INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Semicolon on January 10, 2014, 10:47:24 AM
-
Last April, workers at Middlesex Hospital in Connecticut called the police to report that a psychiatric patient named Mark Russo had threatened to shoot his mother if officers tried to take the 18 rifles and shotguns he kept at her house. Mr. Russo, who was off his medication for paranoid schizophrenia, also talked about the recent elementary school massacre in Newtown and told a nurse that he “could take a chair and kill you or bash your head in between the eyes,” court records show.
The police seized the firearms, as well as seven high-capacity magazines, but Mr. Russo, 55, was eventually allowed to return to the trailer in Middletown where he lives alone. In an interview there recently, he denied that he had schizophrenia but said he was taking his medication now — though only “the smallest dose,” because he is forced to. His hospitalization, he explained, stemmed from a misunderstanding: Seeking a message from God on whether to dissociate himself from his family, he had stabbed a basketball and waited for it to reinflate itself. When it did, he told relatives they would not be seeing him again, prompting them to call the police.
As for his guns, Mr. Russo is scheduled to get them back in the spring, as mandated by Connecticut law.
“I don’t think they ever should have been taken out of my house,” he said. “I plan to get all my guns and ammo and knives back in April.”
The Russo case highlights a central, unresolved issue in the debate over balancing public safety and the Second Amendment right to bear arms: just how powerless law enforcement can be when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally ill.
Connecticut’s law giving the police broad leeway to seize and hold guns for up to a year is actually relatively strict. Most states simply adhere to the federal standard, banning gun possession only after someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility or designated as mentally ill or incompetent after a court proceeding or other formal legal process. Relatively few with mental health issues, even serious ones, reach this point.
As a result, the police often find themselves grappling with legal ambiguities when they encounter mentally unstable people with guns, unsure how far they can go in searching for and seizing firearms and then, in particular, how they should respond when the owners want them back.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us/when-the-right-to-bear-arms-includes-the-mentally-ill.html?_r=1&)
There's more of the article; it's long. What do you think?
-
And what "well regulated militia" does he belong to?
-
He just sounds like some shit talking little kid to me.
-
For some reason though people who have history of mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase firearms, so not sure why he would be given his guns back. Checked Wikipedia and that seems to be correct.
-
For some reason though people who have history of mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase firearms, so not sure why he would be given his guns back. Checked Wikipedia and that seems to be correct.
Read the rest of the article; it was too long to fully post. :P
After mental patients recover, their Second Amendment rights kick back in.
-
People recover from schizophrenia?
-
People recover from schizophrenia?
Yes
-
When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.
/shrugs
-
Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.
-
When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.
/shrugs
:dunno:
That's the way the US system is set up. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.
Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.
-
Psychiatric patients who threaten to shoot their mothers and bash nurses in the head with chairs should automatically be considered dangerous.
-
Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.
Someone who continues to display symptoms, and/or takes meds, isn't recovered.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
In the case of Mr Russo, I don't think he should have his guns back.
* Mainly because of his recent actions. His conduct was so that his right to have a gun should be forfeited.
* I think he is potentially dangerous, and this is magnified due to his unwillingness to accept he has a disorder. His comment about 'taking only the smallest amount of medication' is not very reassuring. The article suggests the likelihood of him repeating this behaviour boils down to him taking meds or not. Therefore suggesting it is quite likely to reoccur.
* The use of guns by citizens should be for legitimate reasons such as hunting. I accept that 'self defence' is another logical reason. I hope 'threatening' people is not a legitimate use.
* Most people probably say stuff they don't mean when angered. However, threatening to shoot people, especially when the person making the threats has an armoury of 18 or more firearms should be taken seriously.
I am not going to pretend that I know anything about American laws, or your constitution. I find it a bit confusing when laws seem to differ from state to state. My POV is purely from an angle of 'would I like to live next door to Mr Russo when he gets his firearm stash returned?' No way.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
In the case of Mr Russo, I don't think he should have his guns back.
* Mainly because of his recent actions. His conduct was so that his right to have a gun should be forfeited.
* I think he is potentially dangerous, and this is magnified due to his unwillingness to accept he has a disorder. His comment about 'taking only the smallest amount of medication' is not very reassuring. The article suggests the likelihood of him repeating this behaviour boils down to him taking meds or not. Therefore suggesting it is quite likely to reoccur.
* The use of guns by citizens should be for legitimate reasons such as hunting. I accept that 'self defence' is another logical reason. I hope 'threatening' people is not a legitimate use.
* Most people probably say stuff they don't mean when angered. However, threatening to shoot people, especially when the person making the threats has an armoury of 18 or more firearms should be taken seriously.
I am not going to pretend that I know anything about American laws, or your constitution. I find it a bit confusing when laws seem to differ from state to state. My POV is purely from an angle of 'would I like to live next door to Mr Russo when he gets his firearm stash returned?' No way.
