Posted on 09/19/2015 3:14:52 PM PDT by Kaslin
Agreed, their conclusions were nothing more than liberal fabrication.
Actually that happened back in the late 60s. Here in CA it was under Gov. Reagan. However it was a result of the Federal courts ruling that it was unconstitutional to involuntarily commit the mentally ill unless they were convicted of a crime, or a specific threat to themselves or others.
I agree wholrheartedly! All that is needed is for the SCOTUS to quit picking at the 2A like it’s some kind of festering sore and rule that it says what it says. With that ruling should be the admonition that the states DON’T have any “right” to regulate the carrying of a firearm so long as the individual is law abiding and not mentally impaired. No licences, no permits, nothing. You don’t have to tell a cop you are carrying just because you’re speeding,
and as Trump rightly points out, you cannot be restricted (a la California) to a limited number of “safe” guns.
"The final report of the commission to President Carter contained the recommendations upon which the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 was based....
By the start of the Carter administration in 1977, involuntary commitment had been restricted to those who were deemed as potentially dangerous to themselves or, perhaps more significantly, those around them.2 Typically, the commitment had to be sponsored by a family member and/or ordered by the court.
A result of this policy was that the mentally ill patient who refused treatment typically did not receive any at all. If the patient had lost contact with family members, she or he would not be committed unless found to be a threat by the court. Often, those arrested ended up in jail rather than in treatment if they had not been found to be a threat but had committed a crime (Abramson, 1972; Conrad and Schneider, 1980). On e result was a high degree of stress and frustration experienced by the relatives of the patient. Throughout the 1970s, family members organized with the purpose of correcting a policy that they perceived was wrong."
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
Not exactly. Trump uses the phrase "national right to carry," but if you look at the actual proposal, what he's really proposing is national reciprocity for right to carry. So, if you have a Texas permit, you can carry on NY. It would do nothing to ease restrictions on getting permits in New York and similar places, which are virtually impossible to get (Donald Trump has one, but you or I? Forget it.).
Thank you..I appreciate the reply.
I’ll certainly look more at the cases referenced.
I had a temp job not long ago entering data for a close by state mental hospital from their archives. In the past, many husbands committed their wives for “unruly behavior”. Pretty scary.
I agree. I own guns-—don’t do concealed carry, yet. And I’m not an activist who follows a lot of the NRA stuff, but this sounded like a brilliant plan, and certainly the most radical pro-2A plan I’ve ever seen.
It’s pretty hard to determine these days who is genuinely coo-coo. There are plenty of undiagnosed mental patients running around...as is evidenced by recent crimes.
Hot Air: “Mixed bag”
Do I even have to say it?
The second amendment is an incorporated right just like the first amendment. A state does not have the legal right to deprive you of that individual right. There is nothing wrong with using the power of the federal government to compel states to abide by the constitution. That’s what this election is all about IMO.
And when 50 states get their nose under that tent?
Here’s why I asked that.
We have 50 states in various stages of trying to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights. Some are doing nothing and others are coming up with more legislation all the time.
The activist anti-Second Amendment states do their darnedest to come up with something that will slip past the appellate courts and the SCOTUS. When a state gets one through, it hurts every state,
It opens the door to a new law that has been approved by the SCOTUS.
Eliminating the state impact on this would narrow the efforts down to one voice, the federal government.
In theory that should eliminate the tag-team effort we have today, with multiple states doing their best to deny us our rights. Eliminate their ability to impede the 2nd Amendment.
All anti-gun cases should have to go through the federal courts.
That will eliminate a lot fo nonsense.
State Legislatures, sorry, no jurisdiction...
For those who say state regulation of carry is a 2nd Amendment violation, I'd suggest that is the issue. When you advocate Federal regulation of concealed carry, you've conceded that argument to the Feds, and open the door to Federal regulation of the issuance of concealed carry permits. Or at least permits to be recognized. Bad idea, other than those who consider 280 hours of instruction, perhaps, reasonable.
but I don’t want the Federal government regulating this.
Libertarians believe we shouldn’t criminals behind bars and we shouldn’t seek the commitment of crazy people.
They are exactly the things we need to do more of and as a conservative, I believe the first responsibility of government is to protect society.
This is why I back the Trump platform. I’m not anti-government; I’m for government fulfilling its core responsibility to assure the public safety - without it, we don’t have a decent and law-abiding society.
We need a federal law because our freedom to RKBA should be uniform no matter where we live.
You don’t want states to have different rules for freedom of speech do you?
We have too many confusing, complicated and overly restrictive gun laws on the books in this country.
A federal concealed carry law would make order out of this mess and ensure that your right is the same no matter where you live or travel to in the country.
That’s the biggest load of dog squeeze I’m read in a while (and that’s saying a lot w/ the amount to pro v. con Trump on this board). But, if you have a platform position backing up your claims, I’m all for hearing/reading and adjusting my affiliation thusly...
(L) are, for the few laws that SHOULD be on the books), one pays the time for the crime. If one is an ex-con, one is again a Citizen (with all the Rights and privileges thereof). If one is a danger to themselves, others, they should not be OUT of prison or the funny-farm.
Hint: It’s NOT the (L) releasing the illegals, homeless (nutty) back on the streets to terrorize the Citizens of this Nation...it’s the Socialist+ Left whom believe no one is any worse than another (IE: we’re all ‘good @ heart’).
It would work just like your driver license. That is exactly what DT uses as an example. If I am licensed in my home state I can drive in every state. "Full faith and credit..." is in the Constitution. If I am licensed to carry in my home state, I could carry in every state.
If a particular state wants to limit the ability of their own residents to carry, that might be their right. But, they should not be able to disarm me if I am visiting.
Given what the Obamanation has done, I think Trump could accomplish reciprocity almost by executive order. He could certainly order the Justice Department to defend anyone charged in a state other than his home state, and might even be able to bring civil rights charges against whatever authority harassed people carrying with an out of state permit.
The NRA’s proposal is a least restrictive carry standard. Which pre-empts any state or local law that doesn’t meet it.
And it should be added places like NY, CA, HI and DC are in practice no carry jurisdictions.
In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to bring in a federal law. But we do.
Thanks for posting that... years ago I had somebody trying to tell me Reagan was the reason they were all closed... I did not believe him but I had no argument either.
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.