Being devils advocate...

Brooklyn · Feb 13, 2013

Every major victory in the gun Rights movement has come when the public sees that guns are a net benefit to society. The legislature will never respect your rights until the people do.

This is a fact. You can not change it. You can not ignore it. And you can not wish it away.

We are the good guys. We are the moderates. We can make the public feel good by voluntary license compliance.

How is it voluntary? Because criminals do not comply.

This is our argument.

It is a voluntarily license. Start calling it that.

As has been said Rights are innate. They can not be bargained way, but neither can they be regulated.

As far a law enforcement goes as long as you. Comply they do not care if you call yourself a volunteer or not.

From now on it is a voluntary ccw. A voluntary background check etc. Use this language when you speak on the subject every time and the message will get though that you and your guns are not the problem and these laws are not the solution.

If nothing else it will drive the antis up a wall...

mrbunny · Feb 13, 2013

bmelton said:
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, and as such, is not subject to "interest-balancing". ..... it wouldn't be Constitutional of them to place infringements on our rights in trade for something else, especially as it's a downward trade.

In the spirit of Devils Advocate.

With the mindset of "The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, and as such, is not subject to "interest-balancing"

Is that to say that there should be no regulation at all? Thus even people with felony records or severe psychotic disorders; still being citizens of the USA. Should have full access to any weaponry that they can afford?

bmelton · Feb 13, 2013

mrbunny said:
With the mindset of "The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, and as such, is not subject to "interest-balancing"

Is that to say that there should be no regulation at all? Thus even people with felony records or severe psychotic disorders; still being citizens of the USA. Should have full access to any weaponry that they can afford?

According to the 5th amendment, your rights cannot be rescinded except by 'Due Process', such as the conviction of a felony or something to that regard.

There aren't any Constitutional provisions for or against mental competency to my knowledge, so I would interpret that to mean that to mean that they are entitled to no less of their natural rights than anyone else, except for the infirm.

mrbunny · Feb 13, 2013

bmelton said:
According to the 5th amendment, your rights cannot be rescinded except by 'Due Process', such as the conviction of a felony or something to that regard.

There aren't any Constitutional provisions for or against mental competency to my knowledge, so I would interpret that to mean that to mean that they are entitled to no less of their natural rights than anyone else, except for the infirm.

So that said, should there be provisions to prevent the mentally ill, or those with diminished mental faculty from being able to obtain and use weapons?

bmelton · Feb 13, 2013

mrbunny said:
So that said, should there be provisions to prevent the mentally ill, or those with diminished mental faculty from being able to obtain and use weapons?

So this is obviously a slippery slope. There were a few mental health professionals supporting SB281 when we were in for Congress, and they supported the bill, with exceptions. What seemed to be the recurring exception was that not all people with mental issues are necessarily violence-prone.

In particular, I think I heard a number of them mention that while schizophrenia was called out as a 'qualifying condition' for loss of gun ownership rights, that most schizophrenics were not prone to violence, so that provision should not apply to them.

If they intend to implement something like this, it would have to be judicial, and/or someone would have to be proven to be both mentally deficient and violence-prone before their rights were restricted. The slippery slope here is that even then, it requires them to have displayed outbursts of violence, and as such, would not necessarily prevent any crimes if their first outburst is a Newtown-like massacre.

The other big caveat is that obviously, lawful citizens should not necessarily be subjected to competency tests as that is akin to delaying their right to bear arms. To quote Martin Luther King, "A right delayed is a right denied."

Boondock Saint · Feb 13, 2013

"Poison pill" amendments are a possibility. They're not likely to pass, given their nature, but it's a tool in the toolbox, so to speak.

Fox123 · Feb 13, 2013

I think many hypocrites would go right along with the OP suggestion. They are getting what they want, sure they will get a license to own AND carry.... Many would give up the fight and probably tout it as a victory.

I don't agree with the idea.

Tashtego · Feb 13, 2013

bmelton said:
So this is obviously a slippery slope. There were a few mental health professionals supporting SB281 when we were in for Congress, and they supported the bill, with exceptions. What seemed to be the recurring exception was that not all people with mental issues are necessarily violence-prone.

The irony here is that the mental health profession would end up being the primary obstacle to measures that actually prevent people with mental disorders from possessing guns. This is why bills like O'Malley's end up restricting everyone instead of focusing on the actual problem.

