Post by: JDHasty on February 03, 2017, 09:15:24 AM
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/lawmakers-and-inslee-push-for-more-statewide-gun-measures/
Post by: KFhunter on February 03, 2017, 09:22:55 AM
Inslee has surrounded himself with people who feel the same as he feels, he parrots what he hears - thinking he's doing the work of his people. This is how Trump was elected, liberals have created for themselves a giant echo chamber where rational people don't belong and aren't welcome.
Post by: sumpnz on February 03, 2017, 09:37:52 AM
Quote
Democratic Rep. Laurie Jinkins of Tacoma, the sponsor of House Bill 1387, said her bill aims to prevent accidental and mass shootings in Washington state. Under the measure, a person would have to be 21 years old to purchase an assault weapon, would be required to undergo an expanded background check similar to those required for concealed weapons, attend an education course and go through the renewal process every year.
:puke:
Post by: saylean on February 03, 2017, 09:46:43 AM
It's time for counties to declare themselves to be Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties, then tell Insle to GTHOH and mind your own business and we will mind ours.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/lawmakers-and-inslee-push-for-more-statewide-gun-measures/
Sanctuary 2nd amendment cities....love it!
Post by: baker5150 on February 03, 2017, 10:01:35 AM
What an idiotic thing to say, since when does a law "ask" anyone to do anything.
If you wanted to "simply ask" then ask, don't pass a law demanding it.
I swear there must be a requirement for mental deficiency to be Governor of this state.
Post by: SkookumHntr on February 03, 2017, 10:37:25 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 03, 2017, 10:49:44 AM
Post by: Stein on February 03, 2017, 11:36:37 AM
I think we should pass a bill that says that any limitations imposed upon 2A rights are also imposed upon voting rights. If it is too much to ask to show an ID at the polling booth, you shouldn't have to show one at the gun counter. Let's close that loophole.
Post by: Stein on February 03, 2017, 11:38:37 AM
Quote
Inslee said there’s a loophole in the state’s law that doesn’t require background checks for assault weapons.
I guess we don't call out all politician's "alternate realities."
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 03, 2017, 11:39:50 AM
*deletes*
Post by: CP on February 03, 2017, 11:41:06 AM
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1387&Year=2017
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5463&Year=2017
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 03, 2017, 11:41:33 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 03, 2017, 11:59:18 AM
Post by: brush hunter on February 03, 2017, 12:46:34 PM
Quote from: pianoman9701 link=topic=208552.msg
2776042#msg2776042 date=1486151958
2776042#msg2776042 date=1486151958
This will hurt Inslee's credibility. He's so stupid and now, it's obvious to even his supporters. Maybe this will help us defeat these monstrosities.
It would be nice if this were true, but the brain-dead liberals will believe every word he says while they drink their Starbucks Kool-Aid.
Post by: wooltie on February 03, 2017, 01:02:39 PM
However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime. In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.
I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.
Post by: Lucky1 on February 03, 2017, 01:18:36 PM
Laws requiring firearm owners to secure their firearms when not in use (i.e. keep your guns in a safe) won't have the immediate effect people think it will. Duh, right? The law won't directly prevent people from accessing firearms because most people simply won't follow the law in all cases. Moreover, the state can't enforce this law. In this regard, the law sounds feel good ridiculous.Did you read the proposed law? It does a lot more than require people to lock up their guns.
However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime. In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.
I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.
Also, by your logic if you leave your keys on your dresser and someone takes them, steals your car and runs over a bunch of little kids at a bus stop, you are responsible for the " horrendous crime and should be prosecuted.
You think we need to punish someone who had their gun stolen, do you think we should also punish the person who committed the " horrendous crime?
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 03, 2017, 01:22:26 PM
Quote from: pianoman9701 link=topic=208552.msg
2776042#msg2776042 date=1486151958This will hurt Inslee's credibility. He's so stupid and now, it's obvious to even his supporters. Maybe this will help us defeat these monstrosities.
It would be nice if this were true, but the brain-dead liberals will believe every word he says while they drink their Starbucks Kool-Aid.
I'm not so sure. Liberals are buying more guns now. They're not going to want to give that up with all us rednecks being already stocked up and all.
Post by: wooltie on February 03, 2017, 01:25:39 PM
Laws requiring firearm owners to secure their firearms when not in use (i.e. keep your guns in a safe) won't have the immediate effect people think it will. Duh, right? The law won't directly prevent people from accessing firearms because most people simply won't follow the law in all cases. Moreover, the state can't enforce this law. In this regard, the law sounds feel good ridiculous.Did you read the proposed law? It does a lot more than require people to lock up their guns.
