TexasCHLforum.com

I appreciate your candid responses. I came here because of the liberties and freedoms that were bestowed upon gaining my Citizenship.

I enjoy a good debate and one without emotion or name calling.

I have given this law a great deal of thought and the responses were at the least thought provoking and made me look at it in a different light. I try very hard to think for myself and it's rare that I can be steered away from something that appears valid.

I have reconsidered my position and with the comments and responses posted here, have come to the conclusion that ANY law that infringes on my rights should not be implemented. I was looking at the black letter law proposed and not the slippery precipice upon which it stood.

I lost my rights to own guns in the Country I came from. I have been there and it started with Fox hunting. A totally innocuous sounding law that didn't apply to me, as I didn't Fox hunt. I was wrong! It made me angry. I needed this and I thank you all for allowing me to advocate what is now a skewed point of view.

I appreciate the responses and am currently writing to the Honorable Governor to VETO this law.

Where did I state if we can save ONE life? I never did. I do not subscribe to that theory. Period! You are making me out as some loony leftist Liberal. You cannot be farther from the truth.

I came here as an immigrant, I followed the law and I got my Citizenship. I came from a Country that almost overnight, banned guns outright. Why? Because people who didn't think it would apply to them, never participated and raised their voice. I see this happening here. Most Americans think that their rights can't be taken away. We are witnessing this very incidence.

The point of me playing devils advocate is to produce thought provoking responses, not the typical "gun" response. The left uses emotion and calls the Bill of Rights "out dated". Do I believe it is - Not on your life. We have to beat them with facts and documented evidence not rhetoric. We need a new game plan.

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN! It needs a damned good cleaning out. We will NOT get a do over unless the masses get motivated and get to the ballot box.

I have always stated that this law MAY help! I do not know of any law currently on the books that would stop someone who is hell bent on a killing spree.

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

lbuehler325 wrote:

cprems wrote:I believe this law is needed to close current loopholes in the Baker Act. Is it a slippery slope? Maybe, but if the NRA is backing this bill, it would seem on the face of it that the protections are in the bill (as it is written)

If this law was in effect in CT & CO, those shootings may, and I say may have been prevented.

No, no, no, no, and no.

Lanza's mother purchased all of the firearms... legally. She was murdered and robbed; that's how the kid got them. The kid was never committed, voluntary or otherwise, to help for mental issues.

Beeker (meep meep, meep) out in Aroura only had counseling with a school psychologist, and therefore never voluntarily committed himself to anything that would satisfy the FL bill.

All of this "may have" hyperbole is a farce. The Dude in NY had his girlfriend purchase that firearm (so he wouldn't have been caught with it either). The dude in CA who built the 'banned' AR-15 receiver and shot up his father/brother and a school... same thing. This new law would not have stopped it. Period.

If Lanza was committed - this would not have happened. This is not about purchasing weapons. I am well aware of what transpired in his case.

Beeker could have been involuntarily committed. he should have been reported.

How did the perpetrator get his hands on a banned AR? I believe it would have stopped him. If he had a history of mental illness, it would have been reported.

The guy in NY - He didn't purchase the weapon. There are laws on straw purchases but it seems to have failed. If she knew he was a risk or was mentally ill then it should have been documented.

This is why we need to be able to coherently articulate our arguments. You can't just say "it didn't work"

What would have been your "law" to stop these massacres? obviously enforcing the current laws - didn't work. They slipped through the cracks - again.

We end up getting punished for the ill gotten and ineffective gun laws currently on the books. We need laws to weed out the criminals and those who are mentally unstable.

LSUTiger,

I agree with almost all of your well thought out rebuttal. It's posts like this that are useful to our cause. It is well articulated and shows thought. This is what WE need every time we have to respond to the Left!

Maybe a jury should decide this? I can't see a better reason to empanel a sitting jury of our peers.

Chas,

With this administration, Radical Muslims have been given a free pass. His superiors should be held accountable. They KNEW what he was about. Since Obama came into office, the FBI terror book has been rewritten to exclude any reference to Radical Muslims. With this way of thinking, it's no wonder the Military didn't do anything for fear of being labeled a "muslimophobe".

I have heard of Veterans getting that letter. Were they diagnosed as a danger to themselves or others?

Under what law is this an established statute? I agree it is a slippery slope. We have to be vigilant. We do need to enforce the laws. I believe that there should be minimum mandatory sentence for firearm related offenses. Gangs need to be eradicated and the Cartel needs to be "neutralized" Public execution comes to mind.

We need to scrap the ones for drug offenses. Get them into rehab if they are users. Drug traffickers need harsh sentences. Again, this would need to be on a case by case basis.