Rather than thinking about the US as being like Great Britain, think of it as like the EU, and every state is a nation (which is imprecise, I know). The federal government can only make laws about certain things, most of which involve multiple states (such as highways, currency, the military, etc.) Everything else is reserved for the state to make laws about (including many gun laws). The states have different histories, and the citizens of each state elect representatives differently, so a state dominated by gun violence might make stricter laws than a state where most adult citizens hunt for food. In any case, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution (a federal document), so all states must obey it, whether they want to or not.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.
Saw a gun for sale in a yard sale within the last year, so the laws really have nothing to do with whether or not this person will or will not own firearms. Though handing over firearms to this particular person, my state mandate, seems a very odd thing for the state to do.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.
What you say makes sense but it contradicts what I read from Semicolons article.
The Russo case highlights a central, unresolved issue in the debate over balancing public safety and the Second Amendment right to bear arms: just how powerless law enforcement can be when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally ill.
Connecticut’s law giving the police broad leeway to seize and hold guns for up to a year is actually relatively strict. Most states simply adhere to the federal standard, banning gun possession only after someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility or designated as mentally ill or incompetent after a court proceeding or other formal legal process. Relatively few with mental health issues, even serious ones, reach this point.
As a result, the police often find themselves grappling with legal ambiguities when they encounter mentally unstable people with guns, unsure how far they can go in searching for and seizing firearms and then, in particular, how they should respond when the owners want them back.
“There is a big gap in the law,” said Jeffrey Furbee, the chief legal adviser to the Police Department in Columbus, Ohio. “There is no common-sense middle ground to protect the public.”
A vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. But recent mass shootings — outside a Tucson supermarket in 2011, at a movie theater last year in Aurora, Colo., and at the Washington Navy Yard in September — have raised public awareness of the gray areas in the law. In each case, the gunman had been recognized as mentally disturbed but had never been barred from having firearms.
The article goes on, and on, and on and lists many variations from state to state
In the absence of specific guidance under federal and state laws, local police departments vary widely in how they deal with the issue, The Times found. Some hew to a strict interpretation. Others appear to be searching for a middle ground, fearful of what may happen if they return guns to dangerous people but also aware that they are on difficult legal terrain.
It just seems a bit haphazard. I am finding it hard to interpret the actual laws relating to this. Seems to depend on your post code.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.
What you say makes sense but it contradicts what I read from Semicolons article.
The Russo case highlights a central, unresolved issue in the debate over balancing public safety and the Second Amendment right to bear arms: just how powerless law enforcement can be when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally ill.
Connecticut’s law giving the police broad leeway to seize and hold guns for up to a year is actually relatively strict. Most states simply adhere to the federal standard, banning gun possession only after someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility or designated as mentally ill or incompetent after a court proceeding or other formal legal process. Relatively few with mental health issues, even serious ones, reach this point.
As a result, the police often find themselves grappling with legal ambiguities when they encounter mentally unstable people with guns, unsure how far they can go in searching for and seizing firearms and then, in particular, how they should respond when the owners want them back.
“There is a big gap in the law,” said Jeffrey Furbee, the chief legal adviser to the Police Department in Columbus, Ohio. “There is no common-sense middle ground to protect the public.”
A vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. But recent mass shootings — outside a Tucson supermarket in 2011, at a movie theater last year in Aurora, Colo., and at the Washington Navy Yard in September — have raised public awareness of the gray areas in the law. In each case, the gunman had been recognized as mentally disturbed but had never been barred from having firearms.
The article goes on, and on, and on and lists many variations from state to state
In the absence of specific guidance under federal and state laws, local police departments vary widely in how they deal with the issue, The Times found. Some hew to a strict interpretation. Others appear to be searching for a middle ground, fearful of what may happen if they return guns to dangerous people but also aware that they are on difficult legal terrain.
It just seems a bit haphazard. I am finding it hard to interpret the actual laws relating to this. Seems to depend on your post code.
It does. In order to lose a Constitutionally protected right, the gun owner has to be given due process (which basically means that a judge has to sign off on it, in a formal hearing). Plus, not all records are in the national database.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
In the case of Mr Russo, I don't think he should have his guns back.
* Mainly because of his recent actions. His conduct was so that his right to have a gun should be forfeited.
* I think he is potentially dangerous, and this is magnified due to his unwillingness to accept he has a disorder. His comment about 'taking only the smallest amount of medication' is not very reassuring. The article suggests the likelihood of him repeating this behaviour boils down to him taking meds or not. Therefore suggesting it is quite likely to reoccur.
* The use of guns by citizens should be for legitimate reasons such as hunting. I accept that 'self defence' is another logical reason. I hope 'threatening' people is not a legitimate use.
* Most people probably say stuff they don't mean when angered. However, threatening to shoot people, especially when the person making the threats has an armoury of 18 or more firearms should be taken seriously.
I am not going to pretend that I know anything about American laws, or your constitution. I find it a bit confusing when laws seem to differ from state to state. My POV is purely from an angle of 'would I like to live next door to Mr Russo when he gets his firearm stash returned?' No way.
