I have to admit this gives me pause.
If a community college can issue a report that someone is a threat, then that person should lose a God given right because someone says he's crazy?
My gut tells me that this "mental health" issue is really what the dems are after and this will end up being the compromise...and we're falling into the trap.
Consider this, in the late sixties it was promoted and excepted by many that felons should not be able to by a gun, I mean after all that sounds so reasonable , right?
The fact of the matter is you are stripping the right away from a class of person simply because it is societally acceptable, Constitution be damned....with the support of many here.
Now it has progressed to persons under restraining orders, Misdemeanor "domestic violence" (yell at your spouse in some states and it's considered domestic violence) and on and on.....
Now, with Obama care being instituted, digital medical records, massive data storage facilities being built, technology that allows the government to accumulate data on your every web post and activity couple with every word you uttered to your doctor, well you get my point.
When we get to the point of "someone" deciding who is mentally "fit" to own a firearm, well I think that is a very dangerous road to go down....an I think it is a trap just like the argument in the 60's..."who could support a felon buying a firearm"?
He was thrown off the campus because he was threatening his teachers and fellow students. It was at the recommendation of a psychiatrist, and it was not lightly done. He was as certifiable as the clown in the movie theater in Colorado, and nothing was done about that either.
If you want to go on record as stating a violently crazy person has a right to a gun, go ahead but you won't find a lot of people who agree with you. Not even the counter worker at Wal-Mart who refused to sell him bullets that morning.
If a community college can issue a report that someone is a threat, then that person should lose a God given right because someone says he's crazy?
You have a God-given right to self-defense, but not to murder. Dangerous instruments need to be kept away from people proved insane enough to murder by their own actions. It's like keeping the Bic lighter out of reach of a three-year-old. I wouldn't have trusted this guy with a metal fork. A firearm is a very lethal version of a fork.
Consider this, in the late sixties it was promoted and excepted by many that felons should not be able to by a gun, I mean after all that sounds so reasonable , right?
The fact of the matter is you are stripping the right away from a class of person simply because it is societally acceptable, Constitution be damned....with the support of many here.
The case of a felon, that's not the only right that's stripped...in most states he can't vote either. The idea here is a felon proved, by either beyond the reasonable doubt of 12 jurors or his own confession, his ability to commit a serious crime. I wouldn't call that a fashion statement but reasonable prudence for fear of recidivism. But, it's not for life, depending on the felony. In many cases, after a period of time (like 10 years), the felon can petition a Judge to have the Felony expunged and his civil rights restored. He'd probably also have to sue NICS.
Now it has progressed to persons under restraining orders, Misdemeanor "domestic violence" (yell at your spouse in some states and it's considered domestic violence) and on and on.....
I really hate that. Judges and Commissioners hand those ROs out like candy to any woman who asks, regardless of the circumstances. Men, of course, don't need restraining orders, so it's one-way. And those go against you at NICS, too. Even if you appeal them and win.
Now, with Obama care being instituted, digital medical records, massive data storage facilities being built, technology that allows the government to accumulate data on your every web post and activity couple with every word you uttered to your doctor, well you get my point.
Yes, I certainly do.
When we get to the point of "someone" deciding who is mentally "fit" to own a firearm, well I think that is a very dangerous road to go down....an I think it is a trap just like the argument in the 60's..."who could support a felon buying a firearm"?
I would want some sort of due process in the machine. You are correct to be suspicious of any situation when a single person can decide the ability of another single person to exercise a God-given right. Even Judges can be appealed, but with the NICS, how can you appeal something you aren't even allowed to see? There is a legal process in place to determine if a person can be involuntarily committed, it should be just as difficult to put someone on the NICS hit-list for mental reasons.
The person should at least know what they're doing, and the system right now is secret. A situation ripe for the raping. And your concerns are well-placed, sorry if I implied they were not.