by gun owners in order to exercise the right to bear arms.

    • I think there should be required insurance for liberals to exercise their rights. When they vote for idiots and I lose my rights, am forced to participate in unconstitutional healthcare laws, or get taxed more, I should have the right to make a claim and be compensated for my loss. I am here by calling for all liberals and Democrats to be required to carry insurance before voting.

    • “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Where, in those 27 words, do you find the authority for any government agency to set standards for mental health, identify, create a database, track, and finally prohibit those people from exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

      The answer is that you cannot, because not only is it NOT there, the government is specifically prohibited from taking any such action.

      I’m sorry if this concerns you, but the willingness of too many people to ignore the “…shall not be infringed.” portion of the 2A concerns me even more than an occasion nut job with a gun.

      Historically the ability of mental health “professionals” to do anything effective other than house the mentally ill and feed them drugs, since they have not in the last 100 years been able to come up with any effective plan to cure any mental illness, means that once you have been subjected to their “diagnosis” of mental disease you will NEVER be off that list.

      • Don’t forget electroshock, ice water shock, and pre-frontal lobotomies!

        The “mental health” industry in the this country is a non-stop record of horrors and severe abuse of human rights. And it all started with the insane persecution of “witches”.

    • So you would be ok with requiring insurance before you could post a comment on a story, or create a blog, or in any way publish your opinion in-case you or a family member might commit liable against some one?

      Judging by some of the posts I have seen in blogs that makes more sense then Gun Insurance.


  2. I’m all for gun-rights, but those open carriers are just crazy. Who would carry a gun like that out in the open? They must be paranoid and should be checked out by a doctor. Especially someone who would have a silencer on their AR while wearing a bullet proof vest.

        • What is that supposed to mean?

          Has anyone else noticed we’re being invaded again at TTAG? There’s an organization behind these. They appear in clusters, then they’re gone.

          They can’t touch us; we’re too strong.

      • Walking around a city with an AR-15, shotgun or rifle slung over your shoulder in plain sight is just ASKING for trouble. It’s a different world today then it was back in the “good ‘ol days”. I’m all for gun rights but let’s use a little common sense!

        • Right, it is more dangerous than it was in the good ol’ days. Even more reason to carry an AR over your shoulder. After all, it is good enough for cops patrolling subways and air ports.

    • Are you suggesting that we should instead hide in the shadows, acting afraid and ashamed of exercising our rights?

      Our rights are our rights, whether they offend somebody or not. A right we are afraid to exercise is a right we have lost.

      Shaming and intimidating us into conformity is a well documented tactic of those who wish to disarm us. It would appear you are one of them.

  3. Tough topic as mental health s a problem,Kamala Harris in California is already employing these tactics to grab guns by having pharmacist’s to call the Calif.DOJ if someone does not pickup their prescription ( mood pills) in time and then puts their name on a “prohibited possession of Firearms” list and then they send the California ‘ModSquad in jumpsuits over to your house .Since they DON’T have a warrant they use intimidation to get you to”invite” them in and they proceed to violate 2nd and 4th Amendment rights by illegal search and seizure of any and all firearms,registered or not.
    This is what Feinstein and Bloombreg cherish.

    • Sounds like major league FUD to me, and without a citation, I have to doubt its veracity. It is not how the system works in this state, and HIPPA would prohibit such communications. The DA has a big enough back log just with 5150s, 5250s, TROs, permanent restraining orders, and convictions for felonies and disqualifying misdemeanors to have to try to illegally obtain private health care data. Further, “mood elevators” are not a “mental defect or disease” within the meaning of the law.

      There is of course a risk that the classification of prohibiting conditions could be expanded to include moderate to severe depression, and this is the whole point of the article.

      • These kinds of disclosures are in no way prohibited by HIPAA:


        Permitted Uses and Disclosures

        (5) Public Interest and Benefit Activities. The Privacy Rule permits use and disclosure of protected health information, without an individual’s authorization or permission, for 12 national priority purposes.

        Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests;

        I don’t know if Harris is actually getting pharmacy records and using them to go after gun owners, but if she wanted to, HIPAA wouldn’t be stopping her.

        • +1. People are so damn uninformed about that law, and particularly when it comes to law enforcement.