The left want a "quick" and emotional solution to a problem that is NOT about law abiding citizens. A good start is at the ballot box. Vote those obnoxious idiots, out.

I have seen and felt first hand what emotional reactions can do to gun rights. So, I do not take this position ( this Bill) lightly. I was directly affected by it.

Until the masses who sit on the sideline and whine and moan (gun owners) and get actively involved, we are stuck with laws that will eventually affect us all. People don't realize that all it takes is the Democrats to take the house and we are well on our way to gun registration/confiscation.

I see a massive shake up in the Senate in 2014. I am hoping people wake up and actually participate in the process. This is the only way we are going to get gun friendly laws and get those who need help, help.

I believe this law is needed to close current loopholes in the Baker Act. Is it a slippery slope? Maybe, but if the NRA is backing this bill, it would seem on the face of it that the protections are in the bill (as it is written)

If this law was in effect in CT & CO, those shootings may, and I say may have been prevented.

I'm not defending this law to be a horses rear end. What I am trying to do is get through the "it's our rights (AND I AGREE) and am trying to show WHY we need to articulate our arguments either for or against it.

We cannot just use the leftist scare tactics. We have to have documented evidence that the system is flawed and a SOLUTION on how to get those who need the help, help. I believe every mentally ill case should have an Attorney for the patient and a 3 commission panel comprised of mental health specialists.

We always hear from people POST massacre that so and so was nuts. Then WHY didn't they come forward and say something. If they did and it was reported, then those to whom it was reported to, need to be held accountable.

But in order to get this panel, those who sit on it must be given "immunity" from any civil suit if they are wrong. This would enable them to make a rational decision without the ramifications that they may be sued or lose their license. This would give the commission a better approach to actually determining the patients competency.

Actually I do get it. If you are diagnosed as a danger to others, there should be a well articulated reason (as under this law) It also has to be signed off by a Judge. It can be appealed.

So what is your suggestion and treatment modality?

Let those with PTSD who are suffering, suffer?

I do get it. You are not the only one who has served. Remember that! You are not the only one who has seen devastation and death.

The law has already passed their Senate and is awaiting the Governors signature. This is NOT my idealistic and I have stated that the mental health system is corrupt and broken and needs a complete overhaul.

You are the one who is not getting it. It's not about liberty and freedom, it's about closing a loophole in a current law. Read the law and articulate WHY you are against it. Please keep the knee jerk responses out of it. It gives us both a bad name and the left LOVE it.

lbuehler325 wrote:"Hammer said after a person with mental illness is treated, they’ll be able to petition the court to get their gun rights back.

“They will not be able to purchase a gun until they have been treated, and a psychiatrist says they need relief from disability,” said Hammer."

The problem here is that there is no adjudication. This effectively strips a person of their rights without due process. Having a system to 'petition' the state to get back something they should have never had stripped is the antithesis of liberty.

Surely, nobody wants dangerous individuals to commit acts of violence against others; but at what cost of liberty are we willing to do it? If it means we are no longer free, then I'll certainly pass on the government's false sense of security.

