Pretty interesting news on gun control
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Every single, solitary thing Jindal does is to make himself look good on the national level.
He will sell you, me, and everyone in this state down the river if he thinks it will gain him some points on the national stage.
If you want to know what Jindal thinks on an issue, just check out the ALEC website.
.
He will sell you, me, and everyone in this state down the river if he thinks it will gain him some points on the national stage.
If you want to know what Jindal thinks on an issue, just check out the ALEC website.
.
I just wish the would define severely mentally ill. I mean are they just going to throw everyone who's ever been prescribed anxiety or anti deppressent medication on a no gun list, or are they going to narrow it down schizophrenic, bi-polar crazy people. I just cant agree or disagree until I know that.
I have serious concerns regarding proposals such as this.
First, as some have already asked, what definitions will be applied, what are the boundaries of "severely disturbed" or "mentally incompetent?" Some people have episodes of mental instability in their lives, and some are just born and live each day of their lives indisputably batcrap crazy. Someone who is "emotionally disturbed" to one person is "just Uncle Fred" to another (we all have that uncle, right?). If you go through a traumatic event or personal loss in your twenties, battle some emotional demons and the bottle, maybe even misuse some prescribed "mood" medications that are given out like candy these days, but ultimately persevere and get turned around, marry, have kids, find that perfect career, and are like a whole new person in your thirties, how much of that is going to follow you on paper and end up infringing on your rights? Will it be just as tough to get off of that list as the no-fly list?
Second, in my line of work, I've seen a lot of people dragged into the hospital on Orders of Protective Custody issued by the Coroner's Office over issues that at most are family and relationship issues of emotional power struggles more so than any true mental defect or danger to themselves or others. One twenty-something's weekend drunk with subsequent accompanying angry verbal tirade containing overdramatic statements made for shock value becomes on paper one annoying, nagging mother's deep concern for her child's alcoholism and violent tendencies, ultimately resulting in a legal order to present said twenty-something to a docter for evaluation. I've seen where the ER docs, or the psychiatric facility personnel who respond to interview and evaluate, recognize the lack of need for committal, but I've also seen some take truly indifferent and cavalier attitudes about it and just push them further through the process so it's not their problem and their own a$$ isn't exposed for having made a decision. The Order of Protective Custody is a valuable, necessary tool for those above-mentioned sorts who truly are batcrap crazy (it's always an interesting learning experience when you meet the real deal), but the parameters for issue are so wide-reaching that just about anyone can get a family member committed with just a few statements, and it has become, in my opinion, overused for issues in which "state" intervention are really not necessary.
Third, I think the more you increase the "things to check for before selling a gun" list, the more calls there will be to add requirements that all sales be checked that way.
First, as some have already asked, what definitions will be applied, what are the boundaries of "severely disturbed" or "mentally incompetent?" Some people have episodes of mental instability in their lives, and some are just born and live each day of their lives indisputably batcrap crazy. Someone who is "emotionally disturbed" to one person is "just Uncle Fred" to another (we all have that uncle, right?). If you go through a traumatic event or personal loss in your twenties, battle some emotional demons and the bottle, maybe even misuse some prescribed "mood" medications that are given out like candy these days, but ultimately persevere and get turned around, marry, have kids, find that perfect career, and are like a whole new person in your thirties, how much of that is going to follow you on paper and end up infringing on your rights? Will it be just as tough to get off of that list as the no-fly list?
