TexasCHLforum.com

cprems wrote:I appreciate your candid responses. I came here because of the liberties and freedoms that were bestowed upon gaining my Citizenship.

I enjoy a good debate and one without emotion or name calling.

I have given this law a great deal of thought and the responses were at the least thought provoking and made me look at it in a different light. I try very hard to think for myself and it's rare that I can be steered away from something that appears valid.

I have reconsidered my position and with the comments and responses posted here, have come to the conclusion that ANY law that infringes on my rights should not be implemented. I was looking at the black letter law proposed and not the slippery precipice upon which it stood.

I lost my rights to own guns in the Country I came from. I have been there and it started with Fox hunting. A totally innocuous sounding law that didn't apply to me, as I didn't Fox hunt. I was wrong! It made me angry. I needed this and I thank you all for allowing me to advocate what is now a skewed point of view.

I appreciate the responses and am currently writing to the Honorable Governor to VETO this law.

Cprems, then you have to understand that the anti-gunners are looking for a foothold. If they get an inch, they will use that as argument to take a mile. We have to stand on the principles that founded this country. 'common sense gun laws' are anti-gunner speak for tyranny of the majority. The Constitution was founded on the principles articulated in Brittish Common Law, which affirmed the rights/values of the individual. Any laws proposed break down those rights, and it is for this reason, we have to stand together against any further erosion of our individual liberty. Collectivism will destroy this nation, and it will be a shame. I assume part of the reason you either emigrated here, or chose to stay, was for our liberty. Please don't turn on those principles and support legislation that would take liberty and rights away from people without due process.

cprems wrote: If Lanza was committed - this would not have happened. This is not about purchasing weapons. I am well aware of what transpired in his case.

Beeker could have been involuntarily committed. he should have been reported.

How did the perpetrator get his hands on a banned AR? I believe it would have stopped him. If he had a history of mental illness, it would have been reported.

The guy in NY - He didn't purchase the weapon. There are laws on straw purchases but it seems to have failed. If she knew he was a risk or was mentally ill then it should have been documented.

This is why we need to be able to coherently articulate our arguments. You can't just say "it didn't work"

What would have been your "law" to stop these massacres? obviously enforcing the current laws - didn't work. They slipped through the cracks - again.

We end up getting punished for the ill gotten and ineffective gun laws currently on the books. We need laws to weed out the criminals and those who are mentally unstable.

Okay, you seem to question my analytical ability, so I will give you some very simple responses, point by point. By the way, I stand by my hyperbole comment. Too assume this law, if in place in CN or CO,
might have prevented any of the crimes is simply baseless.

"If Lanza was committed". He was not. Period. Had the law been in place, the fact that he was never committed would have, by definition, not made him subject to the law. So, that argument lacks any supporting reasoning. He also violate countless laws to commit his murders; ranging from assault, breaking and entering, theft, carrying a firearm on school property (a 'Gun Free/Crime Free' zone), littering, jaywalking, illegally parking, and, yes, even murder. The notion that another law might have prevented this is simply farcical.

In Aroura, Holmes "could have been involuntarily committed"? On what grounds? Prior to him committing this act, he had no criminal history. To involuntarily commit someone requires an act that would have brought him before a judge, which never happened. He could have been voluntarily committed I suppose, but that requires, oh I don't know, the consent of the person to be committed; which he obviously did not consent. Should he have been reported for threats he might have made or danger that may have been indicated? I'm not sure, but I am sure there is some ridiculous law which outlines how mental health professionals are to legally address such instances already; whether it adequately addresses either public safety or patient confidentiality, I have no clue. But rest assured, this proposed law, if enacted in CO, would have done nothing to stop his crime. He purchased his arms and ammunition through legal means, but had nothing in his past that would have disqualified him under any already passed or pending legislation. The key word is 'past'. Unless we are now able to preempt crime through psychic prognostication, there has to be a presumption of no ill-intent for all citizens.

The guy in NY was a convicted felon, already barred from owning firearms. He used an illegal straw purchase to get his AR. This is just another example of how laws do not stop those intent on committing acts of violence. Let's face it, if he was willing to commit arson and murder (and previously aggravated manslaughter, for which he was a convicted felon), I seriously doubt any straw purchase law was going to stop him going forward (see my previous post about recidivism).

