General Gun Violence/Gun Control

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
wendybtn said:
Until the US figures out a way for background checkers to have access to your mental health history, unwell people will continue to buy guns simply by answering 'no' on the mental illness question. But we have strong laws from Congress that keep our health information as secure as possible. First we have to figure out how to do it, then we have to wait for Congress to amend laws or write new laws. Obviously, this would take years, possibly a decade or longer.
Click to expand...
You don't need background checks to buy guns from people. Heck, people find gun sellers through Facebook and meet up with them at HWY rest stops.
 
wendybtn said:
Until the US figures out a way for background checkers to have access to your mental health history, unwell people will continue to buy guns simply by answering 'no' on the mental illness question. But we have strong laws from Congress that keep our health information as secure as possible. First we have to figure out how to do it, then we have to wait for Congress to amend laws or write new laws. Obviously, this would take years, possibly a decade or longer.
Click to expand...
Red Flag laws allow family or LE to ask a judge to require a mental health examination by a professional. The laws work similar to Emergency Orders of Protection.

Red Flag Laws: What are Extreme Risk Protective Orders and Which States Have them?

An extreme risk protection order (ERPO) immediately restricts a person’s access to guns for a temporary period of time. Learn more about red flag laws here.
www.twyfordlaw.com www.twyfordlaw.com
 
MyBelle said:
Red Flag laws allow family or LE to ask a judge to require a mental health examination by a professional. The laws work similar to Emergency Orders of Protection.

Red Flag Laws: What are Extreme Risk Protective Orders and Which States Have them?

An extreme risk protection order (ERPO) immediately restricts a person’s access to guns for a temporary period of time. Learn more about red flag laws here.
www.twyfordlaw.com www.twyfordlaw.com
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing red flag laws with a mental health hold. They're entirely different things. Where does it say that red flag laws require a mental health exam?
 
wendybtn said:
Until the US figures out a way for background checkers to have access to your mental health history, unwell people will continue to buy guns simply by answering 'no' on the mental illness question. But we have strong laws from Congress that keep our health information as secure as possible. First we have to figure out how to do it, then we have to wait for Congress to amend laws or write new laws. Obviously, this would take years, possibly a decade or longer.
Click to expand...

Horrible idea, IMO, not to mention it will do exactly zilch in terms of fighting gun violence. The majority of people committing gun violence are NOT mentally ill. They would not meet criteria for a mental illness. All you're going to do is re-stigmatize those struggling with mental health issues for no gain under that plan.

I'm 100% in favor of gun control. But, IMO, I think everyone should be worried about giving government the power to dig through our health records and use it against us in order to strip us of our rights. That is not ok. MOO.
 
BeginnerSleuther said:
I think you're confusing red flag laws with a mental health hold. They're entirely different things. Where does it say that red flag laws require a mental health exam?
Click to expand...
It is part of the law. As an example, here's how Maryland's law works:

How do I request an emergency evaluation against an individual who is believed to have a mental disorder and presents a danger to the life or safety to self or others?​

Extreme Risk Protective Orders | Maryland Courts

mdcourts.gov mdcourts.gov
 
Richard said:
The Right to keep an bear arms (own firearms) is one of the ten basic rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights which was incorporated into the US Constitution. That right (like the other nine) is an Individual right - that is not a "right" of the state or federal government. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states clearly that this right "shall not be infringed".

The Second Amendment was not conceived for duck hunting or recreational reasons. It was considered to be a necessary right to assure safety and freedom. The American "army" was made up of the civilian population, and the key to an effective militia was individual marksmanship.

Calls to ban various types of firearms have always been countered by the very fact that such a ban or restriction is an infringement on the Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms. Many gun control laws have been struck down later because at their core, they were unconstitutional. Any local, state, or federal law has to be in accord with the US Constitution.

That said, there are laws and restrictions already on the books which regulate or limit firearm ownership. NONE of those laws have ever kept firearms or associated items (such as silencers, magazines, etc.) out of the hands of criminals. The basic idea that someone who is bent on committing armed robbery, or shooting someone is going to be deterred in any way by a gun law is absurd.

