Sen. Cornyn, With NRA Blessing, Proposes Gun Background Checks

[Shadowrider]

Agree with the above 100%.

I don't see how anyone can make the argument that serious mental instability is not a legitimate factor to consider when determining if a right may require restriction in some manner. However, I am very suspicious of how the call is made and who makes the call. The fairest system would seem to be the same system that decides whether one represents a serious enough threat to have his freedom taken away by being sent to jail.
So mental health professionals, just like anyone else, if they felt an individual was a threat could apply to a court to weigh their assessment. So a judgement, by a competent court, of mental defect requiring institutionalization (I am sure there is a better way to define that) would be needed not merely the say-so of a doctor or other official.
Is that a perfect system? Of course not, just as the overall court system is not perfect in deciding who is actually guilty of crimes, however, it is a reasonable facsimile of justice and it has the advantage of a defined system to ensure due process.

The bolded part. That's the crux of the matter in my mind. The rest of your post would be reasonable if it didn't take so long to get anything into court, weeks and months just isn't acceptable. An example of the legal process is Chris Christie taking forever to issue gun related pardons for CCW'ers that have a valid license in other states coming into NJ. Courts are insanely inefficient. Also a second opinion would be prudent, it's just too easy to get railroaded these days and the presumption of a mental defect would be already in place by the very fact that a legal action is taking place. Innocent until proven guilty isn't too common these days, I would imagine the same would apply in this instance.

 

[Dale00]

The bolded part. That's the crux of the matter in my mind. The rest of your post would be reasonable if it didn't take so long to get anything into court, weeks and months just isn't acceptable. An example of the legal process is Chris Christie taking forever to issue gun related pardons for CCW'ers that have a valid license in other states coming into NJ. Courts are insanely inefficient. Also a second opinion would be prudent, it's just too easy to get railroaded these days and the presumption of a mental defect would be already in place by the very fact that a legal action is taking place. Innocent until proven guilty isn't too common these days, I would imagine the same would apply in this instance.

The avatar of many members could be argued as an indication of dangerously unstable mental condition, or simply having "too many" firearms or whatever fits the fancy of those who hold the power to revoke your second amendment rights. Of course that would never happen...initially. Only after the process is ratcheted up a few more times whenever there is a mass shooting that anti-gun advocates can argue cries out for stricter laws and regulations.

 

[Dave70968]

The bolded part. That's the crux of the matter in my mind. The rest of your post would be reasonable if it didn't take so long to get anything into court, weeks and months just isn't acceptable. An example of the legal process is Chris Christie taking forever to issue gun related pardons for CCW'ers that have a valid license in other states coming into NJ. Courts are insanely inefficient. Also a second opinion would be prudent, it's just too easy to get railroaded these days and the presumption of a mental defect would be already in place by the very fact that a legal action is taking place. Innocent until proven guilty isn't too common these days, I would imagine the same would apply in this instance.

We have a process for emergency orders that works quite well. An ex parte order can be issued upon showing of good cause, with a hearing to be held within three days. Heck, an involuntary psych hold pending a competency hearing would work just as well as an outright seizure of firearms, and that system also exists today.

This is not an insurmountable obstacle.

 

[Glocktogo]

We have a process for emergency orders that works quite well. An ex parte order can be issued upon showing of good cause, with a hearing to be held within three days. Heck, an involuntary psych hold pending a competency hearing would work just as well as an outright seizure of firearms, and that system also exists today.

This is not an insurmountable obstacle.

The only problem in my AOR is how the involuntary psych hold is processed. A LEO interviews subject and determines as a lay person that the person needs to be evaluated. COPES is called. COPES takes however long COPES takes to arrive. Person who may or may not be qualified to determine danger to one's self or others interviews subject. In the interim, subject has had plenty of time to reconsider their aberrant behavior and plays it straight for the COPES worker. COPES worker has no reason to process a psych eval hold and everyone leaves.

Sad.

 

[Dave70968]

The only problem in my AOR is how the involuntary psych hold is processed. A LEO interviews subject and determines as a lay person that the person needs to be evaluated. COPES is called. COPES takes however long COPES takes to arrive. Person who may or may not be qualified to determine danger to one's self or others interviews subject. In the interim, subject has had plenty of time to reconsider their aberrant behavior and plays it straight for the COPES worker. COPES worker has no reason to process a psych eval hold and everyone leaves.

Sad.

I was thinking more of applying that process to the attending pshrink's determination that he's a danger, not necessarily an on-scene responder.

