Action Item - tell Governor Kaine to put his pen down!

imported post

hlh wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

From what I heard on the news...

Click to expand...

That's just my point. I've read the same news. The media sells us a bad bill. The media sold us the "assault weapon" bill, and is selling it again. When does the media get anything mostly correct? We're often sold a "bill of goods". I hope this does what the "media" has told us, and nothing else.

Click to expand...

Well, this is true.... :?

But is is going to happen so we can only hope for the best.

I did hear something about "them" trying to get the assault weapon ban going again. Geezz!!! Like it really stops gun violence.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The keyword here is DANGEROUS!!! Not DEPRESSED!!

Click to expand...

Do you trust someone who might get sued with making an objective determination? I don't. I envision everyone who is treated for whatever reason being in some database from which he can never extricate himself.

I know way too many people who have gone through some hellish times, and have needed help - serious help, but have overcome those difficulties. Specifically, some veterans who have seen hell ... but who work through it. I would trust some of these with my life - or with my guns - but I don't trust the Commonwealth to treat them fairly. Call it too much interaction with state/county authorities.

imported post

Tess wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The keyword here is DANGEROUS!!! Not DEPRESSED!!

Click to expand...

Do you trust someone who might get sued with making an objective determination? I don't. I envision everyone who is treated for whatever reason being in some database from which he can never extricate himself.

I know way too many people who have gone through some hellish times, and have needed help - serious help, but have overcome those difficulties. Specifically, some veterans who have seen hell ... but who work through it. I would trust some of these with my life - or with my guns - but I don't trust the Commonwealth to treat them fairly. Call it too much interaction with state/county authorities.

Click to expand...

It really has nothing to do with being sued. I can be sued every day for false arrest but that does not stop me from arresting people. I know that what I am doing is right, just, and proper.

The docs are going to do what needs to be done just as they always have. If someone is dangerous... the docsare going to act as they always have. The paperwork with be obtained thru a magistrate and the person will be involuntarily held till he can have a hearing a few days later.

He will be taken off the streets and the public will be a little safer for a while. If he has beenreported as dangerous and cannot buy a gun.. that is fine with me. I do not want Cho walking into a police station killing people with guns he just bought.

I have the right to live and not be murdered by a known mental patient who is known to be dangerous.

The only way your going on the list is if your a danger. Seeking help for an addiction or marital counseling is not going to do it.

imported post

Here is another spin to consider. It is being marketed as closing that fictions gun show loop hole. While the any legislation that is not specific to exactly what mental problems it bad; the way it is being marked might not be.
I have not seen the exact order to decide how closely he has stuck to his ass, oh I mean donkey, roots to completely understand the damage Kaine has just caused. I just don't trust anything coming out of a rottencrat as there is always something bad going to come out of their 'common sense'.
While I don't want crazy people getting on a murder binge I also don't to approve of being limited in my exercise of freedom. Because admit it … people are never misdiagnosed. If people weren't so gullible as to believe every lie the politicians and media tell we would not be in this situation.





Licensing the press is only a common sense measure to assure that the dissemination of information is true and of fact.

imported post

For those interested, I have pasted the text of the executive order in the following thread:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/2379.html

imported post

Toad wrote:

If people weren't so gullible as to believe every lie the politicians and media tell we would not be in this situation.

Click to expand...

Well that goes back to BobCav's blog-post about "Citizens" vs. "Residents" -- http://bobcav.blogspot.com/2007/04/resident-or-citizen.html -- "sheep" is an apt a term as any for the general laziness that seems to be pervading our citizenry: our kids blindly accepting that "drugs are bad" and "guns are bad" and "sex is bad" and whatever, our teachers parroting this crap, no one looking too deeply into anything, just trying to get along, to get old and collect their Social Security benefits.

A noble goal, but if they give up Liberty and Freedom to get there, then what have they really gained?

I was like that too -- blindly following -- all the way until I first fired a gun a year ago, and then I saw the world around me in a new light.

I wish I had done it earlier, and I wish others would do the same.

imported post

hlh wrote:

So, our donkey governor found his pen... I wonder what this really means for us. There's always the advertised spin of a new law, and then there'sreality.

Click to expand...

He really is an anti-gunner myrimadon at heart. Why should this be a surprise. The VCDL thinks it may be unconstitutional, I think that was the wording. So this must be fought some how.

imported post

hlh wrote:

The VCDL info on this concerns me greatly. As usual, it's all in the fine print and not what were told by the Gov. or the news media. There are going to be less and less citizens who are allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, and less and less that will be voting Pro 2nd Amendment because of the loss of those rights.

