Gun Control

Even the NRA did not allow its members to carry at their convention.

They like gun control too.
 
KingRaw! said:
Despite what Lou Dobbs might tell you, gun control doesn't mean guns are banned.
Click to expand...
As a generic term, no it does not.

But gun control laws have been used as an infringement at the least, and in some cases, a ban. Nor can you deny there is a faction out there who would prefer an outright ban on private gun ownership.
 
But we do need better gun control in some areas. Allowing those who have been involountarially commited to an institution to still have guns ? Remember they are only involuntarially committed if they are deemd to be a danger to themselves or others.
Many states have no laws about this issue.
 
The purported purpose of gun control is to control violent crime using guns. The vast majority of legal gun owners are never involved in perpetrating a violent crime using their firearms. Any law which actually achieves that purpose without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, I would be willing to support.

There are laws that make it illegal for convicted violent criminals to own firearms. While those are (for the most part) the least infringing when it comes to legal ownership by law abiding citizens, they rarely achieve the purpose for which they are designed. That makes them pretty useless, and when a law cannot achieve it purpose, any "side effect" that limits the rights of law abiding citizens is not justified.

Then there are laws that make it difficult, or impossible, for law abiding citizens to own specified types of weapons. Again, those laws have not in any way achieved the purpose for which they are designed. As such, the significant infringement placed on law abiding citizens is most definitely not justified.
 
uscitizen said:
But we do need better gun control in some areas. Allowing those who have been involountarially commited to an institution to still have guns ? Remember they are only involuntarially committed if they are deemd to be a danger to themselves or others.
Many states have no laws about this issue.
Click to expand...

The prohibition on mental incompetents is a federal law, states have zero discretion in that. The states do determine the extent that mental health records are available to authorities in a background check.

After Virginia Tech the Governor of Virginia ordered the state background check to include frequently updated mental health determinations. If any other states that had strict medical privacy policies followed suit, I don't know.
 
Surf_Fishing_Guru said:
The prohibition on mental incompetents is a federal law, states have zero discretion in that. The states do determine the extent that mental health records are available to authorities in a background check.

After Virginia Tech the Governor of Virginia ordered the state background check to include frequently updated mental health determinations. If any other states that had strict medical privacy policies followed suit, I don't know.
Click to expand...

wrongo according to my republican senator Mich McConnels office and the local judge and the KY state police. I was involved in a situation with a menallly ill Veteran and checked it out.

Pruchasing perhaps, but not in posessing.

the only way to take the guys guns was to get an EPO against the guy.

And how can a wife do that and still live with the guy ?
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
wrongo according to my republican senator Mich McConnels office and the local judge and the KY state police. I was involved in a situation with a menallly ill Veteran and checked it out.

Pruchasing perhaps, but not in posessing.

the only way to take the guys guns was to get an EPO against the guy.

And how can a wife do that and still live with the guy ?
Click to expand...

Well, there most certainly is a federal prohibition on possession. Section 922(g)(4), Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by an individual who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution."

Those terms are defined in regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11,

Adjudicated as a mental defective.
(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.​
(b) The term shall include—
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.​

And:

Committed to a mental institution.

A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.​

So the question is, who determined the Veteran was "mentally ill?"

There are legal criteria to be met to have the prohibition be actionable. Without being "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" there is no prohibition because he is not "mentally ill" in the eyes of the law. I would say the TRO / EPO would be a proper place to start the process.

In Pennsylvania there is a section in the Mental Health Procedures Act that permits any responsible party to request an involuntary mental health observation and evaluation for another person. The process is referred to in the law enforcement and medical fields by its section number as in, "let's 302 him." While the 302 wouldn't kick in the prohibition alone, a 72 hour evaluation of the person's mental state should lead to a court determination that would demand the federal possession prohibition (if he actually is mentally defective of course).

See if there is such a remedy in Kentucky, I wish you luck.

PS: I don't know when you last received info on this person's possession status but a federal law last year addressed some of the mental health issues that have fallen between the cracks pertaining to Veterans and their firearms. A call to a lawyer in your state might lead to another remedy not available a little over a year ago; the name of the law is: NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top