Gun Control Revisited.

[Ishmael]

You, and I, and virtually every pro second amendment organization agree that the mentally ill should NOT be allowed to have firearms in their possession or access to same. Period.

The odds are overwhelmingly against congress passing an amendment that alters the second amendment and even if they do the odds of state ratification are virtually zero.

To complicate matters starting in the late 1970's through the 1990's that ACLU brought a series of cases before the Supreme Court on 5ht amendment grounds regarding the incarceration of the mentally ill. The results of these SCOTUS decisions virtually emptied the various states mental institutions and made the process of stripping and individual of their rights based on mental disabilities an extraordinary long and expensive process.

This obviously sets up a conflict between the rights of the mentally ill, the rights of the citizen to arms, and the desire of ALL of us to be safe from the mentally ill to cause us and themselves harm.

So, how do you resolve those conflicts? Require that all gun owners under go a psychiatric examination? How do you insure that such an examination is unbiased? And even if the individual is determined by the mental health professional to be disqualified the SCOTUS cases referred to still require that a court strip the individual of their rights. And even if that requirement is fulfilled what means will be put in place for the individual to challenge the decision? And who is going to pay for all of this? We still operate under the notion of 'presumption of innocence.'

Perhaps Col. Hogan will chime in from the legal perspective. The problem is a thorny one and the solution(s) are not going to be simplistic.

Ishmael

 

[ToucheAmore]

If you believe that you have time to gather your guns and protect your family during an assault/home invasion, etc., you're mentally ill and shouldn't have weapons. He'll, sporks would be a stretch.

 

[irksomesauce]

You, and I, and virtually every pro second amendment organization agree that the mentally ill should NOT be allowed to have firearms in their possession or access to same. Period.

The odds are overwhelmingly against congress passing an amendment that alters the second amendment and even if they do the odds of state ratification are virtually zero.

To complicate matters starting in the late 1970's through the 1990's that ACLU brought a series of cases before the Supreme Court on 5ht amendment grounds regarding the incarceration of the mentally ill. The results of these SCOTUS decisions virtually emptied the various states mental institutions and made the process of stripping and individual of their rights based on mental disabilities an extraordinary long and expensive process.

This obviously sets up a conflict between the rights of the mentally ill, the rights of the citizen to arms, and the desire of ALL of us to be safe from the mentally ill to cause us and themselves harm.

So, how do you resolve those conflicts? Require that all gun owners under go a psychiatric examination? How do you insure that such an examination is unbiased? And even if the individual is determined by the mental health professional to be disqualified the SCOTUS cases referred to still require that a court strip the individual of their rights. And even if that requirement is fulfilled what means will be put in place for the individual to challenge the decision? And who is going to pay for all of this? We still operate under the notion of 'presumption of innocence.'

Perhaps Col. Hogan will chime in from the legal perspective. The problem is a thorny one and the solution(s) are not going to be simplistic.

Ishmael

Your obvious, largest error above is not facing the fact of the matter: it ain't about any mentally ill - progressives wants arms out of the hands of every American; except, of course, their favored statist agents.

But you go ahead and grant them that "mentally ill" inch...

...just like California progressives originally lying about all they wanted to discuss were "civil unions', they'll take that inch and turn it into a gay marriage mile.

There are no so-called remedies to this continuing issue without amending the Constitution. And like you posted: that just ain't possible at this time.

STALEMATE

 

[RobDownSouth]

The nation that somehow managed enough regulation to keep large tubes of toothpaste out of airline carry-on bags cannot seem to effectively regulate guns.

You've acknowledged an issue, Ishmael.

Why not share your proposed solution with us?

 

[Fala]

The nation that somehow managed enough regulation to keep large tubes of toothpaste out of airline carry-on bags cannot seem to effectively regulate guns.

You've acknowledged an issue, Ishmael.

Why not share your proposed solution with us?

Well, at least nobody will be popping a cap into the pilots head during flight.

 

[Ishmael]

Well, at least nobody will be popping a cap into the pilots head during flight.

As a once removed reply to RubDownSow, I don't have a solution. I brought this issue up previously when Sandy Hook happened.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Well, at least nobody will be popping a cap into the pilots head during flight.

