Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, that's why we have professionals who have studied and trained their entire lives to be able to make that decision.
Quote:
In the instance you're discussing then the failure is not with the system, but
his caregiver(s). You could have filed for involuntary commitment, if he had
been determined to be at risk or a risk then he would have been committed and
treated.
With all due respect, you have no idea just how inadequate the mental healthcare system in this country is until you've dealt with it personally, assuming you haven't, and given how simplistic you think the process is, it wouldn't appear that you have. It isn't as simple as a care giver calling the shots. The mentally ill have rights as people, and as such, they can refuse treatment if they are so inclined. Until they actually hurt someone or hurt themselves, they cannot be involuntarily committed, at least not for long. The doctors who administer his care cannot prescribe an appropriate course of action, because he would have to be honest about what he is experiencing when he talks with them, and he isn't honest about it. For the most part, it's all on the patient to call the shots and make voluntary decisions about their own treatment, which is ludicrous.
No, that's why we have professionals who have studied and trained their entire lives to be able to make that decision.
They are not the decision makers either. The people who are decision makers are the people in Congress and the Senate, and the Executive at both Federal and State levels. Do you want Obama, Holder, Reid, Bohner, Kasich, Patton, Schiavoni, Batchelder, Huffman, Maxwell-Heard making that decision for you? Or at least deciding who will make that decision on your behalf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
With all due respect, you have no idea just how inadequate the mental healthcare system in this country is until you've dealt with it personally, assuming you haven't, and given how simplistic you think the process is, it wouldn't appear that you have. It isn't as simple as a care giver calling the shots. The mentally ill have rights as people, and as such, they can refuse treatment if they are so inclined. Until they actually hurt someone or hurt themselves, they cannot be involuntarily committed, at least not for long. The doctors who administer his care cannot prescribe an appropriate course of action, because he would have to be honest about what he is experiencing when he talks with them, and he isn't honest about it. For the most part, it's all on the patient to call the shots and make voluntary decisions about their own treatment, which is ludicrous.
They can be involuntarily committed, if during a 72 hour evaluation they are found to be mentally incompetent. If they're not found incompetent then there is no requirement for you to be responsible for them, and you hold no liability. They're like any other difficult relative.
If the state cannot by law do anything and you really cannot manage them using legal means, then you do what all normal people do. You separate yourself from them. Sure you may have ethical issues with this, but there are equally ethical issues in attempting to manage them when it's impossible, and causing damage to your family unit.
It's not ludicrous for a competent patient to make voluntary decisions about their own care, indeed it's far more ludicrous that any competent patient be forced into receiving care that they do not wish to receive. Consider the logical conclusion of requiring legally competent patients to have enforced treatments.
No having someone under observation for 3 days is a good deal more thorough. Like I asked is this for public safety, or is this to threaten gun owners into submission? I don't see any issue with it, the only complaints I could see are people who are not gun owners who are concerned it puts them in the same cross hairs as gun owners.
Why is that not better? If the person is of sufficient risk to themselves and others, clearly having them under observation is far more preferable than just leaving them alone without their guns. If they're a threat to themselves, then you've just removed them from the vast majority of mechanisms they could use for self harm, and placed them under supervision. If they're a threat to others, then you've also removed them from the vast majority of mechanisms they could use to harm others and removed them from others for what mechanisms remain.
Because this is for public safety isn't it?
Have you considered that the confiscation by police may precipitate the very thing it's intended to prevent? Who is liable in that situation? Is it the police? Is it the court? Is it the person who filed the initial complaint? If there is no liability then it doesn't bode well for accountability.
Which means...? Would you be happy to have any of your property confiscated for 14 days prior to a hearing just on the approval of a judge hearing probable cause? To say nothing of the social impact, of having half a dozen police cars at your place kicking in the door and doing a full search of your home.
