Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Spectral]

My idea would the panel handles appeals and the courts do the flagging and removal of the guns but currently the idea seems to be to let the courts handle everything. I do agree logistically a lot needs to be worked out but as i have stated I think this is moot nothing is going to be done since the NRA is strongly against this.

Sure, obviously I don't mean that you literally should personally be held liable for it. What I'm getting at is that I see politicians acting like, "ugh, this is all very simple, we can basically just do it tomorrow if it weren't for the NRA" and that's either naive or or dishonest. It's technically complicated, quite expensive, legally questionable, and not even obviously helpful. Like plenty of other issues, there's an answer that's simple, obvious, and wrong.

[Draco-Onis]

Sure, obviously I don't mean that you literally should personally be held liable for it. What I'm getting at is that I see politicians acting like, "ugh, this is all very simple, we can basically just do it tomorrow if it weren't for the NRA" and that's either naive or or dishonest. It's technically complicated, quite expensive, legally questionable, and not even obviously helpful. Like plenty of other issues, there's an answer that's simple, obvious, and wrong.

To be fair the public generally does not care about complexities they want simple answers it's what wins elections.

[Ghostpanther]

Right, removing imminent threats from the pool of purchasers seems reasonable enough to me - there should certainly be some discretion in telling someone that's pretty obviously dangerous from getting concealed carry licenses or purchasing new weapons. What I'm struggling with is how people expect that to be simple, common sense, and scalable to a national model; the NIH says that nearly 20% of Americans have a mental illness - trying to manage all of the records, data interchange, data standards, and new bureaucracy would be an enormous undertaking and people seem to just kind of shrug and say "sounds common sense to me".

It's also pretty easy to picture there being a chilling effect, even for people that don't currently own firearms or even plan to own firearms in the future. Personally, I just flat out wouldn't want data sent to some centralized government depository that "red flags" me for life if I go talk to a therapist if I were feeling hinky. This is literally what HIPAA is for. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have faceless bureaucrats pouring over their medical information when they exercise their civil rights.

I agree. And your other points is a major concern for myself also. If they want to get the approval of the NRA, then that needs to be addressed.

[Stormdash]

Red Flag laws are some of the most awful sort of DoSomethingism. Enact a policy, because people are freaked and it will make them feel like you are bold and decisive! Nevermind its implications or likely effects!

At it's core, red flag laws are like an extreme form of an injunction or restraining order but without nearly the judicial safeguards. Some set of 3rd parties can, without any court of competent jurisdiction determining probable cause that any crime has or is likely to be committed, deprive an individual of property that is protected by the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments, and only offer post-seizure due process safeguards (which, if you know anything about the law, you can satisfy the notice/hearing requirements of due process after-the-fact but the bar for allowing this should be very, very high and only permitted in unique and extreme circumstances).

So very plainly, these laws already have major 4th, 5th, 14th, and obviously 2nd Amendment problems. I know it's very passe to actually give a shit about individual liberty and limits on the power of government for a lot of people these days, but it's still a thing that matters.

But then let's step out of the rubric of constitutional law and look at the practical effects. How, as applied, will this work when it involves real people? Terribly. Think of the times you have heard of people calling 911 because a black person was in the neighborhood pool. Or times you've seen people circulate reminders that they have to "help" the cause by getting in the face of friends and family at holiday dinners. Activists that explicitly encourage people to call 911 on any and all open carriers even where it is absolutely legal. These are the kinds of people that red flag laws will give power to preemptively disarm; their motives, their 'sound judgment'.

The question isn't "if" it will be abused, it's only how quickly, how flagrantly, and how often. And those targeted will have no option to but to disarm without notice or be arrested/killed, and then sit through whatever process of weeks, months, or years to clear their name and have their rights restored, and very possibly only to find that their weapons have been lost, destroyed, resold, and to content themselves with some check for less than they were worth.

But what else? Well, we'll be re-stigmatizing all forms of mental illness back to the early 20th century, since NONE of these proposals retain or care about any distinction between "dangerous" mental illness and anything else. Depression, anxiety, ADD? No difference under 'red flag' laws from paranoid schizophrenia or antisocial personality disorder. So people that want to know they can be armed in America without being at risk of being 'red flagged'? Will not only obviously have to choose to avoid actually ever seeking mental health care for any issue, since any such contact could be the basis of an order against them, they'll basically need to refrain from even seeking casual help or even discussing their problems with friends or families that would make them "suspect". THAT is going to work out goddamn beautifully for everyone.