My 'law' to 'stop' these massacres? First, I am not naive enough to believe we can 'stop' these massacres from happening. Evil people will always exist, and they will find ways to commit evil and vile acts. The law I would suggest already exists, and it is as simple as this: "A well regulated (practiced) militia (gaggle of liberty loving citizens), being necessary to the security of a free state (our liberty), the right of the people (us citizens) to keep and bear Arms (firearms, knives, and anything the military should have common access to) shall not be infringed (obstructed)." That means that I get to keep and carry a firearm for my protection and the protection of others (whether from criminals, or the state) if I so choose to do so. It means if I don't care to do that, I am free to not bear arms as well. It may not prevent the next massacre. It may allow some bad people to have access to firearms also. But if I am standing in a crowded room and a crazed gunman busts through the door, I feel a lot better about my chances, and the chances for the folks around me, carrying a firearm than I would without the firearm, and only my state-provided false sense of security.

Clearly, you are of the opinion that there is a magic potion out there, or that 'if it only saves one life', it is worth it. I, however, do not subscribe to that train of thought. The world is not all puppy dogs and rainbows. To think we could make it so is a fantasy. There are bad people out there who wish to do bad things, and the only way to stop them is to stand up to them. And I can think of no law, proposed or passed, that would effectively change the landscape of society as to remove ill-intent from the hearts of evil people. It isn't the prettiest thing to envision, but it is reality.

cprems wrote:I believe this law is needed to close current loopholes in the Baker Act. Is it a slippery slope? Maybe, but if the NRA is backing this bill, it would seem on the face of it that the protections are in the bill (as it is written)

If this law was in effect in CT & CO, those shootings may, and I say may have been prevented.

No, no, no, no, and no.

Lanza's mother purchased all of the firearms... legally. She was murdered and robbed; that's how the kid got them. The kid was never committed, voluntary or otherwise, to help for mental issues.

Beeker (meep meep, meep) out in Aroura only had counseling with a school psychologist, and therefore never voluntarily committed himself to anything that would satisfy the FL bill.

All of this "may have" hyperbole is a farce. The Dude in NY had his girlfriend purchase that firearm (so he wouldn't have been caught with it either). The dude in CA who built the 'banned' AR-15 receiver and shot up his father/brother and a school... same thing. This new law would not have stopped it. Period.

cprems wrote:Actually I do get it. If you are diagnosed as a danger to others, there should be a well articulated reason (as under this law) It also has to be signed off by a Judge. It can be appealed.

So what is your suggestion and treatment modality?

Let those with PTSD who are suffering, suffer?

I suppose my solution would be to scrap the bill all-together, as taking away a criminal loophole only creates a foothold for the anti-gun crowd to latch on to. I am not a huge fan of 'Uncle Ted', but I think he's hit the nail on the head with regard to past criminal conduct. If a person is a risk, they should not be free. I understand the cost savings associated with paroling people and early release, but if a person is a danger/recidivism risk, they should likely still be in prison. Take away the non-violent criminals (who commit crimes only against statutes and not other people) clogging up our prisons (drug offenders) might help with this approach's feasibility, but I am not sure. Once a person is released from prison, they are supposedly 'rehabilitated' and have paid their debt to society. If that is the case, then they should have their rights fully restored. If they are still a danger, then don't let them out to prey on innocents.

With regard to PTSD, if they seek help, they do suffer their rights being taken away. Thousands upon thousands of letters have gone out to disabled vets telling them that their right to bear arms no longer exists because of their acceptance of 'help' for their PTSD. Then, take away combat vets all together, and who is left with PTSD? Many are victims of violent crimes; robbery, rape, battery, etc. These are the people who have already been victimized at least once. Now PTSD is a legitimate mental health illness (as are all of the ones I pulled from Wikipedia--of course I used the most blatantly ridiculous to prove my point), with very serious ramifications for those who suffer at it's clutches (I did my fair share in combat, and know many men stronger and better than I who struggle with it). To take away the right to defend oneself of a woman who has been victimized by rape because of such a diagnosis just doesn't seem right to me. One should never have to appeal in a situation where they were never convicted of wrong-doing. Besides, even a winning appeal is always justice delayed. Delaying justice that should have never been lost in this case.

Going back to my original point about the loophole; that is precisely why this bill is not good for the citizen. If a person uses voluntary committal to avoid prison, then there is an issue with that, not one's right to possess arms under the Constitution. A new law on top of a bad law only muddies the water. Judges and DAs need to do their jobs and lock up the violent criminals, and force them to pay for their crimes. Without an adjudication of mental incompetence, no one should have their 2A rights stripped. Period.

