Skip to comments.Just a Thought
Posted on 01/14/2013 9:04:10 AM PST by Hulka
With all this discussion regarding gun control measures and increased mental health screening, it occurs to me that while most everyone agrees we need better screening to ensure mentally unstable people do not obtain firearms, the question is: Who will decide who is "mentally unstable"?
The government? Will the federal government dictate mental health exams prior to purchasing firearms?
Do you trust the government to decide who is "sane" when it comes to owning a firearm?
Recall DHS issued guidelines stating conservatives, patriots, veterans, NRA members and others that support and defend our founding principles are to be looked at as possible terrorists (a short trip from terrorist to "crazy") and the government could very well classify anyone they don't like as mentally unstable and deny them firearms. So, you can see, my concern is not without merit.
Has anyone addressed this potential pitfall?
Having the gubment decide is not a ‘potential pitfall’ - it’s the plan.
I suppose if you are pro-BIG government you’re sane.
If you’re for limited government you’re insane.
This is (pun intended) a no-brainer for the liberals: Anyone who wants a gun is obviously mentally unstable and should be denied a permit to own one. That’s how this will work.
Everyone suddenly suggesting that the government take action on “mental illness” also made me very nervous. Opens up another avenue of government interference ... people may regret this line of defense of the 2nd amendment...
“Who will decide who is “mentally unstable”?”
That’s the whole point.
They will declare that anyone who wants to even own a firearm is mentally unstable.
Not to mention that 98% of psychologists and psychiatrists are nut cases themselves who think everything is a mental illness.
The danger with mental screening is that a person can buy a gun and go crazy 3 months later. This would open the door to never ending tests to see if a person is crazy. I wouldn’t want to live like that.
I know a psychologist who worked at Wright Patterson AFB till he was arrested for stalking his wife and setting the house on fire.
The government will make this abundantly simple. It’s Catch-23:
—If you want to own a “killing machine” such as a gun, you are obviously insane and therefore can’t have one.
—If you don’t want to own a firearm, you’re sane and can therefore have as many as you don’t want.
Apologies to Mr. Heller.
As a starting point, or benchmark we should start by declaring that ANY and ALL Public Servants who have made a Deliberate False Statement during the course of their Professional Duties or Actions SHALL BE DEEMED A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY and hereby Prohibited from Using, Possessing, or owning ANY FIREARM of ANY KIND. A person that takes a solomn oath to enforce, protect, defend the laws andor the constitution of the US or any State, that Violates that OATH, is in my opinion the WORST KIND OF CRIMINAL there is, yes this means you Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein.
Who knows? More than likely though.
In California, you can be detained for “evaluation” for 24 hours under “5150 WIC.”
During this time, your clothes, wallet, keys and cell phone may be taken from you.
You may be asked questions, in particular, if you possess any firearms.
The police are authorized under 8102(a) WIC to confiscate any deadly weapon found to be in the persons possession or under his or her control: “(a)Whenever a person, who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition or who is a person described in Section 8100 or 8103, is found to own, have in his or her possession or under his or her control, any firearm whatsoever, or any other deadly weapon, the firearm or other deadly weapon shall be confiscated by any law enforcement agency or peace officer, who shall retain custody of the firearm or other deadly weapon.”
If you answer “yes,” the police may search your home and confiscate the firearms under “8102(a) WIC.”
Some police and hospital staff believe they have wide latitude in this area. They believe a patient loses all of his rights while being detained by the hostpital. However, under the LantermanPetrisShort (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.), and under the Constitution and other laws. As citizens, patients do not lose their rights by being hospitalized or receiving services. With the exception of being able to freely leave the facility they are placed in, patients have all rights accorded to a voluntarily admitted client.
Still, if you refuse to answer the question, citing your constitutional rights, you may thenas a result of your refusal to answer the question, be regarded as an extreme risk and you may be further detained under a further 72 hour evaluation (sometimes in a county prison hospital) under “5151 WIC.”