Yes this is most definitely public safety and observing someone for just 3 days may not be enough for a final determination, still don't know where you got the 72 hours from under CT law. Detaining someone for 72 hours when they have a job will greatly impact their lives, much simpler to give up a gun for 14 days and have your day in court. What's the harm giving up a gun for that short period of time particularly when applied by a judge, seems fair as opposed to being detained for 3 days and explaining to your employer that it was because you may be a danger to yourself or others. Let's not pretend that the gun control people are now worried about CT's liability, that 's that's their problem.
Rather a giant leap that now we have a dozen police kicking in doors, seems like if a resident honors a simple request to turn in their gun that's the end.
Extremely bad idea. As a police officer, I am telling you these laws will be abused. You will seize guns from persons who really don't meet the criteria, just because you are afraid if you don't, what the civil liability will be.
This country is headed down an extremely deadly path.
I just hope it's no to late
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
Yes this is most definitely public safety and observing someone for just 3 days may not be enough for a final determination, still don't know where you got the 72 hours from under CT law. Detaining someone for 72 hours when they have a job will greatly impact their lives, much simpler to give up a gun for 14 days and have your day in court. What's the harm giving up a gun for that short period of time particularly when applied by a judge, seems fair as opposed to being detained for 3 days and explaining to your employer that it was because you may be a danger to yourself or others. Let's not pretend that the gun control people are now worried about CT's liability, that 's that's their problem.
It's not CT law, it's involuntary commitment. There is the potential that at the end of the 3 day evaluation the period may be extended.
Yes detaining someone for 3 days is impactful, but the court should be mindful that removing the right of liberty is no more or less impactful than any other natural right. This keeps the system honest, if a person is significant enough a threat to grab his guns, then they're significant enough a threat to cause harm with other objects not guns.
It also would mean that there is less chance of leveraging the system as de facto gun confiscation. I think you would find gun owners far more amenable to it, than just confiscation of guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Rather a giant leap that now we have a dozen police kicking in doors, seems like if a resident honors a simple request to turn in their gun that's the end.
If a resident honored a simple request to turn in their guns from a court order questioning their safety, wouldn't that demonstrate that they're unlikely to be a risk to themselves or others?
It's not CT law, it's involuntary commitment. There is the potential that at the end of the 3 day evaluation the period may be extended.
Yes detaining someone for 3 days is impactful, but the court should be mindful that removing the right of liberty is no more or less impactful than any other natural right. This keeps the system honest, if a person is significant enough a threat to grab his guns, then they're significant enough a threat to cause harm with other objects not guns.
It also would mean that there is less chance of leveraging the system as de facto gun confiscation. I think you would find gun owners far more amenable to it, than just confiscation of guns.
If a resident honored a simple request to turn in their guns from a court order questioning their safety, wouldn't that demonstrate that they're unlikely to be a risk to themselves or others?
This is not a conspiracy to capture guns this is a safety issue and a reasonable response to someone on the border, as I stated this is erring on the side of safety with minimal impact to their lives. Mental illness and where you draw the line is far from an exact science, taking a gun away for 14 days is more than fair if there is reasonable cause.
Once the guns are confiscated, it is going to be very difficult for anyone to get them back. First, most people won't even fight to get them back. Second, who can afford to fight the criminal justice system to get them back?
What, you people think you just walk into a court room and a judge says, "Give him his guns back," and that is it? No. The "state" can fight that. And the more liberal states will. They can tie up such an issue for YEARS in a court room. Can you afford to take off work all the time, to attend court hearings? How about an attorney to fight the case?
Most people are being very naive and myopic in their viewpoints. The politicians know this, hence why they are passing these laws. Its an end around to gun control.
Just think of the abuses. Husband and wife are getting a divorce. Wife is pissed off at husband, because he cheated on her. "Oh officer, my husband is despondent and said he was going to blow his brains out over the divorce." Bam, now I (amongst others) are on the hook to do something. Including take his guns from him. Now he has to fight, tooth and nail, to get these guns back, when what she said occurred, probably never occurred.
