Gun Legislation

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

scott, we ban ownership for felons, for those who fail background checks, for those who have restraining orders against them. why is banning ownership for the mentally ill, significantly different? would you remove bans on ownership for felons, and those who fail background checks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

it’s not dumb.

prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.

so you’re opposed to such actions unless they are “after the fact”? Maybe it’s just by dumbness again, but isn’t it far superior to address these things before the fact? isn’t that the goal we should
be striving for?

restraining orders can be given before the fact, when there’s a reasonable threat. Meaning, a person who hasn’t actually done anything illegal yet, is sufficiently likely to do something wrong in the future, that we seriously limit his liberties and his freedoms - we tell him where he can and cannot go.

I’ll ask again, why are red flag laws so different from this principle? seems very similar to me. Are you opposed to granting restraining orders until after an assault has been committed against the person applying for the order? would
you tell her she had to wait until after the fact
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it is a legal judgment against them for something they did...it's "after the fact"...if someone has a restraining order against them because they threatened or injured someone they should not be playing with guns


stop trying to twist things to make your argument

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

it is a legal judgment against them for something they did...it's "after the fact"...if someone has a restraining order against them because they threatened or injured someone they should not be playing with guns


stop trying to twist things to make your argument

you can get a restraining order, at least in CT, against someone who hasn’t done anything yet ( certainly nothing illegal) but who is deemed to be likely to do something in the future. mental
illness can be a big reason.

if you say you’re ok with keeping guns away from
the seriously mentally ill ( which means not only denying them guns, but possibly others in the same house), maybe were not that far off.

i’m not even saying let’s do it, but we can have the conversation about the benefits and costs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you can get a restraining order, at least in CT, against someone who hasn’t done anything yet ( certainly nothing illegal) but who is deemed to be likely to do something in the future. mental
illness can be a big reason.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good greif

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

This is the hard part that needs to be figured out.

Passing the background check is hard for many. You cannot pass a background check if you have felonies, have certain mental health you cannot legally purchase a firearm if you do drugs - even smoke pot (sorry E), have a problem with Alcohol. You cannot purchase a firearm (legally) if you are using anti-depressants or suicidal.

I know people that have mental health issues that should not be anywhere near a firearm, and others that would be fine. A hard part is going to be where you draw the line.

Another hard part is that some people doing the evaluation may allow their bias in, over evaluating someone as a danger or under evaluating (likely less common).

Anything that needs to be done needs to have certain sunset rights where renewal is required.

Red Flag laws have a problem in some locations that local Police do not want to be responsible for cataloging, and storing someone's firearms for an undetermined time while due process is happening. And Due Process MUST happen if you are curtailing Constitutional somneone's rights.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

This is the hard part that needs to be figured out.

.

which is why we need more than...ban AK style stuff, big magazines and people with mental illness(which is probably 90% of the population on some level)