First, the benediction.
God, give me the strength to keep my smart ass shut, and my rational thoughts open. Amen
You want to do something about gun violence? That is great, I do too. I support PBO's steps, as far as they go. I think they could go a lot farther. Look at NY state, they have a good looking start. But they do not go far enough either. What about the handguns? If the CDC actually does get the chance to research gun violence, we already know what it will say. Handguns are the real killers in this country. I support bans on certain types of weapons, including handguns, and their accessories. I support many of these steps. So please save your, "you support doing nothing rhetoric" because I do not And to those who claim that regulation equals taking all guns, No it doesn't. I respect that there are difference in the attitudes and yes, needs of people who live in urban/suburban areas, and people who live in rural areas. I believe that the needs of both can be reasonably addressed
What I cannot agree to is below the fold.
I cannot agree, and I hope most people here and the country as well, to abrogating what is one of the most fundamental concepts to our Constitution, and yes liberty. That right is Due Process of law. The Fifth Amendment reads:
No person shall be... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
I do not believe in the Second Amendment. However, even without it gun ownership would still be protected through the democratic legislative process, and it should be. Again, regulating, does not and should not equal a total denial. I hope that I have stipulated that enough for those who are on both sides.
In addition, I do not believe that the government should be able take someones property without a system of Due Process in place. Nor should the government be allowed to deny someone what is otherwise legal to own as property without a system of Due Process.
People here have rightly screamed holy terror over the Patriot Act and how it has done major damage to the requirement to have probable cause and a warrant in order to read emails, search records, and even listen to telephone conversations. They have, and rightly so cried foul about the "no fly" watch list because of the problems of knowing how one is on it and with the problems with getting off of it.
So, why is it so easy to chuck the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? If there are classifications of people who should not own firearms, AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE, then there needs to be a process for it, and not some "screening".
Felons have had their day in court and were found guilty of a violation of the law. They had the protections of the law including legal defense, the right to present evidence in their own defense, the right to cross-examine the opposing witnesses and challenge the evidence against them. The same is true of anyone who has been adjudicated incompetent due to psychiatric or cognitive "defect" who has been institutionalized, or had a conservator or guardian appointed for them. These people had rights beyond just a denial of something or not. They have rights to the process.
The issue is fairly straight forward for someone who has gone through a court proceeding and been found to belong in a classification of people who should have firearms. It is not that easy, and is quite scary if applied, with respect to people who have not gone through a court proceeding.
There is lots of talk from the "anti-gun" or "pro-regulation" sides about mental health screenings. These, we are told, will keep us safe. For crying in the Milk, if you support such a concept please write a full blown diary supporting the concept. I make no demands of you, but in an objective manner I would contemplate that it would answer some basic questions of how such a system would work. Here they are:
Who is going to develop the criteria that would be in the screening for a negative/positive result, i.e. clearance to purchase or denial. Will it be the courts, the legislatures, associations like the APA, or the AMA?
Will you rely on specific diagnosis, or behavioral traits. Or will it be just gut instinct? Will there be a process to ensure that your screening is effective, i.e. a review process. If there isn't, how will you know if you are achieving your goals?
If the courts are not going to be making a determination as to fitness vis-a-vis the application of a screening, then who is going to apply it.
Will psychiatrists or psychologists be applying the screening? Will these people be state employees or in private practice? who will pay for it, and how much will it cost? This isn't like a fee for a car BTW. Psychologists and psychiatrists are very expensive and I do not think they will do it for a lesser amount than their regular fees. There are other problems with either. First, most of this group who are experts about gun violence do not believe that identifying who may or may not do a violent act, is possible. In addition, psychs are specialists these days. A behavioral-psych or a child psych probably isn't qualified.
Will it be a clerk like at DMV? I truly hope not. It is one thing to determine if someone can read the eye chart, and didn't score high enough on the multiple choice test. It is quite another thing to do a psychological screening. Psychology has really improved since Freud, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity in general and doing assessments in particular. This is an issue of qualification just like above, and that has been determined to be an issue in the application of Due Process.
Now we have the issue of what happens to this assessment once it has been completed. Holy crap there are a lot of issues here.
Is there a right to appeal a decision? Are you even notified of the decision? Can you challenge a decision by getting another assessment by an independent source?
To make these assessments work, there will have to be a database, i.e. a registry. If it were just people who went through a court proceeding, I am okay with this. This stuff is public record anyway. I am not okay with a registry if it has other methods of getting into it. Those reasons are:
1. What information goes into the database? Just a failure to pass an assessment, or some form of diagnosis;
2. Who has access to the specifics in the database? The gun seller may not see any specifics about a person's mental health. They will probably just get a "yes" or "no". But there could be other people who might have access to this information who do not need it, such as the police, or other government employees.
3. Can the fact that a person is in the database be used for other purposes? What are those purposes if you say yes?
4. How long does a person stay in the database? Is there a time limit, or a way to petition to be taken out of it?
I have really been shocked at the number of people who are willing to do "whatever it takes", or who choose not to look beyond the visceral response and take a deeper look. More than 900 deaths have occured since Sandy hook, and it is climbing. Surely reasonable people of good will and faith from all sides can come together on this.
There are other issues why I think such a database is bad public policy, but I will not go into them because I want to keep the conversation tied to Due Process. I believe I have done this reasonably well.
Remember what Ben Franklin wrote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
P.S. To anyone who I have offended due to my sharp tongue in diaries or comments, I hereby appologize. As my prayer above states. may I keep my smart ass closed and my mind open.