However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime. In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.
I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.
Also, by your logic if you leave your keys on your dresser and someone takes them, steals your car and runs over a bunch of little kids at a bus stop, you are responsible for the " horrendous crime and should be prosecuted.
You think we need to punish someone who had their gun stolen, do you think we should also punish the person who committed the " horrendous crime?
I haven't read the law, so I can't say I support what is being proposed. Obviously, you need to examine all aspects of the proposal to identify all the other crap that is rammed in there. But in general, I would support requiring firearms to be secure to prevent access when not in use.
You are correct that the logic does hold, however, people are not stealing cars and running over groups of children. Whereas, people are killing other people using guns that they had access to which were not their own. Since this is a systemic problem, we need to try different solutions to correct and prevent the problem until the problem subsides.
I guarantee you if people were stealing cars and running over groups of people, children at bus stops, children walking home from skool, to point where it was a systemic problem, then society and industry would respond by creating ways to prevent people from stealing cars.
But because stealing cares and running over people is not a systemic problem, we have not created laws to encourage people to change their behavior w/respect to locking their car doors or using club.
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 03, 2017, 01:35:24 PM
Post by: CP on February 03, 2017, 01:40:34 PM
Post by: wooltie on February 03, 2017, 01:55:24 PM
Hunters should be particularly interested in SB 5463, how many of us store firearms in our vehicles while we are in a restaurant, store, hunting, etc? A jury may well rule that we “reasonably should know, that a prohibited person is likely to gain access”
Securing your firearm in a vehicle via a lock box, safe, or trigger/cable lock would absolve you of any liability in the event a prohibited person accesses your firearm and commits the crime, per this bill.
Post by: lord grizzly on February 03, 2017, 02:08:36 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2017, 02:16:53 PM
Laws requiring firearm owners to secure their firearms when not in use (i.e. keep your guns in a safe) won't have the immediate effect people think it will. Duh, right? The law won't directly prevent people from accessing firearms because most people simply won't follow the law in all cases. Moreover, the state can't enforce this law. In this regard, the law sounds feel good ridiculous.Did you read the proposed law? It does a lot more than require people to lock up their guns.
However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime. In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.
I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.
Also, by your logic if you leave your keys on your dresser and someone takes them, steals your car and runs over a bunch of little kids at a bus stop, you are responsible for the " horrendous crime and should be prosecuted.
You think we need to punish someone who had their gun stolen, do you think we should also punish the person who committed the " horrendous crime?
people are not stealing cars and running over groups of children.
But because stealing cares and running over people is not a systemic problem
Post by: JBar on February 03, 2017, 02:53:16 PM
Make sure that you comment on these bills.Comment on the companion bills also! Inslee is an idiot, last time I checked you fill out the same paperwork for an "assualt weapon" as you do any other gun. So to say there is no back ground check for assault weapons is a LIE!! :bash:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1387&Year=2017
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5463&Year=2017
Post by: KFhunter on February 03, 2017, 02:57:24 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on February 03, 2017, 04:27:27 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more than I do. People stealing guns and using them in horrendous shootings is NOT a systemic problem. I am out.Laws requiring firearm owners to secure their firearms when not in use (i.e. keep your guns in a safe) won't have the immediate effect people think it will. Duh, right? The law won't directly prevent people from accessing firearms because most people simply won't follow the law in all cases. Moreover, the state can't enforce this law. In this regard, the law sounds feel good ridiculous.Did you read the proposed law? It does a lot more than require people to lock up their guns.
However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime. In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.
I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.
Also, by your logic if you leave your keys on your dresser and someone takes them, steals your car and runs over a bunch of little kids at a bus stop, you are responsible for the " horrendous crime and should be prosecuted.
You think we need to punish someone who had their gun stolen, do you think we should also punish the person who committed the " horrendous crime?
I haven't read the law, so I can't say I support what is being proposed. Obviously, you need to examine all aspects of the proposal to identify all the other crap that is rammed in there. But in general, I would support requiring firearms to be secure to prevent access when not in use.
You are correct that the logic does hold, however, people are not stealing cars and running over groups of children. Whereas, people are killing other people using guns that they had access to which were not their own. Since this is a systemic problem, we need to try different solutions to correct and prevent the problem until the problem subsides.
