States look to gun seizure law

[gunman1 1,753]

It just figures that something like this would come from Commecticut. Here we fuken go.

 

By DAVE COLLINS

 

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — As state officials across the country grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and near the University of California, Santa Barbara, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

 

Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

 

Click here for the rest of the story;  http://news.yahoo.com/states-look-gun-seizure-law-mass-killings-152120496.html

[read_the_wall 614]

They better know who to get to first or they will need a whole lot of judges     

[nlacy 692]

Let me play the asshole here.  I think we all agree that guns aren't the problem, crazy is the problem.  Correct?  So let's say your neighbor has some guns.  You're talking with him and he starts talking about the little shits who keep messing with his lawn ornaments.  Then he starts talking about shooting up the school where they go.  And he's serious.  At that point you realize that your hunch is right, this dude is crazy as F. Like Adam Lanza crazy.  What do you do?  You call the cops.  What do you want them to do?  Take his guns and evaluate him.

 

Sure I don't like letting the government decide who's crazy, but do you have a better idea?

[thebuns1 4,323]

Let me play the asshole here.  I think we all agree that guns aren't the problem, crazy is the problem.  Correct?  So let's say your neighbor has some guns.  You're talking with him and he starts talking about the little shits who keep messing with his lawn ornaments.  Then he starts talking about shooting up the school where they go.  And he's serious.  At that point you realize that your hunch is right, this dude is crazy as F. Like Adam Lanza crazy.  What do you do?  You call the cops.  What do you want them to do?  Take his guns and evaluate him.

 

Sure I don't like letting the government decide who's crazy, but do you have a better idea?

 

Yeah, better arm the school.  Placing decisions in the hands of big brother is the worst thing to do. Im against all forms of gun control. Guns are tools. So are knives and a million other objects.

 

You really cant stop bad people from committing crimes. The intent will always be there, and always has been.

[HB of CJ 1,263]

Wow!. Cool thread. At what point does a law abiding moral good citizen decide that there is a "clear and present danger"? What if you have an 88 year old, old coot neighbor who is half blind, half demented, an asshole and always drunk who insists of driving his old 1988 Cadillac when ever he feels like it? And God Damm anybody who gets into his way or even tries to talk some reason and sanity into his old demented, drunk old coot nogin?

 

Actually this comes very close to home. It regards close family members a couple years ago. Use your imagination. Now switch the same concerns to guns, or heavy RV motor coaches, or heavy equipment, or dangerous farm equipment, heavy machinery, or heavy 18 wheeler tractors, or even sometimes...airplanes?? What do you do? Do you do nothing and just LET the eventual shit happen? Which it will.

 

And, most importantly, what if you do not have THE TIME to stop it?

 

Or do YOU try to stop it? What if you CAN NOT stop it yourself? What do you do then? Well .... you drop a dime to the Cops. That is what you do. Sorry folks; I for one sadly see no distinction here. Sometimes NOT TO ACT is a moral failure for us to use our heads and protect all of us and society. Just me. HB of CJ (old coot) Ignore that man behind that curtain.

Edited July 7, 2014 by HB of CJ

[thebuns1 4,323]

Calling the police on somebody and letting the government decide our sanity as gun owners are two totally different things.

[nlacy 692]

I hear you Cap.  I don't like it either.  But when you call the cops, what do you expect them to do?  I would think they would evaluate the guy, interview you and decide if he's a legitimate threat or if you're just a pissed off neighbor.  Then what?

[thebuns1 4,323]

There really aint much you can do after they get called. Then its out of your hands. Theres a fine line. People will be getting fucked out of their abilities to own weapons, and self defense if shit like this actually becomes national law. Where would the line be drawn? Normal emotions that people feel on a daily basis would likely become grounds for being excluded from weapon ownership.

 

I dont like the idea of having liberties stripped so that soccer moms can feel better about themselves in their own home. Truth is, we need to enforce the laws currently on the books and stop worrying about passing more regulations.

[VR762Shooter 838]

If this law works so well that they want to use it everywhere, why didn't it stop Lanza? I mean all the signs were there. Family thought the kid was a nut, had him on anti-psychotics........if it worked, Sandy Hook never would have happened. More anti-gun liberal BS that doesn't help anything but unlawfully denies citizens access to items to defend themselves, all the while making mom and pop Bloomberg-clone feel all warm and fuzzy inside 

[Capt Nemo 882]

You should see the fun of trying to get a mental evaluation done on a family member.   Damn near impossible with the current laws!

