Best
543 Comments
Post
  • #9
    !
    There are already laws that allow for a process of getting a person declared mentally incompetent. Once so determined by competent jurisdiction it is automatic that they not have access to guns. A new law such as California is proposing that by-passes the established procedure is likely to be unconstitutional.
  • #15
    !
    Ok how about these examples. My Mothers ex-husbands dad....back when I was a teenager when they were all still alive, always carried a gun on his hip. He stayed with us for awhile, and his mental state was noticeably deteriorated. He began talking about a little boy that only he could see, that would sneak up to the window. One day my aunt came and knocked on the door, and he answered it with his gun drawn and shoved it in her face. Mom wouldn't let him stay with us after that. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time before he hurt himself or others with that gun. He was forced to go for mental evaluation, and the cops were called on him several times, but nothing was ever done, and he still kept that gun on his hip. Well a few weeks after Mom kicked him out, he moved in with one of his other sons, and early one morning, at the breakfast table, he stood up for no reason, walked behind that son, pulled out his gun, and blew his brains out.

    Now I have an uncle that started carrying a gun on his hip. He never did before, until he had a massive stroke. He couldn't walk or talk for about a year, and now he's a different person. He sees a mental professional monthly. So far he hasn't done anything, but he has made comments to family members about people he "has it in for". However, no one thinks it's a bad idea to let him keep that loaded pistol on hip.
  • #24
    !
    @boombatic Since he had a stroke, he's probably a lot slower and less mobile. Which means that "run away" is no longer a viable response to something like, say, a mugging.
  • #28
    !
    "mental evaluation" must be done in conjunction with petition to Court asking that he be declared mentally incompetent. Your Uncle living alone(and you don't say) and being an adult could present a problem for family getting him certified. It is much more difficult to get people investigated for mental problems since Reagan defunded mental health and got laws changed and was responsible for closing many mental institutions. Now these people live on the streets and are among all kinds of folks who murder, molest, rob, and commit all kinds of crimes. Society has no way to reach these mentally ill until they do something that brings them into contact with the law.

    I don't know exactly how this California law will be applied as I have not looked at it yet. But if it seeks to undo the damage Reagan caused it may be worth having.
  • #29
    !
    @boombatic of course you can think of isolated examples. The point is there are already mechanisms in place to address them. This bogus CA law will mostly be used by people seeking revenge for a petty wrong or some overreaction to one isolated statement. It will NOT improve public safety.
  • #30
    !
    @3fgburner That's true, except we live in a small town in a very rural area of Tennessee. I can't recall anyone being mugged here....ever.
  • R Load more replies

  • #48
    !
    I can see it now: "Progressive" family members turning in their conservative family members for having "too many guns" and being "mentally unstable" because progressives believe that anyone who is conservative is nutts.
  • #227
    !
    What might sound irrational to the truly rational is perfectly rational to the irrational who claim to be the most rational.
  • #335
    !
    " because progressives believe that anyone who is conservative is nutts. "

    The truth hurts, doesn't it?

    Didn't used to be that way, but Reagan's senility was apparently contracted by future conservative leaders. Now you have Paul Ryan and Rand Paul etc.

    Used to be liberals and conservative could disagree respectfully. Now conservatives want to silence liberals, and shut them out of the political arena.

    Yea, calling them Nuts is being polite.
  • #338
    !
    Um, we used to have a relatively sane right wing in the USA that could be depended upon to work towards comity with progressives on the social issues of the day, no longer.

    If you want conservatism to be treated as an equal at the table, you need to stop throwing a temper tantrum everytime you are not being paid attention to. Democracy is about compromise and collectivism, if you want an individualist paradise where every man can rule over his land like a warlord, try a stateless society in Africa or Eastern Europe.
  • R Load more replies

  • #42
    !
    Guilty until proven innocent?
    Punishment before the crime?
    Dependence on the opinion of family members, as if families never fight?

    This is a bad solution.
  • #145
    !
    Guilty until proven innocent? Punishment before the crime?

    These things are common under California statutes.
  • #409
    !
    No offense, but conservatives tend to label everything that comes from the Democrat side as socialist. And even though it has a negative connotation, there are many programs labeled socialist by conservatives that are beneficial to our society. The majority of self-declared socialist countries have been Marxist–Leninist states inspired by the example of the former Soviet Union. But so-called socialist programs have no connection to any true socialist countries.