Mental illness is by far a more serious and constant factor in the mass killings and civil violence than firearms. It should be noted that there are already many, many restrictions and laws on the books which deny firearm ownership to convicted felons and to mentally ill persons. The problem is that while a criminal conviction is in the public record and would appear in a police background check, the mental illness condition usually does not - unless the person has been legally judged in criminal court as incompetent and/or sentenced to be institutionalized. And even then, the HIPPA laws prohibit medical information from being disseminated, so they would not appear in a firearms background check.

There are many persons whom I have known and whom I would consider unsafe or dangerous with a firearm. However, it is not for me or other individuals or groups of individuals to say who should be denied their constitutional rights. Certainly not based on the actions of criminally deranged and homicidal persons.

Banning all guns or even certain types (however determined) will not change the increasing instances of criminal or homicidal behavior. It would be about the same thing as banning automobiles because some drivers are idiots and don't know how to drive safely. The problem is not the firearm or the automobile, but rather the individual person handling them.

The rise in mass shootings is a very real social problem. But what are the real reasons behind it, and what can be done to prevent or lessen it?

- Mental illness is one major factor which plays a part in almost every (if not all) such shootings. Addressing it as a contributing condition in any criminal court cases might flag violent persons who apply for handgun ownership. State mental health institutions should be built and funded to help deal with this increasing problem. There should be laws and procedures in place which would allow persons suffering from mental illness to be referred and treated short of a court ordered institutionalization, but which might allow them to appear in handgun background checks.

- Violent criminals need to be taken off the streets without bail and when sentenced to incarceration, kept in prison (or a mental institution) without early parole. This addresses the violence problem at its core. If they are a known threat to society, get them out of it.

- A pervading sense of "anything goes" and lawlessness. Such violent events like the city riots, statue destruction, rampant looting and burning of businesses, violence against selected persons all goes into this problem - especially when it is publicly encouraged by legislators. Those same legislators who in turn blame "guns" as the problem have no credibility.

- The "open borders" of the country need to be closed and persons entering the country need to be properly screened. Human traffic and drug smugglers at the borders are all armed and none of them are concerned with American gun laws. It is, in fact, an armed incursion by a foreign force which should be dealt with as such.

- Drugs (especially Fentanyl) are a huge problem which must be addressed. How many mass shootings were done by persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol has never been made known, but it is very likely a contributing factor. Mass shootings and other violence aside, more Americans have died in the past year alone of Fentanyl poisoning than all shooting deaths in the past ten or twenty years combined. This should be a huge wake up call for action.

- Violent video games are another element which have contributed to some of the mass shootings. Why has no one suggested banning or restricting them? Certainly other concerned persons have pointed this out, but there is no large scale movement to restrict them like there is to ban or restrict gun ownership.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose anyone would agree with amending a Constitutional amendment that was ratified in 1791?

I mean, times have changed a bit since then.
 
SouthAussie said:
I don't suppose anyone would agree with amending a Constitutional amendment that was ratified in 1791?

I mean, times have changed a bit since then.
Click to expand...
I think that is what it is going to take. When our SCOTUS makes a decision not based on public safety but instead based on a 1791 amendment that was ratified more than a hundred years before assault rifles even existed, something has got to give.

The Bruen decision, the high court's biggest gun ruling in more than a decade, held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. And it changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. The justices said judges should no longer consider whether the law serves pubic interests like protecting public safety. Under the new test, courts must ask whether a gun restriction is consistent with the country's "historical tradition of firearm regulation."

www.cbsnews.com

Minnesota gun ruling is latest citing Supreme Court decision

A federal court ruling that a Minnesota law prohibiting 18-to-20-year-olds from obtaining permits to carry handguns in public is unconstitutional remains on hold while the state pursues a potential appeal.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
MyBelle said:
I think that is what it is going to take. When our SCOTUS makes a decision not based on public safety but instead based on a 1791 amendment that was ratified more than a hundred years before assault rifles even existed, something has got to give.

RSBM
Click to expand...

Maybe not in our lifetime, but maybe when the hundreds of thousands of children who have been (and will be) traumatised by school and other shootings become old enough to get involved in the political makeup of the country.
 
SouthAussie said:
Maybe not in our lifetime, but maybe when the hundreds of thousands of children who have been (and will be) traumatised by school and other shootings become old enough to get involved in the political makeup of the country.
Click to expand...
I really hope it happens sooner than that. Mass shootings are increasing.

