Va. Tech father: Pass better gun laws

yep but

what's truly maddening is that it's gonna happen... you WILL see new laws, garunteed. They can't afford not to politically.. they'd be GONE if they didn't. Didn't i hear the NRA was involved helping to craft the statute? or at least endorsing it?.



We all know how much safer we'd all be without firearms available, just ask the Brits, Canadians and Austrailians.. working for them isn't it



Mouse.

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.

Yup, there is a better idea.



Go back to the ORIGINAL law. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Then, let the violent criminals meet the determined citizens and after a few instances where the criminal is blown to his creator, the problem will pretty much be self correcting.



Regardless that the shooter should not have been able to buy the guns. There is no evidence that this would have stopped him. Youthful gang bangers can get guns illegally easily enough. A determined person would figure out a way.



Every survey of criminals has resulted in the same conclusion. The ONLY thing that a criminal fears is an armed victim. PERIOD.



The argument that granting everyone with the ability to have guns would only lead to more crime is complete nonsense. There doesn't exist a single shred of evidence to support such a theory. On the other hand, every state that permitted CCW over the last 30 years has seen a dramatic drop in violent crime.



Quite frankly, I'd love to see the whole country like the "Wild West" because statistically people in the so-called frontier towns and cities were vastly safer from violent crime than those who lived in the established eastern cities. And BOTH crime rates were a lot less than the rate is today.



The nice thing about allowing citizens to carry guns is that you don't have to carry one to be safer. The fact that criminals have no idea who is or isn't armed protects all. It is ONLY when you create so-called "Gun Free" zones that criminals truly know they are well protected from lethal retaliation.



The only difficult issue here is to actually get gun-control supporters to learn facts and not act on emotion. Well, that and to remove the obnoxious bias that exists in the media.

DukieDog said:

Yup, there is a better idea.



Go back to the ORIGINAL law. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Then, let the violent criminals meet the determined citizens and after a few instances where the criminal is blown to his creator, the problem will pretty much be self correcting.



Regardless that the shooter should not have been able to buy the guns. There is no evidence that this would have stopped him. Youthful gang bangers can get guns illegally easily enough. A determined person would figure out a way.



Every survey of criminals has resulted in the same conclusion. The ONLY thing that a criminal fears is an armed victim. PERIOD.



The argument that granting everyone with the ability to have guns would only lead to more crime is complete nonsense. There doesn't exist a single shred of evidence to support such a theory. On the other hand, every state that permitted CCW over the last 30 years has seen a dramatic drop in violent crime.



Quite frankly, I'd love to see the whole country like the "Wild West" because statistically people in the so-called frontier towns and cities were vastly safer from violent crime than those who lived in the established eastern cities. And BOTH crime rates were a lot less than the rate is today.



The nice thing about allowing citizens to carry guns is that you don't have to carry one to be safer. The fact that criminals have no idea who is or isn't armed protects all. It is ONLY when you create so-called "Gun Free" zones that criminals truly know they are well protected from lethal retaliation.



The only difficult issue here is to actually get gun-control supporters to learn facts and not act on emotion. Well, that and to remove the obnoxious bias that exists in the media.

Click to expand...

Slow down highspeed, your spewing rhetoric that is irrelevant to the issue. I know all the reasons why one should carry, and why society should be armed, but this is not about that. Did you read the article before you started ranting about the cookie cutter pro-gun points?



This isn't about CCW legality, promotion, or denial. This is about a single loophole, no more, no less. While I don't doubt for a second he could, and probably would of gotten a firearm or other dangerous implement illegally, is that argument for not including court ordered mentally ill into the NICS check? Guys, I don't like anti-gun laws either, but this law absolutely does not effect the mentally capable and law abiding citizen in any shape or form. It isn't another hoop you have to jump through, it isn't making it more difficult, confusing, or embarrassing to own a firearm, or more expensive, as all other gun legislation does.



My biggest concern is that someone could get your rights taken away (antigun neighbor, coworker, upset girlfriend, ect) by sending the police on a witch hunt with false info making claims that you are mentally ill or troubled, but that isn't the case, as you need to be deemed mentally ill by a psych professional after an assessment period.





I understand the lack of faith in gun laws, really I do, but in this case I am glad this is all that has (so far) come out of VA Tech. We are no worse for wear as gun owners and enthusiasts.

DukieDog said:

...Go back to the ORIGINAL law. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Click to expand...

I agree with CCN on this one: As I understand it, fixing this loophole would do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding, mentally fit individuals. The two are not mutually exclusive.

DukieDog said:

...Then, let the violent criminals meet the determined citizens and after a few instances where the criminal is blown to his creator, the problem will pretty much be self correcting...

Click to expand...