    In the US, socialist is a pejorative of conservatives. The programs that they label have no connection to the politics of the former SU. In the US, any programs that are designed to ensure social and economic justice for all of the people are often labeled socialist because they benefit the poor and less well off and are paid for by taxpayers. Two of the largest programs labeled socialist by conservatives are Social Security and Medicare, which benefit children with no parents, the disabled, and retirees who have contributed for a minimum of 40 quarters. Under the guidelines of conservatives, all health care programs at the county level would be labeled socialist. These programs provide health care for many poor people.
  • #474
    !
    @jferg Wow you have a mind like a steel trap. Conservatives who think it through understand the difference. However it is not much different from leftist and progressives who classify all conservatives as greedy hate mongering xenophobes and homophobes. Social Security is a big government poorly run retirement insurance program that highlights bureaucratic ineptitude. In a sense it gives the American Public a smidgen of what life will be like under a large, centrally planned government run economy (Socialism). And yes Socialism is a pejorative because it is system that is diametrically opposed to the Constitution and the vision of the founding fathers. The more we accept large, inefficient, bureaucratic nightmarish programs as the status-quo the less freedoms we enjoy. For every time we turn to the government to solve that which could be done by the individual we give up something. For most progressives individual freedoms are as important as the security that only big brother can provide. Progressives worship at the alter of perpetual victim-hood. That is why today food stamps are enjoyed by over 50 million people and many Women believe that birth control and abortion are god given rights.
  • #487
    !
    I am not one of the people who classify all conservatives as greedy hate mongering xenophobes and homophobes. And even though I usually vote Democrat, I consider my position to be conservative because I believe in a straightforward, conservative reading of the Constitution, which actually needs little interpretation. The programs that you mention are not socialist. When the government and the business sector failed, causing the Great Depression, FDR had to right the ship. I think that he did a good job. Even if you choose to label these non-socialist programs as socialist, they have done more good than harm. We have often turned to the federal government because states have stood against civil rights, women's rights, and equality under the law. Even today, state legislators routinely undermine due process. And although the "conservative" Supreme Court has finally ruled that the 2nd Amendment gives gun rights to individuals and the states cannot infringe upon these rights, the Court has also made bad decisions, such as legalizing the abuse of imminent domain, making it legal for a city to take property from one citizen and sell it to another citizen in order to raise the city's tax base. Progressives, those who think of progress is beneficial, do not worship at the "alter of perpetual victim-hood." It seems that you again use a word as a pejorative, ignoring its real meaning. These kinds of unsupported, biased hyperbole do nothing to help create a logical, objective discussion. And to keep throwing them out diminishes our ability to make our society better. You include reference to the Constitution, which I support, but it does have deficiencies. The main one is that at any given point, in our system, 49.99% of the people can be unrepresented.
  • R Load more replies

  • #205
    !
    Amen.
    I had an ex-wife who threatened ME with a gun, then tried to get a protection order aginst me. That protection order would have taken my 2 guns. She lost and I lost $1500.
    Can you say S U C K S.........
  • #220
    !
    @stepped_in_it when going through a divorce my ex took out a restraining order, saying I was violent. I never yelled, or hit her in any way or psychologically abused her.. she was the one throwing things and acting strange and coming up with scenarios of stating she was having an affairs which she wasnt. Her coworkers told me she started acting strange.. Her mother acted strange and then I found out her grandmother on her mothers side was locked up in a mental institution.. my ex always carried a gun with her. I was suppose to surrender or give up my firearms as long as the order was in affect, screw them, I kept all of them and nothing was done to remove them.
  • #221
    !
    @Sky_Pilot1 Reason I'm down $1500. Lawyer fixed her wagon. I tied the horses to her wagon and sent her down the road.......yeehaw
  • R Load more replies

  • #102
    !
    @mebisconer
    Deal with it. That is what one does. Death is part of life you are not going to escape it. It is not if, but when.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    It IS a poor precedent to allow the government to come seize your guns.

    They should have committed the guy to a hospital and TREATED the man!

    This leaves entirely too much room for abuse.
  • #4
    !
    absolutely but once this becomes common then a neighbor will have that power...