Shortly after Biden was sworn-in, he ordered a Presidential Commission on the SCOTUS. Recent decisions have been especially polarizing because of the most recently confirmed justices and their voting to overturn Roe v Wade. What I didn't realize in 2016, Trump made a campaign promise to appoint Justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. To me, that is a conflict of separation of church and state. For a Court to refuse to make a decision about a gun law designed to protect public safety I find very troubling. I'm all for the SCOTUS having a code of ethics and also term limits.

www.nbcnews.com

What Supreme Court justices said about Roe and abortion in their confirmations

Lawmakers were quick to point to past statements by justices in which they said Roe v. Wade was settled precedent.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

 
MyBelle said:
It is part of the law. As an example, here's how Maryland's law works:

How do I request an emergency evaluation against an individual who is believed to have a mental disorder and presents a danger to the life or safety to self or others?​

Extreme Risk Protective Orders | Maryland Courts

mdcourts.gov mdcourts.gov
Click to expand...
What you post is true of Maryland, but each state has its own programs, laws, and procedures regarding mental health issues and protective orders.

Addressing this Maryland law specifically; - in reality the person who petitions the court to have someone picked up for an emergency evaluation will have to go in person to a jail or jail-like place and spend several hours filling out forms by hand, and then sit for another hour or two waiting for some commissioner (who they never even see) to sign off on them.
Then some time in the next 24 to 48 hours, the Sheriff will stop by to pick up the person for whom the evaluation has been requested, and transport them to a hospital with a mental health section. There they will be given tranquilizing meds and placed on three days of observation before being released back to their home or family with a bottle of prescription pills to take (or not). Three days is the maximum they can be held for observation unless they were to pose a clear risk to themselves or others in the meanwhile.

While these procedures and methods might be helpful to persons at risk, they do not in any way prevent the patient from purchasing a firearm later. This sort of hospitalization is not the same as someone being found guilty of a crime and sent to a mental institution as a result. It is simply an administrative procedure designed to get the person some hospital type assistance. And HIPPA regulations would prohibit release of any records on the patient.

Now Maryland DOES have a rather unique alternate court system known as "Mental Health Court", but it is completely voluntary. This is where someone is actually brought to trial for a criminal charge of some sort, and the Defense offers or suggests to the judge that the person is mentally ill - usually with some sort of evaluation or history to back it up. An example would be a charge of assault and battery where the accused became violent as a result of a mental condition.

In such a case, the judge can offer to the accused the option of participating in the Mental Health Court program, where he agrees to go to weekly counseling and take any prescribed medications. A counselor or probation officer is assigned to the case and he/she reports to the judge on progress. The accused goes to court once a month before the judge and reports in. During this period of time, the accused has to agree to not use or own any firearms, and there may be other restrictions as well, such as agreeing to stay away from certain persons, places, or situations.

After a full year goes by with full attendance and no further problems, he can graduate from the program. He still has the conviction on his record, but has served no jail time and after a few years, he can get his record purged if he has stayed out of trouble. It has proven to be a very effective program for many persons.

Again, this is voluntary on the part of the accused. If he turns it down, he can be sentenced to jail time, fines, and other restrictions based on the nature of his crime.
 
"Red Flag Laws"? Bad idea. I guess that I know too many mental health professionals who have ethics problems. What if a vindictive ex wanted to cause trouble? He or she could say that they felt "threatened" by a former ex, and gets some drama going for the ex, making them appear on a "Red Flag" list.

My husband is 83, and blind. I am pretty sure, that if I was inclined, I could convince anyone he shouldn't have his guns. What would happen? Someone would come to the house, and do a search to remove the guns in our home? Indefinitely? Would there be am appeal process? How would he be able to "prove" he should be allowed to have his guns? Who would decide that?

Too many variables here. And makes an assumption that people are incapable...based on age or mental health status to have a gun.
 
Richard said:
What you post is true of Maryland, but each state has its own programs, laws, and procedures regarding mental health issues and protective orders.