Once the police obtain your arms, my understanding (IANAL) is that you then have to appear in court and petition a judge to get your arms back. Typically you have to get another evaluation that proves to the judge that you are mentally competent. This can take up to 30 days. If you don’t go to court, your arms rights can be restricted for 5 years.
If you’re smart enough to be concerned, you’re paranoid enough to qualify as mentally disabled...
Those who are precluded by law from owning guns will simply get them the way criminals do: Steal them or buy them on the street.
Mental health restrictions are just another way to accomplish the goal of disarming Americans.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
This is how our rights are being taken away - one bite at a time.
I have to give the Left some credit: They know what they want - your property & rights, & they never let up trying to get them. The only way to stop such tenacity is to be even more tenacious. Until we reverse the growth of gov’t, by saying, “not no, but hell no”, by refusing to compromise our freedom & prosperity away, the slow march to totalitarianism will continue.
A good place to start is with this current snit over gun control. NO MORE GUN CONTROL - NONE - NADA! If the Left truly wants to protect schools, duh, put some PROTECTION in the schools.
My thoughts exactly, it’s “the plan”.
Bringing mental health issues into the debate is a necessary part of any attempt at a “solution” , going forward, but the real fear is that the “screening” will be enmesh millions in an intimidating bureaucratic nightmare, with definitions of who is “unstable” likely to change as often as the definitions of “assault weapons”.Remember, this kind of strategy can only work if parts of it are kept “open” and “undefined” for as long as they can reasonably keep them that way-—the overall objective is to introduce new or prospective gunowners into a process where they will be fearful of being “judged” as unstable, and might be pushed INTO acting unstable. Background checks too, can suffer the same fate-—they can easily grow into soft police-state tactics, and subject appellants to as strict a process as if they were applying or a ten million dollar loan, rather than a permit to buy a gun/
So the real thing to watch is THIS process, the excruciatingly delayed and undefined collection of imponderables, that will play out in the public realm, and will position the gun-grabbers to make the kinds of laws they ideally want to make.
Who will decide who is “mentally unstable”?
Former Army psychologist critical of military dies by suicide
He went to Iraq to help U.S. troops deal with the damage post-traumatic stress disorder inflicts, but upon return, he also was in the clutches of PTSD, said his mentor Dan Houlihan, professor director of Minnesota State’s School Psychology Doctoral Program.
On Jan. 2, Linnerooth, 42, killed himself in Mankato.
Anyone who’s ever been depressed (everyone, sooner or later) qualifys.
Just like death panels, we’ll have mental stability panels. Anyone wanting to buy a gun will be declared, duuuh, mentally unstable.
Look at the class of people that the recent mass murderers came from. I suspect that politicians will try to stop some folks from having mental or criminal arrest records expunged/deleted by judges from the database (see feeding the officers of the court, greasing palms). So when well-to-do auntie Griselda’s rotten kid gets “cured,” his history continues to be publicly viewable forever. Maybe they’ll start outlawing everyone who’s been through a foreclosure, too. Some rather groups of non-felon, non-committed Americans have already been outlawed, too, by bipartisan Congress (see Violence Against Women Act, accusations, restraining orders, misdemeanors, others).
And as others have mentioned in this thread, all of the BS about enlisted rank soldiers and other military personnel all being crazy (PTSD, whatever). The old hags who operate politicians will outlaw firearms possession for all prior servicemen and women. You know, we former, enlisted-type soldiers are all sexists, homophobics, “arrogant,” etc.
Enlist in our military forces, be disarmed as a civilian. It’s not enough for most of our best to be generally defamed and jobless for life (the straight ones, anyway).
“...most everyone agrees we need better screening to ensure mentally unstable people do not obtain firearms...”
You skipped a step. What about “shall not be infringed” as several folks on this forum post?
If you “ensure mentally unstable people do not obtain firearms”, why is that not an infringement? The 2A does not say “the right of the mentally stable people to keep and bear arms”.