    • I dont know why California gun owners put up with your DOJ. You should be holding protest rallies and “blockades” at DOJ offices and in front of Kamala Harris`s home. But then there may be a reason why, seems like everything is a felony in California

  4. Sane today… Crazy tomorrow. Not all mental illness is detectable at time of review. Major life changes, a loss, stress, more factors than I can count, all play a huge role in forming a mental illness. Jan 1st, you could be screened, deemed healthy and fit. By the end of April, you’ve slipped. It just happens, and it’s human nature regardless of how we legislate it. You can’t legislate “crazy” out of existence. Like legislating obesity. It won’t work.

    • Also crazy today, sane tomorrow. The human mind is far too complex to be explained completely. In every mind lies a universe.

  5. Open that can of worms and eventually they declare the desire to own a gun a mental health issue..they already think it is, they’ll just make it official. And there you go. If you want a gun you’re obviously sick in the head and can’t have one. But if you don’t want one you’re perfectly sane and can have whatever you choose.

  6. Laws and regulations like this would solidify my thoughts on never seeking help. If I ever needed help and laws like this exist, I would not seek help. If I had PTSD or depression and went to the VA in the future, I would not say a word because it could lead to permanently losing my guns rights with no recourse to regain them.

    Going to the range and shooting has been a part of my life since I was 5-6 years old. I would never give up that enjoyable and relaxing time I spend shooting. When I went through a divorce years ago I bought my first pistol and two Mosins (Big 5 had sales for $79 on M91/30s and M44s). My friends and I went to the range and we went often. Sometimes twice per week depending on if I could afford to buy the ammo. It was fun and kept my mind off of my divorce. I guess you could call that range therapy. I’m glad the future ex didn’t try to file a fraudulent restraining order to screw me over.

    These idiots like Bloomberg love that laws like this would screw a lot of good people over who would never hurt anyone. This needs to be fought hard!

  7. “Mental illness” is a very vague term. It encompasses a large group of symptoms. We should not be using the term to make any decision. Instead we should be discussing specific diagnoses. Schizoid personality disorder? Narcissistic personality disorder? Are all persons with such a diagnosis likely to be dangerous? How do we identify which ones? The pro-control faction would prefer a blunderbuss approach of depriving anyone with any symptom of their rights. We need to get specific.

    “Mental defective” is a term also used by the pro-control faction. The American Psychiatric Association publishes a “Desk Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria From DSM-IV-TR.” This describes the various diagnoses with a list of their symptoms. E.g., paranoid personality disorder has 7 symptoms, four being required to justify a diagnosis. Looking in the index for “mental defective”, there is no such entry. Think about it! Psychiatrists don’t recognize the condition, yet thousands of people lose their rights over it.

    We should be pushing back against the current restrictions on gun possession on mental health grounds by demanding a scientific diagnosis verifiably related to a substantial evil which government has a right to be concerned with.

    • “Mental illness” is a sleazy term, since “mental” comes from “mind”, and the mind has no particular definition, and it sure has no particular place. There are organic brain diseases, but they don’t equate to anything “mental”.

      The mind could eventually prove to be something external to the body.

    • So far , at least, “mental illness” is not a disqualifying condition absent (a) an adjudication or (b) in most states and involuntary confinement AND a determination that a person is a threat to him/herself or others. (Involuntary confinement does the trick for the latter element every time. Some states extend that to voluntary confinements.)

    • DSM-V has been out for a few months now. From what I read it makes DSM-IV look positively precise. There is so much yet to learn about the workings of the mind without that self-serving flummery. Virginia has finally allowed public hospitals to look for Psych Ward beds in private hospitals. It took a high-profile stabbing to make that happen.

      Politicians care not a fig about anyone but themselves.

  8. Ok, so now what happens to any law enforcement or military member who has to undergo mandatory psychiatric or psychological counseling, for whatever reason. Should they never be allowed to carry a firearm again? If they are, then what’s the difference between the mental health treatment they are getting compared to the mental health treatment that a private citizen gets? That’s the argument that needs to be made.

  9. What about the reverse of “Catch 22”? You must be adjudicated sane in order to own a gun. But the mere fact that you want a gun indicates you are insane.

  10. There was once a movie about an attractive woman in France who spurned a doctor’s advances. He had her declared insane on the grounds that she also refused his offer of money and tore e French money-up.
    Beware Leftys who try to engage you in conversation and always use the 3rd person and not the singular if you are forced to respond

    • Having one committed involuntarily was (and probably still is) a favorite way of getting rid of “inconvenient dissidents” in Russia and China. Seems like Bloomie and that fun-loving California crowd have been taking notes.

