Shocker: CA proposes unconstitutional measures in wake of shooting

[The Rabbi]

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

Two Assembly members proposed legislation that would create a gun violence restraining order that could be sought from a judge by law enforcement at the request of family members and friends.

"When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," said Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, who sponsored the measure with Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara.

Currently, therapists can tell authorities when they fear a client is at risk of committing a violent act. However, there is no prohibition on firearms ownership unless someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Another proposal involves establishing statewide protocols for law enforcement officers who are called to check on mentally troubled people.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested that authorities should be required as part of such welfare visits to check whether a person has purchased weapons instead of just talking to them.

Additional steps could include searching the individual's surroundings and talking to roommates, neighbors and relatives, he said.

more at the source

 

[The Rabbi]

Why arent people up in arms over this?

 

[hjmick]

Why arent people up in arms over this?

Because at this point, nothing coming out of California, or New York for that matter, is shocking or surprising?

 

[KGB]

I'm trying to understand how this would even work. I agree that we need to keep weapons away from mentally ill people (something the NRA strongly supports), but as always, the devil is in the details. Is there due process here?

 

[Katzndogz]

More disturbing than this law is the fact that although therapists CAN report disturbed patients, they don't. Elliot Rodger's therapist KNEW how disturbed he was. Just like John Holmes therapist KNEW how disturbed he was. Neither did anything. Therapists and counselors should be more than allowed to report patients in the verge of violence. They should be required to do so. Once a qualified professional makes notification to the authorities it should be automatic that gun registration records be examined. These are public records. No privacy concerns. We shouldn't need a law for that. It doesn't sound oppressive to question the close associates either. The roommates found Rodger so disturbed that they were looking for new living arrangements to get away from him. Had they been questioned, no doubt this tragedy would never have happened.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Maybe guns shouldn't be permitted in ny, ca, il. They've clearly demonstrated that they have no respect or comprehension of how to use one. And when they do use them its for crimes.

 

[bodecea]

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

Two Assembly members proposed legislation that would create a gun violence restraining order that could be sought from a judge by law enforcement at the request of family members and friends.

"When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," said Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, who sponsored the measure with Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara.

Currently, therapists can tell authorities when they fear a client is at risk of committing a violent act. However, there is no prohibition on firearms ownership unless someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Another proposal involves establishing statewide protocols for law enforcement officers who are called to check on mentally troubled people.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested that authorities should be required as part of such welfare visits to check whether a person has purchased weapons instead of just talking to them.

Additional steps could include searching the individual's surroundings and talking to roommates, neighbors and relatives, he said.

more at the source

If it is unconstitutional....like it sounds....thank goodness for the Constitution and the courts who would shoot it down REGARDLESS of its popularity.

 

[The Rabbi]

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

Two Assembly members proposed legislation that would create a gun violence restraining order that could be sought from a judge by law enforcement at the request of family members and friends.

"When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," said Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, who sponsored the measure with Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara.

Currently, therapists can tell authorities when they fear a client is at risk of committing a violent act. However, there is no prohibition on firearms ownership unless someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Another proposal involves establishing statewide protocols for law enforcement officers who are called to check on mentally troubled people.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested that authorities should be required as part of such welfare visits to check whether a person has purchased weapons instead of just talking to them.

Additional steps could include searching the individual's surroundings and talking to roommates, neighbors and relatives, he said.

more at the source

If it is unconstitutional....like it sounds....thank goodness for the Constitution and the courts who would shoot it down REGARDLESS of its popularity.

Someone would have to bring an action first. Why is it even considered?

 

[syrenn]

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

Two Assembly members proposed legislation that would create a gun violence restraining order that could be sought from a judge by law enforcement at the request of family members and friends.

"When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," said Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, who sponsored the measure with Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara.

Currently, therapists can tell authorities when they fear a client is at risk of committing a violent act. However, there is no prohibition on firearms ownership unless someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Another proposal involves establishing statewide protocols for law enforcement officers who are called to check on mentally troubled people.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested that authorities should be required as part of such welfare visits to check whether a person has purchased weapons instead of just talking to them.

Additional steps could include searching the individual's surroundings and talking to roommates, neighbors and relatives, he said.

more at the source

my opinion.... THIS suggestion is a step in the right direction.


It is about the people..... not the guns.

 

[syrenn]

And lets not forget

He stabbed 3 people to death. Will knives be included in all of this with the mentally ill?

 

[Anathema]

More disturbing than this law is the fact that although therapists CAN report disturbed patients, they don't. Elliot Rodger's therapist KNEW how disturbed he was. Just like John Holmes therapist KNEW how disturbed he was. Neither did anything. Therapists and counselors should be more than allowed to report patients in the verge of violence. They should be required to do so. Once a qualified professional makes notification to the authorities it should be automatic that gun registration records be examined. These are public records. No privacy concerns. We shouldn't need a law for that. It doesn't sound oppressive to question the close associates either. The roommates found Rodger so disturbed that they were looking for new living arrangements to get away from him. Had they been questioned, no doubt this tragedy would never have happened.

