Great Article on CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
@pilot - I agree, but I just wanted to make the point that there are in fact many Dems who are gun owners and are opposed to gun control measures. The petty partisan attacks will do nothing but alienate them. I'm not saying that elected officials shouldn't be held accountable for supporting gun control measures, but it can be done in a way that is civil and respectful.

On the mental health issue, I'm glad to see some very thoughtful and balanced comments here. I volunteer on the board of a non-profit that helps families of people with mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are much more frequently victims than perpetrators of violence. There is a huge difference between someone who has had issues with mental illness and someone who is psychotic and/or anti-social.

About a quarter of the population has had some problems with mental illness, so restricting access to a civil right to the mentally ill needs to be done in a careful way, with the court system involved, and only for people who professionals deem potentially dangerous to themselves or others. I'm not sure how to make that work honestly; it's a damn difficult issue. A registry worries me as something that has the potential to be abused. I find it ironic that anyone that is opposed to a national gun owners registry would find it acceptable to have a registry of people with a certain type of illness.
 
When I say "mental health issues" I only mean those issues which are a threat to the public and where previous aggressive behavior can be articulated.

Civil rights are not extended to all citizens. Criminals cant vote for example. None of the rights in the Bill of Rights or Constitution was made to be absolute. Each one has some fine print behind it.

Rights are oftentimes taken away from people who are a threat to society. If I were to knock someone out in the middle of town my expectation is to be arrested and have some rights taken away.

My view of the right to bear arms is that it was only meant for responsible reasonable individuals who were not a threat to the public. Im certain if you asked the founding fathers of the United States they would only want certain individuals to bear arms.

So all that said I dont think it should be a big judicial process to limit ones right to bear arms if they demonstrate obviously aggressive or sociopathic behavior. All of the individuals in these mass shootings had records of mental illness and run ins with the law. If their behavior was identified earlier then the shootings would not have happened.

Of course there should always be a way to appeal the decision but if you go up to an officer and start demonstrating an odd sociopathic aggressive behavior then you should wind up on a list taking away that right to bear arms asap. If you want the right back then take it to court and demonstrate the government was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Inter-personal relationships & firearms....

I disagree with the forum members who say domestic issues or problems related to inter-personal relationships shouldn't conflict with a weapon permit/CCW license.
I filled out a new state form yesterday for a new concealed license where the topics were subject to disqualification.
Im fully aware of the factors involved in family court & divorce/separation issues but if a judge or district justice issues a restraining order(called a PFA or Protection From Abuse in my area) & there is documentation to support it: medical records, sworn statements, LE reports, etc then the person should not own or carry firearms(to include target or hunting type firearms).
A few years ago, when I lived in VA, I read a 2A/pro-gun booklet about waiting periods which use the example of a young woman who was in a abusive relationship(domestic violence). She applied for a concealed permit & purchased a handgun. Her ex attacked her 2 days later & she used lethal force to protect herself. If the state mandated waiting period was in effect she may have been killed.
Mental health workers, judges & doctors are not mind-readers or have super-powers but they can help ID people with serious problems who shouldn't have firearms/ammunition.

Clyde
 
The problem is there are a lot of doctors and judges who are more activist than professional. They let their personal beliefs interfere with their decisions.
 
Im fully aware of the factors involved in family court & divorce/separation issues but if a judge or district justice issues a restraining order(called a PFA or Protection From Abuse in my area) & there is documentation to support it: medical records, sworn statements, LE reports, etc then the person should not own or carry firearms(to include target or hunting type firearms).
Click to expand...

I admire the depth of your naivete, and hope you never find anyone you care about in similar straits.

pax
 
what is 100 divided by 0?

We have a serious problem with no solution.



No one has an option where everyone can feel good about how deeply it cuts into the innocent.
 
There are stories on both sides of the 'domestic' fence.

Here's the flip side. Rather lengthy but I'll try to shorten best I can.

A relative(by marriage) of mine had a long standing relationship with a girl.

They eventually moved in together and before long he wanted out of the relationship.

He moved into a house next door to his father, she stayed in their apartment across town. She felt jolted and kept harrassing him, calling and stopping at his house uninvited at all hours. He tried to talk with her several times telling her she should move on and over a period of time, she went from crying when they would talk to getting mad.

