(Close Window)
Topic: Another mental case involving a gun.....
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jun 9, 2013 10:42PM)
Don't look for me to engage. When Al sees this, smoke will begn spewing from his ears because he doesn't think I need to have guns. :) I'm just posting something I read. Y'all can bicker it to kingdom come. I'm with David Hardy. That's all folks.

Santa Monica shooter
By David Hardy
Tucson attorney
Of Arms and the Law
9 June 2013
http://armsandthelaw.com/


Clayton Cramer has interesting thoughts. Reports indicate that the
shooter had (surprise!) serious mental health issues, which led to his
commitment (unknown if it was voluntary or involuntary, but if the
latter it's a bar to gun possession and should have flagged him).
California has had an "assault weapon ban" since the year he was born,
requires all sales to be after a background check since he was a
toddler, and banned transfers of larger magazines since he was eleven.

In short, he's an example of why (1) passing gun laws will not affect a
murderous mental case and (2) why we really need to fix the mental
health system.


* David T. Hardy is a private attorney and has practiced law since 1975.
A graduate of the University of Arizona Law School, he previously served
as an attorney with the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington,
D.C., for ten years and now lives in Tucson, AZ, where he practices law.
He is an ardent defender of the Second Amendment, as well as of the
First Amendment.

Read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_T._Hardy
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jun 9, 2013 10:54PM)
Quick additinal note on the commitment issue: Even if we assume the best case scenario, that the commitment on his record was a voluntary 72-hour psychiatric hold, it would've been illegal for him to possess a firearm for the next 5 years.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jun 9, 2013 11:02PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-09 23:54, Scott Cram wrote:
Quick additinal note on the commitment issue: Even if we assume the best case scenario, that the commitment on his record was a voluntary 72-hour psychiatric hold, it would've been illegal for him to possess a firearm for the next 5 years.
[/quote]
Scott, is that a legal position you're certain of? Thanks for sharing that because it was one of the points I thought about before deciding to post this. Still, how can we define "a few years ago" as I've read in various accounts?
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jun 10, 2013 12:14AM)
Here's my source (See section III, subsection 2): http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Restoring-the-Right-to-Possess-Firearms.pdf
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 10, 2013 01:00AM)
That source indicates that it IS possible to terminate the five year period early. (Probably you can thank the NRA for that loophole, but that is conjecture on my part.)

Back to the first post in this thread, the Santa Monica shooter case does NOT prove point (1). In fact, it may even illustrate the opposite. Without more information, we cannot really say.

Point (2) is great. But isn't who pays a consideration? Well, unless one believes in unicorns and that healthcare is free.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 10, 2013 07:23AM)
Bob
I am not an anti gun advocate, I really don't care how much extra crap you carry in your pockets. I just feel that my cell phone, and my GPS is all I need to do kids birthday parties.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 10, 2013 09:07AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-10 02:00, balducci wrote:
That source indicates that it IS possible to terminate the five year period early. (Probably you can thank the NRA for that loophole, but that is conjecture on my part.)

Back to the first post in this thread, the Santa Monica shooter case does NOT prove point (1). In fact, it may even illustrate the opposite. Without more information, we cannot really say.

Point (2) is great. But isn't who pays a consideration? Well, unless one believes in unicorns and that healthcare is free.
[/quote]

Of course we can blame the NRA. Why not? They are the root of all the problems in the world right?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2013 12:13PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-10 02:00, balducci wrote:
unless one believes in unicorns and that healthcare is free.
[/quote]

I can definitely think of some people...
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Jun 10, 2013 01:18PM)
This one hit close to home. The shooter opened fire on a bus less than a hundred yards from my office. I walked outside to see the bus filled with holes, glass shattered, people on the ground (thank God none of them were killed but it's still jarring to see up close.)

We were moved to a location away from the area while they searched for him. Terrifying stuff.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 10, 2013 02:20PM)
A symbol can invoke a feeling or an idea and often has a much more profound and deeper meaning than any one word can convey. At the same time, these symbols can leave you confused and wondering what that dream was all about.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jun 10, 2013 03:23PM)
Balducci- on point 2 above and who pays for fixing the mental health care system?

Answer- We all do, one way or another: fix it, and we pay the cost. Or don't fix it, and we pay the cost. The only question is which cost is more dear.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 10, 2013 03:32PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-10 16:23, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Balducci- on point 2 above and who pays for fixing the mental health care system?

Answer- We all do, one way or another: fix it, and we pay the cost. Or don't fix it, and we pay the cost. The only question is which cost is more dear.
[/quote]
Yes, I know. I was (somewhat sarcastically) voicing the same objection to it (expanded health care benefits) that I have read on this board and elsewhere many, many times.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 10, 2013 03:37PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-10 10:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-06-10 02:00, balducci wrote:

That source indicates that it IS possible to terminate the five year period early. (Probably you can thank the NRA for that loophole, but that is conjecture on my part.)
[/quote]

Of course we can blame the NRA. Why not? They are the root of all the problems in the world right?
[/quote]
I blamed no one. I said the NRA can probably be thanked. I think it is a thousand times more likely that the NRA or its ilk pushed for a loophole allowing a waiting period to terminate early, than some anti-gun liberal lobby. You honestly disagree? In case you missed it, I did say "probably".
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Jun 10, 2013 04:29PM)
Whatever the case, is it really arguable that [i]any[/i] such mass shooting doesn't involve mental illness or incapacity?

The title of thread seems to be somewhat tautological, perhaps intentionally so.

Anyway, my heart goes out to the victims and bereaved.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jun 11, 2013 01:30AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-10 15:20, tommy wrote:
A symbol can invoke a feeling or an idea and often has a much more profound and deeper meaning than any one word can convey. At the same time, these symbols can leave you confused and wondering what that dream was all about.
[/quote]
I believe I already know your answer, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt and ask anyway. Would you mind explaining yourself so we might take your comments seriously? Then again, from most of your posts, I gather you do not wish to be taken seriously.

So I would then ask, why should we even pay attention to your comments if you don't explain them?

Just seeking light brother. That's all.