[Ghostpanther]

Red Flag laws are some of the most awful sort of DoSomethingism. Enact a policy, because people are freaked and it will make them feel like you are bold and decisive! Nevermind its implications or likely effects!

At it's core, red flag laws are like an extreme form of an injunction or restraining order but without nearly the judicial safeguards. Some set of 3rd parties can, without any court of competent jurisdiction determining probable cause that any crime has or is likely to be committed, deprive an individual of property that is protected by the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments, and only offer post-seizure due process safeguards (which, if you know anything about the law, you can satisfy the notice/hearing requirements of due process after-the-fact but the bar for allowing this should be very, very high and only permitted in unique and extreme circumstances).

So very plainly, these laws already have major 4th, 5th, 14th, and obviously 2nd Amendment problems. I know it's very passe to actually give a shit about individual liberty and limits on the power of government for a lot of people these days, but it's still a thing that matters.

But then let's step out of the rubric of constitutional law and look at the practical effects. How, as applied, will this work when it involves real people? Terribly. Think of the times you have heard of people calling 911 because a black person was in the neighborhood pool. Or times you've seen people circulate reminders that they have to "help" the cause by getting in the face of friends and family at holiday dinners. Activists that explicitly encourage people to call 911 on any and all open carriers even where it is absolutely legal. These are the kinds of people that red flag laws will give power to preemptively disarm; their motives, their 'sound judgment'.

The question isn't "if" it will be abused, it's only how quickly, how flagrantly, and how often. And those targeted will have no option to but to disarm without notice or be arrested/killed, and then sit through whatever process of weeks, months, or years to clear their name and have their rights restored, and very possibly only to find that their weapons have been lost, destroyed, resold, and to content themselves with some check for less than they were worth.

But what else? Well, we'll be re-stigmatizing all forms of mental illness back to the early 20th century, since NONE of these proposals retain or care about any distinction between "dangerous" mental illness and anything else. Depression, anxiety, ADD? No difference under 'red flag' laws from paranoid schizophrenia or antisocial personality disorder. So people that want to know they can be armed in America without being at risk of being 'red flagged'? Will not only obviously have to choose to avoid actually ever seeking mental health care for any issue, since any such contact could be the basis of an order against them, they'll basically need to refrain from even seeking casual help or even discussing their problems with friends or families that would make them "suspect". THAT is going to work out goddamn beautifully for everyone.

I must say, you have some very valid points. And certainly address the potential abuses these red flag laws can create by default. And knowing how Congress is mainly concerned now with public attention to the issue in creating a "feels good" law, I am not convinced they will make a informed and logical decision taking the potential harm such laws can do into serous consideration.

[Stormdash]

I must say, you have some very valid points. And certainly address the potential abuses these red flag laws can create by default. And knowing how Congress is mainly concerned now with public attention to the issue in creating a "feels good" law, I am not convinced they will make a informed and logical decision taking the potential harm such laws can do into serous consideration.

Well, the burden is pretty much entirely on the conservative or libertarian members, because the problem is - this isn't a good faith meeting of bipartisan minds kind of thing. It's proponents among gun control advocates don't care about these ancillary issues, because their political end is any gun out of any set of hands that they can get.

[Draco-Onis]

SNIP

Okay I will bite what is your solution to stopping the mentally ill from getting guns?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the burden is pretty much entirely on the conservative or libertarian members, because the problem is - this isn't a good faith meeting of bipartisan minds kind of thing. It's proponents among gun control advocates don't care about these ancillary issues, because their political end is any gun out of any set of hands that they can get.

Those laws are being proposed by republicans.....

[Ghostpanther]

Well, the burden is pretty much entirely on the conservative or libertarian members, because the problem is - this isn't a good faith meeting of bipartisan minds kind of thing. It's proponents among gun control advocates don't care about these ancillary issues, because their political end is any gun out of any set of hands that they can get.

Absolutely. They are not likely to get a bipartisan agreement unless some give is done and it is usually the conservatives who do. I think for political reasons, Trump will sign just about any red flag, background check law which is approved and reaches his desk.