Click to expand...

I would not say less citizens... I would say less dangerous citizens.

They were already losing their rights while deemed a danger to the community. But this was only half and now all the dangerous people like Cho will not be able to kill people so quickly and easily.

Mentally fit,law abiding citizens will still be able to purchase firearms as they always have.


If this is not good.. tell me what you would do to prevent dangerous people from obtaining firearms.. if at all.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It really has nothing to do with being sued. I can be sued every day for false arrest but that does not stop me from arresting people. I know that what I am doing is right, just, and proper.

The docs are going to do what needs to be done just as they always have. If someone is dangerous... the docsare going to act as they always have. The paperwork with be obtained thru a magistrate and the person will be involuntarily held till he can have a hearing a few days later.

He will be taken off the streets and the public will be a little safer for a while. If he has beenreported as dangerous and cannot buy a gun.. that is fine with me. I do not want Cho walking into a police station killing people with guns he just bought.

I have the right to live and not be murdered by a known mental patient who is known to be dangerous.

The only way your going on the list is if your a danger. Seeking help for an addiction or marital counseling is not going to do it.

Click to expand...

Bullpuckey. A doctor who might be sued if he doesn't declare incompetent someone who "might" become a danger is going to put that person on the list. The docs are going to do what covers their assets, not necessarily what is right. Usually, the two coincide, but in today's lawsuit-happy society, particularly given the AMA and APA's stance on who should have firearms, I ain't counting on it.

If you really believe the only way you're going on the list is if you're a danger, you're terribly naive.

imported post

Tess wrote:

If you really believe the only way you're going on the list is if you're a danger, you're terribly naive.

Click to expand...

The docs around Rockbridge seem to be fairly anti firearm. So it wouldn't surprise me if someone would be labeled "dangerous."

imported post

Tess wrote:

Bullpuckey. A doctor who might be sued if he doesn't declare incompetent someone who "might" become a danger is going to put that person on the list. The docs are going to do what covers their assets, not necessarily what is right. Usually, the two coincide, but in today's lawsuit-happy society, particularly given the AMA and APA's stance on who should have firearms, I ain't counting on it.

If you really believe the only way you're going on the list is if you're a danger, you're terribly naive.

Click to expand...

What I hear you saying is that due to this new law.... Doctors are going to declare EVERYONE a danger so they do not get sued. This, in turn, will ban people from purchasing a firearm.

And the sunwill stop rising in the East starting tomorrow. This is my belief and I have absolutely NOTHING to back it up. But it WILL happen.

What your suggesting is absurd and nothing more than an opinion based on a bias towards any type of "gun control".

I am going to tell you from first hand experience.... There are NOT ENOUGH BEDS available!!!When a citizen is deemed a danger.. thedocs must find a bed in the area where the citizen may be housed till his or her date before the judge.

Since the States cut back on funds for mental heath issues... there are very few facilities actually available to house people that are being involuntarily committed.

Now, knowing there are limited resources available and how hard it is to find a bed... the docs need to be very picky on who they declare a danger.

There are other private locations available but those are for those who volunteer to seek help and can leave at any time. This is what Kennedy did and later escaped where he car jacked someone.

I had a case where a wife called and told her husband she was going to kill herself. I get to the houseand find her inside... she has slashed her wrist and wanted to die. She was transportedto the hospital and the mentaldocs actually wasted 2 hours talking to her trying to get her to go voluntarily.

Can you believe that???!! She is clearly a danger to herself but... they wanted her to agree to go on her own. I told that docs that my four hour detention was about to expire and she would be permitted to walk away.They had to scramble to contact the magistrate to get a emergency detention order so that she could be committed.

Point being... there were nobeds available! They needed her to go to a private facilitythat has beds.

I have absolutely no fear that people will be declared dangerousby anti gun docs to ban citizens from purchasing guns. This is absolutely ridiculous.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

(snip) What your suggesting is absurd and nothing more than an opinion based on a bias towards any type of "gun control".

(snip) I am going to tell you from first hand experience.... There are NOT ENOUGH BEDS available!!!When a citizen is deemed a danger.. thedocs must find a bed in the area where the citizen may be housed till his or her date before the judge.

Click to expand...

I quit responding to your posts for this reason; your belittling tone and your supercilious attitude.

Believe as you will. Better you than me. Beds are often found, sometimes in inappropriate places when necessary - if someone is a danger to someone else. If a patient wants to kill herself, so be it.

But trust. Your trust is no skin off my nose. Doctors' behavior is.

imported post

Tess wrote:

I quit responding to your posts for this reason; your belittling tone and your supercilious attitude.

