NRA’s Top Gun Teams With Florida Democrats On Gun Control Bill Aimed At Mentally Ill

Marion Hammer is the 73-year old grandma you may never have heard of. She is Democrat, and an unabashed supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Still not sure who she is? Perhaps the phrase “stand your ground” rings a bell. Yes, she is the person responsible for that law. She holds the honor of being the NRAs only female President. She is also a nightmare for anyone in Florida who wants to pass pretty much any restrictions on gun ownership, that is until recently. Marion Hammer is leading the charge, via the NRAs lobbying wing ILA, to support a Florida bill that prevents people from purchasing guns if they are certified to be a danger to themselves or others.

Florida’s HB-1355, simply named, Purchase of Firearms by Mentally Ill Persons, was first filed in March of this year by Florida Democrat Barbara Watson. The Miami state representative has worked hand in hand with the NRA’s Marion Hammer. While it may seem like they are strange bedfellows, the bill has seen a quick and easy ride through the legislature. From its first reading on March 5th, it took less than two months to pass both houses. It sat there for about six weeks, until it received the required signatures on June 17th, then it was sent to the Governor to sign.

While the road through the legislature looked smooth, there were over 17,000 e-mails and 3,000 phone calls registered in opposition to the bill. Purists of gun rights say that it should not be signed because the ordinary person who goes to get help for a painful divorce or the death of a loved one might be unfairly ensnared by the law. Examples of those opposing the bill on 2nd Amendment grounds were quoted in the Sarasota newspaper, the Herald Tribune:

This is just another attack on the honest law-abiding person who may choose to own a firearm

Remember, Governor Scott, you are up for re-election. The many gun owners in Florida do not agree with this bill and will vote accordingly.

Hammer is not bothered by the criticism, and dismisses it as a ploy by a Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights to garner donations. She counters that this is something that should be supported because its scope is limited, with two requirements before someone would have their firearms taken away. Hammer explains that the ordinary person seeking mental health treatment wouldn’t fall under this law. Currently, those who are involuntarily committed, and deemed to be dangerous by a court order cannot obtain guns. This law would apply to those who repeatedly?voluntarily?commit themselves and are deemed dangerous. Currently, nothing can be done to prevent these people from purchasing firearms.

While it’s apparent that there is opposition from those on the extreme of gun rights, there’s also opposition from those who are on the delivery side of mental health services.? Their worries are two pronged. First, doctors feel uncomfortable making life altering decisions about the people who are currently committed because once the bill is signed, determinations for all those people would have to be made. Second, the fact that this bill pertains to voluntary commitments, mental health providers fear that people who need help may be less likely to seek it due to this provision.

So does this cooperative turn by the NRA mean that they are softening up on gun control? Not likely. Anyone who knows Hammer knows that she was the one who turned the NRA from one of moderate gun control for hunters to tenacious defender of anything remotely resembling regulation. She’s been lobbying for gun rights for well over thirty years, and has owned a gun since she was five years old. This is in her blood, and she’s a practical woman. She knows that in order for the NRA to retain its power, it has to give a little bit, especially since it was one of the leading groups that called for preventing those with mental illness from having guns. She realizes that the image of the NRA has been severely damaged by the negative views many have of the organization following Sandy Hook, and in light of the increasing number of mass shootings. If the organization is going to survive, it’s going to need to take stock, and shed what won’t work in the long haul even if that means losing the fringe of gun rights. This bill is yet another test in her ability to bring the organization back to a more stable base.

Edited and published by CB