  11. This falls in the “no shit” category. It was a slippery slope a year ago when that was the finger everyone wanted to point, it’s a slippery slope now. Broad strokes and “Interpretable” terms are not Americans’ friend.

    “You want to own a gun!? You are clearly crazy! You are not fit to own any weapon!”

    • Given the history of human civilization in general and the history of the USA specifically, anyone that wants to ban guns from the citizens is either ignorant of history or just plain crazy. Either way, should they be voting or holding public office? They might want to think twice before choosing this path…

  12. Too bad no one realizes that all Bloomberg is is a representative, not a psychiatrist. With all due respect, what the hell would he know about mental health? That wasn’t his major, and still isn’t his major.

    • He is, however, a professional meddler, and a gun confiscator. If people are willing to put up with his crap, they deserve what they get.

      If they won’t read the tea leaves and vamoose from NYC, I have no sympathy for them.

      • Reading tea leaves?! There is definitely no divination required
        for NYC residents (or anyone else). The anti-civil rights crowd
        is only too happy to spell out what they want.

  13. Given that the VCDL is on to this the 30 seat pro-second Amendment majority in the Virginia House of Delegates will lead to a very disappointed Lt. Governor.

  14. I can’t help but thing that while this administration has made ‘health care’ it’s crusade they honestly are not doing ANYTHING to help people with mental heath issues. The only exception to that being some talk about trying to make it ‘harder for crazy people to get guns’.

    Seems like proof that they’re perfectly willing to pick and choose issues to further their political agenda. Same old same old.

  15. The ACLU testified against a registration/mandatory fee bill in RI that would have required registering each gun with the police department of the town or city of residence and paying $100 per gun.The bill didn’t get a floor vote in either house but it’s being introduced again by a Representative named Linda Finn-hopefully this will be her first and last term in office-she barely squeaked in in 2012.the ACLU surprisingly and correctly went after the fact that a fee to exercise a right was unconstitutional.

  16. I wonder how many politicians would be left in office if they were held to the same mental health standards they want to impose on gun owners and gun ownership?

  17. Have an unnatural fear of heights? You have a mental illness. Afraid of bees? Mental illness! Don’t like crowds? ILL! Never learned to swim? Mentally ill for sure. Talk to yourself sometimes? Oh yes, you’re sick. Arguementative? Mental case! ……. Do you see where I’m going with this? The mind is the most diverse thing in the universe. Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein are thought to have had Asperger’s syndrome, (as well as many of today’s doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, scientist, etc.) and what about anxiety? Half the people I’ve met have struggled with stress and worry in their lives. This is a dispicable attempt to limit freedom of folks who’ve done nothing wrong. Fortunately people without any “disorders” never, ever become violent or commit murder! Sarcasm off.

  18. Refresh my memory, weren’t the changes made to Germany’s government that swept Hitler into power done as emergency legislation?

    At what point do we declare war on those that have waged an undeclared war on our rights? (I say undeclared because most would deny that this is what they’re doing.) If we wait too long, we won’t have the means to defend our rights. My hope is that what we’re seeing are some last gasp, hail mary attempts by the gun grabbers while more people are waking up to reality and tooling up. The only way they succeed is if they convince low info voters that this “is for our own good”. The way we succeed is if we inform the low info voters.

  19. Why don’t we turn it around on them? I’m sure the antis could sustain an OCD diagnosis. They should be identified in the public record and medicated – they make threats toward us. They’re dangerous! They have clubs with signs on them! We NEED our protection.

    [I need more coffee…]

  20. You all have done a good job of parsing-out the concerns and problems with this “mental-illness” tactic of the gun prohibitionists. Thank-you,

    For me the statement that got my attention was “Liberty is a never-ending struggle.”. Here, in the United States of America, the greatest living experiment in Human Freedom that has ever been seen on this Planet, it should NEVER be necessary to pen such a statement. The fact that it is (and I think RF is absolutely correct in penning it) speaks volumes about the situation we presently have in this Country.

    I recognize clearly that not everything that has happened in the U.S.since Our Constitution was ratified and implemented has been as right and proper as the ideals behind Our Constitution, and we have plenty of room for improvement and plenty to feel abashed about. I think The Founders expected The Republic would improve and evolve. I think they recognized there might be future events they could not accurately foresee (we were largely an Agrarian Society at the time, and the Industrial Revolution was far over the horizon…an unknown). They did not abolish Slavery, nor anticipate the severity of the clashes we would have with the Native Americans. Plainly put, they made mistakes both of commission and omission. BUT they laid a foundation upon which more people experienced the benefits of Personal and Social Liberty, pursued their dreams, created wealth for themselves and others, invented new technologies, attracted new immigrants that brought fresh energy and ideas to the Country, worshiped as their conscience dictated and produced the greatest, most diverse and free Nation the World has ever seen. For everything that we Americans may have done wrong, we did a hundred things right. We have historically acted to amend Our Constitution to improve and evolve The Founders’ ideals. We rallied to save the World twice from some of the greatest Tyrants and Despots ever seen. We set standards that most of the rest of the World still aspire to.

