Lawmakers and Gov. Inslee push for more statewide gun measures

[wooltie]

I think we can all agree that some persons should not be permitted access to firearms.  Those persons who legally cannot purchase a firearm from a FFL come to mind. 

Like marijuana users?

Sure.  Might as well group in marijuana users with the light beer drinkers.

[Fl0und3rz]

The point is that judging 2A access by whether FFL purchase is legal is putting the cart before the horse.  Marijuana was just a convenient example.  Don't get paranoid. 

[wooltie]

The point is that judging 2A access by whether FFL purchase is legal is putting the cart before the horse.  Marijuana was just a convenient example.  Don't get paranoid. 

I was being sarcastic. 

[Fl0und3rz]

Me too.  Hunt-WA needs a sarcasm tag. 

[wooltie]

I think I understand what you're saying. 

The 2A provides an individual right to have and use guns.  Pretty simple.  That does not mean the right cannot be regulated--the right can be limited in scope, as well as expanded in scope.  Example, some persons legally cannot buy or own guns.  Of course, they can access guns in other ways, but then they are breaking the law by doing so.

[Fl0und3rz]

No.  ATF proscribes possession and sale to Marijuana users. You say we can agree on that basis about who has 2A rights.  I disagree.

[huntnphool]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

[Blacktail Sniper]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

Who would you recommend to make such decisions? 

[huntnphool]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

Who would you recommend to make such decisions?

 That is the question wooltie is being asked.

[wooltie]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

Who would you recommend to make such decisions?

 That is the question wooltie is being asked.

I think the only mechanism currently available is a licensed professional (a Dr, psychiatrist/psychologist) who is qualified to evaluate and diagnose a person's mental health condition. 

I'm not qualified. 

And I'm not suggesting that a mental health exam is required to purchase a firearm. 

But the problem remains that some people who have mental issues and access to firearms have been involved in shootings.  Mental health is a root cause of these persons' actions in some cases.  Restricting these persons' access to firearms is an immediate correction.

[huntnphool]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

Who would you recommend to make such decisions?

 That is the question wooltie is being asked.

I think the only mechanism currently available is a licensed professional (a Dr, psychiatrist/psychologist) who is qualified to evaluate and diagnose a person's mental health condition. 

I'm not qualified. 

And I'm not suggesting that a mental health exam is required to purchase a firearm. 

But the problem remains that some people who have mental issues and access to firearms have been involved in shootings.  Mental health is a root cause of these persons' actions in some cases.  Restricting these persons' access to firearms is an immediate correction.

 Do you also deny them access to vehicles?...How about knives?...or Rocks?

 Who determines which conditions warrant a loss of rights?

 Maybe we simply institutionalize anyone that a Dr. identifies as having a "mental health condition"?

[wooltie]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

Who would you recommend to make such decisions?

 That is the question wooltie is being asked.

I think the only mechanism currently available is a licensed professional (a Dr, psychiatrist/psychologist) who is qualified to evaluate and diagnose a person's mental health condition. 

I'm not qualified. 

And I'm not suggesting that a mental health exam is required to purchase a firearm. 

But the problem remains that some people who have mental issues and access to firearms have been involved in shootings.  Mental health is a root cause of these persons' actions in some cases.  Restricting these persons' access to firearms is an immediate correction.

 Do you also deny them access to vehicles?...How about knives?...or Rocks?

 Who determines which conditions warrant a loss of rights?

 Maybe we simply institutionalize anyone that a Dr. identifies as having a "mental health condition"?

You could.  But denying a person with mental health issues access to rocks or knives seems like an inappropriate response to the shooting problem.

I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights.  Law is passed.  Somebody sues.  Case ends up in the courts.  The courts say what the law is.

I don't think we need to institutionalize everyone with a mental health condition, but mental health issues are real, and I'd bet many people don't receive the help they need.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

Who would you recommend to make such decisions?

 That is the question wooltie is being asked.

Correct, was aware of that, was wondering if you had an opinion on who should be allowed to make this type determination. 

Wasn't trying to start anything negative, just looking for different input/ideas on who or what would qualify for such decisions.

I have a feeling that it is going to come to things like this sooner, rather than later and wondering if there may be a palatable way to head off some of the stupidness that is sure to come.

[huntnphool]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

Who would you recommend to make such decisions?

 That is the question wooltie is being asked.

I think the only mechanism currently available is a licensed professional (a Dr, psychiatrist/psychologist) who is qualified to evaluate and diagnose a person's mental health condition. 

I'm not qualified. 

And I'm not suggesting that a mental health exam is required to purchase a firearm. 

But the problem remains that some people who have mental issues and access to firearms have been involved in shootings.  Mental health is a root cause of these persons' actions in some cases.  Restricting these persons' access to firearms is an immediate correction.

 Do you also deny them access to vehicles?...How about knives?...or Rocks?

 Who determines which conditions warrant a loss of rights?

 Maybe we simply institutionalize anyone that a Dr. identifies as having a "mental health condition"?

You could.  But denying a person with mental health issues access to rocks or knives seems like an inappropriate response to the shooting problem.

I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights.  Law is passed.  Somebody sues.  Case ends up in the courts.  The courts say what the law is.

 What "shooting problem"?....please explain and supply us with the evidence of this epidemic.

 You ask us to put our rights in the hands of the courts, meanwhile we sit waiting while the 9th circus "legistlates" and makes a mockery of the system, on a issue that is black and white, all based on ideological politics.

 Our rights should not be left up to, and at risk of, a ideological majority of a court.

[wooltie]

Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)

 And who determines stability/predictability?

Who would you recommend to make such decisions?

 That is the question wooltie is being asked.

I think the only mechanism currently available is a licensed professional (a Dr, psychiatrist/psychologist) who is qualified to evaluate and diagnose a person's mental health condition. 

I'm not qualified. 

And I'm not suggesting that a mental health exam is required to purchase a firearm. 

But the problem remains that some people who have mental issues and access to firearms have been involved in shootings.  Mental health is a root cause of these persons' actions in some cases.  Restricting these persons' access to firearms is an immediate correction.

 Do you also deny them access to vehicles?...How about knives?...or Rocks?

 Who determines which conditions warrant a loss of rights?

 Maybe we simply institutionalize anyone that a Dr. identifies as having a "mental health condition"?

You could.  But denying a person with mental health issues access to rocks or knives seems like an inappropriate response to the shooting problem.

I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights.  Law is passed.  Somebody sues.  Case ends up in the courts.  The courts say what the law is.

 What "shooting problem"?....please explain and supply us with the evidence of this epidemic.

 You ask us to put our rights in the hands of the courts, meanwhile we sit waiting while the 9th circus "legistlates" and makes a mockery of the system, on a issue that is black and white, all based on ideological politics.

 Our rights should not be left up to, and at risk of, a ideological majority of a court.

I wouldn't ask anyone to put their rights in hands of courts because rights have been in the hands of courts since 1803 (Marbury).