He finally told her via a phone conversation not to call and not to come over anymore as he would not answer the phone/door.
She slammed the phone down and within 15mins. was beating on his door. He did not answer the door. She in turn, called her dad with her cellphone from relatives front yard, (daddy just happened to be a Deputy Sheriff) and told him my relative had grabbed her by the throat and choked her. None of which happened. He didn't even open the door.

Within mins. many cruisers were there, relative was arrested and the day of court, dad showed up in uniform with daughter and dad got the privilege of speaking with the judge back in his chambers just prior to hearing.
Relative had no atty. was charged with domestic violence which naturally was on his record...

Don't quit reading, it gets better...

About three weeks later, this girl calls relatives house again but he would not answer. Instead he called his dad's house and told his dad to get the cam corder ready as girl was on her way to his house, he was not going to answer the door and she was most likely going to have him put in jail again.

It happened...this girl beat on the unanswered front door till her knuckles were sore. She then stepped out on the sidewalk , hollered back(while laughing) that he was going to jail. She busted herself in the forehead with her ring of keys, got her phone out and called daddy.

Relative went to jail, daddy showed up in uniform with daughter and this time when daddy and judge went to judges chamber, relatives attorney went to chambers and showed all of them the footage.

Judge dismissed charges on relative, did not arrest girl but gave girl and daddy a very stern talking to. And by the way, judge did not expunge the prior DV charges from relatives record.

Relative wants charges removed but does not have the money to get it done.

Sooo...should relative not be able get his CCP, buy a gun, hunt???
 
Last edited:
There are a few people in each community invisible to most everyone except the local police and the mental health community. These few people keep coming up again and again as a result of their aggressive behavior. It is those people who should be put on a list and be kept away from firearms.

If you had the same inside knowledge that these local police officers and mental health workers have of these people you would agree with me. In fact, I am all for public records detailing police interactions to let the public know about these individuals. Some community newspapers publish such records of daily police interactions. These interactions should be kept in a searchable online database. Lets say Officer Smith has gone out 4 times on calls to a residence about a domestic dispute involving the same person. This information should not be kept from the public.

Now if Officer Smith is constantly getting called to a residence about an individuals aggressive behavior we have to ask ourselves if we want that individual to have access to a firearm.

I am not at all scared about such liberal policies which seek to take away firearms from aggressive individuals. I never bump into law enforcement around here so I have no reason to worry about anything being taken away from me.
 
My view of the right to bear arms is that it was only meant for responsible reasonable individuals who were not a threat to the public. Im certain if you asked the founding fathers of the United States they would only want certain individuals to bear arms.
Click to expand...

While the constitution defines clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the above argument is one that has been used for years to push for restrictive gun control laws. There are a large number of Americans who believe that weapons should be limited to, "responsible reasonable individuals who were not a threat to the public", and would define the criteria that meets that standard so that only law enforcement or specific governmental employees would qualify. My desire to carry a gun for personal defense is sufficient evidence that I am not responsible nor reasonable, and am a threat to myself and others.

I think there has to be a conversation in this country about violence, mental health, and guns. Pretending that we can ignore these issues is neither reasonable nor responsible. I also know that the nature of government is to regulate. Civil liberties and constitutional rights often become secondary in the zeal to protect and ultimately, control. Do we need a system to identify those who are dangerous to themselves and others? The answer to that is simple. What is not simple is doing it in a way that does not infringe too much on personal freedom. Putting constitutional rights in the hands of local law enforcement, judges, or health care professionals without changes in the way treat the mentally ill and punish violent offenders will not fix this problem. I think many of us in the gun community are willing to accept some changes for the greater good, but we are not willing to give up freedom for the illusion of protection.
 
Response to post #25 & #27....

I disagree with post #25. The remarks make no sense to me but Id add that Im not naive. In 2012, I had a incident with a local PD & was vindictated(cleared) by the documented facts in the case.
FWIW, I wanted to speak directly to the local State Atty(an elected official) about the events & the entire case was dismissed by the prosecutors. :D

As for post #27, Id say there are 2 sides to that story & it doesn't sound very unbiased or impartial. From what's posted, it does show a real problem with the legal/court system but in fairness, there are 1,000s of real victims of domestic violence & abuse who are telling the truth.
Should their aggressors or stalkers get access to weapons & ammunition?

