Over at guns.com, they are reporting on several anti-gun groups coming out in opposition of S. 2002. Bloomberg’s mouthpiece says:
“This bill would have the net effect of invalidating many records currently in the system, and it would allow people who have been involuntarily committed to buy a gun immediately after leaving a psychiatric hospital – a particularly dangerous time, according to mental health experts,†said Everytown President John Feinblatt in a statement.
Well, you know, maybe if your beloved Obama administration hadn’t put a bunch of records in there willy nilly, without sufficient due process which one would think we could muster for the sake of our nation’s veterans, we wouldn’t have this problem now, would we? Blame him for the problem.
Secondly, it would not automatically restore the rights of someone after leaving a psychiatric hospital. I can’t call them outright liars, because it could happen in theory, but only after a separate finding that “a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or
other adjudicative body” finds the person:
(I) Does not present a danger to himself or herself or to others;
(II) has been restored to sanity or cured of mental disease or defect;
(III) has been restored to competency; or
(IV) no longer requires involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital[.]
Typically if a person is released from a psychiatric hospital, and they are still mentally ill, they are going to fall under involuntary outpatient treatment, and the firearms prohibition will still hold. Even if that’s not the case, if the person is released without any further hearing, the prohibition will hold unless they petition for a restoration of rights. So yeah, not outright lying, because in theory it’s possible, but in practice it’s not going to happen, so it’s definitely spin.
Ladd Everitt’s claim in the article is that it wouldn’t have stopped the Charleston Mass Murderer, the Lafayette Mass Murderer, or the Chattanooga Mass Murderer is even more pathetic. The Charleston shooter was hate filled sociopath. I haven’t seen anything that suggest he was insane. And as has been pointed out before, that was a case of a NICS examiner dropping the ball. The Chattanooga shooter wasn’t a prohibited person, as far as I’ve been able to tell. None of CSGV’s prescriptions, save banning guns for the law-abiding, would have stopped him.
“None of CSGV’s prescriptions, save banning guns for the law-abiding, would have stopped him.”
And that is only assuming that someone bent on murder would not have just procured the gun illegally.
The one they are complaining about is the first one…
‘‘(i) an order or finding that has expired or has been set aside or expunged;
Apparently some states have a very short duration order. The argument is that in those states, if a judge says you are committed for 14 days (the limit in West Virginia and Washington), on the 15th day they can purchase a firearm.
Interesting. But I’d put that in the same category as an observational commitment. They should get their rights back if a judge doesn’t take it seriously enough to follow up then follow through.
It’s kind of similar to a temporary protective order (TPO), then, isn’t it?
In Oregon, at least, a TPO is granted by request. It’s a “shall issue” thing, but it also triggers a fairly-timely hearing wherein a judge hears both sides (with any presented evidence, and either or both parties can have attorneys present) and determines if it’s warranted. If it’s not, it’s set aside and/or expunged, and the recipient retains all his/her rights. If it is warranted, it’s in place for a couple years, at which time the requester can either let it expire or ask for another one (which triggers another hearing). If it expires and isn’t renewed (or the new hearing determines it’s not justified), and the recipient hasn’t violated the original TPO (which can be a misdemeanor or felony, depending on circumstances), he/she gets his/her rights back.
That process is a safeguard against angry significant-others abusing the system. Even leftist-dominated Oregon recognizes the need for such safeguards. Without it, you get things like California’s “gun violence restraining orders” resulting in life-time bans based on someone’s say-so.
Which is probably why Everytown hates the inclusion of that (i) line.
“None of CSGV’s prescriptions, save banning guns for the law-abiding, would have stopped him.”
And even that would not stop someone bent on mayhem and murder.