Scary Big Brother-esque law in Arizona

#1
Rasputin_Vol

Rasputin_Vol

"Slava Ukraina"
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
72,056
Likes
39,845
#1
Others could have sought evaluation for Arizona suspect

So wait, if a teacher, classmate or neighbor thinks that you may need to be in a padded cell, they can take you away and then this visit to see Nurse Ratched can be on a permanent file somewhere that can prevent you from getting a gun? What if I have it out for somebody? What if I am holding a grudge against somebody? Can I drop a dime on them and destroy their life?

Interesting...
 
#2
#2
Wow, I just posted in the other thread a question that is answered by this post. Hm.
 
#3
#3
My opinion: If you cause an eval that proves to be a false alarm, you should get your own eval. Haha
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
this is the problem. hard to identify what's strange behavior or makes you just weird and what makes you violent.
 
#5
#5
I've had a crazy student - confirmed nutjob who was off his meds - and there was little I could do about it except shield others in the class from him on projects etc. I frequently imagined he could bring a gun to class but until he did something there was nothing else I could do.
 
#6
#6
I would be ok with a school, university, or military requesting an evaluation. And if you wanted a gun you would have to comply. Of course that does require a certain bit of responsibility on the party that has the power to request, but aren't we already trusting them with a quite a bit of power as far as a student being in their hands? And if you think that is asking too much, I've heard from a lot of liberals that everyone wanting a gun should have to have a psychiatric evaluation.
 
#7
#7
volinbham said:
I've had a crazy student - confirmed nutjob who was off his meds - and there was little I could do about it except shield others in the class from him on projects etc. I frequently imagined he could bring a gun to class but until he did something there was nothing else I could do.
Click to expand...

i used to work for a company that as part of its projects had to do a community forum before any major redevelopment project. the nuts that would attend these things were unbelievable. i once had a guy who gave me a videotape that he said "proved" that the airport was illegally increasing it's number of takeoffs and landings. he video taped each one for a month. let's just say i was happy my work building had security.
 
#8
#8
I suppose the underlying concern is simply who gets to decide the criteria? Using the gun example there are people out there that are quite convinced that the simple fact that anyone would want a gun is itself demonstrable proof of some kind of mental issue. How much vetting of an accuser's story would there be if whoever is doing the evaluation wants to believe the story?
 
#9
#9
i know plenty of wackjobs with guns. none of them have killed anyone (so far). hard for me to figure out which ones would actually use them and which ones wont.
 
#10
#10
Right, crazy people killing people with guns is incredibly rare. I don't see any need for any new laws to prevent it. Liberals will use any reason whatsoever to make guns harder to obtain and use.
 
#11
#11
So you guys think its ok to allow schizo's to have guns? I'd personally rather try to stop that.
 
#12
#12
Weezy said:
So you guys think its ok to allow schizo's to have guns? I'd personally rather try to stop that.
Click to expand...

if they haven't been institutionalized how do we know they are schitizo rather than just strange? it's not as though you can take a blood test.
 
#13
#13
Weezy said:
So you guys think its ok to allow schizo's to have guns? I'd personally rather try to stop that.
Click to expand...

Clinically diagnosed, or a few people's opinion that they may have said disorder?

Because if it is diagnosed, that is one of the boxes you can't check when purchasing a firearm... unless you lie about it.
 
#14
#14
See I've never purchased a firearm and I'm not sure what the background check entails (isn't one required?). But from the sound of it, there was no mistaking this guy as a mentally unstable. The school did request a psych evaluation for him. Maybe there is a way that this request could have been placed into a system that would pop up in the background check. Then he would not be able to purchase until evaluated. Could this be bypassed...sure, but the guy was apparently unmistakably nutty. I'm ok with putting that responsibility with the schools or military branch.

Maybe this is too costly. But it might be a needed compromise.
 
#15
#15
my brother is unquestionably bipolar IMO. we've never been able to convince him to go see a doctor. short of having him institutionalized (not exactly easy btw) i'm not sure what people can really do.
 
#16
#16
Weezy said:
See I've never purchased a firearm and I'm not sure what the background check entails (isn't one required?). But from the sound of it, there was no mistaking this guy as a mentally unstable. The school did request a psych evaluation for him. Maybe there is a way that this request could have been placed into a system that would pop up in the background check. Then he would not be able to purchase until evaluated. Could this be bypassed...sure, but the guy was apparently unmistakably nutty. I'm ok with putting that responsibility with the schools or military branch.

