What do y’’all think? Is it time for a mental evaluation law similar to red flag laws? I’m not saying it should take away your gun rights but to evaluate your mental condition towards violence. If found by a neutral 3rd party you’re not mentally stable have the guns removed or the person institutionalized. There would need to be a penalty for someone wanting to use this as a weapon against another like $50k fine, 5 yrs in jail the accuser pay all legal fees and court costs. This just letting phyco’s walk around or homeless isn’t working.
Who would that be? We know many in the health profession are not advocates of the RKBA. If one of them are pro-RKBA, they, too, would not be a “neutral third-party”. NYS enacted this. Violent crime is up how much, now?
7 Likes
IDK, supposedly ppl such as doctors, lawyers ca set aside their personal views or else what would be the need for experts to testify in court?
To make the case for the side that hires them.
6 Likes
Not only “NO” but “H$^% NO”.
7 Likes
Are you suggesting every person must subject themselves to an annual mental health assessment or just firearm owners?
Sounds like a direct violation of the 4th Amendment to me either way. Not to mention a scene from Minority Report or 1984 etc.
There are already laws for dealing with people who endanger themselves and others due to mental illness. Now if someone wants to propose a law that better protects everyone from the potential overreach and abuses of these current laws while making them more effective and efficient then I might be willing to listen.
6 Likes
I have a better question. Should the mental liberals have the audacity to even consider who’s mentally fit and who’s not. If I was tested during the Trump administration and anytime prior, I’d pass with flying colors, would anyone pass today? Or, are we all well adjusted?
Maybe this gets me thrown out of here, but I tend to believe that most people that own firearms are more well adjusted than those that wish to take them away! I think people that own guns tend to keep their heads on straight and are not that quick to react.
Are you happy with gas prices, let’s talk about your home life, are you afraid of a nuclear war, did mommy have any effect on the upcoming recession? Do you think you can be prosperous in the next year, did your daddy explain how rape is speed dating or did he teach you to respect life? Did your friends encourage you to burn down cities. Do you like to riot, have you harmed any small or large animals? Is your ideal living quarters an orange and blue tent on the side of the road?
A mental evaluation? How about we test Brandon first, then Kamala, then the recent DUI guy, what’s his name, oh right Pelosi!
Never had a DUI in my life, never needed a shrink, I spent 8 years underwater, I’m completely Nn Nnnn Normal!
I don’t think a mental evaluation is required when perp posts “I’m going to kill people” that pretty much sums things up!
But how about we just defund everything and see how that works out, maybe we could empty all the prisons, what mentally deficient bureaucrat thought of that? Maybe we test people that don’t prosecute, because the criminal is the victim.??? Who needs the mental evaluation?
Let’s return to letting boys be boys and girls be girls, sorry but there is no middle ground here! How about the sanctity of life. They want to smother life as soon as they find out there is life at conception! Strange how the true killers think they are NORMAL.
Again THAT GUY was right, the SWAMP needs to be completely drained, then filled with the non corrupt! How he new all this I have no idea, thank god he did!
8 Likes
In some ways, we already have it.
As a mental health counselor, I am a legally mandatory reporter when there is a threat to a child or the elderly, OR if they are clearly a threat to themselves or another.
I have to report things like:
- Detailed planning of future suicide attempts
- Other concrete signs of suicidal intent
- Planned violence towards others
- Planned future child abuse
- Formerly committed child abuse
- Experiencing child abuse
- Expecting to experience future child abuse
And people other than counselors can do much the same. In our lovely state of Wisconsin, it’s called a Chapter 51 involuntary commitment.
Somebody might be held if:
- Mentally ill, drug dependent or developmentally disabled, AND
- A substantial probability of physical harm to him/herself or others is evident by recent acts or omissions, attempts or threats, AND
- The individual is a proper subject for treatment
If someone has such concerns, the first step is to contact law enforcement.
Law enforcement can then, if THEY believe there is a legitimate risk, place such a person on a 72 hour hold, during which time they must be evaluated by a mental health treatment facility which must produce treatment recommendations.