 

[Glocktogo]

I was thinking more of applying that process to the attending pshrink's determination that he's a danger, not necessarily an on-scene responder.

Understood, just thought everyone should know what the process is. Real talk about mental health treatment in America is a taboo subject. It's one of the reasons we have so many problems.

 

[Dale00]

Mental health professionals cannot predict who will kill, or worse yet be a mass shooter. The Colorado theater shooter was under the care of a psychiatrist. He told her he was thinking of killing people. She reported this to police officials who offered to have him arrested and placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. She declined and he went on to kill 12 people and wound 58 others.

The risk of loss of gun rights that comes with passing this legislation is too high relative to the potential for prevention of violence. It would be far more effective to do away with gun-free zones and the media adulation that attracts these murderers.

 

[RugersGR8]

Poll on Priest River event:

http://www.khq.com/story/29726937/priest-river-community-stands-up-for-veteran-facing-gun-seizure#WNPoll147897

 

[YukonGlocker]

I think that two factors are being overlooked in this discussion:

1. There is a panic over mentally ill mass shooters that is largely media-driven. Why should we buy into this panic? Show me the statistical proof that mass shootings are rapidly increasing and a significant threat to the average person and that mental health authorities are unbiased with regard to the second amendment, then I will be more inclined to support giving psychologists the power to suspend basic rights. I am not ready to trust the same psychologists who believe that there are seven sexes, rather then two, with the power to suspend a citizen's gun rights.

2. Mentally ill mass shooters are killing people in gun-free zones. Eliminate the gun free zones.

Yes, there is a lot of media-driven BS regarding mass shooters, which actually aren't responsible for thousands of gun deaths every year. Most people in mental health circles are focusing on all of them, with the understanding the mass-shooters are the minority of the issue.

The psychologist who is promoting 7 sexes is a nice strawman, but doesn't address these gun issues in any way. There is definitely evidence that sex/gender isn't binary (in many species), but I'd like to see your evidence that psychologists aren't the folks who should be providing insight into these mental issues, and providing the best evidence-based practices to deal with them.

Also, the smallest category of deaths (from mass shooters) are the ones your talking about in gun-free zones. Most of the thousands of gun deaths every year are *not* in gun-free zones. This is the paradox that must be dealt with in regard to those that want more gun control.

Agree with the above 100%.

I don't see how anyone can make the argument that serious mental instability is not a legitimate factor to consider when determining if a right may require restriction in some manner. However, I am very suspicious of how the call is made and who makes the call. The fairest system would seem to be the same system that decides whether one represents a serious enough threat to have his freedom taken away by being sent to jail.
So mental health professionals, just like anyone else, if they felt an individual was a threat could apply to a court to weigh their assessment. So a judgement, by a competent court, of mental defect requiring institutionalization (I am sure there is a better way to define that) would be needed not merely the say-so of a doctor or other official.
Is that a perfect system? Of course not, just as the overall court system is not perfect in deciding who is actually guilty of crimes, however, it is a reasonable facsimile of justice and it has the advantage of a defined system to ensure due process.

So the answer is to set up a complex system ran by our government? Nope, we'd better keep this is simple as possible, and *out* of the government as much as possible. Psychologists certainly don't want the government fu*ck*ing up yet another social service. I just can't imagine that would end well (except for a few that'd make a s$hit load of money off of it).

...of course the knee jerk reaction around here seems to be that it's just more gun control.

I'm not seeing that reaction here. And it certainly isn't "knee jerk"...this is a long-standing issue.

...Real talk about mental health treatment in America is a taboo subject. It's one of the reasons we have so many problems.

Agreed.

Mental health professionals cannot predict who will kill, or worse yet be a mass shooter. The Colorado theater shooter was under the care of a psychiatrist. He told her he was thinking of killing people. She reported this to police officials who offered to have him arrested and placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. She declined and he went on to kill 12 people and wound 58 others.

The risk of loss of gun rights that comes with passing this legislation is too high relative to the potential for prevention of violence. It would be far more effective to do away with gun-free zones and the media adulation that attracts these murderers.

Anecdotes are fun to talk about, but they certainly don't describe how most of the system works. And you will be arguing against people who believe the exact opposite, with a powerful statistic on their side...thousands of gun deaths ever year *not* in gun-free zones. How should we handle this dilemma?

 

[OKCHunter]

...It would be far more effective to do away with gun-free zones and the media adulation that attracts these murderers.

This^^^