Here are just a few of the listed mental disorders from Wikipedia. A voluntary committal for treatment of any of these could strip away the person's 2A rights.
1. Acute stress reaction (also called acute stress disorder, psychological shock, mental shock, or simply shock) is a psychological condition arising in response to a terrifying or traumatic event.
2. Adjustment disorder occurs when an individual is unable to adjust to or cope with a particular stressor, like a major life event. Since people with this disorder normally have symptoms that depressed people do, such as general loss of interest, feelings of hopelessness and crying, this disorder is also sometimes known as situational depression.
3. Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder characterized by immoderate food restriction and irrational fear of gaining weight, as well as a distorted body self-perception.
4. Bereavement (also called Grief) is a multi-faceted response to loss, particularly to the loss of someone or something to which a bond was formed.
5. Binge eating disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder in the United States affecting 3.5% of females and 2% of males and is prevalent in up to 30% of those seeking weight loss treatment.
6. Bulimia nervosa is an eating disorder characterized by binge eating and purging, or consuming a large amount of food in a short amount of time followed by an attempt to rid oneself of the food consumed (purging), typically by vomiting, taking a laxative or diuretic, and/or excessive exercise, because of an extensive concern for body weight.
7. Caffeine-induced sleep disorder is a psychiatric disorder that results from overconsumption of the stimulant caffeine. "When caffeine is consumed immediately before bedtime or continuously throughout the day, sleep onset may be delayed, total sleep time reduced, normal stages of sleep altered, and the quality of sleep decreased.
8. Childhood amnesia (also called infantile amnesia) is the inability of adults to retrieve episodic memories before the age of 2–4 years, as well as the period before age 10 of which adults retain fewer memories than might otherwise be expected given the passage of time.
9. Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty in learning to read fluently and with inaccurate comprehension despite normal intelligence.[1][2] This includes difficulty with phonological awareness, phonological decoding, processing speed, orthographic coding, auditory short-term memory, language skills/verbal comprehension, and/or rapid naming.
10. Nocturnal enuresis or nighttime urinary incontinence, commonly called bedwetting, or "'sleepwetting'" is involuntary urination while asleep after the age at which bladder control usually occurs.
11. Insomnia, or sleeplessness, is a sleep disorder in which there is an inability to fall asleep or to stay asleep as long as desired.
12. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is sexual dysfunction characterized by the inability to develop or maintain an erection of the penis during sexual performance.[
13. Dyscalculia is difficulty in learning or comprehending arithmetic, such as difficulty in understanding numbers, learning how to manipulate numbers, and learning math facts. It is generally seen as a specific developmental disorder like dyslexia.
14. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, similar to hyperkinetic disorder in the ICD) is a psychiatric disorder[1] or neurobehavioral disorder[2] characterized by significant difficulties either of inattention or hyperactivity and impulsiveness or a combination of the two.
15. Nicotine withdrawal is the group of symptoms that occur upon the abrupt discontinuation or decrease in intake of nicotine.
16. Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear, or worry; by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety; or by a combination of such obsessions and compulsions.
17. A phobia is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.
18. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe condition that may develop after a person is exposed to one or more traumatic events, such as sexual assault, serious injury or the threat of death.
19. Sleepwalking, also known as somnambulism or noctambulism, is a sleep disorder belonging to the parasomnia family.[2] Sleepwalkers arise from the slow wave sleep stage in a state of low consciousness and perform activities that are usually performed during a state of full consciousness.
20. Stuttering , also known as stammering, is a speech disorder in which the flow of speech is disrupted by involuntary repetitions and prolongations of sounds, syllables, words or phrases as well as involuntary silent pauses or blocks in which the person who stutters is unable to produce sounds.

So, just to clear... seek help for any of the above in Florida, and lose your rights.

This Bill is to strengthen the Baker Act which is already law in FL.

Most, if not all of those listed are DISORDERS and NOT defined as a mental illness as defined under DSM-V. Read the bill! If you go in voluntarily for counseling on ANY of these (seek help) you are NOT punished under this FL law. There is NO requirement for people to give up their weapons under these circumstances. The Bill is about Mental Illness.

And citing Wikipedia? Seriously, why would you cite a source that defines these as disorders. You not only destroy any credibility you may have had but you are giving ammunition to the Liberal hype.

The original intent of this Bill is to thwart those who use the voluntary system to avoid CRIMINAL charges. The Bill also specifies that if you seek counseling, it cannot be held against you, unless you are a danger to yourself or others. As I understand it, many were voluntarily committed and when they arrived at the facility, they refused care and left. There was a loophole that allowed seriously mentally ill persons to get out of being added to the NCIC.

The system is broken and I do understand your stance on this. But to skew the Bill as Anti gun is a slippery slope we do not need to start down. Here is a summary of the Bill - http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Bill ... 3/html/349" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the Bill (I am not sure if this is the final version but I believe it is). - http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/20 ... ext/er/PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the baker Act (an overview) - http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/Public ... -105cf.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It IS a slippery slope if the safeguards are not implemented. It will also, I believe, strengthen the law and get those who are in real need of help, the help they need.

I understand what you say in regards to the evaluations in Texas. We have a revolving door and no way of treating them. If you have insurance, they'll use up all of your coverage and then throw you out. I have seen this first hand when I worked the ER. We'd have people come in who were in desperate need of help and got the "evaluation" and then were kicked out after 72 hours. They were given a weeks worth of medication with no follow up. The system is broken and mental illness is treated like leprosy. Until the attitude towards mental illness is welcomed in social circles and seen as an issue that we NEED to fix, then nothing permanent will be done. Those who have mental illnesses are shunned by society.

Some medications that are currently available in Europe cannot be used in the USA. We can thank the over regulation of the USDA for that. My point being is that those medications have fewer side effects and are relatively cheap. I have no doubt the big pharmaceutical companies are behind it. Cheaper drugs that work = less profit for them.

Nexium is one such drug. I know its not a drug used to treat mental illness but it's available in Canada and Europe in generic form and costs about 10 cents a pill.

