" Common Sense Gun Laws "

David

Opinions are my own...
PREMO Member
Patron
therefore helping with mental health issues will help alleviate the problem
The problem is that "mental health" is a very broad and general term. I imagine that at least half of the population could be classified as having some sort of mental health issue, from Schizophrenia to obsessive compulsive, eating disorders, feeling lack of self worth, paranoia, (mania/)depression related to any number of reasons.

Then once you identify the issue, there is no magic surgery or pill to fix it. People that go to therapy can take years to feel better, and there really is no such thing as being healed. Frankly, so-called mental illness in all of its forms is part of the human experience, at this level of evolution.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The problem is that "mental health" is a very broad and general term.

Which is why I asked, do we start locking people up or taking away their guns just because the said something


Sounds more like Stalinist Russia than America
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
Which is why I asked, do we start locking people up or taking away their guns just because the said something


Sounds more like Stalinist Russia than America
I'm good with declaring "progressivism, leftism and marxism" incurable, dangerous mental deficiencies and process all the lefties into soylent green. :yay:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Republicans Who Support Gun Confiscation Laws Imagine 'Due Process' That Does Not Exist on Paper or in Practice


Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last March, David Kopel, a gun policy expert at the Independence Institute in Denver, emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of respondents in gun confiscation cases. Kopel's recommendations include requiring that petitions be submitted only by law enforcement agencies after an independent investigation, allowing ex parte orders (which are issued without an adversarial process) only for good cause, limiting them to one week, limiting subsequent orders to six months, requiring clear and convincing evidence, providing counsel to respondents, giving them a right to cross-examine witnesses, letting them sue people who file false and malicious petitions, and giving them advance notice of confiscation orders. Here are some of the ways existing laws fall short of those criteria.

How do red flag laws work in practice?

The actual performance of red flag laws tends to be worse than the promises on paper. While Indiana notionally requires that a hearing be held within 14 days of a gun seizure, for instance, a 2015 study found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms. Although Maryland officially requires evidence of an "immediate and
present danger" for ex parte orders, judges issue them in virtually every case.

Even when clear and convincing evidence is required for a final order, the thing to be proven—usually a "significant" risk but in some states a mere "risk," "danger," or "risk of danger"—is vague and undefined. When standards are amorphous, judges are especially likely to err on the side of issuing orders, because they imagine that failing to do so could lead to terrible consequences. The possibility that a respondent will unfairly lose his Second Amendment rights is bound to pale in comparison to the possibility that he will use a gun to commit suicide or murder. That psychological dynamic helps explain why judges in Florida issue final orders 95 percent of the time.

Donald Trump can talk about due process. Lindsey Graham can talk about due process. David French can talk about due process. But when push comes to shove, state legislators will give it short shrift, and so will judges, because they both have strong incentives to cast the net as widely as possible, the better to catch potential mass shooters. Never mind that red flag laws are mainly used to protect people against their own suicidal impulses, or that so far there is no real evidence that they prevent homicides. The point is to do something about mass shootings, whether or not that thing works or produces benefits that outweigh its costs, which in this case consist mainly of constitutional rights unjustly lost.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Republicans Who Support Gun Confiscation Laws Imagine 'Due Process' That Does Not Exist on Paper or in Practice


Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last March, David Kopel, a gun policy expert at the Independence Institute in Denver, emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of respondents in gun confiscation cases. Kopel's recommendations include requiring that petitions be submitted only by law enforcement agencies after an independent investigation, allowing ex parte orders (which are issued without an adversarial process) only for good cause, limiting them to one week, limiting subsequent orders to six months, requiring clear and convincing evidence, providing counsel to respondents, giving them a right to cross-examine witnesses, letting them sue people who file false and malicious petitions, and giving them advance notice of confiscation orders. Here are some of the ways existing laws fall short of those criteria.

How do red flag laws work in practice?

The actual performance of red flag laws tends to be worse than the promises on paper. While Indiana notionally requires that a hearing be held within 14 days of a gun seizure, for instance, a 2015 study found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms. Although Maryland officially requires evidence of an "immediate and
present danger" for ex parte orders, judges issue them in virtually every case.

Even when clear and convincing evidence is required for a final order, the thing to be proven—usually a "significant" risk but in some states a mere "risk," "danger," or "risk of danger"—is vague and undefined. When standards are amorphous, judges are especially likely to err on the side of issuing orders, because they imagine that failing to do so could lead to terrible consequences. The possibility that a respondent will unfairly lose his Second Amendment rights is bound to pale in comparison to the possibility that he will use a gun to commit suicide or murder. That psychological dynamic helps explain why judges in Florida issue final orders 95 percent of the time.

