Lawmakers and Gov. Inslee push for more statewide gun measures

[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.

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).

 Isn't that what you are doing here?

 

I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights.  Law is passed

 

[wooltie]

 Isn't that what you are doing here?

 

I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights.  Law is passed

 
[/quote]

Somebody earlier asked who determines which conditions warrant a loss of rights, and I responded that I think legislatures and the executive by passing laws, and the courts by determining the law's meaning, collectively determine the scope of rights.

I am acknowledging the legal/political system that currently exists.

I wouldn't ask someone to let the courts determine the scope of their rights because the courts already do this.  Indeed, the courts have had this power since 1803 but didn't actually exercise the power until several decades later.  I guess I just don't understand your question.   

[JimmyHoffa]

Have you guys ever looked at the tests that get used to see if someone is like a psychopath or sociopath (among other mental illnesses)?  Questions like:  Do you get angry?  Have you ever said anything mean?  Have you ever hurt or killed an animal?  Have you ever been in a violent confrontation?  Etc.  Really loose test, bet 99.99% of the country would be considered ill by some of those tests.

[huntnphool]

 Isn't that what you are doing here?

 

I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights.  Law is passed

 

Somebody earlier asked who determines which conditions warrant a loss of rights, and I responded that I think legislatures and the executive by passing laws, and the courts by determining the law's meaning, collectively determine the scope of rights.

I am acknowledging the legal/political system that currently exists.

I wouldn't ask someone to let the courts determine the scope of their rights because the courts already do this.  Indeed, the courts have had this power since 1803 but didn't actually exercise the power until several decades later.  I guess I just don't understand your question.   
[/quote]

 I think you do, but okay.

 It's not the courts job to legistlate from the bench.....period.

 Still waiting for you to answer my other question and post up your facts.

[wooltie]

 Isn't that what you are doing here?

 

I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights.  Law is passed

 

Somebody earlier asked who determines which conditions warrant a loss of rights, and I responded that I think legislatures and the executive by passing laws, and the courts by determining the law's meaning, collectively determine the scope of rights.

I am acknowledging the legal/political system that currently exists.

I wouldn't ask someone to let the courts determine the scope of their rights because the courts already do this.  Indeed, the courts have had this power since 1803 but didn't actually exercise the power until several decades later.  I guess I just don't understand your question.   

 I think you do, but okay.

 It's not the courts job to legistlate from the bench.....period.

 Still waiting for you to answer my other question and post up your facts.
[/quote]

I think the court's role is to say what the law is.  The output of this role has the effect of changing laws.  I've never had someone explain to me how legislating from the bench differs from interpretation and uncovering the law's meaning.  Seems like people claim a court 'legislates from the bench' whenever they disagree with the court's ruling.

I don't have facts or figures on trends in shootings.  They happen, we know this.  At what frequency, I don't know.  Are shootings at historic highs or epidemic levels?  I don't know.  At what point do we say that we're done seeing public places and businesses shot up?  How many have to occur per year, day, month, in a location, how many victims, etc before people would consider change.  Question is at what point do we consider doing something intended to prevent more shootings from occurring. 

I mean, I don't have a number.  Do you?

[Curly]

Seems like one easy way to prevent some of the shootings that have happened is to stop having "gun free" zones such as shopping malls, moving theaters, schools, etc.   That would be unlikely to happen in a liberal heavy state like WA though.........makes too mush sense.

[Fl0und3rz]

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.

At this point, I think we can all agree that we will not agree on who and how those whos should be limited access to firearms. 

Another example is obama's SSI recipient ban, which I also do not agree with.

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/12/23/obama-administration-finalizes-social-security-gun-ban/

[Fl0und3rz]

At what point do we say that we're done seeing public places and businesses shot up?  How many have to occur per year, day, month, in a location, how many victims, etc before people would consider change.  Question is at what point do we consider doing something intended to prevent more shootings from occurring. 

That's a good question.  Are you in favor of ceasing all immigration and travel from terror-risk countries?  Seems like they've racked up the biggest body counts in the last eight years or so.  How about tackling Chicago's and other oppressive-2A regimes' out of control murder rates?  Might as well get the most bang for your buck, right?

 

[huntnphool]

 Isn't that what you are doing here?

 

I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights.  Law is passed

 

Somebody earlier asked who determines which conditions warrant a loss of rights, and I responded that I think legislatures and the executive by passing laws, and the courts by determining the law's meaning, collectively determine the scope of rights.

I am acknowledging the legal/political system that currently exists.

I wouldn't ask someone to let the courts determine the scope of their rights because the courts already do this.  Indeed, the courts have had this power since 1803 but didn't actually exercise the power until several decades later.  I guess I just don't understand your question.   

 I think you do, but okay.

 It's not the courts job to legistlate from the bench.....period.

 Still waiting for you to answer my other question and post up your facts.

I think the court's role is to say what the law is.  The output of this role has the effect of changing laws.  I've never had someone explain to me how legislating from the bench differs from interpretation and uncovering the law's meaning.  Seems like people claim a court 'legislates from the bench' whenever they disagree with the court's ruling.

I don't have facts or figures on trends in shootings.  They happen, we know this.  At what frequency, I don't know.  Are shootings at historic highs or epidemic levels?  I don't know.  At what point do we say that we're done seeing public places and businesses shot up?  How many have to occur per year, day, month, in a location, how many victims, etc before people would consider change.  Question is at what point do we consider doing something intended to prevent more shootings from occurring. 