Never discount the actions of the mentally ill. If you have no regard for your own life why should you have any regard for anyone else's?

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Simple solution. Those wanting a gun are legally allowed one musket.

 

[Fala]

As a once removed reply to RubDownSow, I don't have a solution. I brought this issue up previously when Sandy Hook happened.

Ishmael

But did your solution include that the "cap" I mention was from the tube of toothpaste?

 

[Ishmael]

But did your solution include that the "cap" I mention was from the tube of toothpaste?

Do you bother to read at all?

Ishmael

 

[silver gurl]

Unless you hunt, why does everyone need a gun? I have lived this long without one.

 

[Que]

Simple solution. Those want a gun are legally allowed one musket.

The stated issue was the problem of the mentally incompetant, such as yourself, having firearms. Your solution is to give each of them a musket?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The stated issue was the problem of the mentally incompetant, such as yourself, having firearms. Your solution is to give each of them a musket?

Nope.

 

[ToucheAmore]

The stated issue was the problem of the mentally incompetant, such as yourself, having firearms. Your solution is to give each of them a musket?

that's some wicked irony right there.

 

[Que]

Nope.

So not all just:

"Those that want a gun..."

...would include mentally incompetent individuals such as yourself if they happen to want one.

Shall I draw you a Venn diagram?

 

[Fala]

I appreciate every angle of this gun debate.

However, we own plenty of them...including semi-autos.

Trust that nobody will ever see them...unless they are needed to fight an invasion by a foreign government...or an act of tyranny by our own.

sincerely.

 

[Fala]

Do you bother to read at all?

Ishmael

gotcha again, Ish. You responded the same way the first time.

You'd really do better just not responding at all when this happens to you.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So not all just:

"Those that want a gun..."

...would include mentally incompetent individuals such as yourself if they happen to want one.

Shall I draw you a Venn diagram?

If that helps you ascribe me a position I haven't adopted easier and then arguing against that, go ahead.

 

[Ishmael]

I appreciate every angle of this gun debate.

However, we own plenty of them...including semi-autos.

Trust that nobody will ever see them...unless they are needed to fight an invasion by a foreign government...or an act of tyranny by our own.

sincerely.

Or in the exercise of self-defense.

But that is not the subject, keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You, and I, and virtually every pro second amendment organization agree that the mentally ill should NOT be allowed to have firearms in their possession or access to same. Period.

The odds are overwhelmingly against congress passing an amendment that alters the second amendment and even if they do the odds of state ratification are virtually zero.

To complicate matters starting in the late 1970's through the 1990's that ACLU brought a series of cases before the Supreme Court on 5ht amendment grounds regarding the incarceration of the mentally ill. The results of these SCOTUS decisions virtually emptied the various states mental institutions and made the process of stripping and individual of their rights based on mental disabilities an extraordinary long and expensive process.

This obviously sets up a conflict between the rights of the mentally ill, the rights of the citizen to arms, and the desire of ALL of us to be safe from the mentally ill to cause us and themselves harm.

So, how do you resolve those conflicts? Require that all gun owners under go a psychiatric examination? How do you insure that such an examination is unbiased? And even if the individual is determined by the mental health professional to be disqualified the SCOTUS cases referred to still require that a court strip the individual of their rights. And even if that requirement is fulfilled what means will be put in place for the individual to challenge the decision? And who is going to pay for all of this? We still operate under the notion of 'presumption of innocence.'

Perhaps Col. Hogan will chime in from the legal perspective. The problem is a thorny one and the solution(s) are not going to be simplistic.

Ishmael

18 USC 922:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));​

(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

(B)

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or​

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

Exclusion 4 is the only one you specifically asked about, but I included the others due to some of the arguable Constitutional infringements they represent. Numbers 6, 8 and 9 particularly trouble me given the various irrelevant behaviors that could result in a dishonorable discharge, the ease with which one could obtain a court order re "stalking" and the misdemeanor nature of even something as serious as domestic violence that results in a lifetime suspension of a right long after you've divorced and moved on. All of these effectively punish a lot of innocent people to "protect" us from a dangerous few who would likely ignore the law anyway.

But item 4 is further codified under 27 CFR §478.11 Meaning of Terms:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(b) The term shall include—

(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

*************************

Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

************************

Mental institution. Includes mental health facilities, mental hospitals, sanitariums, psychiatric facilities, and other facilities that provide diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a general hospital.

The key word in all of this, it seems to me, is "adjudicated." I'm fine with adjudication from a court of law. But I'm not so certain about the scope of "board, commission or other lawful authority." What the hell does that mean?

The Obama administration instituted modifications to 27 CFR §478.11 in 2014 which the House and Senate repealed (and even the ACLU supported) and President Trump signed into law. Adrina bitched about it in another thread. My response: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88092027&postcount=79

 

[Fala]

Or in the exercise of self-defense.

But that is not the subject, keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is.

Ishmael

My husband has a concealed carry license. He was a decorated sharp shooter back when he was in the Army.

The only time he ever carried as a civilian, is when he was transporting large amounts of money.

That is not an issue for him anymore now that we are retired from the biz.

Guns are locked up tight here. Nobody has access.

Oh, and neither of us are mentally ill.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

My husband has a concealed carry license. He was a decorated sharp shooter back when he was in the Army.

The only time he ever carried as a civilian, is when he was transporting large amounts of money.

That is not an issue for him anymore now that we are retired from the biz.

Guns are locked up tight here. Nobody has access.

Oh, and neither of us are mentally ill.

C'mon. Don't tell me you've never once in all those years rolled over in bed and questioned your sanity.

 

[Ghostee]

Unless you hunt, why does everyone need a gun? I have lived this long without one.

Why do you care if I or anyone has a gun or who are you to decide who has one, come on why do you need facebook or a cellphone or a house or whatever.... its not about need its a freaking Freedom only we Americans have.

Firearm usage has kept countless women and their children safe from thugs and killers and go unreported by the media.

If being unarmed kept you safe then no one at the concert would have died or would you feel better if the killer used a car and then ask why does anyone need a car ?

 

[Ishmael]

18 USC 922:



Exclusion 4 is the only one you specifically asked about, but I included the others due to some of the arguable Constitutional infringements they represent. Numbers 6, 8 and 9 particularly trouble me given the various irrelevant behaviors that could result in a dishonorable discharge, the ease with which one could obtain a court order re "stalking" and the misdemeanor nature of even something as serious as domestic violence that results in a lifetime suspension of a right long after you've divorced and moved on. All of these effectively punish a lot of innocent people to "protect" us from a dangerous few who would likely ignore the law anyway.

But item 4 is further codified under 27 CFR §478.11 Meaning of Terms:


The key word in all of this, it seems to me, is "adjudicated." I'm fine with adjudication from a court of law. But I'm not so certain about the scope of "board, commission or other lawful authority." What the hell does that mean?

The Obama administration instituted modifications to 27 CFR §478.11 in 2014 which the House and Senate repealed (and even the ACLU supported) and President Trump signed into law. Adrina bitched about it in another thread. My response: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88092027&postcount=79

The ACLU had no alternative but to side with the repeal, to do otherwise would put to 'lie' the entire foundation of their arguments to the court in the rulings that I referenced in the OP. While not commenting on the merits of the arguments put forth by either side, the rulings of the SCOTUS clearly set up this immovable object vs. the irresistible force dilemma.

Re. your reply to Adrina. The part that I agree with essentially boils down to one phrase, " And the organization clearly rejects a "blanket exclusionary" policy based on medical necessity." I do disagree on the 'ownership' percentages. For every 'over the counter' (documented) purchaser I know one owner that is undocumented. I readily concede that the area that I live(ed) in are relatively high firearm ownership areas, but even taking that into consideration firearm ownership is higher than the statistically verifiable numbers.

Ishmael

 

[ToucheAmore]

Why do you care if I or anyone has a gun or who are you to decide who has one, come on why do you need facebook or a cellphone or a house or whatever.... its not about need its a freaking Freedom only we Americans have.

Firearm usage has kept countless women and their children safe from thugs and killers and go unreported by the media.

If being unarmed kept you safe then no one at the concert would have died or would you feel better if the killer used a car and then ask why does anyone need a car ?

i've read exactly 2 posts of yours and i can confidently say that the next time a toddler accidentally shoots someone, i hope it's you.