Rather than thinking about the US as being like Great Britain, think of it as like the EU, and every state is a nation (which is imprecise, I know). The federal government can only make laws about certain things, most of which involve multiple states (such as highways, currency, the military, etc.) Everything else is reserved for the state to make laws about (including many gun laws). The states have different histories, and the citizens of each state elect representatives differently, so a state dominated by gun violence might make stricter laws than a state where most adult citizens hunt for food. In any case, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution (a federal document), so all states must obey it, whether they want to or not.
That kind of made sense, until the last bit! Thanks for the explanation anyway.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.
What you say makes sense but it contradicts what I read from Semicolons article.
The Russo case highlights a central, unresolved issue in the debate over balancing public safety and the Second Amendment right to bear arms: just how powerless law enforcement can be when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally ill.
Connecticut’s law giving the police broad leeway to seize and hold guns for up to a year is actually relatively strict. Most states simply adhere to the federal standard, banning gun possession only after someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility or designated as mentally ill or incompetent after a court proceeding or other formal legal process. Relatively few with mental health issues, even serious ones, reach this point.
As a result, the police often find themselves grappling with legal ambiguities when they encounter mentally unstable people with guns, unsure how far they can go in searching for and seizing firearms and then, in particular, how they should respond when the owners want them back.
“There is a big gap in the law,” said Jeffrey Furbee, the chief legal adviser to the Police Department in Columbus, Ohio. “There is no common-sense middle ground to protect the public.”
A vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. But recent mass shootings — outside a Tucson supermarket in 2011, at a movie theater last year in Aurora, Colo., and at the Washington Navy Yard in September — have raised public awareness of the gray areas in the law. In each case, the gunman had been recognized as mentally disturbed but had never been barred from having firearms.
The article goes on, and on, and on and lists many variations from state to state
In the absence of specific guidance under federal and state laws, local police departments vary widely in how they deal with the issue, The Times found. Some hew to a strict interpretation. Others appear to be searching for a middle ground, fearful of what may happen if they return guns to dangerous people but also aware that they are on difficult legal terrain.
It just seems a bit haphazard. I am finding it hard to interpret the actual laws relating to this. Seems to depend on your post code.
There are exceptions when it comes to those who have the right to own firearms. It's all very convoluted, yes.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
In the case of Mr Russo, I don't think he should have his guns back.
* Mainly because of his recent actions. His conduct was so that his right to have a gun should be forfeited.
* I think he is potentially dangerous, and this is magnified due to his unwillingness to accept he has a disorder. His comment about 'taking only the smallest amount of medication' is not very reassuring. The article suggests the likelihood of him repeating this behaviour boils down to him taking meds or not. Therefore suggesting it is quite likely to reoccur.
* The use of guns by citizens should be for legitimate reasons such as hunting. I accept that 'self defence' is another logical reason. I hope 'threatening' people is not a legitimate use.
* Most people probably say stuff they don't mean when angered. However, threatening to shoot people, especially when the person making the threats has an armoury of 18 or more firearms should be taken seriously.
I am not going to pretend that I know anything about American laws, or your constitution. I find it a bit confusing when laws seem to differ from state to state. My POV is purely from an angle of 'would I like to live next door to Mr Russo when he gets his firearm stash returned?' No way.
Rather than thinking about the US as being like Great Britain, think of it as like the EU, and every state is a nation (which is imprecise, I know). The federal government can only make laws about certain things, most of which involve multiple states (such as highways, currency, the military, etc.) Everything else is reserved for the state to make laws about (including many gun laws). The states have different histories, and the citizens of each state elect representatives differently, so a state dominated by gun violence might make stricter laws than a state where most adult citizens hunt for food. In any case, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution (a federal document), so all states must obey it, whether they want to or not.
That kind of made sense, until the last bit! Thanks for the explanation anyway.
The last bit simply means state law can't supersede federal law; though sometimes it does anyway, not just this topic.
-
It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.
In the case of Mr Russo, I don't think he should have his guns back.
* Mainly because of his recent actions. His conduct was so that his right to have a gun should be forfeited.
* I think he is potentially dangerous, and this is magnified due to his unwillingness to accept he has a disorder. His comment about 'taking only the smallest amount of medication' is not very reassuring. The article suggests the likelihood of him repeating this behaviour boils down to him taking meds or not. Therefore suggesting it is quite likely to reoccur.
* The use of guns by citizens should be for legitimate reasons such as hunting. I accept that 'self defence' is another logical reason. I hope 'threatening' people is not a legitimate use.
* Most people probably say stuff they don't mean when angered. However, threatening to shoot people, especially when the person making the threats has an armoury of 18 or more firearms should be taken seriously.
I am not going to pretend that I know anything about American laws, or your constitution. I find it a bit confusing when laws seem to differ from state to state. My POV is purely from an angle of 'would I like to live next door to Mr Russo when he gets his firearm stash returned?' No way.
Rather than thinking about the US as being like Great Britain, think of it as like the EU, and every state is a nation (which is imprecise, I know). The federal government can only make laws about certain things, most of which involve multiple states (such as highways, currency, the military, etc.) Everything else is reserved for the state to make laws about (including many gun laws). The states have different histories, and the citizens of each state elect representatives differently, so a state dominated by gun violence might make stricter laws than a state where most adult citizens hunt for food. In any case, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution (a federal document), so all states must obey it, whether they want to or not.
