Free mental health treatment for gun enthusiasts

Correct.
This means the state has to take its case before a court before it can deprive someone of their rights.
Due Process
Correct.
This means the state has to take its case before a court before it can deprive someone of their rights.
You make stuff up.


"The meaning of due process as it relates to substantive enactments and procedural legislation has evolved over decades of controversial interpretation by the Supreme Court. Today, if a law may reasonably be deemed to promote the public welfare and the means selected bear a reasonable relationship to the legitimate public interest, then the law has met the due process standard. If the law seeks to regulate a fundamental right, such as the right to travel or the right to vote, then this enactment must meet a stricter judicial scrutiny, known as the compelling interest test. Economic legislation is generally upheld if the state can point to any conceivable public benefit resulting from its enactment.

In United States constitutional law, a Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the government except as authorized by law.
 
You know that if you go on record as being troubled (anxious, depressed, worried, etc.) that someone, somewhere will find a way to use that against you and relieve you of your 2nd Amendment rights if they are allowed to do so.
Actually not.

One cannot be designated a prohibited person unless he has been adjudicated as being mentally ill or committed to a mental institution the consequence of a court order.

That means a mental health professional would need to testify under oath in a court of law that the person in question is not mentally fit to possess a firearm and provide documented evidence in support of that testimony.

Absent such due process, someone cannot be denied possession of a firearm due to mental illness.
 
Due Process
You make stuff up.
You didn't read your own post

. If the law seeks to regulate a fundamental right, such as the right to travel or the right to vote, then this enactment must meet a stricter judicial scrutiny, known as the compelling interest test.

Where does this happen?
A court.
 
The last thing you want is cops to have the power to commit people.
True, 5150 of Welfare and Institutions Code allows for Law Enforcement to detain and deliver a person as noted here:


(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service.
 
If the cops think you're crazy too, they could put you in the program where you receive free mental health care.
Which – again – is un-Constitutional.

Law enforcement can only refer a case to a judge to make that determination.

And – yet again – that would require providing the court with evidence and testimony from mental health professionals.
 
You didn't read your own post

. If the law seeks to regulate a fundamental right, such as the right to travel or the right to vote, then this enactment must meet a stricter judicial scrutiny, known as the compelling interest test.

Where does this happen?
A court.
A probate court which will assign a conservator in the case of mental illness. I'm beginning to think you need a conservator to protect your liberty. In terms of guns, attempt to enter a public building or a commercial aircraft with a gun in plain sight. Due Process will be in effect immediately.
 
A probate court which will assign a conservator in the case of mental illness. I'm beginning to think you need a conservator to protect your liberty. In terms of guns, attempt to enter a public building or a commercial aircraft with a gun in plain sight. Due Process will be in effect immediately.
Thank you for your thoughtless, zero-content response.
 
There's been at least 2 airline pilots who committed suicide by diving their fully loaded passenger planes into a mountain or ocean.

How much due process would we need to take these pilots jobs away from them so that they couldn't murder dozens of people?
False comparison fallacy.

There is no right to be an airline pilot – there is an individual right to possess firearms.
 
sanctionthebook_69568570_695963007555112_7175017575524204283_n.jpg

denver-shooting-suspect-lyndon-mcleod.jpg

mcleod3.png





Guy loses his mind, kills 4 people.

So why don't we provide free government sponsored mental health care to mentally ill gun enthusiasts.

If the psychiatrist says they're too crazy for guns, they don't get to have access to guns anymore.

This would be a small group of people. The decision of the psychiatrist can be appealed.

What do you think?
It would be way to easy for those with an agenda to grant gun privileges to the insane or take away gun privileges to the sane. To leave the decision to a person that may or may not be subjective is a terrible idea.
 
There's been at least 2 airline pilots who committed suicide by diving their fully loaded passenger planes into a mountain or ocean.

How much due process would we need to take these pilots jobs away from them so that they couldn't murder dozens of people?
Flying an airplane is not a right. Try again.
 
Actually not.

One cannot be designated a prohibited person unless he has been adjudicated as being mentally ill or committed to a mental institution the consequence of a court order.

That means a mental health professional would need to testify under oath in a court of law that the person in question is not mentally fit to possess a firearm and provide documented evidence in support of that testimony.

Absent such due process, someone cannot be denied possession of a firearm due to mental illness.
Did you Bother to read this thread? That is NOT what Otis wants.
 
holmes_vert-b0f8e3289057c97887f25541d65c0f0a6acfd2ac-s1100-c50.jpg



James Holmes set off tear gas grenades and shot into the audience with multiple firearms. Twelve people were killed and 70 others were injured, 58 of them from gunfire. It was the deadliest shooting in Colorado since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. At the time, the event had the largest number of victims (82) in one shooting in modern U.S. history.[4] This number was eventually surpassed by the 107 victims in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.



Another Colorado lunatic that we didn't stop.

Why do you want maniacs to have access to firearms?
 
sanctionthebook_69568570_695963007555112_7175017575524204283_n.jpg

denver-shooting-suspect-lyndon-mcleod.jpg

mcleod3.png





Guy loses his mind, kills 4 people.

So why don't we provide free government sponsored mental health care to mentally ill gun enthusiasts.

If the psychiatrist says they're too crazy for guns, they don't get to have access to guns anymore.

This would be a small group of people. The decision of the psychiatrist can be appealed.

What do you think?
I think it's a stupid fucking idea. It would be too subject to abuse by anti-gun shrinks.
 
holmes_vert-b0f8e3289057c97887f25541d65c0f0a6acfd2ac-s1100-c50.jpg



James Holmes set off tear gas grenades and shot into the audience with multiple firearms. Twelve people were killed and 70 others were injured, 58 of them from gunfire. It was the deadliest shooting in Colorado since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. At the time, the event had the largest number of victims (82) in one shooting in modern U.S. history.[4] This number was eventually surpassed by the 107 victims in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.



Another Colorado lunatic that we didn't stop.

Why do you want maniacs to have access to firearms?
Why do you want to violate people's rights.
 


Guy loses his mind, kills 4 people.

So why don't we provide free government sponsored mental health care to mentally ill gun enthusiasts.

If the psychiatrist says they're too crazy for guns, they don't get to have access to guns anymore.

This would be a small group of people. The decision of the psychiatrist can be appealed.

What do you think?
Remember the black guy that ran down 5 little old white ladies and little kids in Waukesha? he just vanished off the radar. It wasn't terrorism OR racism, because the media says so. The same media that focused on Nick Sandman racist but downplayed Jesse Smollett faux racism. The media and social activists come off more like the boy that cried wolf than actually concerned with...anything.
 
What's the yearly financial cost of firearm crime on America? You have to add on any compensation paid to claim victims.

And what's the cost of yearly firearm and ammunition sales?

Then one good therapy would be to add a sales tax on top of the different State's taxes on firearm and ammo sales to recoup the crime costs.

Seems fair to me.
 
What's the yearly financial cost of firearm crime on America? You have to add on any compensation paid to claim victims.

And what's the cost of yearly firearm and ammunition sales?

Then one good therapy would be to add a sales tax on top of the different State's taxes on firearm and ammo sales to recoup the crime costs.

Seems fair to me.
Are all murderers insane?
 

Forum List

Back
Top