    ....instead what they should do is make the family of the deranged person responsible for the deranged person.
  • #186
    !
    @bsking - and put the family through all that HELL when it is not THEIR fault he is deranged????? Family members sometimes are difficult to put up with when they are sane:-) especially with all the sibling rivalry and petty jealousies, etc.....
  • #257
    !
    It still takes a court order to have someone involuntarily committed. And once committed, their guns should still be seized.
    I am a gun owner and of course 2d amendment supporter. I absolutely support the right of sane people to have and bear arms. But I don't support criminally insane people owning guns, driving cars or being parents.
  • #264
    !
    @HoraceGreely
    From my understanding, family has to petition the court. Undoubtedly the family has to offer some evidence to justify the petition.
    When authorities remove children from a home because of "suspected" abuse, this too could be construed as usurping "due process." But protecting the children is first and foremost. Protecting the public from a potential mass shooter is tantamount.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    There has to be protections against people making false claims. The guarantee of person's rights should never be subject to some other person's whims. This guarantee must be based on FACT and EVIDENCE. Anything less is WRONG.
  • #63
    !
    @HoraceGreely you can't have anybody committed for mental problems against their will... i would say that goes double if they have a loaded gun in their hand.
  • R Load more replies

  • #64
    !
    This law sets a very dangerous precedence and ultimately, when appealed I feel it will be overturned. What's to stop a vindictive relative from reporting someone as unfit just to get revenge on them? If the family had concerns about Rodgers mental state and intentions, they should of acted on this, but in the interviews I have seen, their awareness was all hindsight. Taking this into account, this law would have done nothing to prevent the event, and I fail to see how it could be beneficial to preventing future events, I can only see how it would be abused. Honestly, any legislation passed that provides a path to confiscation of firearms has more risk than reward in my opinion.
  • #246
    !
    If you give this power to judges, and the judges have a policy of erring on the safe-side, they will disarm everyone who is accused. This practice could get out of hand quickly. If we had had this practice in 1776, we might have lost half of our Revolutionary soldiers who had a moment of anger that a neighbor or family member could remember. With freedom comes risks and responsibilities. Sometimes I think our modern citizens don't get that.
  • #350
    !
    @john32644 They already do disarm just about everyone accused . A friend of mine got hit with a restraining order didn't have his day in court to tell his side they just came gave him the papers and took his guns . It happens everyday .
  • #414
    !
    @truthsayer That's scary. I'm sure that liberals would collect the guns of all conservatives who are outraged at some of the acts and non-acts of our Democrat leaders.
  • #429
    !
    @john32644
    Hate to tell you, but judges already HAVE this power. If you are crazy enough they can declare you incompetent and cause you to be committed to a mental institution. You won't get to take your guns with you. nor will you ever be able to buy or possess a gun.

    I am very strongly a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. I am not in favor of dangerous crazy people having guns. Check out for example, the Aurora theater, Sandy Hook, VA Tech, and Navy Yard shooters just to mention a few. Those who favor people like that having guns do NOTHING at all to advance 2nd Amendment rights. They do nothing but harm, and strengthen the cause of the anti gun crowd.
  • #447
    !
    @richstacy Agree. The signs were there for all of them, but their immediate peers who witnessed the signs ignored them.
  • R Load more replies

  • #80
    !
    Why add more laws when there are laws covering these things. Oh who will be in charge of deciding who gets and who doesnt.
  • #107
    !
    like on immigration they have to make laws and push bills good or not just so they can claim to be working on something.
  • #259
    !
    ...the same geniuses that dreamed up Obamacare and death-panels....the same nuts that should themselves be evaluated and treated.

    Grace & Peace,
    -Mitch
  • #117
    !
    Thought police anyone? We're here to trample your constitutional rights because you MAY be dangerous based on hearsay from your relatives. No, you no longer have your fourth amendment rights to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects either. Sorry but we're the government and we know what's best for you.
  • #190
    !
    NO. This is a law because we have learned that we can and must do more to stop the dangerously mentally ill from having guns and using them.

    This does not deny due process, but it could prevent a lot of suicides, a lot of murder/suicides, and a lot of mass shootings.

    Screw the notion that the 2a is a suicide pact that prevents common sense laws.
  • #219
    !
    @DeeGee Laws already exist to commit mentally ill individuals and prevent them from owning firearms. However, from what I've read of this proposed law, it is meant to circumvent those laws and judicial safeguards and trample the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights of the accused. I am all for increased mental health treatment and prevention of mass shootings but not at the expense of violating the principles of freedom, liberty, and justice for ALL. Do you also believe that the Patriot Act is valid and necessary legislation? According to your previous post I can only infer that you do.
  • #2
    !
    If family member feel that one of their own...is mentally unfit...to have firearms....I think it should at least be looked into...I could also see how some families could use this as a vendetta against someone in their family they were having a feud with, though
  • #27
    !
    @Happyhedon, not "could". WILL. The only way I could support this, is that any false report, including "honest, good faith mistakes", would be a felony carrying about 20 years in prison.
  • #46
    !
    @HoraceGreely Try it. It takes hours of court room time lawyer fees and they only put a 72 hold and them send them right back to you. Personal experience talking.
  • #53
    !
    @mebisconer this law completely does away with due process. You can't just say someone is crazy and take their guns. Even politix admins won't let you call someone crazy here.
  • R Load more replies

