Why does CCDL support HB 6185?

How do you implement a registry that only affects criminals? Think that through a bit further than you have so far. What do you do, tattoo "I am a prohibited person" on their forehead so the counterman knows to ask for a waiver?

KIX said:

You'll notice that I quoted "gun crime" for that very reason.

socks..... that's just silly, as the socks weren't the tool used to commit the crime. However, if we get a rash of white sock strangulation, then I'm with ya!

I'm open to the discussion, but I've seen nothing to dissuade my earlier statement.

Let's say there is a registry.... it isn't a barrier for us to get a gun, buy ammo..... or even be on the list. If the registry is for the criminal, and not the law abiding citizen, then I have no problem with it.

Like I think we need some sort of registry (could be combined) for shrinks to report those with mental issues that shouldn't be able to purchase a gun. We've had too many crimes with nutballs that shouldn't have had a firearm in the first place.

As long as the registry is for those that don't follow the rules, I still don't see how it affects me.....

I'm just sayin',

Jonathan

Click to expand...

AGust82 said:

On the issue of mental suitability.

I used to be a hard core defender of everyone being able to buy guns, until they forfeit the right. You know, innocent until proven guilty. Recently, a member of my extended family has rapidly become a full blown psychopath. I'm talking CRAZY! Calm and normal one minute, then a raging monster the next. She stews about something until it brings her to your doorstep, screaming. It's driven some of us to changing phone numbers and installing alarm systems. I wish there was some way to stop her from buying guns, but there just isn't until she commits a real crime. Then it's too late. I suppose there is always calling the police and having her "taken away", but what is to stop her from doing the same thing to me? I'm not having my guns taken away for my trouble.

Click to expand...

If you are speaking of mental stability, then some family member should step forward and report her mental state to someplace that can administer proper care, and adjudicate her if that is the result. Otherwise, stand by to feel guilt.


If you are that worried about her being able to buy guns, do something about it.
"What is to stop her?" LE report trail. Start by working to create that trail of her aberrant behavior.

Originally Posted by KIX View Post
What would you guys do in order to prevent someone who really shouldn't have a gun from legally purchasing one?

Click to expand...

Arent we already doing enough? I think honestly we have already gone beyond reasonable. While NICS is quick & painless its still an infringement to the excercising of a civil right, as is a permit requirement but thats another subject.
I dont think making it harder for everyone to get a gun in order to possibly prevent some crimes is just.

I think a law against convicted criminals & certified mental people is plenty. That we can do it instantly is great. Why the need to keep going?

wrightme said:

How do you implement a registry that only affects criminals? Think that through a bit further than you have so far. What do you do, tattoo "I am a prohibited person" on their forehead so the counterman knows to ask for a waiver?

Click to expand...

Ahhh, with such prose, how can I not reply?

Very simple. Aren't we checked everytime we make a firearm? Do we need any tattoos or anything at that point? I think it's fair to say that there are many individuals without illustrious ink getting checked with every firearm purchase. Now.... let's go one step further..... hopefully you're still with me on this one...... If someone is psychologically unfit (Dr., family member concern, etc) has a place where they can report something BEFORE it happens (criminals could be on the list at the time of conviction) then when the firearm is purchased - BINGO. No ink needed.

Now..... think this through a bit further.......

This process doesn't track "joe normal citizen". Only those that indeed shouldn't have firearms.

I'm sorry some of you have a hard time with this, but..... NOT EVERYONE SHOULD have a firearm.

There are some individuals that indeed shouldn't (think all the situations since the Lubby's shooting that could have been prevented).

Again...... I'm so pro 2A, I teach and promote 2A issues everywhere. I'm not even saying a registry is the way to go, I'm just saying a method where certain individuals that shouldn't have firearms can't get them.

We have some issues in place, maybe it's better execution of what is already there....... some folks just shouldn't have a gun - period.


Jonathan

Leverdude said:

Arent we already doing enough? I think honestly we have already gone beyond reasonable. While NICS is quick & painless its still an infringement to the excercising of a civil right, as is a permit requirement but thats another subject.
I dont think making it harder for everyone to get a gun in order to possibly prevent some crimes is just.

