Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

[PepperElf]

And confiscation has begun in NY.

Law Firm: New York Matching Up Private Health Records With Firearms Permits to Confiscate Guns

New York Taking Guns From Individuals Who Use Anxiety Medication

Gun permit suspended over medication

The man, named "John Doe", was on anti-anxiety medication. He's not on it now and is not considered mentally ill. Or he shouldn't have been.

But Hamburg attorney Jim Tresmond says his client was notified by letter that his gun permit was suspended upon the recommendation of State Police, who learned the man is on anti-anxiety medication.

However, according to the lawyer, John Doe is no longer taking said medication and is not mentally ill. He stopped using it within the last year, and it was for anxiety, not mental illness.

Officials confirmed state law permits the suspension of a gun permit before the permit holder even gets a chance to state their case.

I stated a few pages back that the "mental illness" clause might be abused in order to strip people of gun rights. That mental illness might be redefined for other purposes (mainly political). Although this isn't for political actions (afaik)... it does look like mental illness definitions are being ... redefined.

http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/209...-to-Medication
Is an anxiety condition on par with being "mentally ill"? Is this now a permanent condition? According to that link, the letter ALSO includes the threat that the guns held in custody will be destroyed after one year.

So he only has a year to get his license back - or prove why he deserves one - or he'll never get his guns back. ... for a condition he no longer has.

Yes there is talk about whether or not they used SAFE ACT to do this, partially yes and no each - there's a provision in the safe act for this, although the clerk claims it's not specifically about the act.

although... that last link also specifies that the SAFE ACT allows confiscation in the case where patients are "likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others". ... but is an anxiety condition one that fits that description? The act doesn't actually list conditions so it... is a bit ambiguous about that part.



It makes me wonder just what mental conditions do they now consider to be "dangerous". Is ADD dangerous? How about a learning disability? Or if someone gets counseling just for grief? Marriage counseling?

Where is the line? Which issues are really dangerous enough to pull firearms, and which are they simply overreacting on?



I'm thinking that rules that are ambiguous ... can be stretched to fit things they were never intended to fit.
And in my opinion... this again this isn't just the 2A but the 4A as well. I haven't seen any talk of a warrant... but his property is being confiscated for rules that might not even fit his case.

[PepperElf]

and it's still going on in NY

http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/20...n-2469734.html

My sources revealed that two prominent and well regarded Buffalo Area Psychiatrists received subpoenas from State Officials, possibly on Friday April 12th 2013, commanding them to turn over all of their patient files to the State. Details are sketchy at this early stage, but I have been told that both Doctors have in house counsel as well as potentially consulting with the Law Firm of Jim Tresmond, Firearms Law Specialist and the Attorney of Record for Mr Lewis.

So instead of asking doctors to submit their records on "dangerous" mentally ill, they've just been told to send ALL records over? That means records of people who might not be dangerous at all.



Now from the last links I posted about stuff like this, the patients in question didn't have any trials to prove that they're mentally incompetent of having a firearm. The state just orders them to give up the guns and then AFTER the guns have been confiscated they can try to appeal to a court.



So far the only standards on "mental illness" seem to be whether or not you've seen a psychiatrist. Not whether or not your condition is current, or if it's actually "dangerous" but whether or not they have your medical records in the system.

And then you have to prove yourself innocent in order to have your civil rights restored to you.

[Greenday]

So instead of asking doctors to submit their records on "dangerous" mentally ill, they've just been told to send ALL records over? That means records of people who might not be dangerous at all.

I can see it now. "You saw a therapist 20 years ago about a self-confidence problem? Clearly you are going to shoot up a school, give us your guns!"

[PepperElf]

I can see it now. "You saw a therapist 20 years ago about a self-confidence problem? Clearly you are going to shoot up a school, give us your guns!"

pretty much so. and since, registration begins today... i suspect we'll be seeing more of these "turn in your guns or else" cases. and since the current confiscation has been without warrants issued or trial (just lawsuits to try to get them back), with an extremely VAGUE definition of mental illness, this is gonna get plenty interesting.


makes me glad i moved out of NY. cos if I'd gotten a prescription for ADD medications then my medical records would be included in the subpoena. Hell, they might still be included anyway even though I'm no longer a resident.