[Muzjhath]

It may be simple in Sweden. But not here. Safe storage laws, some states have those already. And I am not against safe storage laws if they let the individual decide how to safely store their firearm, because each scenario in a home, will vary as to the degree it needs to be done. Households with children or minors living or visiting in them require more safe storage then some who have none. All firearms sold now, have trigger locks which come with them. Making it mandatory all firearms be in a safe, is government overreach in my opinion and I am opposed to such.

Well, I don't believe that guns are a good tool for self defense or house defense. They are good for hunting and sports shooting. And war. Self defense in a house? My home is of such parameters that I'm safer with a baseball bat or a large wrench than with a fire arm. Which is also practically true for most homes in Sweden. They aren't big enough for a fire arm to give you an advantage, more often it'd make you disadvantaged. Nor are they straight enough for clear lines of fire. But swinging a heavy tool? Yeah, that fits. I've for fairly wide hallways and rooms, thus for me a bat works. In my parents house which is sorta old that wouldn't work, the wrench would.
Thus I have issues with the mentallity of keeping a gun for self defense. It's just not a great tool for that compared to other tools that exist. In a close quarters situation I much rather face someone with a gun than someone with a knife. (Sure, I'd rather not face anyone with any weapon. But I feel far more secure against the gun).

I have to stress I'm very much not anti-gun. I just think it's a crap defense tool. When the day comes that I take over my parents house (or me and my sister combined does that) I'll probably join the hunting team there and get a few rifles to shoot those darn wild pigs.

So yeah, I am very much of the opinion that guns that aren't in use should be locked away for safety. As otherwise it's begging to be missued or in an accident (or stolen). You can display it, just remove the leathal parts.
Which I know goes against how you see guns. However I view your view of guns as unrealistic.
So in my view locking them up/keeping the firering mechanism locked up is just common sense storage.

[Draco-Onis]

Absolutely. They are not likely to get a bipartisan agreement unless some give is done and it is usually the conservatives who do. I think for political reasons, Trump will sign just about any red flag, background check law which is approved and reaches his desk.

Yea you guys definitely exist in your own reality Trump and conservatives are the ones championing red flag laws as an alternative to background checks.

[Ghostpanther]

Well, I don't believe that guns are a good tool for self defense or house defense. They are good for hunting and sports shooting. And war. Self defense in a house? My home is of such parameters that I'm safer with a baseball bat or a large wrench than with a fire arm. Which is also practically true for most homes in Sweden. They aren't big enough for a fire arm to give you an advantage, more often it'd make you disadvantaged. Nor are they straight enough for clear lines of fire. But swinging a heavy tool? Yeah, that fits. I've for fairly wide hallways and rooms, thus for me a bat works. In my parents house which is sorta old that wouldn't work, the wrench would.
Thus I have issues with the mentallity of keeping a gun for self defense. It's just not a great tool for that compared to other tools that exist. In a close quarters situation I much rather face someone with a gun than someone with a knife. (Sure, I'd rather not face anyone with any weapon. But I feel far more secure against the gun).

I have to stress I'm very much not anti-gun. I just think it's a crap defense tool. When the day comes that I take over my parents house (or me and my sister combined does that) I'll probably join the hunting team there and get a few rifles to shoot those darn wild pigs.

So yeah, I am very much of the opinion that guns that aren't in use should be locked away for safety. As otherwise it's begging to be missued or in an accident (or stolen). You can display it, just remove the leathal parts.
Which I know goes against how you see guns. However I view your view of guns as unrealistic.
So in my view locking them up/keeping the firering mechanism locked up is just common sense storage.

I am not surprised by your response and it is the common view of those outside the US. Not knocking what you feel is best for you and your country however. But I am glad in the US., we have a Constitution which guarantees the citizens the right to use a firearm for self defense. But at the same time, also gives them the right not to. I want that choice.

But do keep in mind that any suggestion for the US and our gun issues, may not work or be as simple as it would be in your country.

[Muzjhath]

I am not surprised by your response and it is the common view of those outside the US. Not knocking what you feel is best for you and your country however. But I am glad in the US., we have a Constitution which guarantees the citizens the right to use a firearm for self defense. But at the same time, also gives them the right not to. I want that choice.

But do keep in mind that any suggestion for the US and our gun issues, may not work or be as simple as it would be in your country.