 

When you need it, it can't be done!  When you don't need it, it's super simple!  That's why I'm really scarred when they're making psych laws, but the real purpose is gun control.

[thebuns1 4,323]

They can sell it any way they want, the end result is the same. It will be by design regardless.

[Sim_Player 1,939]

Arm the schools, arm the population, and teach gun safety in public schools.

 

The liberal agenda to scare the sheeple "about guns" is encouraging copy-cat shootings by publicizing their acts of violence, in the media, nationwide.

 

It's funny how the blame never falls squarely on the shoulders of the people who commit such acts.

 

It's always a failing of society to keep the mad criminals from committing crimes.

 

Progressive Liberal madness would have every member of society sharing the blame for every criminal act equally because they failed to pass a law to prevent the rapist, robber, or mass murderer from commiting the crime.

 

Complete BULLSHIT.

 

"Moral Relativism" means never having to say you're sorry.

 

Villainize the mass shootings, in the media or don't show the at all.

 

Call them "evil" acts. Make kids NOT want to be like them.

 

Bury them without a tombstone. Everyone will say, "it's like the killers never existed".

 

Also, stop pumping drugs into our kids.

 

Rant over.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Sim_Player

[Maxwelhse 1,285]

I just read that Indiana is the ONLY other state to have any legislation at all like Connecticut's. Apparently ours was passed in 2005 when someone mentally ill shot and killed a LEO. It's not in the same spirit, but its close enough for me. Time to get some letters sent out...

[Big John! 2,062]

Let me play the asshole here.  I think we all agree that guns aren't the problem, crazy is the problem.  Correct?  So let's say your neighbor has some guns.  You're talking with him and he starts talking about the little shits who keep messing with his lawn ornaments.  Then he starts talking about shooting up the school where they go.  And he's serious.  At that point you realize that your hunch is right, this dude is crazy as F. Like Adam Lanza crazy.  What do you do?  You call the cops.  What do you want them to do?  Take his guns and evaluate him.

 

Sure I don't like letting the government decide who's crazy, but do you have a better idea?

Let the local laws in place deal with this.  If said person has to be under surveillance forever, then so be it.  The government can NOT take our weapons when no crime has been committed.  Lazy fucking laws me thinks.

If this law works so well that they want to use it everywhere, why didn't it stop Lanza? I mean all the signs were there. Family thought the kid was a nut, had him on anti-psychotics........if it worked, Sandy Hook never would have happened. More anti-gun liberal BS that doesn't help anything but unlawfully denies citizens access to items to defend themselves, all the while making mom and pop Bloomberg-clone feel all warm and fuzzy inside 

Sandy Hook never happened.  Therefore, they only look to SH to further their agenda.  Not to truly fix anything.

[Dogster 577]

Hasn't anyone seen the NEW federal guidelines for mental health, published earlier this year? Just a couple of the "new" mental health disorders contained therein:

 

ALL veterans are potential PTSD sufferers, diagnosed or not.

If you are a smoker, you suffer from an addictive disorder, and could be potentially dangerous.

If you drink coffee, and suffer from headaches occasionally due to caffine deficiency, you are potentially dangerous.

If you are over 60, you have high probability for dementia or alzhiemers.

 

 

These are just a few. Most people would agree guns do not belong in the hands of the mentally ill. What those same people do not see is what and who is defining "mentally ill"! Under this administration's definition, the vast majority of Americans are mentally ill!

 

Unfortunately, given the politicians we continue to return to govern, that in and of itself may be the proof.

[Ronin38 2,117]

If this law works so well that they want to use it everywhere, why didn't it stop Lanza? I mean all the signs were there. Family thought the kid was a nut, had him on anti-psychotics........if it worked, Sandy Hook never would have happened. More anti-gun liberal BS that doesn't help anything but unlawfully denies citizens access to items to defend themselves, all the while making mom and pop Bloomberg-clone feel all warm and fuzzy inside 

 

Well, mostly because Lanzas lived in NJ, so CT laws didn't mean jack.

[G O B 3,516]

What is needed DESPERATELY is Judicial reform!

 

  The same judges (with a small j) who issue no knock warrants on "anonymous tips" and protection orders for spiteful people who request the order just injure the persons reputation, are the same ignoramuses that will be issuing warrants for the confiscation of YOUR shit or commit YOU !

