Skip to main content

View Diary: A Smarter Approach to Gun Control (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really. (0+ / 0-)

    This may, at least in part, be why the process is handled by the sheriff, i.e. the highest ranking law enforcement officer.

    In my state: General Statute 14‑415.12
    (a)(3) the applicant does not suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun.

    (b)(6)Is currently, or has been previously adjudicated by a court or administratively determined by a governmental agency whose decisions are subject to judicial review to be, lacking mental capacity or mentally ill. Receipt of previous consultative services or outpatient treatment alone shall not disqualify an applicant under this subdivision.

    (c) An applicant shall not be ineligible to receive a concealed carry permit under subdivision (6) of subsection (b) of this section because of involuntary commitment to mental health services if the individual's rights have been restored under G.S. 122C‑54.1

    •  This is one thing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, noway2
      adjudicated by a court or administratively determined by a governmental agency whose decisions are subject to judicial review to be, lacking mental capacity or mentally ill
      Presumably those records are at the courthouse.

      This is a whole other, very dangerous, ball of wax.

      A records check of the local medical facilities is made
      And it leaves this section of your local statute in a pretty grey area
      Receipt of previous consultative services or outpatient treatment alone shall not disqualify
      If inpatient treatment is a factor, even if it is not court ordered, then it does open that can of worms about checking with medical facilities. And where is the line drawn. Inpatient treatment for an eating disorder? For depression? For drug rehab?

      "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

      by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:45:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •   Yes, it is a sticky wicket. (0+ / 0-)

        I know that when my wife and I obtained our permits, that the local (our county and surrounding) medical facilities were contacted because we started getting advertisements addressed to us by last name from these facilities that we had never been to.

        I hear you and I am receptive to ideas and and discussion.   This area will undoubtedly require some sort of balance.  What I don't think will fly is the idea of having a mental health evaluation as part of a permit process as this is too subjective as well as a poor predictor.  

        •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2

          There's an unexpected bonus flaw in the proposal - taking those "confidential" government inquiries and converting them to marketing lists (and anybody nosy enough gets to see you suddenly on the receiving end of brochures from every "nuthouse" in town.)

          But fully agree that a specific mental health evaluation at the time of application is not the answer. I think the answer is going to have to be a pretty narrow definition of court ordered commitment, for specific conditions, and possibly with time limits on how far in the past they look. And unfortunately, this will not screen out some of the mass shooters we have seen recently, who apparently had not risen to such visible danger to self or others as to have reached legal commitment.  However, to broaden the standard to capture such people opens a door far too wide to abuse of who gets to "vote" on whether someone is too weird or quirky or odd to bear arms. Remember, it is only after the shooting that the coworkers, nieghbors, friends, fellow students surface with reports of how bizarre someones behavior was in the days/weeks/months before the tragedy.

          "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

          by Catte Nappe on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:16:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  This would leave those people who have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, Catte Nappe

      been involuntarily committed because they are a danger to others and themselves free to purchase, unless adjudicated otherwise. So, a lot of the people who become mass shooters would be unaffected.

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:46:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am by no means an expert on the nuances (0+ / 0-)

        of these legal tar pits.  However,  I do recall similar discussions on other forums and I my impression is that if you are involuntarily committed, at least for more than 24 hour observation, or something similar that you are invalidated.  I think that the overall objective is to balance the rights of the individual against the safety of the public and require a sufficient due process standard, as should any loss of rights.  I am sure that there are ways to handle things, like temporary restrictions that have to be evaluated in a certain time period.  

        This is certainly an area that would need to be looked at and will require analysis and discussion.  No system will be perfect, though.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site