Trump reveals his second amendment stance

[deemus]

One thing that stood out to me was this part:

"Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others."

Having a family member who had mental issues, it was frustrating to deal with in the current system. Because they won't allow someone to be committed or forced into treatment untill they are proven to be a danger to themselves or others. Unfortunately, that often means a horrible crime is committed, usually with a gun. Then they get committed permanently.

I am not sure what the fix is, but it needs to change. The answer is NOT changing the gun laws, but getting mentally ill people help.

Here is the link to the full article:

http://conservativetribune.com/trum...tm_content=2016-03-06&utm_campaign=manualpost

 

[straightwall]

But if we add, "Has seen a counselor," to the NICS check as reason for Denial, then many needing professional help will not seek it for fear of losing 2A rights.
No easy answers.

 

[Mreed911]

But if we add, "Has seen a counselor," to the NICS check as reason for Denial, then many needing professional help will not seek it for fear of losing 2A rights.
No easy answers.

That's not actually what's being suggested outside of fringe groups.

There's already a process in Texas, at least, to request/begin/continue emergency detention for mental health treatment and that process has specific people that perform specific actions and start a clock that triggers automatic judicial review of said circumstances. Adding on an "under treatment/certified danger to self or others" flag, with appropriate judicial review and due process, isn't that onerous in and of itself... and would be completely outside the "I sought counseling-based treatment because I felt depressed" realm people worry about.

 

[Blind Sniper]

^^ Adding to that, what mental disorders would disqualify someone from buying a gun? If things like ADHD and being treated for depression ~10+ years ago are enough, then most of my family (myself included) can kiss their 2A rights goodbye.

I know it's not likely to happen, but given the track record with "fringe" groups getting what they want and fucking over everyone else in the process, can't help but be a tad paranoid.

 

[AustinN4]

...............people that perform specific actions.............

What people and actions?

 

[Mreed911]

^^ Adding to that, what mental disorders would disqualify someone from buying a gun? If things like ADHD and being treated for depression ~10+ years ago are enough, then most of my family (myself included) can kiss their 2A rights goodbye.

We have a medical review process to revoke/deny driver licensing. How familiar are you with how that process works? Doing a little research there would be a good place to start.

It's a bit trickier with firearms for several reasons: driving, in and of itself, is not a protected right, whereas firearms ownership is, and you're not preventing them from accessing/using any other deadly weapons, chemicals, etc. (knives, for starters). It is, however, possible.

 

[Mreed911]

What people and actions?

Much too broad a question to answer here. There's lots of statutory law and case law around involuntary commitment on an emergency basis, continuing that commitment, etc. It's a good Google search for when you want to go down the rabbit hole.

Texas law on who can request/order an involuntary commitment even changed in the last legislative session, further protecting individuals by ensuring the person making the commitment request is qualified to do so (vs. "just a doctor" or "just a police officer").

 

[AustinN4]

Much too broad a question to answer here.

Would the woman on the truck qualify?

 

[Mreed911]

Would the woman on the truck qualify?

You'd have to know a lot more about how she got up there, why, etc.

Good recent example: 15+ mile police chase ends in (thankfully) a non-injury wreck on a major freeway. Lots of bouncing off the k-rails side to side, etc. before the car runs into the back of a pickup, totaling both. Turns out the driver was hypoglycemic, having taken insulin but not eating (forgot to eat/got distracted). No criminal charges but a definite referral to the Medical Advisory Board by the police officer/accident investigator.

The point is, you have to know a whole lot more than just a single point in time to make a determination, and there's a process to ensure that can/does happen, both for driver licenses and for mental health commits.

In this case: for me, as a paramedic, it's entirely possible I'd have what I need to be able to document that she wasn't in control of her faculties enough to be able to give an informed refusal to consent to treatment and I could "treat her against her will," including sedating and/or restraining her to prevent further harm to her or anyone else if that so required. It's also possible that the conversation goes "I got tired of being in traffic, got pissed off, and decided to do something wild and stupid and I don't regret it" and she's otherwise in full control of her faculties, in which case she can absolutely refuse treatment and there's nothing I (or anyone else) can do about it. There's no way for me to know without knowing the totality of the circumstances how it would go.

 

[lonestardiver]

But if we add, "Has seen a counselor," to the NICS check as reason for Denial, then many needing professional help will not seek it for fear of losing 2A rights.
No easy answers.

This could be a bad thing to add. For example, firefighters, EMS personnel, and police officers could be seeing a counselor after a particularly bad call. Yes we have built in CISD (critical incident stress debriefing) sessions, but depending on various factors, they may need to see a counselor.... This could present people being denied for the wrong reason.

 

[deemus]

This could be a bad thing to add. For example, firefighters, EMS personnel, and police officers could be seeing a counselor after a particularly bad call. Yes we have built in CISD (critical incident stress debriefing) sessions, but depending on various factors, they may need to see a counselor.... This could present people being denied for the wrong reason.