I have a quick(true) story too about family court/domestic issues;
In the mid-2000s, I was doing a security detail at a mid-income apt complex in a decent area. A young woman flagged me down claiming her 2 year old was "abducted" by the child's father & that she needed help. I explained to the woman she'd need to contact 911/law enforcement & that it was a domestic court issue not a kidnapping. The PD got on scene & determined the woman(who also looked & acted intoxicated) gave the father documented permission to have his daughter for a extended period. I was hot! :mad:
The patrol officers did not charge the woman for public intoxication or filing a false police report & let her leave the property.
People do lie or distort records but there are also dangerous & unstable people out there.
 
People do lie or distort records but there are also dangerous & unstable people out there.
Click to expand...

Agree, and I think that we need some kind of system to detect these people but I think we also need to be very,very careful when coming up with that system. Especially when it comes to some of the questionable DV convictions that have happened.

Case in point:
My spouse and I have a verbal argument. No threats,violence or contact made. LE gets called and they suggest one of us leave. Neither of us leave , LE leaves house and we get into it again. Nine times out of ten when LE has to come back to the house, someones going to jail for DV, maybe both of us. Even if it's just a heated argument with no threats or physical contact.

Yes, one of us should have left when ask to do so by LE but we didn't

Should this DV on my record stop me from getting my CCP or owning a gun?
 
No; court records/DV cases...

no
Family court or domestic problems should not be a issue unless it involves violence or stalking or anti-social behavior.
for example;
You have a fight with your girlfriend, you break up, then you start to call/text/email her constantly even after she asks you to stop. You then go to her house or place of work & harass her. She documents all of this activity & files a PFA/restraining order/LE report.
Should you then be able to purchase a firearm or carry a concealed weapon while the PFA is in effect? No.
Here's another example; you have been trespassed from several local businesses & restaurants/bars for fighting or aggressive behavior. LE has filed multiple reports & collected multiple sworn statements from business owners(or agents that represent the property owners) that you made threats or were violent. Should you get a CCW license or gun permit while those are active? No.
FWIW; in my area, trespass notices/warnings can be: indefinite. :D
But the local prosecutors also say they are only 12mo too. I had a former manager of a hotel property who informed me he wanted all warnings to be indefinite regardless of the terms.

CF
 
If there is a complaint against you for domestic violence I dont think you should have the right to go out and buy firearms. Of course, we all should get due process and someone feels that decision is wrong let a judge decide on the right course. However, if someone feels the need to call the police after observing your aggressive behavior we need to look at that seriously and take action. We need to ask the question if you are in the right mind to bear arms.

No one has ever called the police on me for anything so I cant relate...
 
ClydeFrog

While I agree with your post# 31, I also know that scenario's such like those in my post's 27 and 30 happen.

Hell, I worked with a fella that his wife who was a nurse, was running around on him with a local prominent doctor and the end results was this fella ended up almost taking a 72hr. vacation in a mental ward for observation cause the Dr. and Mrs. wanted himout of the way for their weekend get together/trip.
I get a call at 0400 the next morning(Saturday... the guys with the white jackets incarcerated him Friday evening) from another friend of ours telling me what happened and wanting to go get him out. Try getting ahold of a judge on Sat. :rolleyes:

We did, got judges signature and got him out Sunday morning.

There's much more to that story...lengthy divorce...criminal court case with Dr. as well as wifey...etc.

These kind of things happen.

I feel we do need to vette those who can own guns and also feel that there is a need for a NICS check but I also feel that we have to be very careful on further making new laws as to not condemn those that are really innocent, are not violent or show aggresive behaviour without substancial proof.
Too, there is a big difference in someone catching a trespassing charge/conviction while out hunting then somebody commiting criminal trespass with an x in which there's a history.

Too, how many goofballs are slipping through the cracks with the current system?
Not that it would have mattered one way or the other but didn't the shooter at the Navy yard have a very checkered past involving firearms and was still carrying a current CCP and had bought firearms after commiting firearm offense's such as shooting out the tires of a truck?

I know that with most anything...there is always room for improvement. I also feel in many ways , if we would STRICTLY enforce our current laws, (which IMO is not currently being done), things would be much better.
And since I feel our current gun laws are apparently too much for our system to enforce or our court system choose's to plea bargain cases like they do, especially cases involving violent offenders, why further muddy the waters with more laws that won't be properly enforced.

