Skip to main content

View Diary: Navy Yard shooting not likely to make gun-safety advocates' task easier (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I support the due process approach with all... (3+ / 0-)

    ...laws, including one that would prevent someone from owning a firearm or an automobile because of dangerous mental conditions.

    Background check: Do it that same for everybody. Commercial dealers can handle such checks now with a phone call. They, or even people who are not not dealers but authorized for the purpose, can do the same for private sales, charging a fee for the purpose. Same system as now, no records kept of those who pass the check for 24 hours. Simple. No new bureaucracy.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:12:45 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Define "dangerous mental condition" (0+ / 0-)

      It's like nailing jello to the wall, trying to get a firm definition on that.

      Is it PTSD?  Asperger's?  Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts?  Anger management issues?  A domestic violence incident years ago?  Being a bully or having been bullied in school?

      Who decides what constitutes a "dangerous mental condition"?  Where is the 2nd Amendment right actually voided?  Is that determination permanent for life?  Can it be appealed in court?  The ACLU is fighting to have the No Fly List be challengable in court.  A No Gun List would have to be the same.

      What it can't be is just a doctor's note to some State agency.  It can't be one shrink making a phone call.  It has to be a judgement by a court, maybe even a jury.  

      •  As I said. I support due process in this regard... (2+ / 0-)

        ...Physicians make a determination of what constitutes dangerous and offer diagnoses. Lawyers and legislators determine the legally mandated procedure for including someone on the list of people proscribed by such diagnoses from owning firearms. And, yes, I believe such designations should be appealable in court. But I don't think they should automatically go to court. That is, the designation itself should not start in a court.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:20:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Require Gun Insurance & let the Free Market... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Faito, Mark Mywurtz

      Require Gun Insurance & let the Free Market sort it out.
      I believe such a system would survive SCOTUS.

      Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

      by olo on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:26:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  olo - maybe (0+ / 0-)

        I think if the insurance was offered for a very nominal sum it would pass muster at the SCOTUS. However, if the insurance was high enough to be seen as a barrier to gun ownership by people of modest means I think the SCOTUS would strike it down. You can't use a legislated monetary cost to restrict access to a constitutional right.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:02:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How would an insurance policy (0+ / 0-)

        have been an impediment to this madman?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site