I agree with what you have stated. The system is broken. It cannot be fixed without being completely revamped. Get rid of these stupid "disorders" and let the parents actually parent and discipline the little darlings.

When I grew up, I knew that if I messed up, 1. My parents were going to find out about it. 2. That I was in serious trouble and was probably going to get disciplined. The feeling and fear of letting my parents down was worse than any discipline that I eventually got. I do NOT advocate in beating children - far from it. But a good spanking never hurt any kid.

The system IS broken. We need State hospitals brought back. We need to make sure that those who need the help are actually helped and not tossed out with a fistful of medications and no follow up. MHMR needs to better funded.

chasfm11 wrote:

cprems wrote:From what has been written about this bill from the co-authors (NRA etc) this bill will provide protections against that. The only way I can see it affecting those who fail to seek help, is that they have something to hide and know they are a danger and they will be added to NCIC.

If you (generalized) need help, seek it. Don't let the rest of us take the fall for your actions. It's all about being a responsible gun owner. Knowing when you need help and NOT getting it, will lead to us having NOTHING left to shoot.

Be reasonable and stop thinking about yourself (generalized) It's this line of thinking that gets us labeled as "gun nuts"!

I understand what you are saying. But I'm a pragmatic guy so I have a couple of questions.

1. Exactly what problem are we solving? More specifically, which of incidents in the past 5 years would have been prevented if this law had been in place and what percentage of the overall incidents were those preventions?
2. What does the risk analysis say about the potential for "exceptions" and what safeguards have been put into place to prevent those?

The simple fact is that the "rest of us" will ALWAYS take the fall for the actions in every single gun related incident. That is the way this works. Liberals believe in 100% prevention (i.e. "if is saves the life of just one child, it is worth it.") A FL Liberal one told me that she would shut down every coal mine in the country to save just one person with breathing problems, whether those breathing problems could be directly attributed to the coal mines or not.

I do not want to see guns in the hands of the mentally ill. Having watched the mental illness industry in action much closer than I wanted to, I have zero confidence in anything good coming out of it. If we really want to fix the problem, we need to fix the underlying problems with mental health care. That isn't even on anyone's radar.

As I see it, the problem they are solving is in regards to those who use the "voluntary" commitment as a revolving door to escape criminal behavior. I believe this would have solved the VA shooting, Colorado movie theater shooting and I possibly the Sandy hook school schooling. Why, you ask? Because they could have been reported and action taken. Look at the school shooting. His mother tried to get him committed but could not under their current laws. Taking him out of the equation could have prevented this tragedy.

I believe that "mental illness" needs to be CLEARLY defined and on a CASE BY CASE basis. No roping those who suffer from PTSD for example in one category. Even patients who are medicated for Bi-Polar disorders should be evaluated as an individual. I know several people who are medically compliant but cannot own a firearm due to the grouping into a "category".

Safeguarding an individuals right is paramount. The medical Mental illness needs to be completely revamped. The problem is, is that it is a massive money maker. The more medications dispensed, the more money these companies with the "mental health" agenda will push to come up with new "disorders". In the last 20 years we've seen new "disorders" almost triple. We've taken God out of school and taken discipline away from the parents. Until we get a do-over, we are stuck and have to work within the parameters that are set by those whose pockets are greased.

We need to do a better job of report mentally unstable people (posing a danger to themselves or others), then and only then, can we get a handle on this issue. Once their crisis has passed, they can get re-evaluated.

Now we can get into the realm of who rights trump whose. Where do their rights end and ours begin? Who is to decide it? While I do not trust either the Government in its current form, I also do not (to a much lesser extent) trust the medical community. They all have their agendas. Now, add political left leanings and anti gun hysteria into the mix and we have what we have, now!

From what has been written about this bill from the co-authors (NRA etc) this bill will provide protections against that. The only way I can see it affecting those who fail to seek help, is that they have something to hide and know they are a danger and they will be added to NCIC.

If you (generalized) need help, seek it. Don't let the rest of us take the fall for your actions. It's all about being a responsible gun owner. Knowing when you need help and NOT getting it, will lead to us having NOTHING left to shoot.

Be reasonable and stop thinking about yourself (generalized) It's this line of thinking that gets us labeled as "gun nuts"!

There is apparently a huge problem in Florida that needs to be addressed. We all know that most of the massacres that have happened have been with "unstable mentally ill people". We always hear AFTER the massacre, how unstable the individual was and he was a danger. I am all for protecting the rights of everyone under the 2nd Amendment but there are those who circumvent the law and, I believe, this law will close that loophole. It will stop those who use the system as a get out of "jail" free card.