    We did all this BECAUSE Our Constitution was designed to enable every person to realize his/her own potential and personal aspirations by acting as a free Human Being pursuing their own “Life, Liberty and Happiness”. Again, nope, it has not all gone perfectly and there’s plenty of room for improvement, but Our Constitution provides for us to improve and evolve The Republic as long as we revere and act upon the ideals The Founders embodied in Our Constitution. It may be that foresight was The Founders’ greatest genius.

    Now RF has to write “Liberty is a never-ending struggle. “, and there’s the rub of what is wrong in this Country today. Liberty, itself, should be a foregone principle that is automatically a part of everything, every Citizen, Politician and Bureaucrat considers doing or legislating. The only valid question ought to be “How can we protect and improve the Liberty of every person (living or unborn) within our borders?”. I agree with what RF says, but I point-out that the context in which he is forced to say it is that Liberty is in jeopardy of being denied and infringed, not in the appropriate context of how it can be strengthened and enhanced. That context can, and should be, an ongoing struggle. It is the only acceptable struggle where Liberty is concerned.

    The only insane people referenced in this discussion are those who are creating the context in which Liberty is in jeopardy of being denied or infringed.

  21. Bipolar 2 sufferer here. Living with a mental illness is debilitating and atrocious. But I would never harm a person without severe provocation, and if the day ever comes I decide to off myself (and I doubt it will) then “my body, my rights” is my philosophy. Shooting actually lifts my spirits and gives me a hobby that keeps me from being isolated, and the pride I take in my skill is a welcome boost. When I’m manic, handling a firearm is the last thing on my mind. I’m usually up until 3 AM cleaning and embarrassing myself by talking way too fast.

  22. As someone who has struggled with severe depression my whole life, this is the kind of thing that keeps me from going to the doctor now that I can barely afford to do it anyway. I dont want to end up on some list for nothing more than trying to get treatment and become better.

  23. This is indeed a huge slippery slope if allowed to manifest itself in the legal world. So many people actually do have some type of “mental” or “developmental” disorder that it would strangle the 2nd Amendment. The only way to deal with this is by judging individuals by their actions alone. Do you ever drink? Have you ever plowed your car into a crowd of pedestrians, a tree, etc. because of your drinking? If the answer is “No” then who am I to say you “Might” do it in the future? Would it be better to deny driver’s licenses to anyone who uses alchohol? Of course not. You judge them by their actions, not the perception of what could happen. This is such a dangerous threat to the Righ to Bear Arms that it chills my blood…..I can just see where they’re trying to head with this. Final analysis: If you’re a “peaceable citizen” (the Founding Fathers term for law abiding people) we must never, never, never allow anyone to deny Constitutional rights because of some lable a doctor assigns. As I mentioned earlier, plenty of neuro-typical people exhibit violence and commit murder. Plenty of people with ADHD, Asperger’s, bi-polar disorders, OCD, PTSD, PDD, etc. live completely upstanding lives from a legal perspective.

  24. I believe a fellow advocating another to relinquish his right ot self preservation is crazy.
    How long before one must be declared sane to use the 1st, 3rd, 4th or even 5th amendment?

  25. Fantastic goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to
    and you’re just too excellent. I actually like what you’ve acquired
    here, certainly like what you are stating and the way in which you say it.
    You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it wise.
    I can not wait to read far more from you. This is really
    a tremendous site.

  26. I believe what you published made a lot of sense.
    However, think about this, what if you composed a catchier title?
    I mean, I don’t want to tell you how to run your website,
    however what if you added a headline that makes people want more?
    I mean Gun Grabbers Sliding Down Slippery Slope Marked Mental Health
    | The Truth About Guns is kinda vanilla. You might
    look at Yahoo’s home page and watch how they write article headlines to get viewers interested.
    You might add a related video or a related pic or two to get readers excited about what you’ve written. Just my
    opinion, it could bring your blog a little bit
    more interesting.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here