ClosetCaseNerd said:
Okay, I'm willing to take the flames.
Are you suggesting we leave the legal loophole unclosed that allowed a court-deemed mentally ill person to obtain firearms?
Psychiatry is as much an art as a science, and he just HAPPENED to be deemed a hazard to himself, but not others (in the later case he would not of been able to obtain a firearm). But with this new legislation, constructed with help from the NRA, you are never permanently barred from firearm ownership. You can repeal your case at a later date, and prove your recovery in the same manner that was deemed you were unhealthy (doctors signature).
Does someone have a better idea?
Its a difficult issue.
No flames needed, but here are my thoughts/concerns on the whole process.
1) You are very correct in that psychiatry is as much art as science. The Cho case is a great example. One person deems him a danger to himself and others while another does not. With psychiatry it is next to impossible to have objective standards to make decision upon. That lack of available objectivity leads to seemingly arbitrary decision making. Such decision making wrt to civil rights is usually frowned upon from a Constitutional standpoint.
2) Burden of proof shift. Forces the accused to prove they are innocent after having their civil rights curtailed vs forcing the government to prove guilt BEFORE curtailing your rights. This is a very big switch and also seriously frowned upon from a Constitutional standpoint. Aside from the ole Constitution problem, there is also the problem of proving a subjective matter. Remember the burden of proof is now on you, so all the givernment has to do is hypothesize that youre not safe to own a gun and you now must prove your innocence based on subjective standards. Not as easy as it sounds.
3) Beurocratic control over civil/human rights. Do you really think that the appeals process will be a straight forward one or a drawn out messy one that will cost you time, money and energy. I believe that there is a process for being removed from the no-fly list. How easy is it to get off that list if youre puto n there for whatever reason?
Because the whole law rests on subjective standards and forces the accused to prove themselves against such subjective "rules" the system WILL be fraught with abuse. Some intentional, some merely beurocratic. Either way people who should not be hassled will be. Not a good thing. Throw into the mix fears of lawsuits and you will have psychiatrists choosing to be very "conservative" in their assessments. Also not a good thing.
Do I WANT nut jobs like Cho getting their hands on guns, knives, baseball bats... hell no. But then I am a realist and have realized through example that laws and papers, no matter how well intentioned, do NOT stop people from comitting crimes. Just as Prohibition did not stop alcohol use, and infact had a much more horrific side effect, this kind of law will have little impact on criminals getting guns. Things like these are nothing more that well intentioned wastes of resources and smoke & mirror parlor tricks to get votes and establish more control over the general population. They do more to keep guns out of the hands of people needing protection from their estranged boyfirends, gangabangers... than they do in keeping criminals at bay.
I am with going back to the old days. Anyone wanting a gun should have one legally. Give me the physical and legal means by which I can defend myself and family, and I will take the risk that a dozen or so nutjobs/decade might get their hands on guns and go on a killing spree.