That kind of made sense, until the last bit! Thanks for the explanation anyway.
I don't explain well. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights)
-
When I watch 'criminal minds' or 'CSI' I often see a Sheriff get all uppity when the feds move in and take over a murder enquiry. :zoinks:
I assumed that federal law supersedes state laws which has often made me wonder why they have them? :laugh:
-
When I watch 'criminal minds' or 'CSI' I often see a Sheriff get all uppity when the feds move in and take over a murder enquiry. :zoinks:
I assumed that federal law supersedes state laws which has often made me wonder why they have them? :laugh:
You should trust everything that you see on TV. :thumbup: :orly:
I don't understand what you mean.
-
When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.
/shrugs
:dunno:
That's the way the US system is set up. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
And until it's changed, innocent people risk getting shot. I would have thought that common sense would be enough, in this case.
Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.
Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.
This one is and has very clearly shown why.
-
Seems to depend on your post code.
^This.
I see a nation on tiptoes, with some realising that cases like this one should be fairly obvious, considering public safety and all that, but with all sides fearing a costly lawsuit.
In other words, it's not about anyone's constitutional rights anymore.
-
When I watch 'criminal minds' or 'CSI' I often see a Sheriff get all uppity when the feds move in and take over a murder enquiry. :zoinks:
I assumed that federal law supersedes state laws which has often made me wonder why they have them? :laugh:
You should trust everything that you see on TV. :thumbup: :orly:
I don't understand what you mean.
It was a 'tongue in cheek' comment. Just to show how cosmopolitan I am :tard:
I actually hate police type drama's and soaps in general. British and American. I have been looking after my Mum, who has not been well and have been spending a bit of time at her house. She watches them. She also watches a lot of gardening stuff. As with a lot of older people, the TV is on so bloody loud it is hard to ignore.
She even tells me not to call round between 7 - 8pm so that I don't interrupt her beloved Coronation Street and Eastenders. :o
-
When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.
/shrugs
:dunno:
That's the way the US system is set up. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
And until it's changed, innocent people risk getting shot. I would have thought that common sense would be enough, in this case.
How would we change it? By depriving people of their rights without due process?
Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.
Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.
This one is and has very clearly shown why.
Seems to depend on your post code.
^This.
I see a nation on tiptoes, with some realising that cases like this one should be fairly obvious, considering public safety and all that, but with all sides fearing a costly lawsuit.
In other words, it's not about anyone's constitutional rights anymore.
I see it as much more about Constitutional rights than lawsuits. Heavily political state legislatures don't normally shy away from passing laws that could easily be overturned by a judge; there have been many such laws passed about abortion.
-
How would we change it? By depriving people of their rights without due process?
We should give all the nutters crossbows instead. :zoinks:
-
When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.
/shrugs
:dunno:
That's the way the US system is set up. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
And until it's changed, innocent people risk getting shot. I would have thought that common sense would be enough, in this case.
How would we change it? By depriving people of their rights without due process?
By realising that the rights of the many sometimes outweigh the rights of the one. In other words, that preventive measures (i. e. not giving the man his guns back) are sometimes a good thing.
Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.
Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.
This one is and has very clearly shown why.
Seems to depend on your post code.
^This.
I see a nation on tiptoes, with some realising that cases like this one should be fairly obvious, considering public safety and all that, but with all sides fearing a costly lawsuit.
In other words, it's not about anyone's constitutional rights anymore.
I see it as much more about Constitutional rights than lawsuits. Heavily political state legislatures don't normally shy away from passing laws that could easily be overturned by a judge; there have been many such laws passed about abortion.
Well, here's their chance to prove that they have a couple of brain waves left.
-
When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.
/shrugs
:dunno:
That's the way the US system is set up. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
And until it's changed, innocent people risk getting shot. I would have thought that common sense would be enough, in this case.
How would we change it? By depriving people of their rights without due process?
By realising that the rights of the many sometimes outweigh the rights of the one. In other words, that preventive measures (i. e. not giving the man his guns back) are sometimes a good thing.
The question is how you would accomplish this. This man has the right to own guns, until due process of law intervenes. Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.
Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.
This one is and has very clearly shown why.
Seems to depend on your post code.
^This.
I see a nation on tiptoes, with some realising that cases like this one should be fairly obvious, considering public safety and all that, but with all sides fearing a costly lawsuit.
In other words, it's not about anyone's constitutional rights anymore.
I see it as much more about Constitutional rights than lawsuits. Heavily political state legislatures don't normally shy away from passing laws that could easily be overturned by a judge; there have been many such laws passed about abortion.
Well, here's their chance to prove that they have a couple of brain waves left.
Mental illness is not a crime. If a citizen is determined healthy by the authorities, all rights should revert to the citizen, including firearms ownership.
-
/shrugs
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'd rather protect the people around him now than come up with suitable excuses later.
-
Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Yes. It is called 'crime prevention'. We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.
We are talking about someone in denial, with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people, and having messages from 'God'. Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'. Someone known to the police.
