nonsense. no one wants mentally disturbed people to have access to guns. most of us would like for them to be in lockup, in fact, without guns.
Posted by mad_as_he$$ to Shooter 2.5 On News/Activism 10/07/2007 11:50:22 AM PDT · 37 of 78 Again I beg to differ the bill ONLY says "committed to a mental institution" how you got there is open and not consistent state to state. Getting off the list and getting your record cleared requires a court date - good luck. Also this little tidbit: "discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring" This implies that you do not have to be committed only under supervision, treatment, monitoring - does that include court ordered detox under the care of a doctor? A good family friend was "committed" two years ago by her husband who decided he didn"t want to be married to her anymore and was not going to pay her any alimony. He managed to have her committed for 72 hours based upon a trumped up domestic violence charge. She was angry and the shrink went to court and had her committed for three months - simply because she was angry that her ex had taken away all of her means for support for herself and her child. The divorce is final and she is now waiting for the judge to remove the "commitment" from her record based upon the opinions of two other shrinks. The court date is one year out. Oh and one other dirty secret, if you have insurance coverage you are WAAAYYY more likely to be committed than if you don't. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies
Posted by mad_as_he$$ to SJackson On News/Activism 10/07/2007 9:50:02 AM PDT · 19 of 78 Actually my point was that the system failed. Every day we see posts of stories here where the Government failed in some manner in what would appear to be a simple thing. We here grouse all day about how the Government does it's job and then we are willing to turn over gun rights just because the NRA says it is OK? Not this cowboy. As a side note in many states you can be committed by relatives on very little evidence. In many it only takes a cop and a judge to send you in for "psych hold". The system is completely broken. I have a very good employee who served in the Army for 15 years. A family member was killed in the first Gulf War, on the way to the funeral his wife, son and both his parents were killed in an accident - more than any human should have to take. He checked himself into the psych ward at the VA and stayed for two weeks to get his head on straight. He now has a psych record. One of the most level headed guys I have ever known and I trust him with fortune and my life. He could have his gun rights denied and then have to go to court to fix it - how is that fair? I have told my Congress critter and my "good" Senator that this is unacceptable on numerous occasions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies
Indeed. On the other hand, it would be much easier under this legislation to permanently disarm people without good cause than to lock them up without cause.
Anyone with their head wired right should be able to see that allowing gun hating legislators and the BATFE to redefining the standard is a VERY bad idea.
If I am not mistaken a mental condition includes the Vets that come home with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome?
Or as Bob Hope has been quoted, “Oh, you mean Democrats.”