I think all privacy laws should change regarding buying weapons, and certainly AR-15's or similar weapons. There should be a flag data base for anyone who has sought psychiatric help, or is being treated for mental issues, or taking medication for psychiatric issues in the past 12 months. There should be a direct link to check names in the data base as part of a background check. I also believe anyone making violent threats about harming themselves or others on social media should be added to the data base. It wouldn't be any more difficult to do. All the doctor needs to do is pull up the link and add the name of any new patient, or anyone they prescribe psychiatric drugs to.
Clearly not. Felony convictions are the most common reason for the gun background check system to reject an applicant, resulting in 865,910 denials during the 21 years that NICS has been in operation. More than 189,000 fugitives, 212,000 domestic offenders, and 148,000 unlawful drug users have also been blocked. The bar for denying someone on mental health grounds is very high, requiring that a person has been declared unsound or involuntarily confined to a psychiatric institution by a court or other authority. Fewer than 43,000 people have been denied under this criterion. IL has FOID and red flag, so I'm curious how those work (or do not work). The devil is in the details. Do Hawaii. Hawaii Gun Laws (hawaiirifleassociation.org) HERE IS A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF HRS CHAPTER 134: FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS NOTE: The following is not meant to constitute legal advice, and YOU are responsible for knowing and understanding the state firearms laws. §134-1 Definition. This section contains definitions of words used in the HRS134 section §134-2 Permits to acquire. You must be 21 years old to obtain a permit. A Permit is required to purchase or obtain firearms in the state of Hawaii. This permit is issued by the county police departments. when applying for a permit, you must submit the following: 1) name, address, sex, height, weight, date of birth, place of birth, country of citizenship, social security number, alien or admission number. 2) Fingerprinting and photographing by the police department 3) A mental health release waiver for both the state medical facility and your personal doctor. You will need to provide your doctor’s contact information if you currently have a doctor. 4) A release waiver to be entered into the FBI rapback system. 5) If obtaining a handgun; A training certificate such as a hunter education card, military training, or Hawaii compatible pistol class. 6) payment of the fee charged by the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center. A pistol permit is required for every pistol that is being obtained. A rifle permit is good for one year and is good for multiple firearms.
Mental health restrictions could get real tricky. But we need them at least for the rifles being used in these shootings. I like Hawaii's requirements. They would have prevented Ramos, age, and Crimo, mental health, from acquiring the rifles. Who knows if they could have done nearly as much damage with handguns, but I think the rifles were too important for them to do the shootings without them.
The problem with this is that people can omit a psychiatrist or change doctors and provide a doctor who doesn't know of any mental issues. Not all people are honest. I think if all doctors are required to add patients to a database it alleviates deception by those wanting to purchase a gun.
he basically copy and pastes this response for every mass shooting…such a useless and meaningless tweet from Teddie
So? How is that at all relevant? It doesn’t really matter if he is a far right or far left supporter. The issue is the tens of thousands of people that die each year in the USA because males want to play GI Joe.
It matters that most of them are FAR RIght.....it is not equivalent. Only one side is in favor of NO GUN CONTROLS.....gee I wonder why.....Until politicians start getting shot, nothing will happen. DD
I don't know why that is funny. It seems like you didn't know that the United States Supreme Court was well aware that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. I just cited you a case where they make it clear they have such awareness. No. As a matter of fact, it had to do with the fugitive slave act. Sometimes the court puts in other commentary, called dicta. It doesn't have the force of law, but it can tell you what the court thinks about certain issues. In this particular case, it told us that the court was concerned that granting blacks the rights of citizens would mean that all the rights that white men had would become available to black men (and they thought that was bad). Among those rights were the right to travel between states, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms. They thought if they granted this one black man the rights of a citizen, that he could keep and bear arms wherever he went. That is not a court writing about the right of a militia or the national guard or whatever group you think the Second Amendment applies to, they were talking about rights applying to this one individual man. You don't cite to dicta. Scalia didn't invent the right in 2008 though, Madison did in 1791. The court doesn't cite to dicta, that's why they didn't cite to dicta. Also, people are afraid of citing to Dred Scott because it is about returning a slave to his owner. He was saying that the courts didn't need to review the rights in the bill of rights, because the federal government tended not to pass laws infringing upon them. He in fact, in the next two sentences, goes on to say, "For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Other provisions of the Bill of Rights have similarly remained unilluminated for lengthy periods." Do you think the right not to house troops in your home in peacetime doesn't apply to you as an individual? There isn't a Supreme Court case that says so, there is only the Third Amendment text to rely on. That isn't my explanation at all. The individual right to bear arms predated the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment recognized that right and forbade the federal government from infringing upon it. The Fourteenth Amendment forbade the states from infringing upon any rights belonging to US citizens. The court in Dred Scott merely mentioned that this was one of many rights that a free citizen enjoys that a slave does not.