Maybe this is too costly. But it might be a needed compromise.
Click to expand...

There actually are such measures. If you recall the VT shooting that guy had been declared mentally ill and ordered to get treatment after being accused of stalking female students. Nevertheless as it turns out loopholes (apparently both state and federal) allowed him to purchase a handgun and not be flagged by the NICS. After that tragedy those issues were addressed and, at least in theory, closed those loopholes.

The problem in this conversation is in the application. To my knowledge there simply was no actual official declaration of mental illness regarding the AZ shooter that would have flagged him. As I understand it if he would have accepted the mental evaluation to return to school we might have had an official report on record...but he didn't. If he had actually made it into the the military and been subsequently dismissed for mental reasons we would probably have had such a record...but that didn't happen either. (In fact I'm fairly certain any dishonorable discharge makes one ineligible to purchase a firearm)
 
#18
#18
hndog609 said:
(In fact I'm fairly certain any dishonorable discharge makes one ineligible to purchase a firearm)
Click to expand...

Once again, if he doesn't lie on the check. And, there are always face to face transactions where you find someone selling, meet them, buy the weapon and all is technically legal.

Face to face transactions can only be made if the seller is "reasonably certain" that the individual would not be turned down by a traditional background check.

If the individual doesn't state something like: "Sure am glad I met you, that felony on my record for stalking and my mental illness preclude me from traditional purchase," then it is rather hard to ascertain whether the individual would be turned down by a regular background check, or not.

Face to face transactions do not require a background check.
 
#19
#19
fl0at said:
Once again, if he doesn't lie on the check. And, there are always face to face transactions where you find someone selling, meet them, buy the weapon and all is technically legal.

Face to face transactions can only be made if the seller is "reasonably certain" that the individual would not be turned down by a traditional background check.

If the individual doesn't state something like: "Sure am glad I met you, that felony on my record for stalking and my mental illness preclude me from traditional purchase," then it is rather hard to ascertain whether the individual would be turned down by a regular background check, or not.

Face to face transactions do not require a background check.
Click to expand...

I probably should have drawn the distinction between a F2F transaction and an FFL transfer but thought it fairly intuitive that the former wouldn't be able to make use of NICS or other BGC databases.

I'm not certain but I would think DD would be a pretty easy thing to track as it's by definition a federal record. Do you know if that's tracked at all or is that entirely a matter of swearing to that on the 4473?
 
#20
#20
hndog609 said:
I probably should have drawn the distinction between a F2F transaction and an FFL transfer but thought it fairly intuitive that the former wouldn't be able to make use of NICS or other BGC databases.

I'm not certain but I would think DD would be a pretty easy thing to track as it's by definition a federal record. Do you know if that's tracked at all or is that entirely a matter of swearing to that on the 4473?
Click to expand...

I do not know. We would hope it was on record, but I guess that would depend on how efficient DoD was at getting that information out.

If you disclose, though, you have a 100% rejection rate. If you lie, I guess you are taking a chance.

Most people don't know about FTF transactions, and most people don't know that gun shows are typically FTF transactions. Only those that know... know.
 
#21
#21
I love the fact the are pushing for a 1000 feet no gun rule near politicians now.

I think the fact this guy went in shooting shows he would have probably not listened to that law either. Only person who would listen to it would be a person with a legal permit. If just one person standing near him had of been carrying there is a good chance less people would have been harmed. He would have got the first shot off and then probably been shot himself. As it happened, they are lucky that his gun malfunctioned and he didn't get the second clip in.
 
#22
#22
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
I love the fact the are pushing for a 1000 feet no gun rule near politicians now.

I think the fact this guy went in shooting shows he would have probably not listened to that law either. Only person who would listen to it would be a person with a legal permit. If just one person standing near him had of been carrying there is a good chance less people would have been harmed. He would have got the first shot off and then probably been shot himself. As it happened, they are lucky that his gun malfunctioned and he didn't get the second clip in.
Click to expand...

There was someone carrying, he fired back, IIRC. And the gun didn't malfunction, a woman grabbed the clip and two others were able to subdue him.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top