[Panacea]

and since it was asked... other examples of gun civil rights & racism:

and yes the article also points out where conservatives supported gun control, so those who dislike conservatives may like those lines too.

I read the article. It has no relevance to the folks who support gun control NOW: folks like the Brady Institute or Million Moms. Their support comes from reaction to the realities of gun violence. The whole "racisim" argument is a red herring.

I also looked at the link in your post preceding this one. Another red herring: none of the countries mentioned, from Canada to the UK to Australia have a Bill of Rights specifying the right to bear arms. They have no such constitutional protections and therefore little recourse to challenge the laws on a constitutional basis.

They have the same issue with free speech rights. In spite of the fact they claim to have free speech, their governments can and do ban what would be protected speech here: like U2's Bloody Sunday song.

We have the Constitution here. Our guns can't be taken away from us unless the government gives a due process reason to show why. That's why a gun registry, if one existed, can't be used to confiscate weapons. You'd have every court in the land filled with lawyers getting injunctions. The government doesn't have the resources to get them all.

And confiscation has begun in NY.

The man, named "John Doe", was on anti-anxiety medication. He's not on it now and is not considered mentally ill. Or he shouldn't have been.

I stated a few pages back that the "mental illness" clause might be abused in order to strip people of gun rights. That mental illness might be redefined for other purposes (mainly political). Although this isn't for political actions (afaik)... it does look like mental illness definitions are being ... redefined.

So he only has a year to get his license back - or prove why he deserves one - or he'll never get his guns back. ... for a condition he no longer has.

OK, I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.

We don't know enough about this guy's history to know that there isn't justifiable cause to take his guns. We really don't want guns in the hands of people struggling with mental illness.

Government can't redefine mental illness. The psychiatric community does that by scientific consensus based on the latest medical evidence.

It may be that the state overreached as you claim. That's what courts are for. There will be a series of cases that will set the limits on what the government can and cannot do. There will be a process for people with minor mental health issues to keep or get their guns back after being in treatment.

So instead of asking doctors to submit their records on "dangerous" mentally ill, they've just been told to send ALL records over? That means records of people who might not be dangerous at all.

This is a really poor reference. The author doesn't name the providers or give any details or offer any verification of his facts. All he gives us is "take my word for it, I'm a journalist." Bullshit. He needs to provide evidence to back up his story: an interview with one of the providers, or with someone in state government to confirm or deny. Instead, he gives us conspiracy theories as to what department might be doing what. That's crap.

I cannot imagine any mental health provider complying with a subpoena like this, adn I can't imagine any judge granting one. You have to have something called probable cause . . . which no judge would see in an overly broad request like this.

So I looked into this. All I could find were more vague accusations, and a promise by Lewis's attorney that proof of the wild claims was "forthcoming." The state denies it is going through medical records so broadly and says that the wrong David Lewis was asked to hand over his guns. I find that claim much more plausible than a wholesale violation of patient privacy rights by state officals "going through" medical records wholesale.

Why? Because it's a time consuming mess that would require immense resources to pay for it. Just having seen a shrink isn't enough for them to take your guns. Aside from the fact it will take weeks to identify every legal gun owner who's seen a shrink in the state, just reading through a chart to find the justification as to why to take someones guns is a tedious and time consuming process. It takes a while to sift through the records of a typical patient. It takes me several hours at least to do a chart review.

So I think the whole claim is hokum.

Now from the last links I posted about stuff like this, the patients in question didn't have any trials to prove that they're mentally incompetent of having a firearm. The state just orders them to give up the guns and then AFTER the guns have been confiscated they can try to appeal to a court.

Patients? Patient. One guy. All of your links refer to ONE person who's had his guns taken away from him, and who will probably get them back. And there IS a process by which he can get them back and he is using it.

The action might not have been fair, and they may not have sent the letter to the right guy. But he's getting his due process rights. So I don't see any reason to say that a wholesale takeover of guns is in progress. You have NO proof of that.

So far the only standards on "mental illness" seem to be whether or not you've seen a psychiatrist. Not whether or not your condition is current, or if it's actually "dangerous" but whether or not they have your medical records in the system.