  • #223
    !
    Another gun control law.
    Anyone remember that three of the six people killed in this incident were stabbed to death, and that several of those injured were run over with a car? That the police "investigated" the killer? That they didn't bother to check California's handgun registration system?
    But that's "okay," because for the gun control folks only "gun deaths" count.
    I went through this when my father-in-law got Alzheimer's. The reason we had to take away his gun, and his pickup, was because it took time to find a place in a facility where he couldn't wander off.
    If you want a real solution to this problem, send the gun control folks home and call in mental health experts. Start the conversation with how we can identify mentally fragile people, and then how we can provide support and therapy, and if absolutely necessary how we can confine them. And figure out that if a person needs mental health assistance, law enforcement (particularly a SWAT team) might not be the best provider.
    We need to deal with the whole mental health puzzle, not just the gun-shaped piece.
  • #379
    !
    The VAST majority of people do NOT use cars for the purpose of killing/maiming people. Cars are designed for transportation. Firearms, on the other hand, are designed for killing other human beings, which they all too often do.

    Sure, the entire mental health person of a puzzle needs to be dealt with properly, but having a firearm present is more than likely to escalate and exacerbate an already-bad situation, rendering it into a deadly one.
  • #214
    !
    You can not lose your rights without due process of law. Forfeiture of your right to keep and bear arms, based upon an un founded accusation and political correctness is not due process.
  • #13
    !
    Why didn't the family take the guns? I'm not for giving someone whose not familiar with any and all situations having the ability to pull someone's guns. This will get overt played.
  • #38
    !
    Here you go again Mr. Marx, down that slippery socialist slope.

    Niether the family, nor the judge are qualified to make the decision that someone is too dangerous to have a gun. There already exists a process for getting a person separated from his firearm if the courts or a psychiatrist thinks the individual is dangerous and at or near crisis; it's call the 48 hour committal.

    Let the shrinks take it from there.
  • #154
    !
    72-hour commital by a police officer, who does not have to actually present cause. But the 72-hour commital (called observation) can be done based on family statements. So the law is actually redundant. And under California law, if a person is held for a 72-hour observation, he/she loses all 2nd Amendment rights automatically without a hearing or trial ... even if the doctor/psychiatrist says that the person is NOT mentally unbalanced in any way.
  • #248
    !
    @dances-weebles

    Ahem, My comment was the original comment in this thread and your brought things down to an ad hominem level.
  • R Load more replies

  • #211
    !
    no and hell no!. all it takes is a text or a phone call telling authorities that someone is up to no good in their home, cops show up in full riot gear and take down the owner of the house who is just sitting on a computer. look it up ,it has happened (youtube proof) they will strike without any proof and ask questions later simply by listening to a phone call from an anonymous person.. the police in this country by and large are adrenaline obsessed and shoot first talk later. i am fucking embarassed by this country. my dad handle agent orange in nam and died for it 4 years later and you fucks think the police do a good job., or they are herioc bullfucking shit
  • #170
    !
    So how will they confiscate the guns? Will they be able to search your home? Will they require all guns be registered? What will happen at the end of the 21 days that is different from right now?
  • #196
    !
    First, they will confiscate the guns in possession of the person they have been told is a danger. They will go to his/her home. They will check registrations, they will search the home. They will try to get all the firearms the person has purchased. They will also put the person on a list of people to whom guns should not be sold.

    The idea is to keep unstable people from having guns.
  • #198
    !
    Second, the 21 day period isn't long, but it is long enough to get the person back on medication or get them psychologically evaluated and get a firmer determination. It is not so long that if the statements made by the family were out of line, it would constitute infringement of the rights of the individual.
  • #134
    !
    If that person is mentally unstable to the point where they should not have a gun, then they should be placed in a hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

    That said, it is very difficult to get someone placed in a mental hospital. It is expensive, nearly impossible for anyone uninsured, and hard to do unless the patient is a minor or agrees to go. If you are lucky enough to get them admitted, chances of them actually being kept longer than 36 hours is slim. Someone who is deteriorating to the point where having a gun is dangerous needs treatment much longer than that, but most times patients are given a handful of pills, given a couple of sessions with the shrink and then sent on their way.

    We have a long way to go before mental health treatment is up to par.
  • R Load more comments...
Post