Donald Trump can talk about due process. Lindsey Graham can talk about due process. David French can talk about due process. But when push comes to shove, state legislators will give it short shrift, and so will judges, because they both have strong incentives to cast the net as widely as possible, the better to catch potential mass shooters. Never mind that red flag laws are mainly used to protect people against their own suicidal impulses, or that so far there is no real evidence that they prevent homicides. The point is to do something about mass shootings, whether or not that thing works or produces benefits that outweigh its costs, which in this case consist mainly of constitutional rights unjustly lost.
Without a solid process for adjudication prior to involuntary commitment or removal of property, it would be unconstitutional and counter to the point.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Crenshaw Hits Democrats For ‘Extreme’ Anti-Gun Policies, Says Gun Owner Fears ‘Certainly Warranted’


“Your nervousness about what could be implemented as a whole is certainly warranted,” Crenshaw told conservative commentator Dana Loesch while appearing on her podcast. “We’re listening to the Democratic debates every week and what they’re calling for is absolutely extreme.”

“Not only is it extreme and it infringes on the Second Amendment, but it also wouldn’t do what they think it will do,” he continued. “Whether it’s banning AR-15s or magazine capacity limits or whatever idea they have, it speaks to a misunderstanding about how guns actually work and more importantly, how the tactics of a mass shooting might work.”
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Cosmetic Questions

Mona doesn’t go into the aesthetic considerations she thinks might be considered when banning some firearms. She does go into the marketing language some firearms makers use. Much of it is ridiculous. I think of William Gibson’s observation: “The windows of Army surplus stores constituted hymns to male powerlessness.” But if that’s going to be our criterion, we have some issues, because those “hymns to male powerlessness” constitute pretty much all advertising directed at men. When Ford switched from steel to aluminum for its trucks, the suits feared a loss of corporate masculinity, hence the invocation of “military-grade aluminum,” a term that means precisely nothing. Trucks are funny that way: GMC and its “professional grade” products, etc. The language surrounding pickup trucks starts to sound slightly pornographic and homoerotic pretty quickly: “Power Stroke,” etc. XLT — is that your truck size or your shirt size? There are people out there who want to sell us “tactical” khakis and tactical laser-guided pizza cutters.

Mona overlooks the practical objection to cosmetic rules: They are easy to subvert. By definition, they are things that can be changed without changing the function of the firearm. You can get a Ruger Mini 30 that looks like a traditional wood-stocked gun or you can get one kitted out in mall-ninja “tactical” style, but it is the same rifle, shooting the same rounds at the same rate of fire.

To the extent that there is a meaningful ballistic difference between the popular .223 AR-style rifles and granddad’s hunting rifle, it is that granddad’s hunting rifle is much, much more powerful: The.45-70 round dates from the 19th century (like so many of the hunting rounds we use today, it began its career as a military cartridge) but is about twice as powerful as the typical AR round, which is why you use that and not a .223 black gun to hunt bear or bison.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cosmetic-questions/#
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Limit Some Guns for Cosmetic Reasons

Background checks are already required for purchases from licensed gun dealers, and those represent four out of five sales. The Annals of Internal Medicine reported in 2017 that only 22 percent of gun owners who had purchased a weapon in the previous two years had done so without a background check. Nor does it seem that background checks would have made a big dent in mass shootings. Mother Jones calculates that of 114 mass shooters since 1982, 74 percent obtained their weapons legally. In another eight cases, shooters took guns belonging to family members. In four cases, the guns were purchased illegally. In three cases, the weapons were stolen. At least one killer used guns purchased by a straw buyer, another built his own gun, and yet another should have turned in his gun when he lost his state firearms license but failed to do so.

And what does the background check really check? Only those who have been convicted of certain crimes, are fugitives from justice, have a restraining order against them, have been involuntarily committed for mental illness, or meet certain other criteria are prevented from buying guns. The background check cannot detect depravity. It cannot predict who will become violent.

But here’s a problem with the pro-gun case. The frequent objection you hear from opponents of gun control is that efforts to ban certain kinds of guns are merely “cosmetic.” National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke, who knows a lot about guns (and other things), notes that the AR-15 and the AK-47 — frequent targets of gun controllers’ interest — do not differ in “rate of fire” or “muzzle velocity” from the vast majority of guns owned by Americans. Efforts to ban them are therefore purely cosmetic, he argues.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/jeffrey-toobin
For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “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.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view. The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.

