Connecticut bill proposes single shot

What kind of mental illnesses will keep people from owning firearms?

What about the people dealing with mental illness who just don't seek treatment? What about the ones who are seeking treatment and are adequately medicated?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

What kind of mental illnesses will keep people from owning firearms?

What about the people dealing with mental illness who just don't seek treatment? What about the ones who are seeking treatment and are adequately medicated?

You know my position on guns, but I do agree, that anyone being treated with psycho-altering drugs would be denied/suspended a CCW permit until they are deemed by a doctor to be of sound mind. Same goes for a DOCUMENTED individual with a mental illness. A doctor would need to sign off (and he would be on the legal hook as well)....like I said, my dad is chief of psychiatry at his hospital, and when I visit him, some of the things I see will literally scare the piss out of you. Bipolar, Schizo, etc....those are not things to be messed with. Also, any substance abuse problem will also deny you a CCW permit, such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse (not marijuana), etc and will become may issue based on a shall issue...meaning, if you have been "clean" with no convictions for a pre-set amount of time, you will get it back without question. That to me sounds more than fair and sensible.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

no state rights when it comes to guns

In all honesty, I'm not digging this one at all. States have every right to pass whatever gun laws they want. I believe 46 states have a 2A mirror in their constitutions. I think we'll rue the day we give the feds any more authority than they already have. 2A only limits federal power, hence any ghey executive order being illegal.

If any executive order comes down, Boehner better draw up articles of impeachment. Otherwise he really is as useless as I thought he was.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by dmax

If this is an argument of principle in general about your rights, and you think you've lost enough of them and don't want to give an inch on the others...that's different, and I respect and understand that.

what the fuck do you think i've been talking about?

Originally Posted by Sentaruu

what the fuck do you think i've been talking about?

Hunting

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

You know my position on guns, but I do agree, that anyone being treated with psycho-altering drugs would be denied/suspended a CCW permit until they are deemed by a doctor to be of sound mind. Same goes for a DOCUMENTED individual with a mental illness. A doctor would need to sign off (and he would be on the legal hook as well)....like I said, my dad is chief of psychiatry at his hospital, and when I visit him, some of the things I see will literally scare the piss out of you. Bipolar, Schizo, etc....those are not things to be messed with. Also, any substance abuse problem will also deny you a CCW permit, such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse (not marijuana), etc and will become may issue based on a shall issue...meaning, if you have been "clean" with no convictions for a pre-set amount of time, you will get it back without question. That to me sounds more than fair and sensible.

There are a wide range of severities if bipolar, for starters. Some requiring medication, many (most) not. Most are not dangerous. There are an equally wide range of mood disorders, most people suffering from the are not dangerous. Do we err on the side of caution and say anyone seeking treatment or medicated is unable to carry, and thereby further stigmatize mental illness and keep people from getting help?

Why do you have such a soft spot for marijuana. Keep your activism out of the legal system. A user is a user, whether its booze, weed, pills, huffing paint, snorting coke, etc. Stratifying active users into "dangerous" and "ok" is a slippery slope. Is it suddenly ok for somebody who's high tone carrying, but not somebody who's been drinking? Is the person who's high more in control of their actions than the one who's tipsy?

the term "mental illness" is far too broad to just lump everyone into as not being fit to posess a firearm. you shouldnt be kept from exercising your 2A rights just because your sad and you dont know why.

a person should have to be diagnosed (by a trained professional) with a disorder that presents a clear and present danger to themselves or others, and with a history of violence in order to exclude them from posessing a firearm.

its not fair to just assume that since they have some mental health issues that they are going to go postal and kill everyone... its the same stigma we as gun owners are trying to shake right now. they are no different.

I once again will pass on what I feel is a good "compromise" that my wife talked to me about.

Every person that wants to purchase a firearm goes through a clearance. Just like receiving a clearance to work for the government. They may talk to your employer. Your friends. Your family. Once all of this is cleared and you receive your gun carrying clearance you are free to purchase at your will. Your name and info is in a database that the dealer runs and you take it with you at that time. As many as you want. Whatever you want. Open carry. Conceal carry.