I guarantee you if people were stealing cars and running over groups of people, children at bus stops, children walking home from skool, to point where it was a systemic problem, then society and industry would respond by creating ways to prevent people from stealing cars.
But because stealing cares and running over people is not a systemic problem, we have not created laws to encourage people to change their behavior w/respect to locking their car doors or using club.
Post by: smittyJ on February 04, 2017, 07:16:30 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 04, 2017, 07:20:49 AM
Post by: smittyJ on February 04, 2017, 07:29:38 AM
Melted down would render them secure, which is always the end goal.Yep!
Post by: SpringerFan on February 04, 2017, 08:47:26 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on February 04, 2017, 08:48:31 AM
Inslee is so stupid he makes my hair hurt.
Had dinner with him like 20 years ago at a sportsman's club meeting in the Tri Cities just before he lost to Doc Hastings. He is beyond stupid. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 04, 2017, 09:42:04 AM
"We've seen that when someone wants to kill lots of people, the tool they use is inconsequential. Nice, France: On Bastille day last year, 85 people were killed and more than 200 wounded. The killer's tool: a rental truck. OK City Federal building bombing in 1995. 593 wounded and 168 dead. The killer's tool: A rental truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel. In Chicago where some of the nation's strictest gun laws were enacted, gun murders have been on a constant upward spiral. The Chicago police commissioner finally admits that "the gun laws don't work". At a time of increasing violence in our nation, rioting in our streets, and an overall lack of respect for human life, restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is criminal. Do not penalize me for the acts of criminals and expect it to do any good. We know it won't decrease gun violence. It'll encourage it. Thank you for your consideration of my views."
Post by: KFhunter on February 04, 2017, 10:09:59 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on February 04, 2017, 11:10:25 AM
Sent to my representatives.This is a good letter & I have sent many similar to my reps but always add they need to enforce current laws with stiff penalties for guns crimes.
"We've seen that when someone wants to kill lots of people, the tool they use is inconsequential. Nice, France: On Bastille day last year, 85 people were killed and more than 200 wounded. The killer's tool: a rental truck. OK City Federal building bombing in 1995. 593 wounded and 168 dead. The killer's tool: A rental truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel. In Chicago where some of the nation's strictest gun laws were enacted, gun murders have been on a constant upward spiral. The Chicago police commissioner finally admits that "the gun laws don't work". At a time of increasing violence in our nation, rioting in our streets, and an overall lack of respect for human life, restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is criminal. Do not penalize me for the acts of criminals and expect it to do any good. We know it won't decrease gun violence. It'll encourage it. Thank you for your consideration of my views."
Post by: Romeo 2-6 on February 04, 2017, 11:13:57 AM
It's time for counties to declare themselves to be Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties, then tell Insle to GTHOH and mind your own business and we will mind ours.Now that's a great idea and hard for them to argue against since they are ignoring federal supremacy. Works both ways.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/lawmakers-and-inslee-push-for-more-statewide-gun-measures/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bullkllr on February 04, 2017, 11:32:03 AM
Inslee is definetly the worst governor in my lifetime! >:(:yeah:
And there were a couple times before I didn't think it could get any worse, so that's sayin' something.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 04, 2017, 11:35:00 AM
Isn't that the truth....I think having even Gregoire back would be a vast improvement over Inslee.Inslee is definetly the worst governor in my lifetime! >:(:yeah:
And there were a couple times before I didn't think it could get any worse, so that's sayin' something.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 04, 2017, 11:41:14 AM
most of the violence is coming from the left, not the right who cling to bibles and guns.
I would suggest that neither the "Left" nor the "right" has any monopoly on violence, bibles, or guns. People who commit violence are criminals and violent criminals don't often vote one way or another because they don't care about our country. What counts most in this fight is clinging to the Constitution. There are a good many of us godless heathens who are still conservative. There are a good many on the left who believe in God and in the right to bear arms as an individual right. Our sources of allies are sometimes unexpected. This is very similar to having someone understand why we hunt and why it's good. We should be mindful that increasing the number of allies we have is going to take empathy, knowledge, and an approach which is inclusive, not confrontational. Respectfully KF, pigeonholing people based on politics will not achieve that.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 04, 2017, 12:13:57 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2017, 08:33:01 PM
Sent to my representatives.