And then you have to prove yourself innocent in order to have your civil rights restored to you.

Of course you have to prove it. I actually don't have an issue with that part. The mentally ill should not own weapons. But people who've been successfully treated should get their guns back.

You haven't made a good case for a massive seizure of weapons effort, for the reasons I've outlined above. There's no proof that NY is actually trying to get wholesale medical records of mental health patients. There's only one isolated case where some guy may have had his guns unjustly seized . . . but he's getting his day in court.

[PepperElf]

The whole "racisim" argument is a red herring.

no red herrings. history.

calling it a red herring doesn't make the past change. it's just a mechanism to dismiss it.

Of course you have to prove it.

That's the problem. Who ever said these people were actually mentally ill? By that mentality EVERYONE could have their guns confiscated until they prove themselves fit. And that's not something you're suppose to do with a civil right.

Cos if you want to go the route of "anxiety is mental illness" and therefore guns should be removed... that could apply to far more than just citizens. Any LEO who's ever been counseled would be up for investigation too.



That's the problem when going the "mental illness" route. Vague definitions of what's legally mentally ill & dangerous with firearms... bodes poorly for civil rights.

[PepperElf]

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...tally_ill.html

Knoll, a forensic psychiatrist at Upstate Medical University, dislikes the reporting requirement.

“We’re being transformed into agents of the state and agents of government control,” he said.

“They are profiling individuals that have mental health issues and portraying us as perpetrators instead of victims,” said O’Brien, who has suffered from mental illness.

Knoll agrees. “The majority of gun violence problems in our society simply doesn’t involve people with mental illness,” he said. “In the aftermath of tragedies everyone wants to reach for obvious handles to grab the problem by, even if they are illusory or not real. Mental illness is one of those illusory handles.”

and according to that article only 5% of violent crimes are perp'ed by mentally ill.

perhaps this is another "feel good" measure.

and that as i said before, it's VAGUE.

Knoll said the reporting requirement is vague and fails to clearly define what should be reported. The law says mental health providers are required to make a report when they believe a patient “… is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” The problem is the law does not say if the potential harm must be imminent or something that could occur well into the future, he said.

so the whole talk about how good it is to make the mentally ill fight to get their RIGHTS restored to them ... can often be just because of one doctor's OPINION rather than actual facts.

I'd rather not have the rights of citizens be determined by a doctor's personal opinion. If you have a doctor who's already biased you might be in for a world of "shut the fuck up and give up your guns"

[Panacea]

no red herrings. history.

calling it a red herring doesn't make the past change. it's just a mechanism to dismiss it.

Not at all. History has to be taken in context. Were there gun control efforts at segments of the population based on race in US History? Of course.

But those examples have NOTHING to do with gun control efforts NOW. Your source cited NO modern evidence of racism in gun control. He cited the KKK in the 20's. Cited slavery. That's about it.

MODERN gun control isn't about those guys, who'd be classified as extreme right wing elements today. Modern gun control is pushed by Democrats as a form of social justice and an effort to reduce crime and violence. Whether or not that can actually succeed is not the point. The point is, racism is not the motive.

That's why I called your source a red herring. Were the examples true? Yes. Are they relevant to what's going on today? NO.

That's the problem. Who ever said these people were actually mentally ill? By that mentality EVERYONE could have their guns confiscated until they prove themselves fit. And that's not something you're suppose to do with a civil right.

Background checks for the mentally ill works. Guns are kept out of the hands of many violent patients as a result. Certainly, I would agree that a simple diagnosis of anxiety should not require one to hand in their guns. But in some people anxiety is so extreme that the person is in fact mentally ill.

A mental health professional has to make that call. There is something called the court system where due process is handed out, as in the case originally at hand. That man will get his guns back if he wants them because a judge will agree that he is not mentally ill, and the state now says it was a clerical error (mistaken identity) anyway.

The definitions are not vague. The DSM IV TR (and soon to be published DSM V) have very specific definitions on who qualifies for a particular diagnosis and why. The criteria are very stringent.

and according to that article only 5% of violent crimes are perp'ed by mentally ill.

perhaps this is another "feel good" measure.

and that as i said before, it's VAGUE.

so the whole talk about how good it is to make the mentally ill fight to get their RIGHTS restored to them ... can often be just because of one doctor's OPINION rather than actual facts.