"Hammer said after a person with mental illness is treated, they’ll be able to petition the court to get their gun rights back.

“They will not be able to purchase a gun until they have been treated, and a psychiatrist says they need relief from disability,” said Hammer."

The problem here is that there is no adjudication. This effectively strips a person of their rights without due process. Having a system to 'petition' the state to get back something they should have never had stripped is the antithesis of liberty.

Surely, nobody wants dangerous individuals to commit acts of violence against others; but at what cost of liberty are we willing to do it? If it means we are no longer free, then I'll certainly pass on the government's false sense of security.

Here are just a few of the listed mental disorders from Wikipedia. A voluntary committal for treatment of any of these could strip away the person's 2A rights.
1. Acute stress reaction (also called acute stress disorder, psychological shock, mental shock, or simply shock) is a psychological condition arising in response to a terrifying or traumatic event.
2. Adjustment disorder occurs when an individual is unable to adjust to or cope with a particular stressor, like a major life event. Since people with this disorder normally have symptoms that depressed people do, such as general loss of interest, feelings of hopelessness and crying, this disorder is also sometimes known as situational depression.
3. Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder characterized by immoderate food restriction and irrational fear of gaining weight, as well as a distorted body self-perception.
4. Bereavement (also called Grief) is a multi-faceted response to loss, particularly to the loss of someone or something to which a bond was formed.
5. Binge eating disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder in the United States affecting 3.5% of females and 2% of males and is prevalent in up to 30% of those seeking weight loss treatment.
6. Bulimia nervosa is an eating disorder characterized by binge eating and purging, or consuming a large amount of food in a short amount of time followed by an attempt to rid oneself of the food consumed (purging), typically by vomiting, taking a laxative or diuretic, and/or excessive exercise, because of an extensive concern for body weight.
7. Caffeine-induced sleep disorder is a psychiatric disorder that results from overconsumption of the stimulant caffeine. "When caffeine is consumed immediately before bedtime or continuously throughout the day, sleep onset may be delayed, total sleep time reduced, normal stages of sleep altered, and the quality of sleep decreased.
8. Childhood amnesia (also called infantile amnesia) is the inability of adults to retrieve episodic memories before the age of 2–4 years, as well as the period before age 10 of which adults retain fewer memories than might otherwise be expected given the passage of time.
9. Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty in learning to read fluently and with inaccurate comprehension despite normal intelligence.[1][2] This includes difficulty with phonological awareness, phonological decoding, processing speed, orthographic coding, auditory short-term memory, language skills/verbal comprehension, and/or rapid naming.
10. Nocturnal enuresis or nighttime urinary incontinence, commonly called bedwetting, or "'sleepwetting'" is involuntary urination while asleep after the age at which bladder control usually occurs.
11. Insomnia, or sleeplessness, is a sleep disorder in which there is an inability to fall asleep or to stay asleep as long as desired.
12. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is sexual dysfunction characterized by the inability to develop or maintain an erection of the penis during sexual performance.[
13. Dyscalculia is difficulty in learning or comprehending arithmetic, such as difficulty in understanding numbers, learning how to manipulate numbers, and learning math facts. It is generally seen as a specific developmental disorder like dyslexia.
14. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, similar to hyperkinetic disorder in the ICD) is a psychiatric disorder[1] or neurobehavioral disorder[2] characterized by significant difficulties either of inattention or hyperactivity and impulsiveness or a combination of the two.
15. Nicotine withdrawal is the group of symptoms that occur upon the abrupt discontinuation or decrease in intake of nicotine.
16. Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear, or worry; by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety; or by a combination of such obsessions and compulsions.
17. A phobia is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.
18. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe condition that may develop after a person is exposed to one or more traumatic events, such as sexual assault, serious injury or the threat of death.
19. Sleepwalking, also known as somnambulism or noctambulism, is a sleep disorder belonging to the parasomnia family.[2] Sleepwalkers arise from the slow wave sleep stage in a state of low consciousness and perform activities that are usually performed during a state of full consciousness.
20. Stuttering , also known as stammering, is a speech disorder in which the flow of speech is disrupted by involuntary repetitions and prolongations of sounds, syllables, words or phrases as well as involuntary silent pauses or blocks in which the person who stutters is unable to produce sounds.

So, just to be clear... seek help for any of the above in Florida, and lose your rights.