Second, in my line of work, I've seen a lot of people dragged into the hospital on Orders of Protective Custody issued by the Coroner's Office over issues that at most are family and relationship issues of emotional power struggles more so than any true mental defect or danger to themselves or others. One twenty-something's weekend drunk with subsequent accompanying angry verbal tirade containing overdramatic statements made for shock value becomes on paper one annoying, nagging mother's deep concern for her child's alcoholism and violent tendencies, ultimately resulting in a legal order to present said twenty-something to a docter for evaluation. I've seen where the ER docs, or the psychiatric facility personnel who respond to interview and evaluate, recognize the lack of need for committal, but I've also seen some take truly indifferent and cavalier attitudes about it and just push them further through the process so it's not their problem and their own a$$ isn't exposed for having made a decision. The Order of Protective Custody is a valuable, necessary tool for those above-mentioned sorts who truly are batcrap crazy (it's always an interesting learning experience when you meet the real deal), but the parameters for issue are so wide-reaching that just about anyone can get a family member committed with just a few statements, and it has become, in my opinion, overused for issues in which "state" intervention are really not necessary.
Third, I think the more you increase the "things to check for before selling a gun" list, the more calls there will be to add requirements that all sales be checked that way.
Not so sure I agree with this. Guys with PTSD could be considered "mentally ill". Someone who has seen a psychiatrist because of a traumatic event could be could be considered "mentally ill". Heck, I've seen some people post that being Liberal is a mental illness. Too much vagueness.
SpeedRacer
Well-Known Member
It sounds like they've covered the bases though. The stipulations they list do seem to apply to only people with serious mental issues that have been through the court system. The state also reserves the ability to have someone removed from the list. I'm sure there will be processes by which an individual could challenge their denial as well.
AS IS, it sounds like a good idea and no different IMO than restricting felons. There is the "slippery slope" argument which is a very valid concern. How that turns out will all depend on the process they put in place and what avenues there are to challenge their decision. I'm sure there are individuals with PTSD that would, and should, be denied. However if they tried to broad stroke it they'd end up with a hell of a court battle.
Remember these things are not set in stone. Even if it passed I'm sure it will spawn multiple supreme court cases as they fine tune the process. If the end result is lunatics being denied guns and no one else, I say good deal.
HOWEVER, I think this will only work if they end private sales. They go hand in hand and they know it. If a loony got denied at a gun shop, he's still just a gun show or forum away from getting what he needs. I think they'll use that argument to close the "gun show loophole". They get everyone on board with the mental illness check, but then say they it's worthless without banning private sales.
AS IS, it sounds like a good idea and no different IMO than restricting felons. There is the "slippery slope" argument which is a very valid concern. How that turns out will all depend on the process they put in place and what avenues there are to challenge their decision. I'm sure there are individuals with PTSD that would, and should, be denied. However if they tried to broad stroke it they'd end up with a hell of a court battle.
Remember these things are not set in stone. Even if it passed I'm sure it will spawn multiple supreme court cases as they fine tune the process. If the end result is lunatics being denied guns and no one else, I say good deal.
HOWEVER, I think this will only work if they end private sales. They go hand in hand and they know it. If a loony got denied at a gun shop, he's still just a gun show or forum away from getting what he needs. I think they'll use that argument to close the "gun show loophole". They get everyone on board with the mental illness check, but then say they it's worthless without banning private sales.
I'm wondering that too...or is it already tied up in courts somehow and I missed it?
You can't oppose gun legislation by saying it is the mental ill that need to be kept from guns and then turn around and say you aren't going to allow mentally ill people to be registered. It will all come down to how they define "severely mentally ill" in the bill and that should be the point of argument.
Kids get guns? Sweet!
Yep. If you don't agree, at what age and under what conditions do you think kids should have guns? And...what is keeping them from getting guns now? And...will additional legislation prevent them from getting guns?
Last edited:
The proposal mentioned is not "anti-gun." The coming legislation will be a joint effort with the NRA and the Governor's office. The proposal is simply the implementation of the state-level record sharing required through the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. If passed, the law would strengthen the background check system to include individuals that are prohibited from possessing a firearm through a mental health disqualification (involuntary commitments, pleadings of insanity, etc) and it would also provide a relief from disability.
The reporting in the paper is misleading and does not accurately portray all aspects of the legislation.
The reporting in the paper is misleading and does not accurately portray all aspects of the legislation.
