FL Mental Health Bill

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#16

Post by cprems »

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;
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#17

Post by E.Marquez »

unless you are a danger to yourself or others
You still don't get it..
Psychology is not a tangible fact based medical process.. It is based on the docs feelings, personnel opinions and his biased observations, all wrapped up in his preconceived mental position on what ever the topic is, oh say like guns.

If you are seen by Doc A, and his personal opinion is your a "danger to yourself or others" .. that's it,, your done.. You cant see the symptoms under a microscope to confirm or deny, you cant do a blood test, xray or Cat scan... There are Psy Docs out that that consider ANY solder that has seen combat, engaged and killed enemy, seen friend and fellow solders killed, maimed burned alive a danger to yourself or others.... JUST BECAUSE.. And once they have stated there personal opinion with NO tangible facts to support,, it's over.. you are now marked, you now lose your rights under this idealistic law.. and you then have to find another doc to give a counter opinion, hire a lawyer to present this data to a judge, panel, board,, and IF they feel they can trust doc 2 vs doc 1, you may get your inalienable rights that shall not be infringed restored .

Oh and good luck finding a second doc willing to put his career and legal liability, personal life, assets on the line, with a on the record counter opinion that states your not a danger to others or self as doc 1 stated..
No Thank you. .... No way.

This is a horrible bill, with far reaching repercussions and even as written a travesty. BUT lest not forget the bait and switch that is so common,, with add ons, replacement language inserted just prior or after voting on a bill.. Worse yet, quite updates done the next year with no public notice or Congressional input.

So even if one is naive enough to support the bill as it is TODAY...rest assured, it will be altered in negative Anti 2A ways later.. and it will be too late then.

Only the foolish trade liberty for temporary and unworkable safety measures that would have negligible effect on the way the world actually works today.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
Franklin 1775
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com

cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#18

Post by cprems »

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.
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
User avatar

psijac
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:08 am

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#19

Post by psijac »

The problem with this bill is that. Anytime you give someone powers they will abuse it. And undercutting the all our gun rights won't stop the people it should stop. The warning signs for Hassan were there. They just choose to look the other way because he was Muslim.

Adam Lanza mother tried to get him committed he shot her in her sleep the day before he would have been.

The same thing happened with the Aurora Theater shooter. His doctor madand reports to the police and they did nothing.

All the laws in the world will do nothing when the authorizes in charge refuse to enforce them because it makes them "uncomfortable".

How about a law that throws the officers in jail that did nothing when someone told them Hassan or James Holmes was a loose cannon. Then you might see some change
07/25/09 - CHL class completed
07/31/09 - Received Pin/Packet sent.
09/23/09 - Plastic in hand!!

cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#20

Post by cprems »

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.
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
User avatar

lbuehler325
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: DFW-ish

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#21

Post by lbuehler325 »

cprems wrote: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 suppose my solution would be to scrap the bill all-together, as taking away a criminal loophole only creates a foothold for the anti-gun crowd to latch on to. I am not a huge fan of 'Uncle Ted', but I think he's hit the nail on the head with regard to past criminal conduct. If a person is a risk, they should not be free. I understand the cost savings associated with paroling people and early release, but if a person is a danger/recidivism risk, they should likely still be in prison. Take away the non-violent criminals (who commit crimes only against statutes and not other people) clogging up our prisons (drug offenders) might help with this approach's feasibility, but I am not sure. Once a person is released from prison, they are supposedly 'rehabilitated' and have paid their debt to society. If that is the case, then they should have their rights fully restored. If they are still a danger, then don't let them out to prey on innocents.

With regard to PTSD, if they seek help, they do suffer their rights being taken away. Thousands upon thousands of letters have gone out to disabled vets telling them that their right to bear arms no longer exists because of their acceptance of 'help' for their PTSD. Then, take away combat vets all together, and who is left with PTSD? Many are victims of violent crimes; robbery, rape, battery, etc. These are the people who have already been victimized at least once. Now PTSD is a legitimate mental health illness (as are all of the ones I pulled from Wikipedia--of course I used the most blatantly ridiculous to prove my point), with very serious ramifications for those who suffer at it's clutches (I did my fair share in combat, and know many men stronger and better than I who struggle with it). To take away the right to defend oneself of a woman who has been victimized by rape because of such a diagnosis just doesn't seem right to me. One should never have to appeal in a situation where they were never convicted of wrong-doing. Besides, even a winning appeal is always justice delayed. Delaying justice that should have never been lost in this case.