This man has red flags hanging out his pockets! If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.
-
Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Yes. It is called 'crime prevention'. We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.
We are talking about someone in denial, with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people, and having messages from 'God'. Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'. Someone known to the police.
This man has red flags hanging out his pockets! If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.
They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.
-
When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.
/shrugs
:dunno:
That's the way the US system is set up. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
And until it's changed, innocent people risk getting shot. I would have thought that common sense would be enough, in this case.
How would we change it? By depriving people of their rights without due process?
By realising that the rights of the many sometimes outweigh the rights of the one. In other words, that preventive measures (i. e. not giving the man his guns back) are sometimes a good thing.
The question is how you would accomplish this. This man has the right to own guns, until due process of law intervenes. Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.
Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.
This one is and has very clearly shown why.
Seems to depend on your post code.
^This.
I see a nation on tiptoes, with some realising that cases like this one should be fairly obvious, considering public safety and all that, but with all sides fearing a costly lawsuit.
In other words, it's not about anyone's constitutional rights anymore.
I see it as much more about Constitutional rights than lawsuits. Heavily political state legislatures don't normally shy away from passing laws that could easily be overturned by a judge; there have been many such laws passed about abortion.
Well, here's their chance to prove that they have a couple of brain waves left.
Mental illness is not a crime. If a citizen is determined healthy by the authorities, all rights should revert to the citizen, including firearms ownership.
If he's so crazy that this much of a stink is made about it, then the kid needs to be pulled from his home and taken somewhere that he can receive proper treatment. I don't think they allow guns inside mental hospitals.
-
Heh, crossbows.
We had a crossbow killer in the news I think it was sometime last year. Media took to calling him the crossbow cannibal.
Real charming guy from the sound of it.
-
Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Yes. It is called 'crime prevention'. We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.
We are talking about someone in denial, with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people, and having messages from 'God'. Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'. Someone known to the police.
This man has red flags hanging out his pockets! If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.
They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.
I think you have got me wrong 'because the police say so' is not something I would support at all. I think a lot of police are jumped up and power crazy. They are likely to take the piss for sure.
It is not the police who make laws, they just enforce them. My honest opinion is if the law allows 'the crazies' to access guns, then the law needs adjusting. If this interferes with constitutional rights, then adjust those too.
Look, if i lived over there i would be happy living next door to PPK, and maybe IceQueen two doors down, and Rage on the corner!
I would not sleep well at all knowing this Mr Russo lived on my street. I would also be concerned for his Mother.
-
Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Yes. It is called 'crime prevention'. We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.
We are talking about someone in denial, with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people, and having messages from 'God'. Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'. Someone known to the police.
This man has red flags hanging out his pockets! If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.
They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.
I think you have got me wrong 'because the police say so' is not something I would support at all. I think a lot of police are jumped up and power crazy. They are likely to take the piss for sure.
It is not the police who make laws, they just enforce them. My honest opinion is if the law allows 'the crazies' to access guns, then the law needs adjusting. If this interferes with constitutional rights, then adjust those too.
Look, if i lived over there i would be happy living next door to PPK, and maybe IceQueen two doors down, and Rage on the corner!
I would not sleep well at all knowing this Mr Russo lived on my street. I would also be concerned for his Mother.
Agreed. I say this kind of stuff just gets silly out of hand and that if the kid is sick he needs care. Its really that simple to me.
Also: Even if he is a sick boy, if he came crashing through my door with a gun I would shoot him or snap his neck. Again. Its that simple dude.
-
In Pa if you were ever committed "involuntarily" you cannot own a firearm. Should you sign yourself in for a "vacation" that does not apply.
Every state is different.
-
In Pa if you were ever committed "involuntarily" you cannot own a firearm. Should you sign yourself in for a "vacation" that does not apply.
Every state is different.
The Brady Act is a Congressional Act and say the nutters have to settle for crossbows. :autism:
-
In Pa if you were ever committed "involuntarily" you cannot own a firearm. Should you sign yourself in for a "vacation" that does not apply.
Every state is different.
The Brady Act is a Congressional Act and say the nutters have to settle for crossbows. :autism:
Crossbows are awesome too. :thumbup:
-
Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Yes. It is called 'crime prevention'. We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.
We are talking about someone in denial, with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people, and having messages from 'God'. Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'. Someone known to the police.
This man has red flags hanging out his pockets! If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.
They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.
What good is a state that does not protect its citizens even when the risk is obvious to even the most casual observer?
-
Look, if i lived over there i would be happy living next door to PPK, and maybe IceQueen two doors down, and Rage on the corner!
Just imagine the fun that could be had. ;D
-
Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Yes. It is called 'crime prevention'. We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.
We are talking about someone in denial, with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people, and having messages from 'God'. Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'. Someone known to the police.
This man has red flags hanging out his pockets! If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.
They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.
What good is a state that does not protect its citizens even when the risk is obvious to even the most casual observer?
Indeed. One would think the reason guns are being systematically removed is because the state has developed the ability to protect the citizens and that they don't need guns to feel safe.
Paradox. :zoinks:
-
Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Yes. It is called 'crime prevention'. We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.
