Comments on: Mental Disorders and Firearms Disability http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/06/20/mental-disorders-and-firearms-disability/ The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:18:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Senate passes HR2640 - Page 3 http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/06/20/mental-disorders-and-firearms-disability/#comment-16570 Senate passes HR2640 - Page 3 Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:03:38 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=885#comment-16570 [...] an adjudication under federal or Pennsylvania law. I've written about this in the past both here and here if you want to take a look. __________________ Snowflakes in Hell Blog Boomsticks, [...] [...] an adjudication under federal or Pennsylvania law. I’ve written about this in the past both here and here if you want to take a look. __________________ Snowflakes in Hell Blog Boomsticks, [...]

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/06/20/mental-disorders-and-firearms-disability/#comment-5696 Sebastian Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:02:01 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=885#comment-5696 Actually, no, because the federal regulations specifically exempt observation. Actually, no, because the federal regulations specifically exempt observation.

]]> By: Dano http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/06/20/mental-disorders-and-firearms-disability/#comment-5605 Dano Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:53:39 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=885#comment-5605 Ok, makes more sense now. I wonder how Virginia's lovely little legal bits will work here... Use to be that if you say phrase 'I want to kill myself', and someone calls the cops, you got a one way ticket to a psychiatric ward for a couple of days of observation. You've been involuntary committed, would your name now have to go on the list? (hopefully not, just a thought that I had) Ok, makes more sense now.

I wonder how Virginia’s lovely little legal bits will work here…

Use to be that if you say phrase ‘I want to kill myself’, and someone calls the cops, you got a one way ticket to a psychiatric ward for a couple of days of observation. You’ve been involuntary committed, would your name now have to go on the list?
(hopefully not, just a thought that I had)

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/06/20/mental-disorders-and-firearms-disability/#comment-5602 Sebastian Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:59:01 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=885#comment-5602 It's meant to cover the many ways that states determined whether someone needs to be committed. In some states, it's not a formal court of law that hears mental health cases. A mental health board, or some other body can do it. It would take a very tortured reading of this to mean anything other than an authority that is established by state law with the power to adjudicate mental cases. Perhaps some states make it too easy to commit someone, or are too eager to issue a danger ruling, but that's a problem with the state's mental health laws, not really an issue with NICS per se. Remember that mental health laws can limit the freedom of someone put under it's ward to a substantial degree. It's a general civil liberties issues, rather than specifically a gun issue, though it's that too. It’s meant to cover the many ways that states determined whether someone needs to be committed. In some states, it’s not a formal court of law that hears mental health cases. A mental health board, or some other body can do it. It would take a very tortured reading of this to mean anything other than an authority that is established by state law with the power to adjudicate mental cases.

Perhaps some states make it too easy to commit someone, or are too eager to issue a danger ruling, but that’s a problem with the state’s mental health laws, not really an issue with NICS per se. Remember that mental health laws can limit the freedom of someone put under it’s ward to a substantial degree. It’s a general civil liberties issues, rather than specifically a gun issue, though it’s that too.

]]> By: Dano http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/06/20/mental-disorders-and-firearms-disability/#comment-5601 Dano Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:38:19 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=885#comment-5601 Define lawful authority... So why have '... by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority...'? Shouldn't just court be good enough? My brain trips whenever I try to read that... still trying to figure out why. Define lawful authority…

So why have ‘… by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority…’? Shouldn’t just court be good enough?

My brain trips whenever I try to read that… still trying to figure out why.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/06/20/mental-disorders-and-firearms-disability/#comment-5600 Sebastian Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:05:25 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=885#comment-5600 I agree with the argument, I think originally by David Codrea, that if a person can't be trusted with a gun they can't be trusted without a custodian. The general public, however, doesn't see things that way. To some degree I think the criminal justice and mental health systems are probably always going to fail us. That is they won't lock up people who should be locked up. Strangely, I think the public feels better when said killer gets his gun from the back of a van, because society did everything it could to prevent it. When people hear that a deranged killer or hardened criminal got his guns through legal channels, people presume that, of course, had the laws been more strict, it would have stopped him. It's a delusion, but it's a delusion the public seems reluctant to give up. I agree with the argument, I think originally by David Codrea, that if a person can’t be trusted with a gun they can’t be trusted without a custodian. The general public, however, doesn’t see things that way. To some degree I think the criminal justice and mental health systems are probably always going to fail us. That is they won’t lock up people who should be locked up.

Strangely, I think the public feels better when said killer gets his gun from the back of a van, because society did everything it could to prevent it. When people hear that a deranged killer or hardened criminal got his guns through legal channels, people presume that, of course, had the laws been more strict, it would have stopped him. It’s a delusion, but it’s a delusion the public seems reluctant to give up.

]]> By: LLR http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/06/20/mental-disorders-and-firearms-disability/#comment-5595 LLR Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:11:44 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=885#comment-5595 If a person should not have a gun why are they even on the outside and not in a nut house? If they are a danger to others or him/herself, why does the gov’t allow them to walk the street? It makes more sense to me that they should be locked up just in case they can get a gun out of the back of a van. If a person should not have a gun why are they even on the outside and not in a nut house? If they are a danger to others or him/herself, why does the gov’t allow them to walk the street? It makes more sense to me that they should be locked up just in case they can get a gun out of the back of a van.

]]>