Believe as you will. Better you than me. Beds are often found, sometimes in inappropriate places when necessary - if someone is a danger to someone else. If a patient wants to kill herself, so be it.

But trust. Your trust is no skin off my nose. Doctors' behavior is.

Click to expand...

I am sorry you feel that way. But your suggesting something as fact and have absolutely NOTHING to support it.

Find some data and post it to support your claim.

No need to be upset and stop chatting... just be cautious when what your arepurporting something as factual.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I am sorry you feel that way. But your suggesting something as fact and have absolutely NOTHING to support it.

Find some data and post it to support your claim.

Click to expand...

And you are similarly stating that something is absolutely not fact, with nothing to support your claims either... To use your own words, find some data and post it to support your claim.

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

And you are similarly stating that something is absolutely not fact, with nothing to support your claims either... To use your own words, find some data and post it to support your claim.

Click to expand...

Let me break it down for you so you can seedifference....

She is stating that because a law was enacted it will cause docs to identify all patients as dangerous so they are not sued.

Does she work in themental healthprofession? Is she a head doctor and speaking on behalf of all her colleges? Is she a lawyer practicing civil case law?

She has absolutely no basis to make such a claim.

I have provided first hand knowledge that I have personally observed over the past 15 years. I have seen more than 100mental patients be interviewed by the docs. Some patients are deemed dangerous and other not.100% were diagnosed correctly based on my observations.

What I provided isFACT!

imported post

hlh wrote:

Hi Leo, very seldom has any gun control law been up front and honest about what was truly written in the bill. If this actually keeps just crazies, that are declared crazy by medically training psychologists, from getting guns then great. But if it does the same thing the "domestic violence" bill did years ago where a misdemeanor causes one to loose constitutional rights for a life time, then it's bad. Ifa person can't go to family counseling without being labelled "crazy", then it's bad. I hope you're right.

Click to expand...

The highlights are "Dangerous" and "involuntarily committed."

This "loophole" only closes the other side where the court takes a different action in regards to mentals. I do not see it touching any other mental conditions like people who are depressed and what not.

This new law was sparked because of Cho and his ability to buy a gun when he was identified as dangerous. IMO.. this law will not prevent those with mental conditions from purchasing firearms as long as they are not dangerous.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

What I provided isFACT!

Click to expand...

Only if you're qualified to pass judgement on the work of mental health professionals...

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

What I provided isFACT!

Click to expand...

Only if you're qualified to pass judgement on the work of mental health professionals...

Click to expand...

It is not passing judgement.. It is making a logical decision.

From what I have witnessed... I see they do their jobs correctly and do not abuse the power they have to commit people.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

roscoe13 wrote:

And you are similarly stating that something is absolutely not fact, with nothing to support your claims either...  To use your own words, find some data and post it to support your claim.

Click to expand...

Let me break it down for you so you can see difference....

She is stating that because a law was enacted it will cause docs to identify all patients as dangerous so they are not sued.

Does she work in the mental health profession? Is she a head doctor and speaking on behalf of all her colleges? Is she a lawyer practicing civil case law?

She has absolutely no basis to make such a claim.

I have provided first hand knowledge that I have personally observed over the past 15 years. I have seen more than 100 mental patients be interviewed by the docs. Some patients are deemed dangerous and other not. 100% were diagnosed correctly based on my observations.

What I provided is FACT!

Click to expand...

With apologies to Tess and her family, I will take this one.

LEO229 don't misunderstand my comments I am not taking you to the woodshed on this.

Actually, she is the parent of a mentally handicapped child, and has more experience in the area of mental health care than any LEO without such a life issue could ever hope to gain.

I have a brother for whom I am the primary caretaker with similar issues, so I can understand where she is coming from.

While I take your point that an absolute declaration that every patient will be committed, I also understand why this is a pointed issue for Tess. I think she knows that not every single patient will be committed, but the point she was trying to make is that there is no safeguard to prevent abuse of the system by someone with an agenda. I can agree with that point as well.

Once the stigma of mental problems clouds a persons life it is almost impossible to remove, the law not withstanding. This is a social problem and the new executive order does complicate this some.

It would have been preferable for the Governor to call a special session of the legislature to act on this issue rather than dictate from the governors mansion. He could have even issued an order with a sunset provision triggered by legislative action. The reason he did it the way he did was all about politics and not at all about VT or fixing the issues properly.

(TESS: Again I am sorry and I don't mean to speak for you, but I had to respond to this one.)

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer - thank you. You may of course speak freely.

I had chosen to ingnore some posters in the past, but got in to this fray. I am out now.