Let's Close The Loophole! - Page 5
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Let's Close The Loophole!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2013, 02:10 AM   #41
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9080 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnolans View Post
VikingDad,

I agree with the idea of that... I'm extremely concerned as to how that would be implemented. And as someone else mentioned, who would decide? Politicians? Judges?

I had a DUI 7 years ago (why I'm now a RECOVERING alcoholic)... and was "in the legal system". And I thank God for it. And that I didn't hurt anyone. And I quit drinking.

But.... I got a real good look at how arbitrary and BS the legal system is.

Part of the probation was to go to "counseling"... there were guys in there that had had 5 or 6 CONVICTIONS. By law (CO , anyway) they should have been in jail. Good expensive lawyers, back on probation.

So, again, the idea is good, I think. ... but crazy people will still be running around, and sane people will get committed. or "adjudicated mentally defective".

Respectfully,
My $0.02

Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not the best of comparisons. First of all it is a choice first and foremost, not a mental illness (but mental illness can and does cause addictions). There are people who are unable to make those decisions due to addiction (which can be due to mental instability), those multiple offenders could be examples of this. But in your example you point out that these guys were able to "beat the system" if you will and are probably still driving legally today. The same is probably true of some truly insane people.

You are absolutely correct that there could and probably would be abuses. Hell, a wife could claim her gun collecting husband is mentally defective to prevent him from buying more guns!

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
Manta, you have hit upon the heart of the issue, namely that a mentally-deficient person who has not YET been before the courts to be "adjudicated" or involuntarily committed would, at least in theory, be able to legally buy a firearm at a FFL/gun store.

The question is, do we trust our doctors and government to get together on who should be denied their purchase rights due to mental defect BEFORE they end up in a situation that puts them in court to be adjudicated or involuntarily committed.

I just don't think i trust the doctors and the government to do that. I do wish that parents or guardians could voluntarily have a person with a mental defect evaluated for fitness to own firearms. Of course, there are bad parents/guardians as well as bad doctors and of course bad government officials.
Nothing will catch all of them. But if there were protections in place I am certain that some of these tragedies would have been averted. Virginia tech is one. That dude had a long history of serious mental illness (I believe he may have been adjudicated mentally defective by the courts). The Tucson and Aurora shooters had some history documented as well at the colleges they had been attending (I don't think the courts got involved there though).

The Oregon shooter was stopped early on in his attack by a CCW holder who was in defiance of the posted signs. Good for him. We need to have more CCW's out there, but right now Congress does not have that authority and personally (despite living in a county in CA where a CCW is unobtainable by an average citizen like me) I do not want Congress to take any control over that because in all reality they would go the opposite direction than we need to go.
Vikingdad is offline  
pnolans Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 01:58 PM   #42
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,954
Liked 733 Times on 472 Posts
Likes Given: 231

Default

Quote:
The Sandy Hook psycho didn't BUY a gun, he stole it

The Sandy Hook shooter did attempt to purchase a gun legally but was underage in CT. That is presumably why he stole or took his mother's guns, which circumstances we can only speculate on. In any case, his mother was derelict in her duty or responsibility as a parent and as a human being. But she has paid the ultimate price for that dereliction.



So the fact that he stole the firearms is irrelevant. He could have bought them.
manta is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 02:34 PM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Overkill0084's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Weber County, Utah
Posts: 4,685
Liked 3231 Times on 1621 Posts
Likes Given: 423

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manta View Post
The Sandy Hook shooter did attempt to purchase a gun legally but was underage in CT. That is presumably why he stole or took his mother's guns, which circumstances we can only speculate on. In any case, his mother was derelict in her duty or responsibility as a parent and as a human being. But she has paid the ultimate price for that dereliction.

So the fact that he stole the firearms is irrelevant. He could have bought them.
So were blaming the mother for this? How many parents believe their child is a truly a horrific person prior to an incident? Parents, by nature, will continue to hold out hope that they can help their children. Even after everyone else has given up. It's part & parcel to being a parent. I am not willing to damn the first victim of this atrocity just yet.
It is absolutely relevant that he murdered his mother and stole her firearms. Stable, well adjusted people don't do that. Furthermore, stable, well adjusted people do not shoot up schools either.
First you say this:
Quote:
The Sandy Hook shooter did attempt to purchase a gun legally but was underage in CT.
Then you say this:
Quote:
He could have bought them.
Pick one or the other, not both. If he was underage, he COULD NOT buy them LEGALLY, by definition.
__________________
Cheers,
Greg
MSgt, USAF, Retired
NRA Life Member

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see. - Ayn Rand

Last edited by Overkill0084; 01-05-2013 at 06:49 PM.
Overkill0084 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 05:00 PM   #44
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9080 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Some parents do see it coming.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-shooting-anarchist-soccer-mom/index.html
Vikingdad is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 06:08 PM   #45
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,954
Liked 733 Times on 472 Posts
Likes Given: 231

Default

Quote:
Pick one or the other, not both. If he was underage, he COULD NOT buy them LEGALLY, by definition.
The point is if he was old enough he could of bought them without any checks concerning his mental health. So the fact that he stole them is irrelevant he would have had no difficulty buying then if he was old enough. In some countries your firearms have to be locked in a gun safe and you are the only person with access to the safe. All these things might not of made any difference in this case but could in some cases.
manta is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 06:38 PM   #46
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 5,091
Liked 1337 Times on 793 Posts
Likes Given: 414

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manta View Post
The point is if he was old enough he could of bought them without any checks concerning his mental health. So the fact that he stole them is irrelevant he would have had no difficulty buying then if he was old enough. In some countries your firearms have to be locked in a gun safe and you are the only person with access to the safe. All these things might not of made any difference in this case but could in some cases.
I'm confused by this, either he broke the existing laws and illegally circumvented the system or he didn't. To say that if the facts in the case were slightly different that laws wouldn't have been broken is just making things up.
__________________
"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson
Yunus is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 11:32 PM   #47
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,954
Liked 733 Times on 472 Posts
Likes Given: 231

Default

Quote:
I'm confused by this, either he broke the existing laws and illegally circumvented the system or he didn't. To say that if the facts in the case were slightly different that laws wouldn't have been broken is just making things up
That makes two of us i am confused.
manta is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
So-called Gun Show Loophole GunLover1969 Gun Shows 103 01-23-2013 01:46 AM
Loophole? MichaelBarton AR-15 Discussion 27 02-01-2012 04:46 PM
Loophole in NC castle doctrine closed!!! vincent Legal and Activism 10 12-07-2011 03:04 AM
Close the Car Show Loophole! canebrake Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 03-10-2011 01:14 AM
Illinois Loophole??? Chuck Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 05-21-2008 12:50 PM



Newest Threads