This "self-correction" would not be an ideal situation! Mentally unfit individuals shooting it out with law-abiding CCWs is not my idea of a positive plan for maintaining order. Better to make it as hard as possible for mentally unfit individuals to get their hands on a gun, as per the terms of the proposed legislature.

And as for guys like the Cho finding a way to take out their destructive tendencies on society whether they are able to buy a gun or not... I agree that they will - but if he had run amok on campus with one of his hammers instead of a Glock, he would not have been able to kill so many people.

DukieDog said:

...The argument that granting everyone with the ability to have guns would only lead to more crime is complete nonsense. There doesn't exist a single shred of evidence to support such a theory. On the other hand, every state that permitted CCW over the last 30 years has seen a dramatic drop in violent crime...

Click to expand...

Agreed. But again, fixing this loophole does not detract from CCW rights for those fit to carry. In fact, keeping legally purchased firearms out of the hands of guys like Cho could only help safeguard CCW rights for the rest of us... the fact that he purchased that gun *legally* gives anti-gunners fuel for their specious, misguided arguments. And since people are upset by a tragedy like this, those on the fence are more likely to be swayed to the "guns are bad" side of the argument when the story breaks that he bought the gun legally even though he was ruled mentally ill in a court of law.

DukieDog said:

...The only difficult issue here is to actually get gun-control supporters to learn facts and not act on emotion. Well, that and to remove the obnoxious bias that exists in the media...

Click to expand...

Can't argue with you on this one...

OK.. the NRA backed funding of states to provide their mental health data.



I'm cool with that. I'm all for it. You can differ with me about the idea of selling guns to people who have had psychotic breaks with reality and junkies, but I REALLY don't think that's a good idea. THe questions on the 4473 are basically only enforced by honesty. Funding this effort might actually make them verifiable.



However, the dingus in this article is suggesting that any state mandated mental health intervention should block you form getting a gun.



So what we had at VT was someone who SHOULD have been remanded to a facility for psychiatric evaluation except the judge thought he was doing him a favor.



With the dingus's version, having your family sentenced to manadatory family therapy because your brother can't control himself might stick with you forever and prevent you form owning firearms.



Whatabout a divorce court mandating couples therapy before granting a divorce? Should that stick with you forever?



Hell no.



These are ufndamentally different requests, and what constitues failing the 4473 critera should be left at the federal level so states can't poisen the sytem to enact gun control by declaring whoever they want as mentally prohibited form ownership.

I mentioned this in a post on THR the other day. THe bill, as passed onto the senate, provides 200Million for funding the upgrade in the system, requires the states to provide 90% of annual information to the system (else they lose funding after two year trial period), and provides for an appeals process for those the law affect, ie person who has been deemed cured and the court hasn't updated the records, etc.



This does not truly affect anyone except those that slip through the cracks now due to paperwork back-logs. I personally think this could catch a lot of people that otherwise would slip through. My reality-check says that this will only be effective IF they manage to clear up the current back-log of information. It does provide an appeals process that was not in print before.



This would not have stopped Cho!. The courts and others failed there. But this might catch some others. Keyword:Might.

I still don't support it.

raz-0 said:

... having your family sentenced to manadatory family therapy because your brother can't control himself might stick with you forever and prevent you form owning firearms.

What about a divorce court mandating couples therapy before granting a divorce? Should that stick with you forever?

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between family counseling or couples therapy, and being deemed psychiatrically "unstable" in a court of law. Counseling/therapy is not in the scope of psychiatric background checks or the 4473.

raz-0 said:

...what constitues failing the 4473 critera should be left at the federal level so states can't poisen the sytem to enact gun control by declaring whoever they want as mentally prohibited form ownership.

Click to expand...

This is my only concern here as well. We've all seen the "slippery slope" of gun control in the past. It starts with taking on an agenda that few will push back on. But then the momentum generated can be used to ratchet the agenda up a notch and go for something else - something that would never have budged otherwise. [Are we going to next hear that 33-rnd Glock mags have no place in civilian society?]

As it stands, I think the current proposed "Cho" legislation is good, but there is always the risk that anti-gunners start pushing for more. And I, too, am not comfortable about states deciding for themselves on 4473 criteria... what if the next state to action this decides to take it a step further and red flag as mentally unfit anyone who ever went to anger management counseling?

I've come to trust the NRA on 2nd amendment political issues at large, as I think they've been pretty good about spotting trouble on the horizon when it comes to legislation that is touted as innocuous, but in actuality has some hidden teeth. [e.g. the Bloomberg fiasco] If it's true that they're on board with this, then at least I feel a little better that they've vetted the fine print of this, and haven't uncovered any hidden long-term strategic issues.

By the way, anyone who's not a member of the NRA, do yourself (and all of us) a favor and join NOW!

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.

Click to expand...

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.