Your clearance needs to be reapplied for every lets just say 3 years. Obviously any crime that is deemed necessary to bar you from owning a gun during that three years would remove you from said database.

Again, only an idea. Would never take. But as someone very pro gun. Living in VA that I have very gun friendly laws, that's something I would be okay with.

as long as there were no gun registrations, just register yourself and thats it. this way the government knows who has guns (which they pretty much know anyway) but not what or how many. also it would only pertain to people who want to buy other firearms, any one who owns a firearm should be allowed to keep the ones they currently have and people who have a CCL or pistol permit should be grandfathered into the "people registry"


or... they can fuck off.

we should be like switzerland and have all able bodied men serve in the armed forces for 2-3 years and then release them and make it mandatory for them to keep their weapon.

Originally Posted by MpoweredM

I once again will pass on what I feel is a good "compromise" that my wife talked to me about.

Every person that wants to purchase a firearm goes through a clearance. Just like receiving a clearance to work for the government. They may talk to your employer. Your friends. Your family. Once all of this is cleared and you receive your gun carrying clearance you are free to purchase at your will. Your name and info is in a database that the dealer runs and you take it with you at that time. As many as you want. Whatever you want. Open carry. Conceal carry.

Your clearance needs to be reapplied for every lets just say 3 years. Obviously any crime that is deemed necessary to bar you from owning a gun during that three years would remove you from said database.

Again, only an idea. Would never take. But as someone very pro gun. Living in VA that I have very gun friendly laws, that's something I would be okay with.

Eh... Like a security clearance investigation?

For a secret, it's really just a credit check and criminal history. No interviews, no nothing.

TS investigations are another matter, where they interview current and past employers, neighbors, friends, etc. but those take a while. My initial paperwork went in in early October, I just had my initial interview (which is the last interview unless they need more information from you specifically) last week. There's a long backlog for clearance investigations. And those background checks are expensive to conduct.

Multiply that by several times and you'll have an even longer backlog. Buying your first pistol will be worse than getting SBR paperwork.

Originally Posted by Sentaruu

we should be like switzerland and have all able bodied men serve in the armed forces for 2-3 years and then release them and make it mandatory for them to keep their weapon.

I can't bring myself to support reinstating the draft. If we do though, it should be universal. Not just men.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

I can't bring myself to support reinstating the draft. If we do though, it should be universal. Not just men.

yea its controversial but i think that it would be good to teach the masses to become proficient with, respect and be comfortable around firearms. it would also teach people that freedom isnt free and that it comes with a price. it would more than likely help people appreciate the freedoms they have and make for a more well balanced society.


or it could all go to hell and we die.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

There are a wide range of severities if bipolar, for starters. Some requiring medication, many (most) not. Most are not dangerous. There are an equally wide range of mood disorders, most people suffering from the are not dangerous. Do we err on the side of caution and say anyone seeking treatment or medicated is unable to carry, and thereby further stigmatize mental illness and keep people from getting help?

Why do you have such a soft spot for marijuana. Keep your activism out of the legal system. A user is a user, whether its booze, weed, pills, huffing paint, snorting coke, etc. Stratifying active users into "dangerous" and "ok" is a slippery slope. Is it suddenly ok for somebody who's high tone carrying, but not somebody who's been drinking? Is the person who's high more in control of their actions than the one who's tipsy?

First of all, I have never smoked weed in my life. I don't care about it. I don't like it being illegal simply due to the black market and overcrowded prisons, nothing else. Second, you're right. Any substance abuse problem which caused an individual to have a record (an alcoholic legally can only be branded as such after a related crime) should be grounds for CCW removal/denial.

You are misinterpreting what I wrote. I didn't say don't let a guy with a 25 pack in him carry a gun. I said don't let a guy who haD a 25 pack in him and beat his wife, beat up a cabbie, etc, and was arrested AND convicted for it will face a penalty (off the top of my head, say 3 years of CCW probation.)

Originally Posted by MpoweredM

I once again will pass on what I feel is a good "compromise" that my wife talked to me about.