Sorry, that doesn't fly. The Constitution SETS the rights for our country, it clearly STATES, for a "Well regulated State Militia" that is what the 2A is for, it isn't some bullshit predated crap, it is simply for a state militia to support a small national army against all threats foreign and domenstic. You can't say PREDATES, that is hogwash - our country was founded - and laws were put in place, those laws are all that matter - not what was in place in 1650, or 1230, or WTF ever..... The right to bear arms is for a state militia - the rest is twisted bullshit. DD
It is literally what this country was founded on. When we declared our independence, it was because we hold these truths to be self evident, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Constitution doesn't create rights, it limits the federal government's ability to infringe upon our rights. That flies in the face of the text of the Constitution itself. Read the amendments. They don't say A Citizen is granted the right of free speech, it says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The right already existed. It doesn't say A Citizen is granted the right to bear arms, it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Ninth Amendment doesn't say that the enumeration (that means numbering, not creating) of certain rights in the constitution is in incomplete list and we will create some more rights for you later, it says the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Again, the rights already existed, the Constitution is a check on the power of the federal government to prevent it from infringing on your existing rights. Also, no where does it say that the Second Amendment only applies to a Well regulated State Militia. In fact, it never mentions State militias. It says, A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is a right granted to the people, not the militia.
Obviously not which is why - in its own words - it was "judicially unresolved" when it took the case, and undertook the "first in-depth examination" of the second amendment and then - surprise - created the right in 2008 Didn't bother to read the rest of your post - Obviously you don't believe the majority/ASS in Heller when it wrote this. You're right to be skeptical somewhat because the court in US v. Miller in 1939 did look at this issue and declined to create the invididual right hence the "in-depth" qualifier ASS is using, which is why Heller is *universally acknowledged* from the NRA to the Brady Campaign as the case that first created the individual right and not as overturning Miller, or, lol, Dred Scott v Sandford. *Did not read past the quoted portion of your post
I don't know how many times this has to be restated but there is nothing in the Constitution, the Federalist papers and even Scalia wrote it in Heller that firearms can be regulated. We can regulate firearms based on type and sales far more than we currently are.
Right but the right is latching on to the premise that disguising himself as a woman 'proves' he is a liberal.
That, and there were only 3 9 million people in the whole country back then. Now we have over 329 million people and more guns than people. It's ridiculous that Americans are getting shot up at parades, churches, shopping malls, movie theaters, schools, restaurants, festivals, concerts, on the freeway, on the streets, and anywhere else for that matter.
There were the same number of people when the First Amendment was written, should we throw out freedom of speech, religion, the right to assembly? There were the same number of people when the Fourth Amendment was written, should we throw out the right against unreasonable warrantless searches and seizures. There were the same number of people when the Fifth Amendment was written, should we get rid of the right against self-incrimination. There were the same number of people when the Sixth Amendment was written, should we get rid of the right of trial by jury, to counsel, and to confront and cross examine witnesses? Think how many shootings we could stop if the government could prevent large gatherings, search everyone's houses without cause, prevent communications, and lock up anyone that seemed like a troublemaker without a trial based on their "confession" of wrongdoing. Yep, that is about the amount of rigor I expect from our resident splinter cell.
The framers put the words "Well Regulated" in the first sentence of the 2nd amendment for a good reason. Our First amendment rights currently seem to have more practical regulations to it then the 2nd amendment does, and speaking.... while it can be harmful... has much less threat to my personal livelihood than someone unloading a 100 round magazine at me would. Deb's point seems to be that the world back in the 1700's is different now, and we should have legislation that adjusts to modern threats to our rights to life ourselves. In the federalist papers it's clear they wanted an amendable constitution because the world would be different in 100 years. They disagreed pretty clearly to the Clarence Thomas view of "originalism." Much less the ability for Congress, states, and the Executive branch to write legislation to regulate and limit. When you actually read what the framers said in the federalist papers it's pretty crazy how much "Originalists" like yourself live in a make belief universe of what our constitution was actually intended to act as. This originalist view is just an excuse to force 19th century norms down the throats of people who want to live in the 21st century.