Seeker · Feb 13, 2013

mrbunny said:
So that said, should there be provisions to prevent the mentally ill, or those with diminished mental faculty from being able to obtain and use weapons?

One of the people who testified on our side on the 6th was a physician. He testified that while mental health problems can result in loss of your right to a firearm, that the standard for that should be at least as high as the standard for involuntary commitment to a psych ward. He said that after such commitment, the issue of guns can be brought up at the hearing.

He also said this should only exist with the corresponding process for regaining your 2A right after treatment and release at a subsequent hearing.

The problem is, if you start taking guns from people who go to a psychiatrist or psychologist based on nothing but the fact that they are seeking treatment, you will then have violent people refusing to seek such treatment for fear of losing their gun rights. It'd be better to encourage treatment and only take guns if someone has proven themselves to be a serious danger to themselves or others, and if they are that far gone, they also should be committed for the same reasons.

Rack&Roll · Feb 13, 2013

The best hope we have for carrying outside the home is Federal Judge Legg's ruling that Marylanders have a right to carry a firearm for defense outside the home. As we know Maryland is still objecting and appealing in the courts.

What is not often discussed is that the State of Maryland can acknowledge our 2nd Amendment rights FOUR ways. If a state bans the OPEN carry of firearms (as we know Maryland does) they are obligated to permit citizens to carry CONCEALED. Or there is this: the State of Maryland could theoretically ban concealed carry, but only if they permitted OPEN carry--and wouldn't that be interesting.

The Federal ruling is that Maryland has 4 options:

1) ban OPEN carry and allow CONCEALED carry
2) ban CONCEALED carry and allow OPEN carry
3) allow both CONCEALED carry (with permits) and OPEN carry (no permit needed) (as Virginia does)
4) allow both CONCEALED and OPEN carry without ANY permits whatsoever (as Vermont does)

It is important to remember that each US Supreme Court Justice oversees one of the Federal Circuit Court systems. Chief Justice John Roberts oversees the Circuit that Maryland is in and he gets pissed whenever local or state jurisdictions ignore Supreme Court rulings.

The reason Federal Judge Legg got the case was because Chief Justice John Roberts kicked the previous judge off the case for foot-dragging. He handed the case to Judge Legg and that's why we have a clear Federal ruling today that Maryland is violating our rights. Our best hope for achieving SHALL ISSUE concealed carry permits is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gets personally insulted when Maryland flouts Federal law.

mrbunny · Feb 13, 2013

So it sounds like everyone generally agrees that citizens who have mental deficiencies (either in the form of slower cognitive development or is suffering from a diagnosed illness defined in DSM4) and has a penchant for violent activity should be prevented from access to weapons.

How does one implement this? I doubt anyone wants to see an MMPI-2 attached to your purchase paperwork. We can't force screening without violating the involuntary standard. If one's mental state can be part of a purchase denial they are unlikely to get treatment let alone those who do not think they have a problem.

Ideas?

Brooklyn · Feb 13, 2013

Rack&Roll said:
The best hope we have for carrying outside the home is Federal Judge Legg's ruling that Marylanders have a right to carry a firearm for defense outside the home. As we know Maryland is still objecting and appealing in the courts.

What is not often discussed is that the State of Maryland can acknowledge our 2nd Amendment rights FOUR ways. If a state bans the OPEN carry of firearms (as we know Maryland does) they are obligated to permit citizens to carry CONCEALED. Or there is this: the State of Maryland could theoretically ban concealed carry, but only if they permitted OPEN carry--and wouldn't that be interesting.

The Federal ruling is that Maryland has 4 options:

1) ban OPEN carry and allow CONCEALED carry
2) ban CONCEALED carry and allow OPEN carry
3) allow both CONCEALED carry (with permits) and OPEN carry (no permit needed) (as Virginia does)
4) allow both CONCEALED and OPEN carry without ANY permits whatsoever (as Vermont does)

It is important to remember that each US Supreme Court Justice oversees one of the Federal Circuit Court systems. Chief Justice John Roberts oversees the Circuit that Maryland is in and he gets pissed whenever local or state jurisdictions ignore Supreme Court rulings.

