Posted on 02/06/2011 5:26:39 AM PST by Second Amendment First
By law, Roy Perez should not have had a gun three years ago when he shot his mother 16 times in their home in Baldwin Park, Calif., killing her, and then went next door and killed a woman and her 4-year-old daughter.
Mr. Perez, who pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and was sentenced last year to life in prison, had a history of mental health issues. As a result, even though in 2004 he legally bought the 9-millimeter Glock 26 handgun he used, at the time of the shootings his name was in a statewide law enforcement database as someone whose gun should be taken away, according to the authorities.
The case highlights a serious vulnerability when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and others, not just in California but across the country.
In the wake of the Tucson shootings, much attention has been paid to various categories of people who are legally barred from buying handguns — those who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” have felony convictions, have committed domestic violence misdemeanors and so on. The focus has almost entirely been on gaps in the federal background check system that is supposed to deny guns to these prohibited buyers.
There is, however, another major blind spot in the system.
Tens of thousands of gun owners, like Mr. Perez, bought their weapons legally but under the law should no longer have them because of subsequent mental health or criminal issues. In Mr. Perez’s case, he had been held involuntarily by the authorities several times for psychiatric evaluation, which in California bars a person from possessing a gun for five years.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Should they be barred from purchasing knives, hammers and gasoline?
Should they just be locked up and controlled totally?
Who can answer these questions for me?
Who can answer these questions for me? ....
Obama. And the answer is “Yes we can.”
Do those judged mentally ill still drive a car?
If it hadn’t been for a gun, they may argue, his mother would be saved. I counter that if he hadn’t had the gun, he would have found a knife, and she’d still be dead.
Of course, anything can be a potential weapon. Guns are just easy and so they get the blame for crimes.
..... And whenever it ultimately meets the convenience of the Left, vast sectors of the American public will magically be deemed mentally incompetent to possess firearms. Something psychologically creative and plausible like a threat of “mass hysteria” would probably serve nicely in their eyes.
I am coming around to the line of thinking that
if a member of society should not be allowed on the street with a weapon;
then that member of society should not be allowed on the street.
..... The Left will then move on to regulating knives, as in the UK. Next stop - regulation of “blunt objects”.
they use to just lock them up....
until the 80’s, at least here in NY...there was a plethora of State Mental Hospitals...I ought to know...I worked in one for 3 years on the night shift, full time, to pay for college...not a pleasant job...but just about anyone who publicly displayed ‘crazy’ behavior was warehoused there...and only late 70s early 80s recessions caused the state to rethink what they classified as ‘crazy’. the majority of those released or sent to halfway houses did not belong in the ‘bug house’...but a scary minority were released that should have been locked up and the key thrown away...the cretin in Arizona would have been put in classification.
1) Our current system prohibits those found mentally dangeros from purchasing weapons.
2) Liberals in gov’t, who do not do their jobs, fail to prevent firearm purchases from happening or fail to notify authorities to confiscate the firearms from people found mentally dangerous.
3) Liberals see their failure as a reason to enact more laws, rather than make the current system work as it should.
For a state the size of california, this seems a little underwhelming to me
I remember the state mental institutions. In high school I volunteered at the local one. We would shoot pool, play ping pong, etc. on recreation nights. Of course, they were not the violent ones. Most of these institutions were closed and the inmates released when the government deemed it cruel to involuntarily commit the mentally ill.
That would be half of Cali and NYC. Find a liberal and take their gun away. Give it to me.
You mean like the large percentage of school age males labeled with ADD and put on psychotropic drugs?
Ah, yes, the tried and true method of using a small aspect to wedge the camel’s nose under the tent.]
There are way larger problems in dealing with the mentally ill, from lack of treatment, availability of illegal drugs, to rights of those who recover, etc.
Ah, yes, the tried and true method of using a small aspect to wedge the camel’s nose under the tent.]
There are way larger problems in dealing with the mentally ill, from lack of treatment, availability of illegal drugs, to rights of those who recover, etc.
Apparently “shall not be infringed”, really means infringement is OK as long as someone thinks its OK.
It depends on the state, AFAIK. Then again, driving a car isn’t guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Declare that the desire to own a firearm is a mental disorder. Mission accomplished.
some people need to be locked up either for their own good, or for the rest of the population....Who determines this??? I don't know...obviously you would not want the Fort Hood Shrink, Dr Hasan, making that determination.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.