Maybe we as gun owners need to form a group similar to MADD and start sitting in on some of these court rooms monitoring cases that are continually plead down and getting the sitting Judge as well as the prosecutors name in the paper.
Seemed to work for MADD.
 
Last edited:
A number of years ago, I was in a courtroom waiting for routine "motion hour" when the domestic relations court issuing protective orders ran a bit long in the same courtroom. There was some "he said - she said" things and testimony about yelling but no testimony about any violence or any threats of violence. Neither party had an attorney. The judge nevertheless issued a protective order because there was an "atmosphere of violence" and she probably didn't see any harm to issuing the order.

I understand the need for protecting victims of potential violence during a period when emotions run high and the potential for violence increases. However, the firearm ban should be lifted at some period of time, maybe two or so after issuance unless renewed for new acts of violence.
 
All of the mass shooters had obvious issues and records of some sort. I argue for putting these types of people on a universal list. People with very obvious issues and records of disorder.

There are those people who may have a tantrum and are involved in a random one and done fight. Those people may need to be looked at, but certainly those people with records of mental instability should be certainly put on a list outright banning them from ownership. If there is disagreement then let them argue the merits in a courtroom and let a judge decide.

Too little is being done from keeping the obvious mentally ill from getting a hold of weaponry.
 
Post #35....

I agree with #35.
Limits or conditions could be added to any domestic case or dispute that involves stalking/harassment/etc.
Id add that I spoke with guy who's neighbor served on a special jury for domestic violence. He said the neighbor told him the jury heard several cases where women made bogus claims of abuse/domestic violence because the male subjects wanted to break up or move out.

Clyde
 
johnelmore said:
All of the mass shooters had obvious issues and records of some sort. I argue for putting these types of people on a universal list. People with very obvious issues and records of disorder.
Click to expand...

Mass shooters do not always have criminal records, and their mental health records are not accessible due to privacy laws. Which mass shooters had records or were prohibited? Lanza, maybe. Harris and Klebold because they were underage (well, one of them turned 18 just before the massacre, but they got their guns through friends). Alexis bought a gun. So did Holmes. So did Cho.

There are those people who may have a tantrum and are involved in a random one and done fight. Those people may need to be looked at, but certainly those people with records of mental instability should be certainly put on a list outright banning them from ownership. If there is disagreement then let them argue the merits in a courtroom and let a judge decide.
Click to expand...

How is that different from current law? Most violent crimes get you banned from owning firearms, and so do certain severe psych problems resulting in involuntary commitment.

It sounds like you want to create an enormous judicial bureaucracy to administer a list of unstable persons with only slightly better oversight than the TSA's no-fly list. I can't put into words how bad an idea I think that is.

I don't think banning more people from owning guns is the solution. I think the solution is getting people like Alexis real help. If that means more research is needed into abnormal psych, the government needs to fund it. We fund trillion dollar wars and bailout packages. More psych research is a drop in the bucket. Whatever the VA did for Alexis clearly did not help much. Whatever Holmes', Lanza's, and Cho's psychiatrists did for them didn't ultimately stop them either.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
not all Democrats are on board with strict gun control.
Yes, we need to remember this and try our best not to make the Second Amendment a partisan issue. When this happens a lot of folks simply support or oppose an issue based on a party platform and not the actual facts.

We need to oppose the individuals that are attacking our freedoms and support the individuals that are defending them, but let’s do so without splitting it down party lines.
Click to expand...

I hear this often but even NY senator Gillibrand, touted as a pro-2A pick, lined up right behind Obama's blatantly anti-2A individual right SCOTUS picks and helped then sail through. Let me see a Dem take a hard stand against party leadership when it matters and I might believe it. Whenever the Dems must have Dem votes to assure passage of something, I mean that without Dem unity it is lost, on anti-2A votes they have it.

We may see local victories and lip service from pro 2a Dems but nationally when all the chips are in the pot they stand together against us.
 
@Musketeer. You remember the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey (sp?) amendment on background checks? There were a few Democrat Senators who voted against the amendment, ensuring its defeat, as I recall. The President was all-in on that amendment from what I recall too.

But I know the mods wisely don't want this to devolve into a partisan ******* match.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top