CA Seizes Guns as Owners Lose 2A Rights

[JFK]

Obviously my sense of humor is sometimes WAY too dry.

I thought it was funny.... Martin.

[BWT]

There absolutely is evidence that certain categories of mentally ill persons are much more likely to be violent. And, the majority of mass murders since 1982 have been committed by mentally ill people. The criteria for disqualification must be specific to the type of disorder AND the degree of the disorder. Also, the disqualification cannot be permanent and must be reviewed on request by the ill person.

Suicide by firearm outnumbers homicide by firearms. A firearm is the most effective means of suicide, and yet 90% of mental/emotional problems leading to suicide are curable. One area where we can save lives is to help prevent suicide by firearm. I am not necessarily suggesting that the State should temporarily take their firearms from them, but in extreme cases perhaps that is an option. Education, better detection, better intervention, public awareness, etc, could provide a huge help. Also, making gun owners keep their firearms locked up at home unless it is under their direct supervision is another option.

As responsible gun owners we should not just sit back and hide behind the 2nd Amendment...I think we need to be willing to demonstrate actions that could save lives while still balancing the right to possess and carry.

CC

I really struggle with anyone who has this sentiment to consider them Pro 2A. When I see those words it screams compromise. How about this, instead of another Government Agency that's already in debt and a state that is both bankrupt and has a crime problem, lets people carry their firearms and use them for self-defense rather than throw more rights on the altar of "compromise for the common good" and giving the Government more control and invasive ways to keep track of you. All for the name of your safety.

Words like required, must have or make imply legislation and enforcement. There will ALWAYS be someone the system misses and a tragedy happens. How about we go ahead and rather than spend years and millions of dollars determining when you should lose your rights. We let everyone actually have them back first.

ETA: Because you know what happens when the bad idea fails? They come up with worse ideas to prevent it next time. That is why California's gun situation is what it is right now.

ETA 2: In fact, now they're legislating things before crime even happens there. Remember open carry in that one town? They just didn't like it.

ETA 3: I'm not saying this to throw you under the bus, it's just I've seen this play out way too many times.

[BillB]

If you are crazy enough to let the police in without a warrant you may just be too crazy to own a gun

[cclaxton]

How's that taste?

Books/computers and firearms are not the same. If you are really suggesting that serious mental illness doesn't disqualify you from owning or purchasing a firearm, you either:
a) Have no experience with seriously mentally ill people;
or
b) Not rational;
or
c) So obsessed with the RTKBA that you will use any justification;

You are certainly not in the 98% of Americans that think serious mental illness is a disqualifier.

CC

[BWT]

Did the Laws keep the man in Newton from buying a gun? Yes. Did it stop him from murdering his mother, taking her guns and killing those kids? No.

Let people carry their guns, the laws worked in Newton to stop the sale. But they didn't stop him, or the D.C. Sniper or Bonnie and Clyde now did they?

ETA: Here's another humdinger, you know why Cops wear body armor rated for their own gun? Because a large percentage of them are murdered with their own gun.

ETA 2: I'll remind you that this same Mother who was killed by her son. She tried to have him committed.

[cclaxton]

I really struggle with anyone who has this sentiment to consider them Pro 2A. When I see those words it screams compromise. How about this, instead of another Government Agency that's already in debt and a state that is both bankrupt and has a crime problem, lets people carry their firearms and use them for self-defense rather than throw more rights on the altar of "compromise for the common good" and giving the Government more control and invasive ways to keep track of you. All for the name of your safety.

Words like required, must have or make imply legislation and enforcement. There will ALWAYS be someone the system misses and a tragedy happens. How about we go ahead and rather than spend years and millions of dollars determining when you should lose your rights. We let everyone actually have them back first.

ETA: Because you know what happens when the bad idea fails? They come up with worse ideas to prevent it next time. That is why California's gun situation is what it is right now.

ETA 2: In fact, now they're legislating things before crime even happens there. Remember open carry in that one town? They just didn't like it.

ETA 3: I'm not saying this to throw you under the bus, it's just I've seen this play out way too many times.

The Constitution of the US was a compromise and the States and their representatives had serious disagreements. George Mason refused to sign the Constitution originally because it did not have a Bill of Rights even though he was among the key authors. There was no 2nd Amendment until the Bill of Rights was passed. There is no Amendment that is absolute...not one of them. They all have exceptions or limits to how far they go because they have to be balanced against OTHER rights and OTHER powers. Compromise is as old as the Country...even before the Constitution the Articles of Confederation were a compromise...so much that the Constitution created a stronger Federalism so that the government could actually compel States and Citizens so that it could actually get things done. And, it did that by sacrificing certain freedoms for the common good.