And if you people don't think things like this happen now, I have beach front property with great surfing for sale, in Kansas. Line up...
Once the guns are confiscated, it is going to be very difficult for anyone to get them back. First, most people won't even fight to get them back. Second, who can afford to fight the criminal justice system to get them back?
What, you people think you just walk into a court room and a judge says, "Give him his guns back," and that is it? No. The "state" can fight that. And the more liberal states will. They can tie up such an issue for YEARS in a court room. Can you afford to take off work all the time, to attend court hearings? How about an attorney to fight the case?
Most people are being very naive and myopic in their viewpoints. The politicians know this, hence why they are passing these laws. Its an end around to gun control.
Just think of the abuses. Husband and wife are getting a divorce. Wife is pissed off at husband, because he cheated on her. "Oh officer, my husband is despondent and said he was going to blow his brains out over the divorce." Bam, now I (amongst others) are on the hook to do something. Including take his guns from him. Now he has to fight, tooth and nail, to get these guns back, when what she said occurred, probably never occurred.
And if you people don't think things like this happen now, I have beach front property with great surfing for sale, in Kansas. Line up...
I believe this 100%. From what I have read California is like this, it costs to get your property back in this case guns and often people do not have the time or money to fight for their rights. I can only guess what happens to the guns never claimed back but I bet they don't get melted down they probably become part of some chief's or politician's or other wise well connect person's collection.
After all who is going to pay thousands of dollars in the legal system to get back a $700 or $1000 dollar gun? Someone mentioned divorce, the man was probably already financially gutted from divorce so he probably can't fight for his property. Which is too bad because he might have sold them otherwise instead to help himself recover or by right just kept them to pass on to his next generation.
Oh and btw, when has a law created never been expanded?
This is not a conspiracy to capture guns this is a safety issue and a reasonable response to someone on the border, as I stated this is erring on the side of safety with minimal impact to their lives. Mental illness and where you draw the line is far from an exact science, taking a gun away for 14 days is more than fair if there is reasonable cause.
If it's a safety issue surely you agree that confining and evaluating a person of possible risk is far more efficacious than just taking one tool that the person concerned may cause harm with. The only reason you would be against this I can fathom is you do not want to be affected, but how do I know that you're not a risk, how do I know you shouldn't be evaluated, not currently having guns doesn't make you less of a risk.
There has never been a law passed that has not extended from it's original scope, and either incorporated other aspects than it was defined for, or other factors. You might want to remember the original scope, aspects and factors that the PATRIOT and FISA acts was intended to protect against. Was it intended to provide carte blanche electronic surveillance of the US population? Or wiretapping foreign dignitaries cell phones? Wasn't that called for in the name of safety too?
Today you might support this for guns, will you support it tomorrow, next year, in 5 years when it's something you care about, that may just be a risk?
What is going to happen in 14 days? Are they required to undergo evaluation and treatment? If not then in theory (according to the law in CT there only needs to be a hearing within 14 days of confiscation) if I have a good lawyer I can advance the hearing to the day my guns are confiscated, then get them returned. How's that being safe? Nothing will have changed in my mental condition (normal or otherwise), no one will be evaluating me unless it's required, and neither the CT nor CA laws require that.
So all that the intent of the law appears to be is to prevent people from having access to their guns for up to 14 days (and I'll bet dollars to donuts with the right lawyer, you can get that down to hours). Then what? What specific protection does it provide? Can the accused buy more guns? Sure certainly nothing stopping them buying on the black market, unless there's a 14 day waiting period then there's no problem going to a gun store and buying another. California does a DoJ background check, so they can flag there, what about the many states that have no waiting periods, or use the Federal Background Check system? Are you going to permit entry into your criminal record of suspensions of rights without due process? Where does that leave the 5th and 14th Amendment?
Last edited by Gungnir; 07-07-2014 at 07:06 PM..
Reason: errant comma
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