Addressing this Maryland law specifically; - in reality the person who petitions the court to have someone picked up for an emergency evaluation will have to go in person to a jail or jail-like place and spend several hours filling out forms by hand, and then sit for another hour or two waiting for some commissioner (who they never even see) to sign off on them.
Then some time in the next 24 to 48 hours, the Sheriff will stop by to pick up the person for whom the evaluation has been requested, and transport them to a hospital with a mental health section. There they will be given tranquilizing meds and placed on three days of observation before being released back to their home or family with a bottle of prescription pills to take (or not). Three days is the maximum they can be held for observation unless they were to pose a clear risk to themselves or others in the meanwhile.

While these procedures and methods might be helpful to persons at risk, they do not in any way prevent the patient from purchasing a firearm later. This sort of hospitalization is not the same as someone being found guilty of a crime and sent to a mental institution as a result. It is simply an administrative procedure designed to get the person some hospital type assistance. And HIPPA regulations would prohibit release of any records on the patient.

Now Maryland DOES have a rather unique alternate court system known as "Mental Health Court", but it is completely voluntary. This is where someone is actually brought to trial for a criminal charge of some sort, and the Defense offers or suggests to the judge that the person is mentally ill - usually with some sort of evaluation or history to back it up. An example would be a charge of assault and battery where the accused became violent as a result of a mental condition.

In such a case, the judge can offer to the accused the option of participating in the Mental Health Court program, where he agrees to go to weekly counseling and take any prescribed medications. A counselor or probation officer is assigned to the case and he/she reports to the judge on progress. The accused goes to court once a month before the judge and reports in. During this period of time, the accused has to agree to not use or own any firearms, and there may be other restrictions as well, such as agreeing to stay away from certain persons, places, or situations.

After a full year goes by with full attendance and no further problems, he can graduate from the program. He still has the conviction on his record, but has served no jail time and after a few years, he can get his record purged if he has stayed out of trouble. It has proven to be a very effective program for many persons.

Again, this is voluntary on the part of the accused. If he turns it down, he can be sentenced to jail time, fines, and other restrictions based on the nature of his crime.
Click to expand...
Yes, each state does have its own Red Flag laws but so far, the data supports they are effective in preventing mass shootings.


I truly have no idea where you get your facts. In the link I posted for Maryland, it made it exceptionally clear that mental health records are SEALED under the Red Flag law --also called Extreme Risk Protective Orders, so the information can't be abused by others. There is nothing voluntary about court orders. LE are totally in support of them and that's why states are adopting them. They are a tool for LE to protect the public. It is no different than an Emergency Order of Protection for a victim of domestic abuse or a child victim of abuse. Very necessary.

JMO
 
mickey2942 said:
"Red Flag Laws"? Bad idea. I guess that I know too many mental health professionals who have ethics problems. What if a vindictive ex wanted to cause trouble? He or she could say that they felt "threatened" by a former ex, and gets some drama going for the ex, making them appear on a "Red Flag" list.

My husband is 83, and blind. I am pretty sure, that if I was inclined, I could convince anyone he shouldn't have his guns. What would happen? Someone would come to the house, and do a search to remove the guns in our home? Indefinitely? Would there be am appeal process? How would he be able to "prove" he should be allowed to have his guns? Who would decide that?

Too many variables here. And makes an assumption that people are incapable...based on age or mental health status to have a gun.
Click to expand...
I don't know any mental health professional who has an ethics problem. Blindness is a disability that has nothing to do with mental health. Should your husband have guns if he is blind? Is he violent? Volatile? How does he intend to use the guns? The outcome really has nothing to do with his blindness and has everything to do with his mental stability.

To me, it is no different than whether an elderly person showing signs of dementia should be driving. Families make those decisions out of love all the time. JMO
 
MyBelle said:
Red Flag laws allow family or LE to ask a judge to require a mental health examination by a professional. The laws work similar to Emergency Orders of Protection.

Red Flag Laws: What are Extreme Risk Protective Orders and Which States Have them?

An extreme risk protection order (ERPO) immediately restricts a person’s access to guns for a temporary period of time. Learn more about red flag laws here.
www.twyfordlaw.com www.twyfordlaw.com
Click to expand...
But if there are no beds available or no psych units still open in a particular area, what good does that do? Laws are great but without funding or facilities they are just words on a page.
 
wendybtn said:
But if there are no beds available or no psych units still open in a particular area, what good does that do? Laws are great but without funding or facilities they are just words on a page.
Click to expand...
They don't send people to psych wards when using the Red Flag Laws.