The whole reason for the new changes (I don't know of anyone who has been denied owning / buying a weapon due to mental illness), and why it needs to be further addressed is that the current system does not work well.

On one hand you have many of us who are concerned about being denied gun ownership due to a potential "mental illness" situation, which may or may not be a real concern, or should not disqualify us from owning / buying. On the other hand you have some effed up people who in fact do NOT need to own / buy a weapon, who go nuts and actually shoot up places and people.

I know of a guy who went into a public place with weapons, but was so out of it that he forgot to load them. It was his ticket to the nuthouse, where he belonged.

The Obamcare proposals are too far reaching. But we need to be able to identify those who are to the point that they do what that guy did to Chris Kyle. Something has to give. We need to find a balance.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Due process is required though. Has to be adjudicated.

Let's be honest. Crazies shooting people is not statistically significant. More children died in pools. It is tragic but is this really a huge problem that needs solving? There is already a legal process to have people considered legally "crazy."


ETA: I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve the process, but I'm asking why it is in the forefront of national discussion.

 

[Byrd666]

Trump is nothing more than a salesman and marketer. He will say/write anything he thinks will give him the votes. It's funny to me that he is suddenly so pro gun, and less than two years ago he was asking for longer waiting periods on any firearms purchase(s). As well as supporting various gun bans.

 

[AustinN4]

Trump is nothing more than a salesman and marketer. He will say/write anything he thinks will give him the votes.

Decorated veterans star in tough new anti-Trump ads:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/271928-decorated-veterans-star-in-tough-new-anti-trump-ads

"Decorated veterans are going after Donald Trump’s character in hard-hitting new Florida ads designed to drive down the Republican presidential front-runner’s popularity to stop him winning the crucial winner-take-all state on March 15."

 

[CrazedJava]

Trump is nothing more than a salesman and marketer. He will say/write anything he thinks will give him the votes. It's funny to me that he is suddenly so pro gun, and less than two years ago he was asking for longer waiting periods on any firearms purchase(s). As well as supporting various gun bans.

I don't get this.

I used to be very pro-gun control. Now I own an "evil assault weapon". It's all black and everything. I supported open carry but back when concealed carry was proposed I opposed it.

While I didn't give up all my gun control views overnight, the flip from "more gun control" to "more gun rights" and the inevitable acceptance that most gun control measures don't work was pretty much an overnight process.

I don't understand why people say we need to change minds but then when someone comes over to our side we immediately accuse them of not being pure enough. His credibility is certainly worth questioning but we don't really know where his heart is at.

He is certainly saying things in public that our supposed conservative career politicians seem to be afraid to support. If Trump isn't conservative enough for you then I don't want to know what most of the long-time GOP is supposed to be. He's running to the right of everyone except Cruz.

 

[Byrd666]

His credibility is certainly worth questioning but we don't really know where his heart is at.

So just because of a sudden switch, I'm supposed to go whole hog for a used car salesman?

His credibility is most certainly at question. On everything from guns to baby wipes. And if we don't know "where his heart is at", exactly how are supposed know he is trustworthy? And just for the sake of argument, let's just say he is now pro 2nd. How can/am I supposed to know this when pretty much everything he has said is highly against it. One positive statement does not undo years of negative statements.

 

[Shady]

So you are saying Trump is a politician?

What candidate Does not say exactly what the party wants them to and what is said is made by speech writers that are just as far from reality as the politicians are themselves.
If you dont think all sides are just gunning for the big payday for them and there friends then you need to look at how many go into it with decent wealth and come out with 10X as much as when they take office.

Anyone who thinks they hear anything about what the guys trying to get elected really stand for are fools. All you hear is what they think you want to hear to get votes.

Trump is nothing more than a salesman and marketer. He will say/write anything he thinks will give him the votes. It's funny to me that he is suddenly so pro gun, and less than two years ago he was asking for longer waiting periods on any firearms purchase(s). As well as supporting various gun bans.

 

[deemus]

So you are saying Trump is a politician?

What candidate Does not say exactly what the party wants them to and what is said is made by speech writers that are just as far from reality as the politicians are themselves.
If you dont think all sides are just gunning for the big payday for them and there friends then you need to look at how many go into it with decent wealth and come out with 10X as much as when they take office.

Anyone who thinks they hear anything about what the guys trying to get elected really stand for are fools. All you hear is what they think you want to hear to get votes.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your current plan..."

 

[straightwall]

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your current plan..."

"That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

 

[F350-6]

Trump has been a CHL holder in NY for a long time, so I don't worry too much about 2A issues with him. I also know we used to have many more mental health institutions (Texas MHMR used to be a lot bigger) than we do today when family and society locked up or restricted crazy people.

Today we have Zanax and everyone is free to blend with society. Still, I worry about the lay of unintended consequences. Restricting the crazies sounds great on paper. I just don't trust the government to implement it properly. The mental health doctors will work to shield their patients (so they don't lose all their business), which means the ones who end up getting restricted, probably shouldn't need to be.