Firearm laws and regulations are no different. I like the phrase, "First, do no harm."....To me that means to provide the maximum 2nd Amendment freedoms possible while at the same time deal with firearms problems in a narrow and targeted manner. Keeping firearms out of the hands of minors and seriously mentally ill and violent felons to me (and to 95% of Americans) is a reasonable and perfectly acceptable limit on the 2nd Amendment.

Back to Compromise: Compromise can work to our advantage and creates opportunities. If you get caught in the tug-of-war with gun control zealots, you will miss the opportunity to get something in return. I would like to see national reciprocity or National Concealed Carry Permits and a law removing restrictions on keeping firearms in vehicles when parked on public or private property. Or, working on suicide by firearm prevention and intervention.

This shows we do truly value human life and want to reduce deaths due to fireams.
CC

[BWT]

The Constitution of the US was a compromise and the States and their representatives had serious disagreements. George Mason refused to sign the Constitution originally because it did not have a Bill of Rights even though he was among the key authors. There was no 2nd Amendment until the Bill of Rights was passed. There is no Amendment that is absolute...not one of them. They all have exceptions or limits to how far they go because they have to be balanced against OTHER rights and OTHER powers. Compromise is as old as the Country...even before the Constitution the Articles of Confederation were a compromise...so much that the Constitution created a stronger Federalism so that the government could actually compel States and Citizens so that it could actually get things done. And, it did that by sacrificing certain freedoms for the common good.

Firearm laws and regulations are no different. I like the phrase, "First, do no harm."....To me that means to provide the maximum 2nd Amendment freedoms possible while at the same time deal with firearms problems in a narrow and targeted manner. Keeping firearms out of the hands of minors and seriously mentally ill and violent felons to me (and to 95% of Americans) is a reasonable and perfectly acceptable limit on the 2nd Amendment.

Back to Compromise: Compromise can work to our advantage and creates opportunities. If you get caught in the tug-of-war with gun control zealots, you will miss the opportunity to get something in return. I would like to see national reciprocity or National Concealed Carry Permits and a law removing restrictions on keeping firearms in vehicles when parked on public or private property. Or, working on suicide by firearm prevention and intervention.

This shows we do truly value human life and want to reduce deaths due to fireams.
CC

How about try this on for size. It says shall not be infringed. Amend the constitution if we need to but until that time, it's infringing. There is a process for change and this is not it.

[Shellback]

There absolutely is evidence that certain categories of mentally ill persons are much more likely to be violent. And, the majority of mass murders since 1982 have been committed by mentally ill people. The criteria for disqualification must be specific to the type of disorder AND the degree of the disorder. Also, the disqualification cannot be permanent and must be reviewed on request by the ill person.

Suicide by firearm outnumbers homicide by firearms. A firearm is the most effective means of suicide, and yet 90% of mental/emotional problems leading to suicide are curable. One area where we can save lives is to help prevent suicide by firearm. I am not necessarily suggesting that the State should temporarily take their firearms from them, but in extreme cases perhaps that is an option. Education, better detection, better intervention, public awareness, etc, could provide a huge help. Also, making gun owners keep their firearms locked up at home unless it is under their direct supervision is another option.

As responsible gun owners we should not just sit back and hide behind the 2nd Amendment...I think we need to be willing to demonstrate actions that could save lives while still balancing the right to possess and carry.

CC

Really the vast majority of mass murders have been committed by government sponsored genocide. The one thing the "big ones" have in common is the registration, confiscation and the banning of firearms possession by their citizens.

I think if someone wants to commit suicide they're going to do it with some other means if they don't have access to a firearm like pills, rope, knife, etc. We have people who go to the gun rental ranges here, rent a gun and put a round through their dome creating one hell of a mess for the business owner to clean up. Let them do it in the privacy of their own home if that's really the way they want to go out.

[TGS]

This shows we do truly value human life and want to reduce deaths due to fireams.

Yeah, because we don't care.

[John Ralston]

I think if someone wants to commit suicide they're going to do it with some other means if they don't have access to a firearm like pills, rope, knife, etc. We have people who go to the gun rental ranges here, rent a gun and put a round through their dome creating one hell of a mess for the business owner to clean up. Let them do it in the privacy of their own home if that's really the way they want to go out.

Agreed. I don't know why we keep playing into their hand and calling it "Gun Violence"...it's just violence. If there weren't any guns we would still be talking about violence. It's just part of their agenda to tie violence to the inanimate object we want to protect.