Going back to my original point about the loophole; that is precisely why this bill is not good for the citizen. If a person uses voluntary committal to avoid prison, then there is an issue with that, not one's right to possess arms under the Constitution. A new law on top of a bad law only muddies the water. Judges and DAs need to do their jobs and lock up the violent criminals, and force them to pay for their crimes. Without an adjudication of mental incompetence, no one should have their 2A rights stripped. Period.
Last edited by lbuehler325 on Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RLTW!
TX CHL (Formerly licensed in PA, MA, KY)
MOPH, VFW, GOA, NRA, 82nd Airborne Division Association
User avatar

lbuehler325
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: DFW-ish

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#22

Post by lbuehler325 »

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.
RLTW!
TX CHL (Formerly licensed in PA, MA, KY)
MOPH, VFW, GOA, NRA, 82nd Airborne Division Association

cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#23

Post by cprems »

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.
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
User avatar

Topic author
LSUTiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#24

Post by LSUTiger »

I am against all laws that take away peoples rights when they have committed no crimes (The movie Minority Report comes to mind), especially when it depends on someone who is afraid of putting their political or professional career/reputation at stake or take any kind of legal responsibility for restoring them.

In my opinion, it all goes back to the real reason we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place, to defend against tyranny form our own government. These kinds of laws are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the constitution and take away rights of lawful guns owners.

We already have progressed to the point that if you disagree with the government you are targeted by the IRS, considered terrorists, and spied on by the NSA data snooping goon and FBI drones. All in the name of terrorism.

Sounded good at first after 9/11 until they changed the definition of what a terrorist is. Now any one who is in the Tea Party, member of the NRA, Christian, Conservative, is a Prepper, owns a gun, etc. etc. is a terrorist (Read the Patriot and and NDAA, scary stuff). Unless you are a government indoctrinated robot and are onboard with the Progressive agenda, you are considered a terrorist and if you are a terrorist the law says the NSA and FBI and the government can do whatever it wants to you. All the while promoting the exchange of freedom for security proganda.

They could not pass gun control out right so here comes the end run to the constitution and to the defeat of gun control efforts using the issue of mental health. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Crazy people kill people. True. So, using our own argument, the first step is for progressives to now say crazy people can't have guns. Then change the definition of crazy to include everyone affected by anything under the sun.

A good strategy to getting things accomplished at a national level is to attack on the state level, little by little eroding rights freedoms and liberties.

So, now you have things that have no bearing on and individuals capacity to make sound judgements and own a firearm responsibly affected their right to do so. Now the goverment can effectively take away peoples right to own a firearm. No firearms, no defense against goverment tyranny, the progressive agenda wins. We the people, lose.

Sure, truly crazy (very small minority) people should not have certain things but not a the cost of our (the greater majority)loss of liberties and freedoms. The good should not have to pay for the bad. But I forgot , "it's for the children". You know what, the fight for freedom and liberty is "for the children", my children and everyone else's children and future generations to be able to grow up and live in a free society not some Communist/Nazi type progressive police state underwhich history has proven over and over that horrible attrocities/torture/murders/enslavement are committed on a massive scale against the general populace.

This maybe a gross oversimplification, but in a nutshell, I think it accurately describes the current state of affairs.
Chance favors the prepared. Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.
There is no safety in denial. When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.
Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 4152
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#25

Post by chasfm11 »

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.

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.
I cannot think of a single situation where that happened and I cannot imagine that the future will offer any change. Even in the case of the Ft. Hood massacre, the individual involved was blatant and still was not addressed. There was not a single person punished for that oversight. Nor will there ever be. The military and the mental health establishment are programmed against preemption.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero

cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#26

Post by cprems »

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".
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
User avatar

psijac
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:08 am

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#27

Post by psijac »

cprems wrote:
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".
Adam Lanza is NOT a good example to cite in favor of this law. it would have functionally did nothing to stop Lanza in anyway. please pick another example


Adam Lanza's Motive: Did Fear Of Being Committed Lead To Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting? (UPDATE)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 29508.html

People will slip through the cracks in this law too. Stop thinking that laws or Government can fix mass shootings. That is the start of your failure to logic
07/25/09 - CHL class completed
07/31/09 - Received Pin/Packet sent.
09/23/09 - Plastic in hand!!
User avatar

lbuehler325
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: DFW-ish

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#28

Post by lbuehler325 »

cprems wrote: 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.
Okay, you seem to question my analytical ability, so I will give you some very simple responses, point by point. By the way, I stand by my hyperbole comment. Too assume this law, if in place in CN or CO,
might have prevented any of the crimes is simply baseless.

