If you weren’t suggesting as such then I apologize for inferring as much, just seemed to me that was your assertion. It would be much easier if people would state their given position rather than relying on giving quotes and leaving it up to interpretation.
For example me, I’ve clearly stated both in the past and now that I am a supporter of the 2nd but in a more limited manner than others. I don’t support confiscation of weapons as I believe any person who is mentally in their right mind should be allowed to bear arms.
On the other hand if though due process it is determined that a person isn’t capable of being trusted to carry an arms then that person shouldn’t be able to. This is immediately met with resistance by pretty much everyone on the right with quotes such as “Who is the person(s) who determine such worthiness” and “Shall not be infringed” This quite honestly gives the impression that there really isn’t any sort of middle ground when it comes to this issue. It really is all or nothing from those on the right, I come at this from a middle position. I want those who are mentally sound to have their weapons and I don’t want those who are marginal to do so. I observe that the opposing point of view by and large would agree with that in principal but can’t do so in practice because they don’t want the government and bureaucracy to be the arbiter.
I understand and get that. So that leaves us at odds.
You are citing the same position supported by virtually everyone on the right with respect to the mentally ill and their ability to lawfully have access to firearms. It is the same exact position as advocated by the NRA for over thirty years in fact.
All rights may be forfeited through due process right up to and including the right to life itself.
It isn’t “the right” that has a problem with those who have been adjudicated as being mentally defective, or forcibly committed and found to be a danger to themselves or others being denied the right to keep and bear.
Where we begin to object is when you move the bar to “those who are marginal” (whatever the hell that means). Either they have been adjudicated mentally defective or they haven’t, there is no middle ground.
How is asking who should determine the status an intractable position? Most of the proposals I have seen favor the police doing it. That is an absolute no go.
The judiciary is no longer trustworthy and the average citizen simply cannot afford to defend himself from accusations which when false hold no penalty for the accuser.
The whole system is designed to defeat the individual. Call it Cengov privilege.
Never heard it put exactly this way before but it perfectly describes our current situation.
They may have to provide you a lawyer in a criminal or commitment proceeding but when it comes to getting your guns back they aren’t and absolutely won’t and nobody will be held accountable for taking them from us unlawfully.
That is the serious flaw in the new laws that basically allow you to be disarmed by police simply on the basis of a non criminal mental health complaint.
Oh please. The only thing I object to is requiring psych evals to purchase a firearm…and that is because they cost like $5,000 to perform, and aren’t as effective at stopping the mentally ill from owning them as you think they are.
And completely irrelevant. A tool is a tool. What it was designed to do matters not as soon as it changes hands the first time. What matters is the intent of the person who has it now.
Invoking Scalia’s name as some argumentum ad verecundiam is preposterous. He was not an expert on arms. In fact he was a hoplophobe willing to compromise his integrity for political reasons. Heller was not a “good” ruling.
Even if it was 99% effective (which isn’t even close), you are talking about over 3 million people who could still be mentally disturbed and owning a firearm.
But here is a bigger problem…those tests you like to tout are only as accurate as the information you give them.
MMPI for example, is a several hundred question test that has nothing but yes and no answers. How hard do you think that would be to lie on, and give the interviewer the answers they are looking for instead of the truth? Not very.
An even bigger problem, is what would you test for? There is the obvious stuff like schizophrenia, but there are also some pretty gray areas.
We have people with ADHD…now, you wouldn’t think this would matter, but even thought they are currently not on drugs with crazy side effects, but they could be prescribed such later. Do you want them owning a gun?
How about people who are at high risk for depression and drug abuse (people with non verbal learning disorder comes to mind). Do you want them owning a gun since there is a good chance they could go off?
And there is a lot more where that came from…and that means you’re going to be doing a helluva lot of testing that could take months and years to complete…not to mention cost so much money it’s not funny.