We are talking about someone in denial, with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people, and having messages from 'God'. Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'. Someone known to the police.
This man has red flags hanging out his pockets! If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.
They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.
What good is a state that does not protect its citizens even when the risk is obvious to even the most casual observer?
Indeed. One would think the reason guns are being systematically removed is because the state has developed the ability to protect the citizens and that they don't need guns to feel safe.
Paradox. :zoinks:
Yeah, that's why they want to give back this guy's guns. :tard:
-
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
-
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
Theoretically, because felons choose to be criminals, but the mentally ill don't (as a rule) choose to be mentally ill.
-
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
Theoretically, because felons choose to be criminals, but the mentally ill don't (as a rule) choose to be mentally ill.
OK, I can see a co-relation, but the "defined as" mentally ill are continually exempt from this argument, until they commit a crime, then they also get loccked up. Sorry, but that is how it is. If one is too mentally ill to maintain a life without hurting others then they are criminals, by the first definition.
I have a "friend" with a severely autistic sixteen year old son. His son leaves his dirty diapers everywhere in their house. That is NOT a felony. As long as this kid has a support system, he willl be safe from the law. I worry about what happpens if he is ever on his own.
So, since the mentally ill are not capable of making socially acceptable decisions, they should be exempt from social expectations?
There has to be a line in the sand. It can be as crooked as we like, but crossing it must present consequences.
-
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
Theoretically, because felons choose to be criminals, but the mentally ill don't (as a rule) choose to be mentally ill.
And society should care for them and help them, but also protect its other citizens.
-
Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?
Yes. It is called 'crime prevention'. We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.
We are talking about someone in denial, with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people, and having messages from 'God'. Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'. Someone known to the police.
This man has red flags hanging out his pockets! If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.
They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.
What good is a state that does not protect its citizens even when the risk is obvious to even the most casual observer?
Indeed. One would think the reason guns are being systematically removed is because the state has developed the ability to protect the citizens and that they don't need guns to feel safe.
Paradox. :zoinks:
Yeah, that's why they want to give back this guy's guns. :tard:
I think this stupid problem goes deeper than guns themselves though. The state is an incompetent piece of shit, and is run by companies and banks (They fund the elections after all). The greedy farts get to decide what is best for us.
This is why stateism came with a big fat warning label called the constitution in most countries. If you read it, you'll basically get the idea that although the state can give you peace of mind and make things a bit easier when used in moderation, too much state and government is addictive and hazardous to your health.
-
I have one more thing to add.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6x9161gViabDkqoL91HrxKf0patr5nUyCmrNPX6CS4ohN8xUSqg)
-
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
Theoretically, because felons choose to be criminals, but the mentally ill don't (as a rule) choose to be mentally ill.
And society should care for them and help them, but also protect its other citizens.
THAT point is the crooked line in the sand I was talking about.
Keeping "them" safe and OTHERS safe from "them" can be quite difficult.
-
I have one more thing to add.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6x9161gViabDkqoL91HrxKf0patr5nUyCmrNPX6CS4ohN8xUSqg)
Not sure that your Second Amendment comment applies.
Bear arms? We got that already and we NEED to keep it!
Mentally ill? FUCK!
I say NO!
-
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
That is for me becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.
Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/reasonmagazineA/)
Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day
Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.
With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.
Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.
Link (http://beforeitsnews.com/the-law/2013/12/new-illinois-law-makes-flicking-cigarette-butts-a-felony-punishable-with-jail-time-2454526.html)
So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier. There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions and that leaves it very open to abuse. I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds.
-
I have one more thing to add.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6x9161gViabDkqoL91HrxKf0patr5nUyCmrNPX6CS4ohN8xUSqg)
Not sure that your Second Amendment comment applies.
Bear arms? We got that already and we NEED to keep it!
Mentally ill? FUCK!
I say NO!
I was being tongue in cheek. Its a natural human right to be able to defend yourself. Its especially important when everyone seems to want to overdose on the state.
We all know what happens when you use too much of something. Anything. Its dangerous, of course.
-
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
That is for me becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.
Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/reasonmagazineA/)
Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day
Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.
With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.
Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.
Link (http://beforeitsnews.com/the-law/2013/12/new-illinois-law-makes-flicking-cigarette-butts-a-felony-punishable-with-jail-time-2454526.html)
So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier. There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions and that leaves it very open to abuse. I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds.
The butt flicking thing has been a law here for a very long time, as well the cell phone use and seat belt laws. Any personal deviation from the law puts the general public at risk. We can not, as a society, have this risk continue. When we drive on the roads we all pay for, we should assume that we are safe to do so. Having some idiot distracted smoking or texting or whatever while slamming into other people who ARE following the laws NEEDS to stop.
Are you saying that an incremental process will lead to a "legal permit" climate which will keep you from being able to get a hunting license because you had therapy and took meds?
I think it is a stretch.
-
It should be a stretch. Having therapy and taking meds is very different from refusing to take your meds and waving guns at mum. Or, it should be.
:-\
-
It should be a stretch. Having therapy and taking meds is very different from refusing to take your meds and waving guns at mum. Or, it should be.