"If Lanza was committed". He was not. Period. Had the law been in place, the fact that he was never committed would have, by definition, not made him subject to the law. So, that argument lacks any supporting reasoning. He also violate countless laws to commit his murders; ranging from assault, breaking and entering, theft, carrying a firearm on school property (a 'Gun Free/Crime Free' zone), littering, jaywalking, illegally parking, and, yes, even murder. The notion that another law might have prevented this is simply farcical.

In Aroura, Holmes "could have been involuntarily committed"? On what grounds? Prior to him committing this act, he had no criminal history. To involuntarily commit someone requires an act that would have brought him before a judge, which never happened. He could have been voluntarily committed I suppose, but that requires, oh I don't know, the consent of the person to be committed; which he obviously did not consent. Should he have been reported for threats he might have made or danger that may have been indicated? I'm not sure, but I am sure there is some ridiculous law which outlines how mental health professionals are to legally address such instances already; whether it adequately addresses either public safety or patient confidentiality, I have no clue. But rest assured, this proposed law, if enacted in CO, would have done nothing to stop his crime. He purchased his arms and ammunition through legal means, but had nothing in his past that would have disqualified him under any already passed or pending legislation. The key word is 'past'. Unless we are now able to preempt crime through psychic prognostication, there has to be a presumption of no ill-intent for all citizens.

The guy in NY was a convicted felon, already barred from owning firearms. He used an illegal straw purchase to get his AR. This is just another example of how laws do not stop those intent on committing acts of violence. Let's face it, if he was willing to commit arson and murder (and previously aggravated manslaughter, for which he was a convicted felon), I seriously doubt any straw purchase law was going to stop him going forward (see my previous post about recidivism).

My 'law' to 'stop' these massacres? First, I am not naive enough to believe we can 'stop' these massacres from happening. Evil people will always exist, and they will find ways to commit evil and vile acts. The law I would suggest already exists, and it is as simple as this: "A well regulated (practiced) militia (gaggle of liberty loving citizens), being necessary to the security of a free state (our liberty), the right of the people (us citizens) to keep and bear Arms (firearms, knives, and anything the military should have common access to) shall not be infringed (obstructed)." That means that I get to keep and carry a firearm for my protection and the protection of others (whether from criminals, or the state) if I so choose to do so. It means if I don't care to do that, I am free to not bear arms as well. It may not prevent the next massacre. It may allow some bad people to have access to firearms also. But if I am standing in a crowded room and a crazed gunman busts through the door, I feel a lot better about my chances, and the chances for the folks around me, carrying a firearm than I would without the firearm, and only my state-provided false sense of security.

Clearly, you are of the opinion that there is a magic potion out there, or that 'if it only saves one life', it is worth it. I, however, do not subscribe to that train of thought. The world is not all puppy dogs and rainbows. To think we could make it so is a fantasy. There are bad people out there who wish to do bad things, and the only way to stop them is to stand up to them. And I can think of no law, proposed or passed, that would effectively change the landscape of society as to remove ill-intent from the hearts of evil people. It isn't the prettiest thing to envision, but it is reality.
RLTW!
TX CHL (Formerly licensed in PA, MA, KY)
MOPH, VFW, GOA, NRA, 82nd Airborne Division Association

cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#29

Post by cprems »

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.
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand
User avatar

lbuehler325
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:17 pm
Location: DFW-ish

Re: FL Mental Health Bill

#30

Post by lbuehler325 »

Cprems, then you have to understand that the anti-gunners are looking for a foothold. If they get an inch, they will use that as argument to take a mile. We have to stand on the principles that founded this country. 'common sense gun laws' are anti-gunner speak for tyranny of the majority. The Constitution was founded on the principles articulated in Brittish Common Law, which affirmed the rights/values of the individual. Any laws proposed break down those rights, and it is for this reason, we have to stand together against any further erosion of our individual liberty. Collectivism will destroy this nation, and it will be a shame. I assume part of the reason you either emigrated here, or chose to stay, was for our liberty. Please don't turn on those principles and support legislation that would take liberty and rights away from people without due process.
RLTW!
TX CHL (Formerly licensed in PA, MA, KY)
MOPH, VFW, GOA, NRA, 82nd Airborne Division Association
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”