OK, let's get something straight here. There is a difference between a mental health provider's personal opinion and their professional opinion. The former is just that: what they think as individuals, which can be rational or not. The professional opinion is based on strict criteria that has been determined by the scientific consensus so that there is agreement in the community of scientists on what the terms actually mean.

A mental health care professional's opinion IS based on facts. It is not whimsical or arbitrary. It is based on a careful assessment of the patient as an individual and how they fit the specific criteria of a mental disorder.

Please understand that the language of science and medicine includes terms that are used differently than they are used by the lay public: terms like opinion, hypothesis, and theory. If you don't understand the language of science, then you will make obvious errors like these that will lead you down the garden path.

New York State doesn't want mentally ill patients with a propensity to violence to have access to guns. Now we can discuss whether or not that's actually a good idea. But it is not a conspiracy theory, and the discussion should use the correct meanings of the terms of the profession.

I'm not convinced that having mental health professionals made these reports is such a great idea for a completely different reason. I'm concerned that it may discourage patients from seeking care if they think the state is going to start nosing into their personal lives. I think the law should require a little more, such as a history of violence, before we start taking guns away from people or start cross checking patient lists with gun lists.

However, I do think that with the right criteria, this law is a good idea and little different from doctors being required to report new patients with epilepsy or other medical conditions making it dangerous for them to drive to the DMV so their driver's license can be revoked. It's a necessary action taken in the interest of public safety.

[wolfie]

We have the Constitution here. Our guns can't be taken away from us unless the government gives a due process reason to show why. That's why a gun registry, if one existed, can't be used to confiscate weapons.

New Orleans post-Katrina? California when the definitions were changed? Registries HAVE ALREADY BEEN used to confiscate weapons without due process. Sure you have a Constitution, but the "3rd box" of freedom is needed to keep the government from using it for toilet paper.

For those not familiar with the "3 boxes", they're the soap box (stand on it and say what you want), the ballot box (throw the bums out), and the cartridge box (throw the bums out if they decide to ignore the ballot box).

Government can't redefine mental illness. The psychiatric community does that by scientific consensus based on the latest medical evidence.

They can, it just hasn't been done YET in the U.S. The Soviet Union redefined mental illness to include dissent against the government. Also, governments in the U.S. have redefined things that should not be matters of legislation (can't recall which states, but some "bible belt" states legislated the value of pi to be 3), so there is precedent.

Patients? Patient. One guy. All of your links refer to ONE person who's had his guns taken away from him, and who will probably get them back. And there IS a process by which he can get them back and he is using it.

The action might not have been fair, and they may not have sent the letter to the right guy. But he's getting his due process rights. So I don't see any reason to say that a wholesale takeover of guns is in progress. You have NO proof of that.

He's NOT getting his due process rights. Due process would have been the government needing to prove he shouldn't be allowed to have guns BEFORE seizing them. What's happening here is "reverse onus", where the government is requiring him to prove that he's not a danger (i.e. prove innocence) AFTER the seizure, and with a time limit. Government drags the case out beyond the 1 year deadline (which THEY imposed)? Too bad, so sad - we've already melted down your guns, so you're not getting them back regardless of the outcome of your case.

[Panacea]

New Orleans post-Katrina? California when the definitions were changed? Registries HAVE ALREADY BEEN used to confiscate weapons without due process. Sure you have a Constitution, but the "3rd box" of freedom is needed to keep the government from using it for toilet paper.

And there's been plenty of litigation on that issue. The courts have consistently held that New Orleans was wrong, and the city was finally forced to return the weapons. In addition, there is now federal legislation banning the seizure of weapons during a crisis. The system has corrected the problem.

For those not familiar with the "3 boxes", they're the soap box (stand on it and say what you want), the ballot box (throw the bums out), and the cartridge box (throw the bums out if they decide to ignore the ballot box).

No armed insurrection against the US government has EVER been successful. People who think that the "cartridge box" is a viable option are deluding themselves.

They can, it just hasn't been done YET in the U.S. The Soviet Union redefined mental illness to include dissent against the government.

Apples vs oranges.