We’ve talked about this many times at our clinic. It is NOT illegal to be crazy in this country. And it’s very hard to determine which mental illnesses are highly likely to create a mass-murder event. One would think sociopaths, who have no real conscience, would be great candidates for a red flag order. And yet, I’ve treated several such people, and there never has been an indication that they were going to physically harm anybody. Usually, they just break the rules and figure rules are for everybody else.
Or how about people with multiple personalities? I’ve never come across one that has violent intent toward other people.
Or schizophrenia? This one might have some merit simply because of the detachment from reality that such people experience. Even so, I’ve treated several people with this disorder, and they have never given any indication that they are a physical threat to anybody but themselves.
And did you know - our patients LIE to us?!?! And they’re frequently quite good at it. So someone who wants to buy an AR-15 and KNOWS they have to answer “right” will probably know how to do it.
Without precogs from Minority Report, it’s very difficult to identify who will really pull the trigger 21 times on an innocent crowd.
6 Likes
Absolutely not.
1 Like
The experts who testify in court aren’t the ones deciding, the jury is, and opposing counsel gets to provide their own experts as well.
That’s the whole, you know, due process, thing
2 Likes
It is also important to remember that while most of these mass murderers are likely suffering from some form of mental illness, the vast majority of people struggling with mentally illness do not harm others. Just as while many acts of violence are committed by people using firearms, the vast majority of firearm owners do not harm others.
Presuming people are guilty until proven innocent is not how freedom, democracy and justice work. That is how totalitarian governments operate. Locking us all up (whether with walls or laws) and taking away all our pointy objects MIGHT make us safer. But I’d sure rather live freely amongst all the “dangerous” folks then locked away with all the “safe” people.
4 Likes
With mental health exams, peers have told me that sometimes as employees interviewing their clients, they may ask them if they own or have access to a firearm.
I can understand that. However, in the realm of more general health care, I’m not sure that is a question which ought to be asked. I’m not sure there is enough of a gain on the part of the health care provider or government, that that be asked, and as the ACLU might even point out, an infringement on one’s privacy or HIPAA rights as a patient.
I have not heard it yet being asked as a required question by GP’s, per se, but had heard some chatter about it as a topic. One might be surprised what policies organizations come up with, even when it’s not law.
First thing that crossed my mind reading the OP was “get in line for your Soylent green.”
There is no “neutral” .
4 Likes
No I’m not. I’m suggesting an eval for anyone showing signs like Uvalde shooter did. That’s why I said there should be penalties for ppl using it to extract revenge or weaponize the law. No, I don’t want a Minority Report type law either. I’m saying we already know the signs of a nut job wanting to do harm.
The answer to what happened in Uvalde isn’t going to be a big government action. Its going to be some laws with give and take by both sides. The 2A community is going to have to be part of the answer or we isolate ourselves giving the initiative to the crazy left.
I’d love to hear what the control-advocates are going to give in this give and take you speak of.
The “2A community” can be part of the answer by helping train people to, you know, shoot back.
2 Likes
Not saying that either. But at the same time government has a duty to protect society. Whether it’s some mad gunman that has flipped his wig or drugs coming across the border along with a bunch of other things. We some way of detecting and sifting through identified ppl for possible actions to innocents.
I once read that a good compromise is one where each side walks unhappy as in not getting everything they want.
I disagree.
The proper role of government is to protect the Rights and Liberties of The People. It is not to control people and restrict or remove their Liberties in the name of safety.
The “Compromise” has long since come and gone, there are already excessive and ridiculous gun control laws on the books that should not exist…we are way past “compromise”
And please, please don’t tell us the old “we want to take all of your Rights, so we’ll compromise and only take a portion…for now” bologna
3 Likes
Not everybody is mentally or emotionally strong enough to shoot back. What good is a chicken with a gun if he’s still going to get his head chopped off?
Not everybody has to be. It only takes a small number.
Stop forcing them to be defenseless, stop telling them they are not capable, stop making it illegal for anybody at a school who isn’t sworn LE to effectively defend themselves and others.
3 Likes