I mean, I don't have a number.  Do you?
[/quote]

 I don't, but then I'm not the one that suggested there is a "shooting problem" either!

Seems like one easy way to prevent some of the shootings that have happened is to stop having "gun free" zones such as shopping malls, moving theaters, schools, etc.   That would be unlikely to happen in a liberal heavy state like WA though.........makes too mush sense.

 Good point, what is the frequency of occurrence at "gun free" happy thought zones vs no restriction areas?

[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.

At this point, I think we can all agree that we will not agree on who and how those whos should be limited access to firearms. 

Another example is obama's SSI recipient ban, which I also do not agree with.

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/12/23/obama-administration-finalizes-social-security-gun-ban/

I'm fine with that.  But if we can agree that access is part of the problem then I'd say that's a good start. 

I think another problem is that the current system in place doesn't easily allow us to identify and determine that a dude shouldn't have access to a firearm.

Obama's proposal is a case in point, and I don't like it either.  I see where he's going with it based upon the federal law definition cited, but just because you have difficulty managing your finances doesn't mean you are mentally unfit to own and operate a firearm.

Now I don't have a definition for 'mentally unfit' so please don't press me to define that either.   

 

[huntnphool]

  Wooltie, don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of the mentally ill having unfettered access to weapons.

 The issue for me is how can we trust giving a inch to legislators, when so many of them want to remove our rights, and are constantly looking for any and all ways to do it?

[wooltie]

  Wooltie, don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of the mentally ill having unfettered access to weapons.

 The issue for me is how can we trust giving a inch to legislators, when so many of them want to remove our rights, and are constantly looking for any and all ways to do it?

And I didn't think you, or any person here today favors that type of unfettered access.  I think the solutions we need can't be realized until system changes occur--the processes, forms, and procedures agencies follow to ensure that 'the mentally unfit types' can't access firearms.

Most gun ctrl advocates get it wrong.  And many gun advocates wrongly think that the 2A is off limits to reasonable regulation to protect the public IMHO.  The answer is in the middle.

Mistrust is our representatives is probably at an all time high.  I share the same concern as you.  We have to hold them accountable by being involved in the legislative process, getting the money out of making laws, and voting them out when they do not meet our expectations.  It is a truism that everyone hates Congress but loves their Congressperson.  That's how the same...persons...get into office term after term.

I mean Vincent Buys up here in Whatcom County is sponsoring that Fed land transfer bill and I would bet lunch only a small fraction realize the bills intent and consequences.  Sure, everyone up here likes him because he's a nice guy who goes to church on Sunday and preaches 'family values'.  Now, I'm not knocking going to church or 'family values'; I'm simply stating that his values align to some of his constituent's values in this regard, which is in part why they voted for him.

But here he is sponsoring a bill that I bet most of this constituents would oppose if they knew about its consequences.  So can he be trusted?  Is he acting in his district's best interest or acting to lead his district down a path that it needs to go?

[CP]

It is a truism that everyone hates Congress but loves their Congressperson.

Actually I can't stand any of my congress-people

[pianoman9701]

We're fortunate in Clark Co. that all of our reps are conservatives. We must choose politicians who have experience with firearms and are extremely cautious about any legislation which puts the decision of whether I can own a firearm in the hands of someone not qualified to make that decision. I'm very leery of politicians who try to legislate mental health mandates with regard to our individual rights. Although I agree that someone who's mentally unstable shouldn't be able to own a firearm, the person or people who make that determination should be psychiatrists. This is why it's tough to come up with laws that make these determinations. There is no one-size-fits all description of mental instability which translates to danger to themselves or society. And regardless of the testimony of laypeople (relatives, lawyers, or whatever), we need to be very sure before permanently removing Constitutional rights. Yes there are people who should not be able to own a firearm. I think even most felons who've done their time and parole without recidivism should be considered for having rights restored unless they've been deemed (by a psychiatry professional) a danger to themselves or society.

[Fl0und3rz]

But if we can agree that access is part of the problem then I'd say that's a good start. 

I am not ready to concede that, because as phool points out, a determined individual will gain access to firearms or other tools, regardless of how many innocent individuals' rights are swept up in prior restraints on law-abiding citizens.  It is not the tool, it is the person.

I think another problem is that the current system in place doesn't easily allow us to identify and determine that a dude shouldn't have access to a firearm.

The best way to handle individual cases - which is what we are talking about here - is through the courts, not through necessarily one-size fits nobody legislative mandates administered by bureaucrats, where the innocent bear the financial and liberty burden of somebody else's great idea of feel good legislation.  Courts are uniquely suited to determining individual disputes and factual and legal issues arising therefrom.  That is why they have a fact-finding role, and they are an integral part of a person's due process rights.  Expediency through legislation seeks to dispense with that due process, most of the time, at the expense of the innocent, primarily.

I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

Obama's proposal is a case in point, and I don't like it either.  I see where he's going with it based upon the federal law definition cited, but just because you have difficulty managing your finances doesn't mean you are mentally unfit to own and operate a firearm. 

Exactly.  If people around the individual are concerned that a person is a danger to themselves or others, I'd favor procedures to have them declared mentally incompetent or a ward of the state, with adequate due process protections and safeguards to prevent abuse and unjust damages to innocent individuals. 

Otherwise, it is no business of the federal government to keep a database of so-called "mental defectives."  We toss those ideas about the left or right all the time, and it is only a matter of time before possessing a gun is declared a sign of mental defect in itself, if it has not already been declared so.