Do you think....?

C

Cypress

Well-known member
....that a man with a police record of alleged stalking of women, and a court order detaining him in a mental health facility, should be able to walk into a store, and immediately be able to buy a 9mm handgun after a cursory criminal background check?

NBC is reporting that Cho had police complaints filed on him for stalking women, and had been ordered into a mental health facility.

Should a dude like this just be able to walk in off the street, and buy a handgun within 15 minutes?

Should there be a three-day wait on handgun purchases? (a cooling off period in effect)

What say you?
 
If he wasn't convicted of stalking it shouldn't be considered. As for the court ordered detainment for mental health I would say thats sufficient grounds.
 
I agree with Ihate... unless convicted, the alleged events should not count against him.

As for the wait period... I think all guns should have a mandatory 30 day waiting period. Whether bought through a local merchant or at a gun show. I cannot think of a situation where someone would have to have it faster than that. I am a gun owner and I doubt I would ever find myself in a situation where I just had to have a new gun faster.
 
As for the wait period... I think all guns should have a mandatory 30 day waiting period. Whether bought through a local merchant or at a gun show. I cannot think of a situation where someone would have to have it faster than that. I am a gun owner and I doubt I would ever find myself in a situation where I just had to have a new gun faster.

You might if someone is threatening your life though.
 
"You might if someone is threatening your life though."

A valid point. Had not considered that. I guess I wasn't thinking about the first time buyers. That said, perhaps reporting that person to the police and being granted an exemption would solve that? Not sure how viable that is, so now I have to rethink this a bit.
 
IHateGovernment said:
If he wasn't convicted of stalking it shouldn't be considered. As for the court ordered detainment for mental health I would say thats sufficient grounds.
Click to expand...


It's true that allegations of stalking aren't proof of a criminal offense.

However, reportedly two different women reported him as a stalker to police. That's two independent corroborations of stalking, from two independnet sources. Unless one assumes there was a conspiriacy between two women to falsely accuse this guy.

When you get multiple police reports of stalking, from several independent sources, I wonder if that would change your mind about selling a handfun to a guy?
 
Cypress said:
....that a man with a police record of alleged stalking of women, and a court order detaining him in a mental health facility, should be able to walk into a store, and immediately be able to buy a 9mm handgun after a cursory criminal background check?

NBC is reporting that Cho had police complaints filed on him for stalking women, and had been ordered into a mental health facility.

Should a dude like this just be able to walk in off the street, and buy a handgun within 15 minutes?

Should there be a three-day wait on handgun purchases? (a cooling off period in effect)

What say you?
Click to expand...

There are no restrictions currently on mental health and handgun purchases. Even if a person was Baker Acted in an institution for suicidal reasons. they can still purchase and own handguns or any other type of legal weapon.
 
You have to be convicted though to have your rights taken away. Innocent till proven guilty. If there was enough evidence he should be arrested. It is reasonable to limit him this way if he is on bail or parole but if all their is is a complaint it should not be considered a limitation in buying a gun.

As we know allegation may prove false later.
 
Cypress said:
It's true that allegations of stalking aren't proof of a criminal offense.

However, reportedly two different women reported him as a stalker to police. That's two independent corroborations of stalking, from two independnet sources. Unless one assumes there was a conspiriacy between two women to falsely accuse this guy.

When you get multiple police reports of stalking, from several independent sources, I wonder if that would change your mind about selling a handfun to a guy?
Click to expand...

It should. And stalking is very hard to convict someone of. That is why the victim is so vulnerable. It's always, did he threaten you, was their a witness, did he hit you, do you have bruises?

Come on , none of you have ever had to deal with the police out there in the REAL world? (not you cypress) Unless there's a body, they don't want to know. They will go talk to the person, but if that person is anything more than a peeper getting his jollies off, that's not going to deter them.
 
Darla said:
It should. And stalking is very hard to convict someone of. That is why the victim is so vulnerable. It's always, did he threaten you, was their a witness, did he hit you, do you have bruises?

Come on , none of you have ever had to deal with the police out there in the REAL world? (not you cypress) Unless there's a body, they don't want to know. They will go talk to the person, but if that person is anything more than a peeper getting his jollies off, that's not going to deter them.
Click to expand...

I say we err on the side of caution.

ANY dude who has a police report of stalking, doesn't get to walk into a store, and immediately buy a handgun. You could craft legislation for exceptions and waivers, of course. The law is supposed to be flexible.
 
No way you can ever do anything to someone based on alligations

that said, NO one is more anti gun that me.
Ban them or charge $1,000 bullet.

Mr. Miagi:clink:
 
IHateGovernment said:
You have to be convicted though to have your rights taken away. Innocent till proven guilty. If there was enough evidence he should be arrested. It is reasonable to limit him this way if he is on bail or parole but if all their is is a complaint it should not be considered a limitation in buying a gun.

As we know allegation may prove false later.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about taking his rights away. I'm talking about not being able to immediately sell him a handgun on the spot, until issues pertaining to his alleged stalking are clarified or addressed.
 
Topspin said:
No way you can ever do anything to someone based on alligations

that said, NO one is more anti gun that me.
Ban them or charge $1,000 bullet.

Mr. Miagi:clink:
Click to expand...

it creates a catch-22 though Top. It's hard to convict someone of stalking until they commit an act that ups the ante. But it would be hard to stop someone from getting a gun unless they are actually convicted of a crime, I agree.

I don't know that we can constitutionally ban handguns, (though that is a debate I would love to see the voters take part in) but certainly we need better safeguards.
 
Cypress said:
I say we err on the side of caution.

ANY dude who has a police report of stalking, doesn't get to walk into a store, and immediately buy a handgun. You could craft legislation for exceptions and waivers, of course. The law is supposed to be flexible.
Click to expand...

You could have it so that a report of stalking would trigger a very extensive background check maybe.
 
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I saw someone write that we should sign all of the handgun owners up for their state militia and then send them to Iraq.

I do think there is some room for debate in that amendment, and I'd like to have that debate. And if it is decided that it truly means that the people refers to everyone not in a their state's guard, then we can talk about revisiting this amendment. It's interesting to me that we can hold a national debate about amending the constitution regarding gay marriage, but we can't have this debate.
 
Topspin said:
No way you can ever do anything to someone based on alligations

that said, NO one is more anti gun that me.
Ban them or charge $1,000 bullet.

Mr. Miagi:clink:
Click to expand...

Fine with me I have probably all the bullets I will need in the rest of my life....
And all my guns were purchased before registration was required....

See the problem here...
 
Darla said:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I saw someone write that we should sign all of the handgun owners up for their state militia and then send them to Iraq.

I do think there is some room for debate in that amendment, and I'd like to have that debate. And if it is decided that it truly means that the people refers to everyone not in a their state's guard, then we can talk about revisiting this amendment. It's interesting to me that we can hold a national debate about amending the constitution regarding gay marriage, but we can't have this debate.
Click to expand...

The gun lobby is VERY powerful.....
Most of the politicians do not want to touch this subject as it might cost them votes.....
 
Put it as ballot measures ? anything that is done will pretty much get kicked out on constitutional grounds....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top