Every person that wants to purchase a firearm goes through a clearance. Just like receiving a clearance to work for the government. They may talk to your employer. Your friends. Your family. Once all of this is cleared and you receive your gun carrying clearance you are free to purchase at your will. Your name and info is in a database that the dealer runs and you take it with you at that time. As many as you want. Whatever you want. Open carry. Conceal carry.

Your clearance needs to be reapplied for every lets just say 3 years. Obviously any crime that is deemed necessary to bar you from owning a gun during that three years would remove you from said database.

Again, only an idea. Would never take. But as someone very pro gun. Living in VA that I have very gun friendly laws, that's something I would be okay with.

Not a chance. Your rights should not rest in the hands of another individual, regardless of who they are, with the exception of a doctor/mental illness clearance.

Originally Posted by Sentaruu

what the fuck do you think i've been talking about?

I thought that at first, then I read the stuff about Hitler, and next the stuff about tyrants exterminating you. How am I supposed to know if you fear your rights being stolen or going to a camp because you don't have a gun to protect yourself?

Also, you know, you're wearing a gas mask with tin foil lining as near as I can figure. What do you think I'm supposed to think you're thinking about? I just want to think the right thing so you don't shoot me is all!

If we ever meet, I'll guy you a beer and bring along a straw cut at an angle so we can give it to you through your mouthpiece like a juice bag.

We good?

Originally Posted by Sentaruu

yea its controversial but i think that it would be good to teach the masses to become proficient with, respect and be comfortable around firearms. it would also teach people that freedom isnt free and that it comes with a price. it would more than likely help people appreciate the freedoms they have and make for a more well balanced society.


or it could all go to hell and we die.

Conscriptees generally aren't excited to serve, and aren't usually left with patriotic and loving feelings towards the country that forced them to leave their lives and go to a foreign country and kill strangers. Joining the military to learn respect for a firearm is kind of like going to the MLB to learn how to catch a ball.

We're doing just fine with an all-volunteer force.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

First of all, I have never smoked weed in my life. I don't care about it. I don't like it being illegal simply due to the black market and overcrowded prisons, nothing else. Second, you're right. Any substance abuse problem which caused an individual to have a record (an alcoholic legally can only be branded as such after a related crime) should be grounds for CCW removal/denial.

You are misinterpreting what I wrote. I didn't say don't let a guy with a 25 pack in him carry a gun. I said don't let a guy who haD a 25 pack in him and beat his wife, beat up a cabbie, etc, and was arrested AND convicted for it will face a penalty (off the top of my head, say 3 years of CCW probation.)

The guy in your example already has a lifetime ban from lawful firearm ownership thanks to the Lautenberg amendment. No extra law will have prevented him from beating his wife or the can driver. Put him in prison, yes. But if we're letting him out, we're saying he's rehabilitated and he's paid his debt to society, right? Why should his rights be further restricted?

If he's still a danger to others, why let him out?

Because a revolving judicial system is very profitable

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Conscriptees generally aren't excited to serve, and aren't usually left with patriotic and loving feelings towards the country that forced them to leave their lives and go to a foreign country and kill strangers. Joining the military to learn respect for a firearm is kind of like going to the MLB to learn how to catch a ball.

We're doing just fine with an all-volunteer force.

True all of that...but, one thing a conscript army does for our country is ensure that we don't go to war willy nilly. Charlie Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft a few years ago...he didn't even vote for it himself. But, when Senator's kids are in the Army, it makes for a more vigorous debate, which those who stand in harm's way deserve.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

The guy in your example already has a lifetime ban from lawful firearm ownership thanks to the Lautenberg amendment. No extra law will have prevented him from beating his wife or the can driver. Put him in prison, yes. But if we're letting him out, we're saying he's rehabilitated and he's paid his debt to society, right? Why should his rights be further restricted?

If he's still a danger to others, why let him out?

Because we can't keep people in prison for life but we can forbid them from Having a firearm. I have zero problems with not allowing anyone convicted of ANY violent crime to have their second amendment stripped for life.