If you chose to "voluntarily" commit yourself instead of facing the legal system, then you should have to answer for your actions. Once you are deemed "safe", you can petition the Court to get your weapons back. There are safeguards in this bill. You cannot lose your rights due to counseling or other therapy.

Either we police ourselves or the Government WILL! The NRA and Florida gun clubs worked hand in hand on this bill. THE NRA has ALWAYS advocated for mental health provisions and to a certain extent, I agree.



From the NRA -

"June 19, 2013.

TO:

USF & NRA Member and Friends.

FROM:

Marion P. Hammer

USF Executive Director.

NRA Past President.

False information is being circulated about House Bill 1355 by people who do not have a clue what the bill actually does or why it is needed. Many gun owners are being deceived by reckless people who are sending out e-mail blasts attacking the bill as being anti-Second Amendment. Unfortunately, some well-meaning folks have asked the Governor to veto HB-1355 based on misinformation. The Governor needs to sign HB-1355.

The truth is HB-1355 is very limited. It does NOT cover people who voluntarily go to private counseling for help. It does NOT cover people who voluntarily go to a doctor for help. It does NOT cover people who voluntarily go to a public clinic for help.

It ONLY applies to people with mental illnesses who are already in a mental health facility under a Baker Act petition AND who have subsequently been diagnosed as being an imminent danger to self or others.

The bill has two triggers: the Baker Act commitment and the diagnosis of being an imminent danger to self or others. The bill has no effect on anyone else.

Currently, people being held in a mental health facility under a Baker Act Commitment and who are subsequently determined to be a danger to themselves or others, may voluntarily agree to be committed for treatment to avoid going to court.

If they don’t voluntarily agree to treatment, a petition is then filed for a court hearing for involuntary commitment. When a court orders a commitment, the person's name is entered into the National Instant Check System (NICS) database of people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. If they voluntarily agree to commitment their names are NOT entered in to the database.

The problem is that some of these dangerous people with mental illnesses, who are known to be a danger to self or others, immediately revoke their voluntary agreement as soon as they reach the treatment facility. They must then be released within 24 hours. They do it repeatedly. The system has become like a revolving door and is failing. People with mental illnesses, who are KNOWN to be a danger to self or others, are not being stopped from purchasing firearms.

Under HB-1355, people in this category may still agree to voluntary commitment for treatment, but they would be informed (and must sign a statement acknowledging that they have been informed) that because they are deemed to be dangerous, their names will be entered into the NICS database until they have had treatment and are no longer considered a danger to themselves or others and may apply to have their names removed from the database. The process for removing a name from the database is exactly the same as already prescribed in law for those who have been involuntarily committed for treatment.

If the person disagrees or feels strongly about not giving up his gun rights, the person can refuse voluntary commitment and a petition for involuntary commitment would move ahead through the full court process, in which the person has the opportunity to fight it in court.

When the NRA was asked by the Judge who chairs the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Mental Illness (Judge Steve Leifman) and by Representative Barbara Watson to help solve the problem of constructing language to give the maximum protection to the rights of dangerous people with mental illnesses, we agreed to try.

The NRA worked with the Judge, bill sponsors, Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and legislative staff in the House and Senate to protect gun rights as well as find a way to help keep dangerous people with mental illnesses from being able to purchase firearms. That's what this bill does.

Right now, the head of an organization based in Colorado, who has not been involved in the legislative process here in Florida, who has not worked with the Judges or bill sponsors, or FDLE or the FBI, who has not been in Florida for committee hearings or meeting with legislators and who appears to be deliberately misrepresenting the effect of the bill and existing law – has been sending out erroneous, inflammatory information in the form of e-mail blasts encouraging people to ask the Governor to veto this bill.

They are essentially telling the Governor and gun owners all over the country that they think it's OK for dangerous people with mental illness to be able to purchase guns. That is irresponsible. Unfortunately, some folks have taken those false e-mails at face value, and asked the Governor to veto the bill based on erroneous information.

The NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida support the bill. We worked hard to protect the rights of the mentally ill as well as the rights of those who might fall victim to dangerous people with mental illnesses. All too often the perpetrators of mass tragedies who used guns were known to have mental illness, but nobody did anything. We believe that lives can be saved by keeping dangerous people with mental illnesses from being able to purchase guns.

Please e-mail Governor Scott right away and urge him to sign HB-1355.

IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: PLEASE SIGN HB-1355.
rick.scott@eog.myflorida.com

PLEASE E-MAIL GOVERNOR SCOTT TODAY."