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.
In light of the mass shootings where many people had concerns about the shooter, should we be allow certain professionals to place a hold on a person’s ability to buy a gun? For example, a school teacher can file a certifcation and register it with state and federal background check agencies that holds gun purchases until cleared by the police. Make it a crime to report someone over personal disputes or in bad faith. The purchaser can challenge the hold in court as well.
I am not opposed to NICS, or PICS background check that can happen while you wait. It screens for criminal and mental issues. However, I would not before waiting periods, or "hold ups" beyond the background check, and filling out the appropriate forms. Bottom line it is ALL INFRINGEMENT on a human, Natural Right. Why should I be a greater potential victim of the threat of younger, stronger, bigger armed assailants in potentially multiple numbers?
It violates the entire intent of the 5th Amendment specifically...
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Liberty ultimately resolves to the free exercise of rights, these may be restricted by due process of law (says it right there in the line above). However a professionals sole opinion on a subject is not due process of law, due process contains protections of procedural due process (a stated procedure of what proceedings must contain to be considered meeting due process), substantive due process (which restricts the application of vague laws, for instance who is determined to be a professional, is a state registered psychologist a professional, is a state registered psychiatrist a higher ranked professional with the right of overruling? Is a registered counsellor a professional? Is someones relative a professional [as far as changes in behavior those who reside with the person are probably qualified to judge changes of behavior]), and of course incorporation of enumerated rights, which is all 10 of 'em and the implied rights retained in the 9th and 10th.
NICS meets the 5th Amendment muster, it contains those who have been provided due process (the original Lautenberg amendment was unconstitutional, since it originally covered anyone officially accused of DV ever, including things like expired restraining orders, it was revised to only include these guilty of misdemeanor DV [thus provided Due Process]).
Here's the litmus test for these things.
If a person could be prevented from voting on the statement of some non-judicial entity.
If a person could be restrained from expressing themselves on the statement of some non-judicial entity.
If a person could be prevented from relationships with consenting others, on the statement of some non-judicial entity.
If a person could be prohibited from visiting certain public venues, on the statement of some non-judicial entity.
Would you think it was a good idea? If not then it's probably not a good idea for any other right.
No. The seller of the item (owner of said property) is the only person who should be able to hold up the sale. Should be the same for furniture, cars, appliances etc.
I voted yes, but ideally would like to see some sort of “gun review board” involving teachers, mental health doctors, counselors, police, social workers, etc. who would review each case. If a teacher files a report, the case is sent to the board.
No. The seller of the item (owner of said property) is the only person who should be able to hold up the sale. Should be the same for furniture, cars, appliances etc.
I voted yes, but ideally would like to see some sort of “gun review board” involving teachers, mental health doctors, counselors, police, social workers, etc. who would review each case. If a teacher files a report, the case is sent to the board.
I would like to see something like this, but not a board.
Allow these sorts of professionals to petition the courts to prevent someone behaving mentally irrationally/threateningly from temporarily being able to purchase a weapon and trigger due process.
Or rather than a board have them all go through LEO to the court.
Something similar to CPS when people are reported to be abusing/neglecting children. And, yes I know that system is problematic, but nothing is going to be perfect. Have to start somewhere.
The gun shop owner has the right to deny a sale at point of purchase.
If the clerk gets a strange vibe from someone they can stop the sale.
I think this happened in Florida with the pulse nightclub shooter. He went to a gun shop and they did not like how he was acting so they denied the sale. He later went to another shop and bought the guns and ammo for his murders.
There are stops that can be made if a person is deemed a threat to themselves or others. Their guns can be confiscated by the Police until the person is deemed safe to have them back.
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.