 

 It is an unfortunate truth of the human psyche that:

                                                                                        "If there is a will, there is a relative ulterior motive".

                                                                                        Do-Gooders will tell any lie to force their will on others

.

   Before anyone confiscates anything, or commits anyone- there needs to be a PUBLIC hearing and a PREPONDERANCE of evidence that this is a necessary action, and NOT a vindictive attempt to force someone to give up real property or their freedom.

[YOT 3,743]

Hasn't anyone seen the NEW federal guidelines for mental health, published earlier this year? Just a couple of the "new" mental health disorders contained therein:

 

ALL veterans are potential PTSD sufferers, diagnosed or not.

If you are a smoker, you suffer from an addictive disorder, and could be potentially dangerous.

If you drink coffee, and suffer from headaches occasionally due to caffine deficiency, you are potentially dangerous.

If you are over 60, you have high probability for dementia or alzhiemers.

 

 

These are just a few. Most people would agree guns do not belong in the hands of the mentally ill. What those same people do not see is what and who is defining "mentally ill"! Under this administration's definition, the vast majority of Americans are mentally ill!

 

Unfortunately, given the politicians we continue to return to govern, that in and of itself may be the proof.

 

Can you cite that publication, please.

[Dogster 577]

Yeoldetool, unfortunately, I cannot. I received the information from my wife and daughter, both of whom are nurses. I believe the summery was published in the journal of Psychological Medicine. The series of articles covered these topics, as well as alcohol, e cigs, and various drug addictions as well. I do not recall the specific name of the published guide, but was similar to the Physicians desk reference (PDR) used for medications and their use.There was even a reference to a proposed congressional action regarding the required treatment, but I have seen nothing further on that. I will attempt to do more research and find that for you, if I can.

 

 

 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition

published May 18th, 2013

Edited July 7, 2014 by Dogster

[DogMan 2,343]

I don't mind having some kind of mechanism for disarming truly deranged people but there needs to be a lot of safeguards built into that. Any system that allows someone who just doesn't like you to report you and have the cops come and take your guns is fucked up. Anyone who makes such a report should first be investigated themselves, and then their concerns should have to be corroborated by someone else before any action is taken. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented, and all reporting parties should have to sign sworn statements and be prosecuted if they are not acting in good faith. Then, after all that, if the person's guns are removed the person being reported should get an IMMEDIATE hearing at which time a judge should decide if an evaluation is needed or else return the man's gun's to him immediately. This is just for starters.

[Maxwelhse 1,285]

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition

published May 18th, 2013

 

FYI guys - that is basically the bible of psychiatric care (It's referred to as "The DSM"). It's not some article in a news paper buried on the 17th page. Practically every physician in the country references that book and it's published by the American Psychiatric Association.

 

I would like to see the actual article if you can dig deeper and post it up. I've heard that language was in there in the latest edition but I haven't actually read it myself.. I *think* the NRA mentioned it in an editorial in the mag awhile ago but obviously they couldn't reproduce the entire thing.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Maxwelhse

[jerry52 893]

Here is the real fact.

Every one is a little off at one time or another, it is just normal.

The problem is how normal is defined with such laws. I mean if they can take your guns by not being normal in their definition what else will they take.

I think this is why the laws protect the right of the real off  normal people, we call nut cases in out country.

This is The USA and we have a right to be off normal ,look at congress we put those nuts their. So who is the nuts in this world.

[YOT 3,743]

Here is the real fact.

Every one is a little off at one time or another, it is just normal.

The problem is how normal is defined with such laws. I mean if they can take your guns by not being normal in their definition what else will they take.

I think this is why the laws protect the right of the real off  normal people, we call nut cases in out country.

This is The USA and we have a right to be off normal ,look at congress we put those nuts their. So who is the nuts in this world.

They have a test for that.

[Shandlanos 1,470]

You should see the fun of trying to get a mental evaluation done on a family member.   Damn near impossible with the current laws!

 

When you need it, it can't be done!  When you don't need it, it's super simple!  That's why I'm really scarred when they're making psych laws, but the real purpose is gun control.

I think that varies from state to state.

 

Had a friend in Iowa a while ago who had to deal with that shit - and it wasn't too tough. All it required was a physician's recommendation and two immediate family members' consent for a 72-hour evaluation.

 

Frankly, it's too easy to have your freedom arbitrarily truncated by family.

[storm6490 2,768]

Nazi fucks. First ones to go.

 

Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.

 

Another pretend feel good draconian statute.