But, starting in the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. undertook a patient and extensive effort to change the public, and eventually the judicial, understanding of the Second Amendment. As David Cole recounts in his book “Engines of Liberty,” the N.R.A. recognized that its path was blocked by binding precedents in the federal courts, so it turned to a state-by-state approach. Embracing and passing gun-rights legislation in the states, Cole writes, “fostered a legal culture in which the right to bear arms enjoyed a privileged place.” At the same time, the N.R.A. sponsored academic research that purported to show that the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment was incorrect. The movement reached its climax in 2008, when the Supreme Court, in Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, rewrote its understanding of the Second Amendment, and concluded that the Framers of the Constitution had, after all, intended the Amendment to confer an individual right to bear arms. (As Adam Gopnik recently observed, Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissent had the better argument, but Scalia’s opinion had the five votes.)




:lmao:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Warren’s Gun Control Plan Endorses Holding Gun Manufacturers ‘Strictly Liable’ For Damages

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Warren’s plan is the section on liability, which states in part that Americans should be able to "hold the manufacturer of the weapon that harmed them strictly liable for compensatory damages to the victim or their family."

Gun manufacturers make billions in profit by knowingly selling deadly products. Then they are let completely off the hook when people take those deadly products and inflict harm on thousands of victims each year. State tort law already recognizes that certain types of products and activities are so abnormally dangerous that the entities responsible for them should be held strictly liable when people are injured. Congress should codify that same principle at the federal level for guns by creating a new private right of action allowing survivors of gun violence to hold the manufacturer of the weapon that harmed them strictly liable for compensatory damages to the victim or their family.

Are there ANY Other manufactures held accountable for how there products are used illegally ?

Kinves, Chain Saws, Hammers ... Trucks driven into crowds
 

GregV814

Well-Known Member
Which is why I asked, do we start locking people up or taking away their guns just because the said something


Sounds more like Stalinist Russia than America
So, go to any district courtroom and see judges strip people of all of their firearms because someone felt threatened by someone else under the pretense of a “protection order”...
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
So, go to any district courtroom and see judges strip people of all of their firearms because someone felt threatened by someone else under the pretense of a “protection order”...

Common SOP in contentious divorce cases
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
MALKIN: Warning: How The VA ‘Red-Flags’ Patriots



But if you want to know how this American version of China's social credit system would work in practice, let me remind you of how Veterans Affairs recklessly red-flags "disruptive" citizens without due process, transparency or accountability in the name of "safety." Government bureaucrats routinely deprive our nation's heroes of medical treatment based on arbitrary definitions of who and what constitutes a mental health menace.

I first reported on the VA's secretive database on "disgruntled" and "disruptive" vets five years ago. Under the VA policy on "patient record flags," federal bureaucrats can classify vets as "threats" based on assessments of their "difficult," "annoying" and "noncompliant" behavior. The VA manual says the flags "are used to alert Veterans Health Administration medical staff and employees of patients whose behavior and characteristics may pose a threat either to their safety, the safety of other patients, or compromise the delivery of quality health care."

What a crock. It's precisely because so many vets receive inferior care from the feds that they have been forced to raise their voices. Have we all forgotten the 40 veterans who perished at the Phoenix, Arizona VA, which relegated patients to a bureaucratic black hole through secret waiting lists? Among examples of patients' behavior referred to the red-flaggers in the VA's "Disruptive Behavior Committees" (Orwell couldn't have cooked up a better name): venting "frustration about VA services and/or wait times, threatening lawsuits or to have people fired, and frequent unwarranted visits to the emergency department or telephone calls to facility staff."
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
Rest assured any legislation will be crafted by experts like these!



 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
'Red flag laws' violate more than just gun rights


To make matters worse, Red Flag hearings can be adjudicated based on uncorroborated claims made by a single individual. Perhaps it’s an angry spouse, jealous co-worker, or disgruntled neighbor. All it takes is for someone to make a convincing argument that you are a danger to yourself or others, and your property is taken from you and you lose your right to defend yourself.

You may be thinking that surely the burden of proof to do such a thing must be extremely high. Certainly someone must be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you’re a danger.

Nope. All that’s required is that “the preponderance of the evidence”suggest you are dangerous. That’s legalese for “more likely than not.” That’s an incredibly low bar to justify any punitive action, let alone something as enormous as disarmament.

Maybe you’re still in favor of red flag laws, even knowing they violate so many rights. Maybe you think that “the ends justify the means,” and that it’s worth it if it “saves just one life.” Consider, however, that almost any oppressive government action can be justified on similar grounds.

During World War II, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were imprisoned in internment camps. It’s statistically quite possible that at least one of those people might have committed murder during that time had they not been interned. Would that justify the atrocity of unjustly detaining thousands of people, just to potentially save one life? Of course not. That’s not how liberty works.
 
Top