I think a law against convicted criminals & certified mental people is plenty. That we can do it instantly is great. Why the need to keep going?

Click to expand...

You are missing my point.

I'm not saying EVERYONE! Just those that have had mental treatment and such.

We have a question on a form, but..... hmmm..... I don't think the honesty of the purchaser is really something that can be relied on.

I agree we have plenty of convicted criminals and certified mental issues, but........

Like I said before, maybe it is in better enforcement of the laws we have. Maybe it's something else.

I just agree that there are a certain number of individuals that really shouldn't have a gun. Not a lot..... but some.

Don't agree with me? Feel free to join me at a BFPE hearing some month, plenty of 'em show up there.

Jonathan

Rich B said:

That is going to depend. Who makes that determination?

If your answer is a judge or jury of their peers, then we already have an answer for that.

If your answer is anything else, then there is no answer. We shouldn't be willing to sacrifice the liberty of good, law abiding people for the feeling of security from people we may not like or agree with.

Click to expand...

Then, on the psychiatric issues as mentioned (which is my biggest concern).......

We could have simple informed intent. Let the patient know that they are indeed not going to be able to purchase firearms.

Then, after they are informed, if they feel it was wrong - they can appeal.

Create a simple appeal process for those individuals.

As it stands now..... we don't really have anything to prevent much of that from happening.

We know AZ doesn't!

KIX said:

Ahhh, with such prose, how can I not reply?

Very simple. Aren't we checked everytime we make a firearm? Do we need any tattoos or anything at that point? I think it's fair to say that there are many individuals without illustrious ink getting checked with every firearm purchase. Now.... let's go one step further..... hopefully you're still with me on this one...... If someone is psychologically unfit (Dr., family member concern, etc) has a place where they can report something BEFORE it happens (criminals could be on the list at the time of conviction) then when the firearm is purchased - BINGO. No ink needed.

Now..... think this through a bit further.......

This process doesn't track "joe normal citizen". Only those that indeed shouldn't have firearms.

Click to expand...

No, this process tracks everyone who purchases a firearm over the counter.

KIX said:

I'm sorry some of you have a hard time with this, but..... NOT EVERYONE SHOULD have a firearm.

There are some individuals that indeed shouldn't (think all the situations since the Lubby's shooting that could have been prevented).

Again...... I'm so pro 2A, I teach and promote 2A issues everywhere. I'm not even saying a registry is the way to go, I'm just saying a method where certain individuals that shouldn't have firearms can't get them.

We have some issues in place, maybe it's better execution of what is already there....... some folks just shouldn't have a gun - period.


Jonathan

Click to expand...

Whether some shouldn't have a gun isn't rationale to increase regulatory burden upon those who legally can own firearms. It seems you have been inured to the current reality.


The process that is already in place is adequate. Annoying but adequate. It only fails when persons have not been through the system to be figuratively tattooed. This is exactly as it should be! You don't suspend Rights without having a judicial process in place. This does seem to be where you are aiming, whether you realize it or not.

KIX said:

I'm not saying EVERYONE! Just those that have had mental treatment and such.

Click to expand...

And there is my point. Mental treatment as a disqualification is wrong.

1) Who decides what mental treatment is applicable? Do I get prohibited status for seeking some help with depression when I am a teenager? Help with some anger issues after a nasty divorce?

2) If mental treatment is the way to be prohibited, are we not discouraging more people from seeking help from mental health professionals? I know I would reconsider going for a mental tune up with a shrink if it meant I might lose my permit or my rights.

3) If they have been treated, shouldn't we be assuming they are in better shape then when they went in? If so, why would that be the time to take away their right to defend themselves?

