are new gun laws really what the people of CA want? (low income, violent crime)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Being mentally ill and being dangerious are two different things. You seem to think they are the same.

Maybe. So what's wrong with a medical professional making that determination?

Civil rights are guaranteed, unless removed via due process. You want to remove due process. Should people be banned from voting as well? What about have their free speech curtailed for fear they would incite a riot? Maybe we should go back to the old system of putting undesirables, I mean the mentally ill into prisons, I mean treatment centers. The history of how this and other countries has treated the mentally ill is not something that should be repeated, why you push us back towards that only leads me to believe you do not understand the history behind the system.

It would be a due process. People get evaluated by a medical professional. They are found to be dangerously mentally ill. They should not own a firearm.

You have a problem with this, why?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Yermum

I'm not an expert on gun rights by any means. But if everything you said is accurate that all makes sense to me.

The weakest part of the current background check system is that the mental health aspect is almost non-existent. In California, you have to be 5150'd to be rejected by the DOJ. Otherwise, you could have severe depression, be dependent on Rx drugs, and still be able to own a handgun as long as you didn't get pinged for being a felon, or any other circumstance that would prevent you from failing your background check.

There is no loophole for gun shows or online sales (in California), but there is a huge mental health loophole IMO.

[Yermum]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Maybe. So what's wrong with a medical professional making that determination?



It would be a due process. People get evaluated by a medical professional. They are found to be dangerously mentally ill. They should not own a firearm.

You have a problem with this, why?

Because the guy's screen name is Shooting4life. Pretty sure that's self explanatory

For the gun hoarder "prepper" types any type of gun regulation is completely diabolical. They thing civilians should be able to own rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and death stars.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by Yermum

Complete gun bans/confiscation is impractical, unconstitutional, and probably would be ineffective.

However, stricter background checks, more regulations on online sales and gun conventions/shows is a completely rational objective.

The fact we have people on the no fly list because they're considered security threats that can LEGALLY purchase guns is completely INSANE.

Flying is not protected by our Constitution. Just sayin'.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Over 20% of Americans take some sort of more alternating drug every year. Do you really want to ban roughly 80 million people who effectively get help for relatively minor mental issues like stress or anxiety because of a temporary life situation?

Not to mention completly destroying hippa and all legal foundation for abortion as well.

Of course they do. They want to ban all guns, and will use any means necessary to do that.

[Yermum]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Maybe one day you will end up on a government list and your tune will change. I hope you never have to experience it, but thousands of individuals do, like the 5 year old who ended up on the no fly list.

Why would I end up on a government list. I'm not some what job conspiracy nut. Nor a criminal, nor a terrorist. I'm not worried about that in the slightest.

[Yermum]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

There are people in this nation that want to eliminate the rights and privilegesthat we now have. They want to tell you that the Second Amendment is wrong,they want to tell you what to eat, what to drink, and they want to tell you howto live your life. There are people in this nation that do not think you canmake good decisions. They want to protect you from yourself. Look at theConstitution of our nation and ask yourself if any individual running foroffice or now in office claims any of the rights, liberties, and privilegesthat we now have should be eliminated or removed then you can see who isagainst us as a nation. You can see who is against the American way of life. Ihave no idea what motivates a person to vote for someone that would take one ofour rights away. Realize that Hitler was able to talk the German people intogiving up their guns. Eventually they gave up all freedom.

Buddy, individuals can BARELY make good decisions for themselves. Individuals certainly can't make good decisions as for what's best for society.

IE. Tragedy if the Commons.

Why do you think we have laws to begin with?

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration;44328416[B

]I think people who are on mood altering drugs should not have firearms.[/b] I think that type of regulation makes sense and I can't articulate an argument against it. Maybe you can? How would you argue that someone currently or recently on mood altering drugs should be able to purchase firearms?

There are a disproportionate amount of mass shooters who were receiving psychiatric help for mental illness or on mood altering drugs recently or even at the time they engaged in their massacres; Seung-Hui Cho, Elliot Rodgers, James Holmes... I could go on and on.

I think your concerns about HIPPA violations are unfounded since California already checks for 5150s for a firearm purchase done through an FFL and institutes a 5 year ban. The institution where you were 5150'd is required by law to notify the CA Department of Justice and then the individual is added to the state mental health firearms prohibition database. They could easily integrate a check for someone who is on mood altering prescription drugs. I'm not saying this person should have a 5 year ban on all firearms rights, but they should be more thoroughly looked at when they do attempt to purchase a firearm.

I also think there should be a check for people who travel to volatile areas for Islamic extremism.

Define mood altering drugs. Postpartum depression? Check, no gun. Depression after the death of a spouse? Check, no gun.

There is a HUGE difference between mood altering and mind altering.

And who gets to decide, ultimately. Oh yea, the government. That can't be trusted to run the VA, so they're going to do the right thing to protect our rights? And there won't be ANY bias at all, like the IRS scandal, right?

But more importantly, you cannot have your Constitutional Rights taken away from you for what you MIGHT do. Period.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

What is the percentage for those who take mood altering drugs while receiving psychiatric help?



No, that's incorrect again.

I am arguing that someone who is being prescribed mood altering drugs and receiving psychiatric help for mental illness should not own firearms while they are mentally ill. Allowing mentally ill people to purchase a weapon is indescribably fool hardy.



If she is seen as mentally ill by a psychiatrist and being treated with Rx drugs, then yes. Definitely.



It would stop them from using a firearm to do so. But you do have a good point, they should definitely be watched more closely. Mentally ill individuals should be watched closer, rather than being left in the street of the Tenderloin in San Francisco or Skid row.

This will absolutely, 100% cause MORE mental illness. If being seen by a psychiatrist means you may have your guns taken away, many folks will forgo treatment.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by ringwise

Define mood altering drugs. Postpartum depression? Check, no gun. Depression after the death of a spouse? Check, no gun.

If this person is determined to be a danger to himself and others, great. I don't see any problem.

But more importantly, you cannot have your Constitutional Rights taken away from you for what you MIGHT do. Period.

Uh yes you can, and people often do get their gun rights taken away. Felon? 5150'd? Retraining order due to domestic violence? All of these are reasons the state (valid IMO) can use to take someone's guns away from them.

People always like to discuss the 2nd Amendment, and quote the "shall not infringed" part, but they always forget the "A well regulated militia" aspect. I don't think the forefathers would have agreed with mentally ill, dangerous lunatics bearing arms because "it's a right".

I think the fact that this is being argued actually hurts 2nd amendment proponents, such as myself, because it makes us look slightly unhinged.