:-\
The mere fact that you have does already put up barriers making joining the armed forces,getting a CDL, and a pilot license difficult if not impossible. With the way many laws are broadly written I can see potential problems especially with the sigma attached to it.
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
That is for me becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.
Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/reasonmagazineA/)
Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day
Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.
With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.
Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.
Link (http://beforeitsnews.com/the-law/2013/12/new-illinois-law-makes-flicking-cigarette-butts-a-felony-punishable-with-jail-time-2454526.html)
So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier. There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions and that leaves it very open to abuse. I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds.
The butt flicking thing has been a law here for a very long time, as well the cell phone use and seat belt laws. Any personal deviation from the law puts the general public at risk. We can not, as a society, have this risk continue. When we drive on the roads we all pay for, we should assume that we are safe to do so. Having some idiot distracted smoking or texting or whatever while slamming into other people who ARE following the laws NEEDS to stop.
Are you saying that an incremental process will lead to a "legal permit" climate which will keep you from being able to get a hunting license because you had therapy and took meds?
I think it is a stretch.
Yes it has but they have been making up new felonies at an alarming rate and going after people for them http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx (http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx)
Basically all I am saying it's not as clear cut as it seems and it needs to be looked at with common sense say for instance someone guilty of a felony for a third offense of throwing butts out the window is not the same as someone convicted for bank robbery.
-
Crossbows. Crossbows are the answer to everything. I'm just saying. :lol1:
-
It should be a stretch. Having therapy and taking meds is very different from refusing to take your meds and waving guns at mum. Or, it should be.
:-\
The mere fact that you have does already put up barriers making joining the armed forces,getting a CDL, and a pilot license difficult if not impossible. With the way many laws are broadly written I can see potential problems especially with the sigma attached to it.
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
That is for me becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.
Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/reasonmagazineA/)
Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day
Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.
With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.
Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.
Link (http://beforeitsnews.com/the-law/2013/12/new-illinois-law-makes-flicking-cigarette-butts-a-felony-punishable-with-jail-time-2454526.html)
So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier. There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions and that leaves it very open to abuse. I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds.
The butt flicking thing has been a law here for a very long time, as well the cell phone use and seat belt laws. Any personal deviation from the law puts the general public at risk. We can not, as a society, have this risk continue. When we drive on the roads we all pay for, we should assume that we are safe to do so. Having some idiot distracted smoking or texting or whatever while slamming into other people who ARE following the laws NEEDS to stop.
Are you saying that an incremental process will lead to a "legal permit" climate which will keep you from being able to get a hunting license because you had therapy and took meds?
I think it is a stretch.
Yes it has but they have been making up new felonies at an alarming rate and going after people for them http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx (http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx)
Basically all I am saying it's not as clear cut as it seems and it needs to be looked at with common sense say for instance someone guilty of a felony for a third offense of throwing butts out the window is not the same as someone convicted for bank robbery.
The "Three Strikes Law" only applies to felonies. Flicking a butt or talking on a cell or texting while driving do not count.
A felon carrying a weapon counts as a "strike." It is not the same as taking meds or having therapy.
Relax! You live in the most free country on the planet despite being run by a socialist and if in doubt there are thousands of liberal judges to help you meet the law half way.
You are a free citizen. You Have NOTHING to worry about.
-
It should be a stretch. Having therapy and taking meds is very different from refusing to take your meds and waving guns at mum. Or, it should be.
:-\
The mere fact that you have does already put up barriers making joining the armed forces,getting a CDL, and a pilot license difficult if not impossible. With the way many laws are broadly written I can see potential problems especially with the sigma attached to it.
Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc. Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.
Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...
If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.
Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!
That is for me becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.
Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/reasonmagazineA/)
Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day
Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.
With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.
Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.
Link (http://beforeitsnews.com/the-law/2013/12/new-illinois-law-makes-flicking-cigarette-butts-a-felony-punishable-with-jail-time-2454526.html)
So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier. There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions and that leaves it very open to abuse. I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds.
The butt flicking thing has been a law here for a very long time, as well the cell phone use and seat belt laws. Any personal deviation from the law puts the general public at risk. We can not, as a society, have this risk continue. When we drive on the roads we all pay for, we should assume that we are safe to do so. Having some idiot distracted smoking or texting or whatever while slamming into other people who ARE following the laws NEEDS to stop.
Are you saying that an incremental process will lead to a "legal permit" climate which will keep you from being able to get a hunting license because you had therapy and took meds?
I think it is a stretch.
Yes it has but they have been making up new felonies at an alarming rate and going after people for them http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx (http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx)
Basically all I am saying it's not as clear cut as it seems and it needs to be looked at with common sense say for instance someone guilty of a felony for a third offense of throwing butts out the window is not the same as someone convicted for bank robbery.
The "Three Strikes Law" only applies to felonies. Flicking a butt or talking on a cell or texting while driving do not count.
A felon carrying a weapon counts as a "strike." It is not the same as taking meds or having therapy.
Relax! You live in the most free country on the planet despite being run by a socialist and if in doubt there are thousands of liberal judges to help you meet the law half way.
You are a free citizen. You Have NOTHING to worry about.
No, we have a lot to worry about.
-
Such as lunatics with guns.
-
I have to agree with parts. No, I don't want to see someone who is obviously mentally ill and has made threats to someone's safety running around with a gun in their hand. But I worry that restrictions will be taken to excess. Not that our government has ever done that in the past. :LOL:
...and on a side note, my son is seeing a new counselor ATM. One of the questions on the form for the parents...
"Do you own a firearm, or do you have any firearms in the household?"
Yes, and I also own a chainsaw, a large knife I use to chop onions with, and a full set of steak knives. WTH. :GA:
-
While related, the issues shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive.
-
I have to agree with parts. No, I don't want to see someone who is obviously mentally ill and has made threats to someone's safety running around with a gun in their hand. But I worry that restrictions will be taken to excess. Not that our government has ever done that in the past. :LOL:
...and on a side note, my son is seeing a new counselor ATM. One of the questions on the form for the parents...
"Do you own a firearm, or do you have any firearms in the household?"
Yes, and I also own a chainsaw, a large knife I use to chop onions with, and a full set of steak knives. WTH. :GA:
Whether or not its justified, it's :( either way that that question would be asked.
I hope Parts can get a hunting license. :-\
-
I have to agree with parts. No, I don't want to see someone who is obviously mentally ill and has made threats to someone's safety running around with a gun in their hand. But I worry that restrictions will be taken to excess. Not that our government has ever done that in the past. :LOL:
...and on a side note, my son is seeing a new counselor ATM. One of the questions on the form for the parents...
"Do you own a firearm, or do you have any firearms in the household?"
Yes, and I also own a chainsaw, a large knife I use to chop onions with, and a full set of steak knives. WTH. :GA:
Whether or not its justified, it's :( either way that that question would be asked.
I hope Parts can get a hunting license. :-\
It should not be a problem as things are now but with the wacky legislators passing laws about things they know nothing about who knows. I do know that besides taking the hunting course I must take a special ammo course and get a permit to buy ammo in Ct. Oddly enough it's quicker and cheaper to get a concealed carry permit than just the ammo one so a lot of people who would never had thought of getting a concealed carry permit are just so they can buy ammo to hunt, so there are going to be a lot more people able to carry a pistol which is not what they intended.
-
I own and maintain many different firearms. I have a large collection of knives and swords, the battle ready swords are all sharp enough to shave hair. I know how to kill a man with my hands in ways that you would probably think are ridiculous just hearing them offhand.
I don't give a fuck what you think, state. I will fuck you in the ass if you come trying to apply your viewpoints to my way of life.
-
I have to agree with parts. No, I don't want to see someone who is obviously mentally ill and has made threats to someone's safety running around with a gun in their hand. But I worry that restrictions will be taken to excess. Not that our government has ever done that in the past. :LOL:
...and on a side note, my son is seeing a new counselor ATM. One of the questions on the form for the parents...
"Do you own a firearm, or do you have any firearms in the household?"
Yes, and I also own a chainsaw, a large knife I use to chop onions with, and a full set of steak knives. WTH. :GA:
Whether or not its justified, it's :( either way that that question would be asked.
I hope Parts can get a hunting license. :-\
It should not be a problem as things are now but with the wacky legislators passing laws about things they know nothing about who knows. I do know that besides taking the hunting course I must take a special ammo course and get a permit to buy ammo in Ct. Oddly enough it's quicker and cheaper to get a concealed carry permit than just the ammo one so a lot of people who would never had thought of getting a concealed carry permit are just so they can buy ammo to hunt, so there are going to be a lot more people able to carry a pistol which is not what they intended.
There is no obvious state for you to travel to to buy ammunition. :(
-
I have to agree with parts. No, I don't want to see someone who is obviously mentally ill and has made threats to someone's safety running around with a gun in their hand. But I worry that restrictions will be taken to excess. Not that our government has ever done that in the past. :LOL:
...and on a side note, my son is seeing a new counselor ATM. One of the questions on the form for the parents...
"Do you own a firearm, or do you have any firearms in the household?"
Yes, and I also own a chainsaw, a large knife I use to chop onions with, and a full set of steak knives. WTH. :GA:
Whether or not its justified, it's :( either way that that question would be asked.
I hope Parts can get a hunting license. :-\
It should not be a problem as things are now but with the wacky legislators passing laws about things they know nothing about who knows. I do know that besides taking the hunting course I must take a special ammo course and get a permit to buy ammo in Ct. Oddly enough it's quicker and cheaper to get a concealed carry permit than just the ammo one so a lot of people who would never had thought of getting a concealed carry permit are just so they can buy ammo to hunt, so there are going to be a lot more people able to carry a pistol which is not what they intended.
There is no obvious state for you to travel to to buy ammunition. :(
Any of the three surrounding states MA,RI, or NY like we used to do for beer on Sundays before they changed the laws on that, it's one of the things that make it ridiculous and shows how little they know about how things work. I also think that they don't restrict reloading supplies which I have bought in the past at tag sales to resell at the flea market.