If mental treatment is not the time to disqualify them, then how can you know otherwise? Are we going to rely on the sworn testimony of others with no evidence and no jury of our peers? Seriously? In America? I am willing to bet my BEA friend in Meriden would be willing to sign all sorts of statements like this considering his ignorant hoplophobic viewpoints and his disdain for me. Think sworn statements should be trusted? He outright lied on his (and so did several LEOs), and no one is going to be able to do anything about it. I am not about to tell any of my fellow citizens they should lose their human rights just because some other citizen thinks they are unfit to own a firearm or anything else.

I have seen plenty of people at the range that I don't want to be around when they have a firearm, I am not about to call the gestapo to come take away their rights though. If you are not actively infringing upon someone's rights, the government has no place getting involved. Being stupid/nutty/careless and owning a firearm does not qualify to me. As soon as they actually commit a crime because of said condition, I am happy to see our laws and law enforcement kick in.

agreed

i certainly agree that many things can be put on a form when answering a question and i have met many individuals i would prefer not have a gun but also some friends wrongly put in a situation that would not allow them a purchase of a gun now.

Gun nuts

If you think accusations about mental health should be an automatic disqualification for owning firearms, remember that by some people's standards anyone who wants to own a firearm would qualify as a 'nut'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/shooting/stories/world072698.htm
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...page=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...s17jun17,1,5131671.story?coll=la-news-comment

wrightme said:

No, this process tracks everyone who purchases a firearm over the counter.

Whether some shouldn't have a gun isn't rationale to increase regulatory burden upon those who legally can own firearms. It seems you have been inured to the current reality.


The process that is already in place is adequate. Annoying but adequate. It only fails when persons have not been through the system to be figuratively tattooed. This is exactly as it should be! You don't suspend Rights without having a judicial process in place. This does seem to be where you are aiming, whether you realize it or not.

Click to expand...

Ummm.... no, and therein lies the problem. The process I was discussing does NOT track everyone.

I think some of you have a comprehension issue here. I DO NOT SUPPORT a registry. In fact, I spoke against the registry here at the legislature today.

What I'm saying is I disagree with there not being a process with mental issues.

Judicial, it can be. But, there are factors to be concerned with here and as long as we can't even have a discussion on the topic where we might agree that there are certain individuals that should not have a firearm, then the argument is moot.

Not everyone should have a firearm. I think that well over 99 percent absolutely should. There is the one percent that has serious issues.

To say that EVERYONE should be allowed to have a firearm regardless of mental issues does a disservice to our cause and only has us shooting ourselves in the foot.

Jonathan

KIX said:

Ummm.... no, and therein lies the problem. The process I was discussing does NOT track everyone.

I think some of you have a comprehension issue here. I DO NOT SUPPORT a registry. In fact, I spoke against the registry here at the legislature today.

What I'm saying is I disagree with there not being a process with mental issues.

Click to expand...

But, there IS a process with mental issues.

KIX said:

Judicial, it can be.

Click to expand...

Judicial, it is. Otherwise, it is not "due process of law." Do you advocate rights suspension absent judicial process?

KIX said:

But, there are factors to be concerned with here and as long as we can't even have a discussion on the topic where we might agree that there are certain individuals that should not have a firearm, then the argument is moot.

Not everyone should have a firearm. I think that well over 99 percent absolutely should. There is the one percent that has serious issues.

To say that EVERYONE should be allowed to have a firearm regardless of mental issues does a disservice to our cause and only has us shooting ourselves in the foot.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

Praytell, who is saying this?

KIX said:

But, there are factors to be concerned with here and as long as we can't even have a discussion on the topic where we might agree that there are certain individuals that should not have a firearm, then the argument is moot.

Click to expand...

Of course not everyone should have a firearm. That is what our prohibited persons lists are for:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

Not everyone should have a firearm. I think that well over 99 percent absolutely should. There is the one percent that has serious issues.

Click to expand...

Percentages make no difference. It doesn't matter if only 1% of the population could be 'trusted' with firearms. We have the right, until that right is taken away with due process, you have that right. The law should never work in a way that 'grants' people rights. That is why our permit law is so ridiculous.

To say that EVERYONE should be allowed to have a firearm regardless of mental issues does a disservice to our cause and only has us shooting ourselves in the foot.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have seen anyone argue this point.