And (in my State) when a person needs to be admitted to a psych ward they are sent to the hospital emergency room where they are put in a private room while waiting for a psych ward opening somewhere in the State. An ambulance then takes them, often far out of town, to a facility that has a bed available.

In the United States, a red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who they believe may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[1] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[2][3] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[4][5][6]

en.m.wikipedia.org

Red flag law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
SouthAussie said:
I don't suppose anyone would agree with amending a Constitutional amendment that was ratified in 1791?

I mean, times have changed a bit since then.
Click to expand...

We can't have a Constitutional Convention right now, not when this nation is so terribly divided. No way we could get ⅔ of the states to approve some revision to the 2A. From the point of view of increased gun control, I believe it would fail - but any Constitutional Convention can take on any issue it wants. <modsnip: abortion and health care are off topic>

IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MyBelle said:
I don't know any mental health professional who has an ethics problem. Blindness is a disability that has nothing to do with mental health. Should your husband have guns if he is blind? Is he violent? Volatile? How does he intend to use the guns? The outcome really has nothing to do with his blindness and has everything to do with his mental stability.

To me, it is no different than whether an elderly person showing signs of dementia should be driving. Families make those decisions out of love all the time. JMO
Click to expand...

Families can be helpful. But, dysfunctional families exist, and could manipulate someone to believe their parent/brother/whoever, is dangerous and shouldn't have a gun. What would the criteria be? That is the issue. Depression? It is unlikely to be consistently applied.

And could the person get their guns back? How would they be able to prove that? The slippery slope is, if "we" decide you are incompetent to own a gun, does that mean you are an incompetent parent? Should you have your kids taken away too? Are you incompetent to drive a car? Go to work? Live alone? Have a dog?
 
mickey2942 said:
Families can be helpful. But, dysfunctional families exist, and could manipulate someone to believe their parent/brother/whoever, is dangerous and shouldn't have a gun. What would the criteria be? That is the issue. Depression? It is unlikely to be consistently applied.

And could the person get their guns back? How would they be able to prove that? The slippery slope is, if "we" decide you are incompetent to own a gun, does that mean you are an incompetent parent? Should you have your kids taken away too? Are you incompetent to drive a car? Go to work? Live alone? Have a dog?
Click to expand...
The primary purpose of Red Flag laws is to allow LE to immediately remove the weapons. I agree dysfunctional families do exist which is why the Highland Park shooter managed to keep his weapons despite LE being called to the home several times after family members reported threats of suicide and violence. Even worse, months later his father supported his gun license. His father has since been charged.

Illinois’ Firearms Restraining Order law allows some individuals to request law enforcement to temporarily remove a person’s firearms if they are a danger to themself or others. It’s limited to those with specific relationships to the person named in the order.

The family never requested this order, nor did they press charges, so the incidents didn’t impact his gun purchases, according to law enforcement.

www.newsnationnow.com

How the Highland Park shooter avoided Illinois' red flag law

In the wake of the Highland Park July Fourth shooting, questions have surfaced about how the gunman was allowed to buy firearms despite prior police contact and whether he slipped through the crack…
www.newsnationnow.com www.newsnationnow.com
 
WE ARE SO VERY CLOSE. WE NEED 350 DOLLARS IN DONATIONS TO REACH OUR GOAL TO KEEP WEBSLEUTHS GOING.
Every month for about 228 months (that is 19 years) I have gladly paid the bills. Rarely over the 19 years have I asked for your help. THANK YOU to all who have donated. I will post an announcement and stop accepting donations when we reach our goal!
Please use PayPal Pay Websleuths.com, LLC using PayPal.Me
If the PayPal link does not work for you go to www.paypal.com and put in the email websleuths.com@gmail.com and you can send a donation that way.
Venmo name is Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14

(PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS DONATIONS ON THIS THREAD. CLICK HERE FOR DISCUSSION AND MORE INFORMATION)
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Tricia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 180 more.
Total: 1,831 (members: 181, guests: 1,650)

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
1,650
Total visitors
1,831
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,942
Messages
18,115,939
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top