"We've seen that when someone wants to kill lots of people, the tool they use is inconsequential. Nice, France: On Bastille day last year, 85 people were killed and more than 200 wounded. The killer's tool: a rental truck. OK City Federal building bombing in 1995. 593 wounded and 168 dead. The killer's tool: A rental truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel. In Chicago where some of the nation's strictest gun laws were enacted, gun murders have been on a constant upward spiral. The Chicago police commissioner finally admits that "the gun laws don't work". At a time of increasing violence in our nation, rioting in our streets, and an overall lack of respect for human life, restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is criminal. Do not penalize me for the acts of criminals and expect it to do any good. We know it won't decrease gun violence. It'll encourage it. Thank you for your consideration of my views."
Lest we forget jetliners and the tragedy of 9/11!
Post by: greenhead_killer on February 04, 2017, 09:22:02 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2017, 07:44:22 AM
Sent to my representatives.
"We've seen that when someone wants to kill lots of people, the tool they use is inconsequential. Nice, France: On Bastille day last year, 85 people were killed and more than 200 wounded. The killer's tool: a rental truck. OK City Federal building bombing in 1995. 593 wounded and 168 dead. The killer's tool: A rental truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel. In Chicago where some of the nation's strictest gun laws were enacted, gun murders have been on a constant upward spiral. The Chicago police commissioner finally admits that "the gun laws don't work". At a time of increasing violence in our nation, rioting in our streets, and an overall lack of respect for human life, restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is criminal. Do not penalize me for the acts of criminals and expect it to do any good. We know it won't decrease gun violence. It'll encourage it. Thank you for your consideration of my views."
Lest we forget jetliners and the tragedy of 9/11!
I haven't.
Post by: shotguunar on February 05, 2017, 10:46:56 AM
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 08:24:54 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 08, 2017, 08:27:54 AM
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?
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 08:29:45 AM
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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 08, 2017, 08:40:52 AM
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 09:07:23 AM
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. :chuckle:
I was being sarcastic.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 08, 2017, 09:09:12 AM
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 09:16:33 AM
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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 08, 2017, 09:22:26 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 08, 2017, 09:56:30 AM
Other persons probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access (e.g. mentally unstable/unpredictable persons)
And who determines stability/predictability?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on February 08, 2017, 09:59:44 AM
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?
Post by: huntnphool on February 08, 2017, 10:05:52 AM
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.
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 10:28:22 AM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on February 08, 2017, 10:35:22 AM
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"?
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 10:45:20 AM
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.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on February 08, 2017, 10:49:37 AM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on February 08, 2017, 11:05:59 AM
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. :twocents:
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 11:16:05 AM
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. :twocents:
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).
Post by: huntnphool on February 08, 2017, 11:19:26 AM
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. :twocents:
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?
Quote
I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights. Law is passed
:dunno:
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Isn't that what you are doing here?
Quote
I think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights. Law is passed
:dunno:
[/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. :sry:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 08, 2017, 11:36:25 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 08, 2017, 12:18:17 PM
Isn't that what you are doing here?
QuoteI think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights. Law is passed
:dunno:
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. :sry:
[/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. ;)
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 12:43:36 PM
Isn't that what you are doing here?
QuoteI think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights. Law is passed
:dunno:
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. :sry:
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?
Post by: Curly on February 08, 2017, 12:47:09 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 08, 2017, 12:49:06 PM
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/
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 08, 2017, 12:54:23 PM
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?
Post by: huntnphool on February 08, 2017, 12:57:47 PM
Isn't that what you are doing here?
QuoteI think legislatures (and agencies by extension), and the courts determine the extent of rights. Law is passed
:dunno:
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. :sry:
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? :dunno:
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 01:00:55 PM
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. :tup:
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. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on February 08, 2017, 01:04:36 PM
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? :dunno:
Post by: wooltie on February 08, 2017, 01:18:39 PM
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? :dunno:
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?
Post by: CP on February 08, 2017, 01:28:57 PM
It is a truism that everyone hates Congress but loves their Congressperson.
Actually I can't stand any of my congress-people
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 08, 2017, 02:01:02 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 08, 2017, 03:09:39 PM
But if we can agree that access is part of the problem then I'd say that's a good start. :tup:
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.
Post by: fish vacuum on February 09, 2017, 09:58:26 PM
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.I've taken a few psych evals. A lot of questions like "do you hear voices?" or "are other people reading your thoughts?"
My answer is, "You already know the answer to that."
Post by: garrett89 on February 09, 2017, 10:03:37 PM