So what you're suggesting is ensuring that no gun owner ever even considers seeking mental health advice or therapy?

I ask that question because I specifically have NOT sought out assistance for depression and other issues simply BECAUSE the Communistwealth of Massachusetts pretty much does exactly what you are suggesting and my gun ownership is more important to me than my mental health. I will not risk losing my firearms license or my guns because I made the mistake of going to some quack/head-shrinker who suddenly decides that I'm a "threat" because I tell them what I'm actually feeling in a session.

I'm not alone in this. I know at least a dozen individuals here in this state alone who have been advised BY A RETIRED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL (and gun owner) not to see anyone because they are likely to lose their licenses/firearms if they do.

 

[bodecea]

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

more at the source

If it is unconstitutional....like it sounds....thank goodness for the Constitution and the courts who would shoot it down REGARDLESS of its popularity.

Someone would have to bring an action first. Why is it even considered?

The NRA would in a heart beat and as well they should. I love constitutional protections regardless of the popularity of unconstitutional laws...don't you?

 

[jillian]

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

Two Assembly members proposed legislation that would create a gun violence restraining order that could be sought from a judge by law enforcement at the request of family members and friends.

"When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," said Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, who sponsored the measure with Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara.

Currently, therapists can tell authorities when they fear a client is at risk of committing a violent act. However, there is no prohibition on firearms ownership unless someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Another proposal involves establishing statewide protocols for law enforcement officers who are called to check on mentally troubled people.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested that authorities should be required as part of such welfare visits to check whether a person has purchased weapons instead of just talking to them.

Additional steps could include searching the individual's surroundings and talking to roommates, neighbors and relatives, he said.

more at the source

what's unconstitutional about that?

answer: nothing

and there is nothing in even the radical heller decision that would prohibit reasonable regulation.

 

[Anathema]

COLOR="Navy"]my opinion.... THIS suggestion is a step in the right direction.

It is about the people..... not the guns. [/COLOR]

All that would do is make gun owners less likely to want to interact with anyone in the mental health and/or law enforcement fields.

 

[Katzndogz]

It isn't unconstitutional. There is nothing unconstitutional about looking at public records. What is necessary though, is a change in the law relating to professional responsibility. Currently the requirement is that if a psychological professional knows of a specific target, they are to warn the police and the target. Not so if the target is general. If Elliot Rodger had said he was going to kill Betty Boop because she was really a lizard and he was going to rid the world of lizards, that imposes an obligation on the professional to report the threat. If, on the other hand, the threat is to kill all blondes and muscular men because the threat doesn't like them, that MAY but does not HAVE to be reported to anyone. It may also subject the professional to civil liability for violating the patient's confidentiality.

Change the fricking law. It should be criminal for a psychological professional to withhold that information.

 

[jillian]

Like no one saw this coming. I would say I can't believe anyone wouild propose measures like this, which will do nothing to stop gun violence but will infringe on rights. And I dont just mean the 2A.
Santa Barbara attacks prompt action from lawmakers

more at the source

If it is unconstitutional....like it sounds....thank goodness for the Constitution and the courts who would shoot it down REGARDLESS of its popularity.

Someone would have to bring an action first. Why is it even considered?

because it's not unconstitutional. and if it is, that is the job of the courts, not just the surmise of pretend constitutionalists.

 

[Katzndogz]

And lets not forget

He stabbed 3 people to death. Will knives be included in all of this with the mentally ill?

Or cars! He drove his car into people.

The answer is, yes. Under this proposed law, once a professional lodges a concern with law enforcement, not only would gun registration rolls be examined but associates and neighbors would be interviewed. The extent of the mental illness would be determined and the individual approaching psychotic break dealt with. That disposes of the knife and car question.

 

[Plasmaball]

Good. Dude was seeing a therapist...There was concern..he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

 

[Anathema]

The answer is, yes. Under this proposed law, once a professional lodges a concern with law enforcement, not only would gun registration rolls be examined but associates and neighbors would be interviewed. The extent of the mental illness would be determined and the individual approaching psychotic break dealt with.

So, what do you do in states which do not have a gun registry, or which admit that their paperwork is woefully out of date? Massachusetts, for example, could tell you that I have LTC but could not tell you what (if any) firearms I own.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Good. Dude was seeing a therapist...There was concern..he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

I didn't know that. Had he been diagnosed with a clinical disorder? To carry that out, if you went to see a therapist because you had anxieties when speaking in front of crowds, would you simply lump that in with the rest of the serious disorders?