The reason Federal Judge Legg got the case was because Chief Justice John Roberts kicked the previous judge off the case for foot-dragging. He handed the case to Judge Legg and that's why we have a clear Federal ruling today that Maryland is violating our rights. Our best hope for achieving SHALL ISSUE concealed carry permits is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gets personally insulted when Maryland flouts Federal law.

Interesting background. Makes me wonder if they are hanging there hat on the notion of a change in the court. ..

Seeker · Feb 13, 2013

mrbunny said:
So it sounds like everyone generally agrees that citizens who have mental deficiencies (either in the form of slower cognitive development or is suffering from a diagnosed illness defined in DSM4) and has a penchant for violent activity should be prevented from access to weapons.

How does one implement this? I doubt anyone wants to see an MMPI-2 attached to your purchase paperwork. We can't force screening without violating the involuntary standard. If one's mental state can be part of a purchase denial they are unlikely to get treatment let alone those who do not think they have a problem.

Ideas?

As I said, it shouldn't be part of your screening at purchase time, but rather done as a separate process if you are committed. It could be something that shows up in your NICS check if you've been flagged as having lost your 2A right based on mental adjudication. But that adjudication should be done as part of an involuntary committal and subsequent hearing where doctors have presented evidence that you're a danger. Of course if you've gone that far you're probably not even free to go to the store to purchase a weapon since you really should be in a mental ward.

Brooklyn · Feb 13, 2013

mrbunny said:
So it sounds like everyone generally agrees that citizens who have mental deficiencies (either in the form of slower cognitive development or is suffering from a diagnosed illness defined in DSM4) and has a penchant for violent activity should be prevented from access to weapons.

How does one implement this? I doubt anyone wants to see an MMPI-2 attached to your purchase paperwork. We can't force screening without violating the involuntary standard. If one's mental state can be part of a purchase denial they are unlikely to get treatment let alone those who do not think they have a problem.

Ideas?

First the DSM is highly political as is the APA.

What you will need to settle for is full due process adjudication, before a judge with and adversarial hearing with council etc.. Prior restraint may not be possible, but upon need TRO may be issues re firearms posession.
But no permanent firearms disability without substantive due process.
Abuse of the TRO process may be detered by, in addition to perjury laws, sanctions up to disparment for suborning perjury etc, creating a private cause of action under law for attempting to deprive, even temporarily a citizen of the 2a rights.
You will never prevent everything. If that is your standard of success you can not treat the 2a as a civil right.
This is why I have insisted elsewhere that the burden of proof must be on those who would restrict a right.

Tashtego · Feb 13, 2013

mrbunny said:
How does one implement this? I doubt anyone wants to see an MMPI-2 attached to your purchase paperwork. We can't force screening without violating the involuntary standard. If one's mental state can be part of a purchase denial they are unlikely to get treatment let alone those who do not think they have a problem.

I don't know how to implement it specifically, but it seems to me that the mere fact of mental health treatment being reportable to gun background checks would not necessarily prevent people from getting mental health treatment. How many people go in for mental health treatment and think, gee I really want to buy a gun, good thing this won't be reported. How many people would not get treatment for the sole reason that it might show up on a gun background check later? It seems to me, completely guessing from my perspective, that (1) people go in for mental health treatment because their lives are being screwed up otherwise, so they aren't likely to never get treatment solely because the info would show up if they ever wanted to buy a gun, and (2) when people go for treatment they are not at the point of trying to get a gun they ought not have--so at the time of getting treatment they haven't deteriorated to the point of wanting to get a firearm for mentally unstable reasons. My uneducated guess is that the psychological profession simply does not want to play its role in reporting because that infringes on their autonomy--so they are content to support laws that restrict everyone's ability to obtain firearms regardless and independent of mental health status. I am open to being challenged on some of this.

mrbunny · Feb 13, 2013

Seeker said:
As I said, it shouldn't be part of your screening at purchase time, but rather done as a separate process if you are committed. It could be something that shows up in your NICS check if you've been flagged as having lost your 2A right based on mental adjudication. But that adjudication should be done as part of an involuntary committal and subsequent hearing where doctors have presented evidence that you're a danger. Of course if you've gone that far you're probably not even free to go to the store to purchase a weapon since you really should be in a mental ward.

Hahah true, and what of cognitive development? Much like mental illness it does not predispose one to violent outbursts, but may impend the ability for restraint.