Also, governments in the U.S. have redefined things that should not be matters of legislation (can't recall which states, but some "bible belt" states legislated the value of pi to be 3), so there is precedent.

Strawman argument. Fail.

He's NOT getting his due process rights. Due process would have been the government needing to prove he shouldn't be allowed to have guns BEFORE seizing them. What's happening here is "reverse onus", where the government is requiring him to prove that he's not a danger (i.e. prove innocence) AFTER the seizure, and with a time limit. Government drags the case out beyond the 1 year deadline (which THEY imposed)? Too bad, so sad - we've already melted down your guns, so you're not getting them back regardless of the outcome of your case.

He's getting his due process. The government committed a grievance, and he's taken that grievance to court. The courts are viewing the matter in his favor. The government has already admitted they went after the wrong guy.

he attorney for a Western New York gun owner who was told to surrender his pistol permit because of the SAFE Act says his client will get his guns back.

http://statepolitics.lohudblogs.com/...ermit-seizure/

The Lewis case is much ado about nothing. The state screwed up and the legal system is getting it fixed. It hasn't been a year since this happened, because the Safe Act was signed in 2013! This whole issue started just a few weeks ago.

[PepperElf]

slightly OT but i found this link at another site and found it a good read. it perhaps answers many of the questions better than i could

and, most interestingly, the author is NOT conservative, but is "politically far left of center" (although said author is a gun-owner)

Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument
now granted, i don't normally take wordpress as news - and i rather doubt others do too, but the article is nonetheless well written with sources.

so i would personally recommend reading it before automatically dismissing.

[Tanasi]

Thanks for posting that link, I found it very interesting and refreshing that someone on the left recognizes gun owners as humans and not the demons as we're so ofter portrayed.
The pro-control folks will never learn that their all stick and no carrot approach will never work.

[Duelist925]

Thanks for posting that link, I found it very interesting and refreshing that someone on the left recognizes gun owners as humans and not the demons as we're so ofter portrayed.
The pro-control folks will never learn that their all stick and no carrot approach will never work.

What possible carrot could be offered? Any aspect of gun control what soever will be seen as a "stick".

[Hyena Dandy]

I agree with many of his points. With the exception of his point about the NRA, because that one, I think he's criticizing the attacks on the NRA as an organization, and saying "BUT YOU'RE INSULTING THESE MANY HONEST AMERICANS!"

That's not what people are doing. Honestly, NRA members are honest Americans, many of them calm, reasonable people. But when people attack the NRA as a 'corporate lobbying group' it's not based on some vaguery. It's based on the behavior of the NRA as an organization. It's based on the magazines they publish, and the statements by their leaders and spokesmen. The NRA members are not the ones publishing the magazines.

His defense is entirely unrelated to the criticism.

[PepperElf]

What possible carrot could be offered? Any aspect of gun control what soever will be seen as a "stick".

That's because the controls suggested don't actually fix anything. And it's been proven again and again that they won't.


Yet it's the first thing some politicians grasp for - adding more controls on non-criminals - in an effort to stop criminals.



When the "solution" offered is just reduced rights, added restrictions, combined with the attitude that there's something mentally wrong with gun owners for not falling in line with this, then ... yes, said solution will be looked at as a "stick".

It's based on the behavior of the NRA as an organization. It's based on the magazines they publish, and the statements by their leaders and spokesmen. The NRA members are not the ones publishing the magazines.

By that mentality any lobby group, even a liberal one could be told off for taking any action, or publishing a magazine.

besides, the latter part falls under the 1A anyway. and... have you read said magazines yet?
American rifleman - looks to be about some news, but mostly products, training tips. Not sure what's so damning there.
American hunter - hunting tips, equipment, recipes. Again not sure what's so bad about that either.
Shooting Illustrated - looks a bit like the rifleman one, equipment, tips, etc. Again, um... ok?
Shooting sports... well this one i can't see cos i don't have flash installed.
NRA insights - looks like the above, tips, equipment, hunting photos.
America's First Freedom - this is the ONLY one that specifically looks political.


So um, one political publication out of 6? Are you sure about the "magazines they publish" still?
(or 2 out or 5 if that one I can't see turns out to be political, although I somewhat doubt it)