Then I have to ask a question. As you want a choice and from previous posts seem to practice it.
What in the US makes you so scared that you feel the need to go around armed outside, and be armed in your own home? You don't live in north easter Nigeria or the South Sudan. You live in the United States of America. I'd believe it's a fairly safe place to live.

So, what makes you not feel safe? As that's the only reason I can see as a reason to be armed. Being unsecure about safety.

As for the constitution thing. That can change with majority view and policy change. Just look at the 18th Amendment. I give it around 30 years personally.

[Svifnymr]

Quick question intended primarily for pro-control people - I've been muddling through thinking about the ostensibly common sense idea that mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. i think that they're right that this feels like it's basically common sense, that mentally ill people are prone to hurting themselves or others. That sounds pretty obvious and if I could wave a wand to magic a way to mentally ill people not being armed, I'd wave that wand. But...

I don't follow how this is going to fit with HIPAA protections. Generally speaking, medical privacy is tightly protected (read more here) and can't be accessed by anyone other than healthcare providers without the explicit consent of the patient. Patient health information violations are treated very seriously in the medical industry. So what's the proposed flow of data here? All mental health data is aggregated and reported to some federal agency I suppose is the idea. How's that intended to work in practice? I go to a store to buy a hunting rifle, they enter my info into some federal database and it tells them... what exactly? Just a generic "Person Cannot Buy Gun" message to protect privacy I suppose, but now as the buyer I'm in a circumstance where I'm being denied one of my civil rights and I don't even know why.

I have some other concerns on the specifics of implementation (e.g. what diagnoses make some too crazy to own a gun, who decides on that, for how long, etc.), but it's really the patient privacy thing I'm having trouble figuring out a sensible plan for that lines up with basic expectations of patient privacy. This seems guaranteed to have a chilling effect on people that would otherwise seek mental health assistance.

To detail how it works now, when a dealer runs your information (name, race, sex, date of birth with optional social) with the FBI NICS (national instant check system) or a point of contact (like, Florida goes through Fl Dep of Law Enforcement, Firearm Purchase Program, who compares their own database and the NICS), he gets a control number and "Approve" "NonApprove" or "Delayed".

Approve is obvious ("here's yer gun").
NonApprove means no gun today. You get a form, get fingerprinted, send it in and they will tell you why you got the nonapproval (and if there's an error, how to fix it), or they will give you a letter saying "we checked, you're fine" and you bring the letter to the dealer and get your gun.
Delayed means they have up to X days to research the info. (Was 3, but not sure if that changed.) If they do not come back with an answer by the end of this period, you get a "conditional approval" which means you can take the gun but if something comes back later, they will come get the gun. If they do come back with an Approval or NonApproval, it's as above.

Okay, so for mental issues, the appropriate qualifier is:
Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

With instructions of:

Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

EXCEPTION: Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a State proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing State pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should answer "no" to question 11.f. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a Federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The main HIPAA thing is that the background check is done by an examiner, so they would see all the info. Likewise there are various state laws that prohibit sharing the information with other agencies except if that agency can prove a need. And of course, you have doctors afraid to submit information that might not be required and that would leave them vulnerable to penalties.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea you guys definitely exist in your own reality Trump and conservatives are the ones championing red flag laws as an alternative to background checks.

The "progun" advantage of RedFlag laws is that they're targeted vs general. Anti-gun folks want to ban everyone from getting whatever class of firearms they can demonize in the press this week. A RedFlag law says everyone except these guys can have guns.

The problem with them really is the accuracy of the targeting. No matter what system is used, some will be denied that shouldn't be, and some will slip through that should be. In either case, politicians will use those cases to push their agendas.

[Draco-Onis]

The "progun" advantage of RedFlag laws is that they're targeted vs general. Anti-gun folks want to ban everyone from getting whatever class of firearms they can demonize in the press this week. A RedFlag law says everyone except these guys can have guns.

The problem with them really is the accuracy of the targeting. No matter what system is used, some will be denied that shouldn't be, and some will slip through that should be. In either case, politicians will use those cases to push their agendas.

What does that have to do with the false statements that democrats are behind this when these are being pushed by republicans?

[bladeXcrasher]

I did that and it still will not let me read it all. And I figured it was some type of fearmonger story, with a left tilt. Thanks for confirming it.

Its fearmongering with a right tilt, re-read the guy you quoted.

Red Flag Laws. Here’s a scenario...

It’s a Sunday night and your family has all gone to bed. You let the dogs back in and lock the deadbolt like you do every night. All the lights are off now except a couple of night lights scattered throughout the house leaving that dim glow throughout your home. It’s bedtime and work and school are going to come early in the morning. You crawl in bed, kiss your wife and drift off to sleep being thankful for the air conditioning that allows you to pull that heavy quilt up over your shoulder despite the fact it’s still 85 degrees outside. A few hours pass...

0200 Monday morning and your wife taps your leg and says, “baby I heard something outside”. As you sit up in bed you hear the dog growling in the living room and you know something isn’t right. You grab that trusty ole 870 and head into the living room. Your wife grabs her 9mm and heads down the hall to the kids rooms just like you have rehearsed. “Good boy” you say as you enter the living room, trying to calm both the dog and your wife just as splinters fly across the room and the front door flys open. “Oh Crap!” As you shoulder your weapon and send a load of 00 Buck across your living room and see the perpetrator fall in a heap. Before the “thank God” can even run across your brain, you see a second man coming in the door and you fire again. This time you hear the pop of your wife’s 9mm as she has joined in the fight. It has to be those damn meth heads from down in town! Just then you are consumed by a wall of bullets as you see multiple muzzle flashes from just outside the door and you realize something isn’t right. You turn to yell at your wife to “get down” just in time to see her take a load of buckshot to the face and her brain matter splatter the wall behind her. You feel the burning as 5.56 bullets Riddle your body. One clips your spine as you’re scrambling away and paralyzes your lower body. The last thing you see before you bleed out is a SWAT guy from your local PD holding your teenage daughter on the floor with a knee in her back as she screams and cry’s because she just watched her parents being murdered.

Why did this happen? You’re no criminal. You’re a Conservative and an honest family man. Your wife is a school teacher and your daughters are on honor roll. Why did this happen?

Well two days ago, you and your wife went down to welcome the new neighbors to the community. Your wife made them some of her “world famous” cookies and you invited them to church on Sunday. Later that afternoon, you got a friend request on Facebook from your new neighbor, which you gladly accepted. They seemed a little odd, but in the few minutes you talked they were pleasant enough. The next day while you and your family sat in church, your new neighbor scrolled through your Facebook profile. He saw that “Trump 2020” post and got infuriated. See, he’s a staunch liberal and he hates your kind. The next thing he sees are the hunting pictures you took last fall when your daughter bagged her first buck. Now he’s seething with fury because he is wholeheartedly against the “slaughter of innocent animals”. Next he sees your post from the last range day with your buddy and sees those scary black assault weapons on the table and that does it! He has to do something about the racist domestic terrorist living next door. He picks up the phone, calls the local Sheriffs Office and reports you as a threat under the new Red Flag law. The SO follows their SOP’s and conducts a no knock warrant because you have now been denied due process and you are considered guilty until proven innocent.

Now you, your lovely wife and two deputies have been killed for nothing. Your daughter will have absolute hell for the rest of her life. She will never be that successful person you dreamed for her to be because of the mental tragedy caused from seeing her parents murdered. The local news paper will report that you were killed after firing on and killing two deputies and that “over a thousand rounds of ammo and 22 guns were confiscated from your residence”.

Oh, those two deputies were just following orders. They left behind families as well and had served their community for over a decade. They didn’t know you were a stand-up guy with a great family. They weren’t allowed time to investigate things under due process. They were told you had threatened your neighbor and were out in the street waving an AR15 around.

This is the reality of Red Flag gun laws. Innocent people will lose their lives. Red Flag laws will be used for petty and vengeful reasons without merit.
-Chris Anders

[Ghostpanther]

Then I have to ask a question. As you want a choice and from previous posts seem to practice it.
What in the US makes you so scared that you feel the need to go around armed outside, and be armed in your own home? You don't live in north easter Nigeria or the South Sudan. You live in the United States of America. I'd believe it's a fairly safe place to live.

So, what makes you not feel safe? As that's the only reason I can see as a reason to be armed. Being unsecure about safety.

As for the constitution thing. That can change with majority view and policy change. Just look at the 18th Amendment. I give it around 30 years personally.

Because I know bad shit can happen and I rather be prepared than not be if I should be the target of some scums. Not likely to happen of course. Same as my fire alarms have never been needed to alert me to a fire. But I still keep them in working order as a precaution.

I do feel safer with firearms in my possession and having them readily available to use if needed. Same as I feel safer wearing a seat belt. My wife's cousin was killed when he broke into a guy's apartment and attacked the guy with a knife. The guy shot him with a revolver and stopped the attack. I grew up in a rough section of Cleveland and know from first hand experience that there are people do not give two shits about your life.

I have been attacked and hit from behind by guy using brass knuckles. I know what it is to have your life flash before your eyes. One of the reasons I am here posting this now, is because the police showed up fast enough to stop any further attacks. Also, firearms can make a deadly confrontation more equal for the weaker victim if the attacker is younger and stronger. Or there are multiple attackers. You will understand this better when you get a lot older. And not to mention those who are handicapped.

And no, the US Constitution is not something which can be changed by popular public opinion. It can be changed. But out of over 11,000 attempts, has only been done 28 times. The Second Amendment is not going anywhere in our life times.

- - - Updated - - -

Its fearmongering with a right tilt, re-read the guy you quoted.

Red Flag Laws. Here’s a scenario...

IThe SO follows their SOP’s and conducts a no knock warrant because you have now been denied due process and you are considered guilty until proven innocent.

Now you, your lovely wife and two deputies have been killed for nothing. Your daughter will have absolute hell for the rest of her life. She will never be that successful person you dreamed for her to be because of the mental tragedy caused from seeing her parents murdered. The local news paper will report that you were killed after firing on and killing two deputies and that “over a thousand rounds of ammo and 22 guns were confiscated from your residence”.

Oh, those two deputies were just following orders. They left behind families as well and had served their community for over a decade. They didn’t know you were a stand-up guy with a great family. They weren’t allowed time to investigate things under due process. They were told you had threatened your neighbor and were out in the street waving an AR15 around.

This is the reality of Red Flag gun laws. Innocent people will lose their lives. Red Flag laws will be used for petty and vengeful reasons without merit.
-Chris Anders

Did not want to re-post that wall of text, but the important parts I did. I am against no knock laws. They are total bullshit. And I certainly can see the dangers of red flag laws which are enacted hastily. Which I have posted about in this thread. But thanks for posting it in a way which was readable.

And as far as your scenario, one very important thing for a gun owner needs to do is be aware of their surroundings. And there is the case where a criminal in Texas shot and killed a police officer who broke into his home without a knock and he beat the murder charge because the state gives the home owner the right to assume anyone breaking into your home can be considered a deadly threat. Much like Ohio does with it's Castle Doctrine law.

[Spectral]

To detail how it works now, when a dealer runs your information (name, race, sex, date of birth with optional social) with the FBI NICS (national instant check system) or a point of contact (like, Florida goes through Fl Dep of Law Enforcement, Firearm Purchase Program, who compares their own database and the NICS), he gets a control number and "Approve" "NonApprove" or "Delayed".

Approve is obvious ("here's yer gun").
NonApprove means no gun today. You get a form, get fingerprinted, send it in and they will tell you why you got the nonapproval (and if there's an error, how to fix it), or they will give you a letter saying "we checked, you're fine" and you bring the letter to the dealer and get your gun.
Delayed means they have up to X days to research the info. (Was 3, but not sure if that changed.) If they do not come back with an answer by the end of this period, you get a "conditional approval" which means you can take the gun but if something comes back later, they will come get the gun. If they do come back with an Approval or NonApproval, it's as above.

Okay, so for mental issues, the appropriate qualifier is:
Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

With instructions of:




The main HIPAA thing is that the background check is done by an examiner, so they would see all the info. Likewise there are various state laws that prohibit sharing the information with other agencies except if that agency can prove a need. And of course, you have doctors afraid to submit information that might not be required and that would leave them vulnerable to penalties.

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification here. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but do you happen to know if anyone has laid out clearly what they'd like to see changed at the federal level? The above sounds basically reasonable to me with a couple caveats. my concerns center primarily around patient data security/privacy and possible mistakes or misuse of the system.

Probably the biggest practical hangup for me is a lack of clearly distinguishing language for allowing someone to get off that roll once they're on it; I'd expect an abundance of caution to be taken, making it a real challenge to move the needle for someone inappropriately flagged. That said, my personal experience with the IRS when I need them to correct a mistake they made was basically pretty good - I sent them the court decision that I thought rendered me exempt from something and proof that I fit that criterion, they sent me a letter saying they were still looking at it and would get back to me, then sent me another letter updating the bill to $0. I'm not taking the position that federal government definitely can't do anything right, I'm mostly concerned that we may be trying to move forward with something that's not very well thought out.

- - - Updated - - -

Its fearmongering with a right tilt, re-read the guy you quoted.

Aside from any policy specifics, thanks for reposting in this format. I'm not sure why it's different (maybe browsers?), but like @Ghostpanther I wasn't able to read it in the other format either.

[Svifnymr]

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification here. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but do you happen to know if anyone has laid out clearly what they'd like to see changed at the federal level? The above sounds basically reasonable to me with a couple caveats. my concerns center primarily around patient data security/privacy and possible mistakes or misuse of the system.

I'm not sure what's currently around. Generally the discussion focuses on "universal background checks" (requiring private transactions to be done through a dealer) or the Red Flag laws which don't require medical input generally.

Probably the biggest practical hangup for me is a lack of clearly distinguishing language for allowing someone to get off that roll once they're on it; I'd expect an abundance of caution to be taken, making it a real challenge to move the needle for someone inappropriately flagged.

Same with felony or drugs, regaining your rights can be expensive and uncertain. There's also a lot of the normal shenanigans of defunding the systems that would help you if it's not politically expedient for one party or the other.

I'm not taking the position that federal government definitely can't do anything right, I'm mostly concerned that we may be trying to move forward with something that's not very well thought out.

HIPAA is one of those laws that is a great idea but way overboard at times, (same with ADA stuff). They're both meant more to punish offenders than help folks. So until you have a system that can assure the folks submitting records that it won't blow back on them, it's hard to imagine they'll cooperate much. Like a lot of US laws, it's managing the privacy rights vs the public rights, and it's even beyond guns I'd think. If someone is a threat to himself or others, maybe the police in general should be aware of it, but... I dunno.

- - - Updated - - -

What does that have to do with the false statements that democrats are behind this when these are being pushed by republicans?

I was discussing the reasoning why some Republicans are backing such laws as a compromise they can accept. The laws are not exclusively one side or the other.

Not sure why you're always so antagonistic in discussions, just because someone quotes you doesn't mean they're arguing with you. You understand this discussion won't result in legislation, right? It's an MMO board.

[Deletedaccount1]

Okay I will bite what is your solution to stopping the mentally ill from getting guns?

There is none. No current gun control proposals are backed by reliable evidence in their effectiveness at stopping mass shootings. The other option is institutionalization which has a horrific past in the U.S. when you look back at asylums like Willowbrook where mentally disabled children rolled around in the dark in their own feces with one staff member in charge of watching up to 50 or 100 inmates at a time. There's never going to be a cost-effective solution to mass shootings while they remain a statistically rare phenomenon and the policies being proposed to deal with them place externalities on a wide range of people who are not at risk of committing a mass shooting.

[Draco-Onis]

I was discussing the reasoning why some Republicans are backing such laws as a compromise they can accept. The laws are not exclusively one side or the other.

Not sure why you're always so antagonistic in discussions, just because someone quotes you doesn't mean they're arguing with you. You understand this discussion won't result in legislation, right? It's an MMO board.

I am just making sure we get our facts straight the evil demoncrats are not behind every gun legislation. The democrats are more focused on background checks and assault weapons bans which you can argue against but red flag laws are not their proposal at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -

There is none. No current gun control proposals are backed by reliable evidence in their effectiveness at stopping mass shootings. The other option is institutionalization which has a horrific past in the U.S. when you look back at asylums like Willowbrook where mentally disabled children rolled around in the dark in their own feces with one staff member in charge of watching up to 50 or 100 inmates at a time. There's never going to be a cost-effective solution to mass shootings while they remain a statistically rare phenomenon and the policies being proposed to deal with them place externalities on a wide range of people who are not at risk of committing a mass shooting.

So your solution is to do nothing? we should just let mentally ill people get weapons like everyone else?