Now, personally I agree that it should be part of the initial security check that comes with purchase. Much like trying to get a new credit card, permitted or denied. Guy behind the counter has no idea why, he simply can or cannot sell it.

Tashtego · Feb 13, 2013

I think the challenge will be how, or whether, to address the kind of situation raised by the College Park shooting. We know very little about it, but reports say "Green’s family told police that he had been suffering from an unspecified mental illness for at least a year and had been prescribed unspecified medication for that condition." So it sounds like this guy was not in a mental health facility, much less in one for 30 days, or adjudicated incompetent. Should someone in this situation be precluded from gun purchase or not? If the psychologists want to get up and say, well the condition he had is one that 99% of the time is not violent, ergo it should not prevent have prevented tis guy from gun ownership, let them say it rather than 2A advocates doing so. If O'Malley's bill would not have stopped this guy from purchase based on his mental condition, let that be known.

Is the answer instead that any mental health treatment like this gets reported and shows up in a background check, but it doesn't create an absolute ban, it allows a rebuttable presumption against ownership, or requires further certification?

mrbunny · Feb 13, 2013

Brooklyn said:
First the DSM is highly political as is the APA.

What you will need to settle for is full due process adjudication, before a judge with and adversarial hearing with council etc.. Prior restraint may not be possible, but upon need TRO may be issues re firearms posession.
But no permanent firearms disability without substantive due process.
Abuse of the TRO process may be detered by, in addition to perjury laws, sanctions up to disparment for suborning perjury etc, creating a private cause of action under law for attempting to deprive, even temporarily a citizen of the 2a rights.
You will never prevent everything. If that is your standard of success you can not treat the 2a as a civil right.
This is why I have insisted elsewhere that the burden of proof must be on those who would restrict a right.

Ohh, I agree that you cannot prevent everything, but that cannot be ones argument to allow everything. If one is going to go there then why have any laws at all.

I have a number of friends who are on both sides of 2A, far on both sides.

My biggest problem with 2A is that I know I can be trusted, I know I am stable, patient, and tend to think before I act. However I am also a jaded, untrusting, cynic who believes, strongly, in the corruption and worst side of people as a whole.

Ohh I'm also a smartass... but that is neither here nor there.

So with that said.. why should I, or anyone who believes in the worst in people, agree with Carry/Conceal, stopping assault ban, or expanded clips? to mention just a few.

Seeker · Feb 13, 2013

mrbunny said:
So with that said.. why should I, or anyone who believes in the worst in people, agree with Carry/Conceal, stopping assault ban, or expanded clips? to mention just a few.

Well, first, concealed carry is a part of the 2nd Amendment (keep and bear arms). And the "crazies" should be weeded out by the licensing process. I'm not aware of there being any high number of CCW holders who commit crimes or snap and start shooting people. Plus, if someone were going to do that, it wouldn't matter if they had a CCW permit, they'd be planning on breaking the law already.

Second, the "assault ban" as you say is semantics. It's already illegal to assault people. Calling certain types of guns "assault weapons" is just making up terms. The military doesn't consider the types of weapons they want to ban "assault weapons". And DHS actually considers the fully-automatic versions of the AR15 to be "Personal Defense Weapons".

And finally, the "expanded clips" is another made-up issue. First, the media keeps using the term "clip" even though that's not what they're talking about. They're talking about magazines. Second, these magazines are not "high capacity" or "extended" (with the exception of the ones like 30-round Glock mags or such). 30 rounds is the standard size for an AR15 magazine. Many handguns are designed such that their standard magazines hold 15-19 rounds.

Don't buy into the politicians' or media's BS on these topics.

bmelton · Feb 13, 2013

Brooklyn said:
Interesting background. Makes me wonder if they are hanging there hat on the notion of a change in the court. ..

They're currently appealing to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and while I haven't heard either confirmation or otherwise, were supposed to have presented arguments in August of last year, and we're expecting a result sometime early this year.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if SB281 succeeds (or something like it) and then we get our Woollard decision back afterward, but it could happen too.

Being devils advocate...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

I stand with John Locke.

Da Bullet go Boom.

Active Member

Da Bullet go Boom.

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Seeker of Truth

R.I.P

Da Bullet go Boom.

I stand with John Locke.

Seeker of Truth

I stand with John Locke.

Member

Da Bullet go Boom.

Member

Da Bullet go Boom.

Seeker of Truth

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics