This is a sad message from Indystar.com message boards

[Cobia]

Officer's Death

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am the mother one of the police officers present at the shooting today. I thank God that he came home safely to his wife, son, and to all of us. I pray for family, friends and colleagues of Jake and for the recovery of the other three wounded officers. I also pray that the judge who put the guns back into the hands of a documented mentally ill individual will come to his/her senses. I pray that congress will act NOW to ban assault weapons. And I pray that our officers will be given the tools they need to protect us and themselves. Give them the AR 15 weapons that are collecting dust!!! Stop sending them to a gun fight carrying "knives". !
_______

An officer in Indy got waxed by a gun nut with an SKS

[MrBenchley]

1. IPD officer fatally shot

"Police took a cache of weapons away in January from an apparently delusional man who poured gunfire into a Southside neighborhood this morning killing one Indianapolis police officer and wounding four more.
Kenneth Anderson's mother, Grace, asked for police help and they confiscated his guns.
With no legal reason to keep the guns, police returned them to Anderson in March.
Anderson shot and killed his mother and then took on the five police officers with his high-powered rifle. The firefight ended with a wounded police officer killing Anderson."

http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/171264-1254-092.html

And this...

"Access to high-powered weapons became an issue on two recent occasions - including the September 2001 death of Marion County Sheriff's Deputy Jason Baker, killed during a chase with suspects armed with assault-type firearms.
In December 2002, Anthony Keith Brown fired at least 34 shots from a high-powered rifle, wounding Indianapolis police officer Linda Jackson. Jackson was shot in the hip during the shootout near the intersection of Sherman Drive and 32nd Street.
Officers Frank Miller II and Andy Lamle were also injured during that attack"

http://www.indystar.com/articles/9/171272-8249-092.html

[Cobia]

2. 34 SHOTS?

:wow:

At least it looked like the guy tried to spray and pray, not killing anybody. If he had actually aimed the cops would have died.

[skippythwndrdog]

10. Do you have any information pertaining to these articles

that defines what the reporter is refering to as high powered weapons?

Most, as stated in the second article, assault-type weapons are considered medium weight firearms - at best.

Just curious.

[MrBenchley]

28. Gee, skippy...

I'm not primarily interested in gun porn....

[skippythwndrdog]

42. Don't you really mean that you're not interested in facts?

[iverglas]

44. do you happen to know what the price of tea in China

... was on the day of this event?

I'd be more interested in that, myself. I could not care less about the brand name of the firearm that this individual used to kill and injure if I were comatose.

Any public policy that results in people like him getting their hands on ANY FIREARM is proof positive that a society needs a new government, and probably a whole new set of morals.

The fact that the firearm he was able to get his hands on was evidently a particularly nasty one was just the hairball on the cake.

[skippythwndrdog]

47. Who mentioned brand names?

I was referring to the ballistic charachteristics of the weapon(s) in question. More accurately, I was questioning what calibers, for lack of a better descriptor, the reporters thinks are high-powered rifles.

Once again, get a clue. The brand of a firearm matters not one whit when measuring ballistic properties of the round it fires.

[iverglas]

49. oooh -- that's different!!

Yes, the ballistic characteristics matter to me MANY TIMES MORE than the price of tea in China!

It's unfortunate that the price of tea in China matters to me ZERO, or these ballistic characteristics would matter to me ... well, something more than ZERO.

"Brand name", in case you really didn't get it, was a snide shorthand for whatever the fuck you were on about that I didn't care to waste my time knowing, let alone regurgitating.

The matter of such concern to you is the precise equivalent, in my eyes, of the label on a pair of blue jeans. They're blue jeans; get a grip. It was a firearm; I don't care whether it's got a pistol grip.

(Nooo! Don't tell me that "pistol grip" is not a ballistic characteristic!?! How will I dare to show my face to MAKE A JOKE another day?!?)

Once again, get a clue. The brand of a firearm matters not one whit when measuring ballistic properties of the round it fires.

Perhaps this is the first time you've received the gentle advice, perhaps it's "once again" ... but, whatever ..

Get a life. Mine doesn't revolve around ballistic characteristics, and the fact that yours apparently does really isn't my concern, nor is your blinkered eye the universal prism through what I write is to be read.

[skippythwndrdog]

52. Thank you for a fine example.

Once again you have proved that the anti-RKBA crowd relies upon feelings rather than facts.

It's unfortunate that the price of tea in China matters to me ZERO, or these ballistic characteristics would matter to me ... well, something more than ZERO.

If you truly desire to aid the cause for increased control of firearms, it would be wise to become somewhat familiar with the capabilities of various firearms and the ammunition they use. But then, it was from well informes anti's in blue uniforms that we learned that .223's just 'go on forever.'

At least do your cause the courtesy of being somewhat knowledgable about the issue.

In short: How will you know what to ban if you don't know how firearms perform?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

75. There it is.

Since you can't argue the point in question, the meaning of high-powered in reference to firearms in this subthread questioning the reporter's definition of high-powered firearms, you're resorting to insults and misdirection.

If you have a reasonable argument to post, I'll read it and respond. IF you don't, I'll just let it drop right here. That gives you the perfect opportunity for that precious last word.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

78. "the meaning of high-powered in reference to firearms"

Sure isn't a mystery to THESE fuckwits....

"The Yugo SKS is too heavy to be a good assault rifle and is not accurate enough to be good for any thing other than a high powered plinker."

http://p077.ezboard.com/fparallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforumsfrm54.showMessage?topicID=1219.topic


"Misfit,
The cheapest high powered rifle you can find these days is the old reliable SKS*grin*
Should be able to find a "new" unissued SKS for well under $200, and spend an extra $80 or so on a case of a thousand rounds of either hollowpoints or FMJ....or about $100 for a thousand softpoint hunting rounds."

http://www.thementalmilitia.org/clairefiles/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=468&s=4f707bd061461d60c23b3e81ddad6527

[DoNotRefill]

54. Ummm, Iverglas...he had an SKS....

which has a 10 round integral box magazine. It's NOT an assault weapon, even according to the 1994 AW ban. The rifle fires the 7.62x39mm round, which is an "intermediate" cartridge at best.

the main selling point of the SKS isn't it's firepower, but rather the fact that they're dirt-cheap (I used to get them for $39 each, new, back in the 1990's) and are very reliable. We use them as "trunk guns", which means guns we can leave in the car "just in case", because if they rust up or get scratched, it's not a big deal.

As for the guy getting the gun, what crime did he commit prior to this one which would have prevented him from exercising his civil rights? I don't want Republicans to vote, but that doesn't mean I'm going to deprive people I think are Republicans of their right to vote...

This guy had never committed a major crime, and had never been adjudicated mentally defective. As such, it was legal for him to own guns.

[iverglas]

60. I hear my name, I read the words ...

he had an SKS....
which has a 10 round integral box magazine. It's NOT an assault weapon, even according to the 1994 AW ban. The rifle fires the 7.62x39mm round, which is an "intermediate" cartridge at best.

... I think to myself ... why would someone be saying this in response to someone who has just said:

I could not care less about the brand name of the firearm that this individual used to kill and injure if I were comatose.

(knowing as we do that "brand name" was a facetious reference to whatever frills and furbelows this item may or may not have had and that some people have such a strange fascination with.)

I scratch my head, I move on. I'll address the rest under your other post.

[MrBenchley]

65. No, I mean that this gun porn is irrelevant

except to the hard core fetishists...

[enfield collector]

66. or those that want to ban all guns.

[MrBenchley]

68. Every day as I see our "pro gun democrats"

and the sort of scummy positions they espouse....and the lies and hysteria they generate, this sounds like a better and better idea to me...

I've sure never come away from one of these discussions thinking "there's the sort of responsible adult I trust with a weapon."

[MrBenchley]

69. By the way....

please show us somebody you think "wants to ban all guns" who wallows in gun porn......

[Endangered Specie]

Nazis, lunatics, criminals... lets give guns to EVERYONE

except the police. (/sarc)

[Fescue4u]

3. SKS is not an assault weapon

And is not, nor ever has been banned by the feds. (irrespective of any cosemetic features)

But I do support arming the officers appropriately.

[MrBenchley]

4. But would be banned under the proposed AWB...

And ain't it just like our "pro gun democrats" to stick up for the gun....

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

18. I got no problem with facts....

it's the "pro gun democrats" who never seem to have anything but right wing horseshit...

[iverglas]

21. hey MrBenchley!

Whats to expect from an anti-gun "American"

You been demoted to Canadian or something??

Or was that just somebody playing the Patriot Act patriotism card?

[MrBenchley]

22. Koresh only knows what most of the RKBA gibberish

is even supposed to mean...

[-..__...]

7. That might be difficult passing into law.

Especially since even the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), doesn't support a tougher ban.

[MrBenchley]

27. Sez you....

But in fact, every police organization (with the exception of the NRA';s phony group) has endorsed it...

[iverglas]

32. so I was curious ...

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/L.Pyle8-15-91.htm

It's from the Washington Post, 1991, originally.

For Leroy Pyle, the battle against gun control has been a life-long passion. As a street cop in San Jose, Calif., he locked horns for years over the issue with the pro-gun control chief, a volatile dispute that attracted news media attention and eventually drove Pyle off the force.

Now he is back in a big way. He heads the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), an new Falls Church-based lobby group representing 8,000 police officers nationwide that is fighting for the ouster of Dewey Stokes, president of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and a leading proponent of tough gun control laws.

At the FOP's biennial convention, taking place this week in Pittsburgh, Pyle has been conducting a high-profile campaign against Stokes and for Stokes's opponent, Newark detective Tom Possumato. One of Possumato's campaign promises is to remove gun control from the top of the agenda of the FOP, the nation's largest association of police officers.

I guess he succeeded, eh?

For the start-up of the LEAA earlier this year, the NRA put up seed money that totaled more than $100,000, according to several sources. NRA spokesman James Baker confirmed that the organization helped with funding, but declined to confirm the amount. "They were very generous with us," said Pyle.

The NRA supported the LEAA "in order to show that there is a great body of law enforcement officers out there that doesn't support the gun control proposals put in the hopper before Congress," Baker said.

Other sources have said that the NRA established the LEAA to provide a counterweight to the FOP in the Washington area. NRA administrators decided to take over a defunct New Jersey organization founded to fight state gun control laws, according to the sources, who asked not to be identified.

NRA leaders conducted a search for a director for the organization, the sources added, and settled on Pyle, a NRA board member who was once named "Man of the Year" by the organization.

Baker declined comment except to say that the NRA and LEAA "are two separate entities with different memberships and different boards."

Geez, it just seems like you really can fool some of the people all of the time. If you have enough money, anyhow.

Some Democrats appear not to be among that group:

http://www.lisamadigan.org/press_pages/FOPvsLEAA.htm

Chicago – Democratic nominee for Attorney General Lisa Madigan today called on Joe Birkett to demand that deceptive ads financed by a phony group claiming to represent police officers be taken off the Illinois airwaves.

Joining Senator Madigan at a news conference to urge Birkett to insist that the so-called Law Enforcement Association of America (LEAA) pull the ads were Mark Donahue, President of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), and Allen Bennett, Legislative Counsel for the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police.

"Joe Birkett’s claim that he does not support the extreme agenda of a group that is spending millions of dollars on his behalf is an insult to the intelligence of Illinois voters," Senator Madigan said. "Joe Birkett has been endorsed not by one – but two – groups who want guns in movie theaters, grocery stores and sporting events. I have been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police because of my work to protect police officers and families."

Senator Madigan continued, "Joe Birkett says he does not support the conceal-and-carry and cop killer bullet agenda of this group is yet another example of Joe changing what he says depending on who is asking the question and who is listening to the answer. The LEAA’s agenda puts the lives of police officers at risk."

The phony law enforcement group – which does not require that members be law enforcement officers – has purchased $768,000 of television advertising in Chicago and other Illinois markets to support Birkett’s campaign. The group won’t release details of its sources of funding or its membership rolls.

Hmm, the FOP endorsing a Democratic candidate for Attorney General in Illinois ...

http://www.lisamadigan.org/press_pages/police.html
http://www.lisamadigan.org/press_pages/brady.htm

where a Democrat is trying to institute a state assault weapons ban to replace the sunsetting federal ban ...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:7OrzkfMrCjEJ:www.pantagraph.com/stories/033104/new_20040331009.shtml+%22lisa+madigan%22+%22assault+weapons%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

-- was the NRA losing its grip??

It kinda looks like it still had a hold on the "Grand Lodge", i.e. the national executive

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/press/pr040302.html

-- but that quite a few of the locals and members aren't quite behind what they're saying. When's the next biennial convention, I wonder?

But hmm. Unless those Brady folks just telling another of their famous lies, the FOP sure does seem to support the existing ban:

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,572503,00.html

Law Enforcement Organizations Supporting Renewal of the Ban

International Association of Chiefs of Police Major Cities Chiefs Association Major County Sheriffs Association Police Foundation Police Executive Research Forum International Brotherhood of Police Officers National Association of School Resource Officers National Fraternal Order of Police National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association National Black Police Association National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives American Probation and Parole Association

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,570557,00.html

National and state law enforcement groups have passed resolutions in support of re-authorization of the current law, while other groups are still in the process of reviewing the law and passing resolutions in support of re-authorization. Currently, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of School Resource Officers, and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police are just a few of the groups that have passed resolutions, while other groups like the Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives have come out in support Sen. Diane Feinstein's recent legislation which re-authorizes the current law.

Yikes, not Feinstein!

Well, the Boston Globe (June 2004) corroborates:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/06/24/state_moves_on_assault_weapons_ban

Polls consistently indicate strong majorities in favor of the ban, and the ban is backed by law-enforcement groups such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the National Fraternal Order of Police.

That might be difficult passing into law.
Especially since even the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), doesn't support a tougher ban.

Now maybe the FOP doesn't support a "tougher" ban ... but really, so what? They're a union, and the legislation doesn't affect their interests as employees, so why would what they think about it matter any more than what anybody else thinks about it?

[skippythwndrdog]

41. I'm thankful to Auntie Pinko

http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/04/146.html

<snip> Of course, this is a faulty assumption, because many who hold moderate views do take the trouble to inform themselves thoroughly about the issues - but, unfortunately, many don't. And that reinforces the "experts" with the strong opinions, who can often go into wearisome detail quoting statistics and studies supporting their views. (Which, of course only turns the moderate folks off even more, because they suspect, usually accurately, that there is just as large a body of statistics and studies and illustrations supporting the opposite view, and they're only hearing what the enthusiast has selected to support their own view.)

[iverglas]

43. and now

... if you could only find someone to quote who could provide a description of whatever the fuck you were on about, we could all have a good laugh together, I guess.

Now, I think I know what happened. I think your pinkies slipped, and you cut and pasted the wrong part of that thing. Here's what you were after, I think. It came right after the bit you mistakenly lifted:

Still, folks with moderate views often assume that "common sense," "fairness," and their "feelings" about "how things work," based solely on their own experiences or biases, are sufficient for them to make sound judgments about public policy. And nothing could be further from the truth. Almost every public policy issue has complexities and implications that go far beyond a simple statement of feeling.

-- and then it went on to say:

Even those enthusiasts of strong views who wouldn't dream of rudely berating someone with moderate views can get frustrated by what seem like simplistic, thoughtless assumptions ... .

But hey -- you'll take a "simplistic, thoughtless assumption" over "statistics and studies and illustrations" any day, eh?

Hope you didn't injure your wrist, doing all that cutting and pasting for nothing.

[skippythwndrdog]

48. I was just referring to your 1,059 word post

that contributed diddly squat to the discussion.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance..

It appears that you took the latter portion of that old saw.

[iverglas]

50. if only ...

... someone had compelled you to read my post, you might have had some need to comment on it.

if only ...

... you had actually read it, you might have been competent to comment on it.

if only ...

... you had understood what I was saying in my reply to your comment, which I had very plainly understood perfectly, you might have thought it unwise (i.e. likely to cast you in a rather, uh, dim light) to actually attempt to explain that uncommonly unremarkable comment.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance..
It appears that you took the latter portion of that old saw.

And it seems that you took the advice about sticking the other one in right to heart. I'd stop before I had to ask for other people to volunteer their feet, if I were you.


What kind of boring and pointless life must someone really have to have to be spending time counting the words that someone else wrote ... rather than reading them ...? I guess you can only dream of what I've learned from surfing around the net in between tossing off bits of work, all the while you were hunched over that adding machine. Sad, really, ain't it?

[skippythwndrdog]

53. Brevity is the soul of wit.

I read your post thoroughly. Have you read mine?

[-..__...]

80. No, sez the "Congressional Record".

Sez you....

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - February 24, 2004)

" Not only does President Bush support this legislation--law enforcement does as well. The men and women of law enforcement know that this legislation makes communities safer. In a letter dated February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police all across Virginia."


But in fact, every police organization (with the exception of the NRA';s phony group) has endorsed it...

Which ones? Care to cite a reference... even a teensy one that supports a "toughened/stronger" ban?

On edit: BTW... the person who made that statement was Repub. Sen John Warner. Not that it really counts for or means much. I just thought clarifying that would be the honest thing to do (unlike the charades played by the VPC/MMM/Brady Campaign).

[FeebMaster]

12. You know very well that even the expanded

AWB proposal only defines the SKS as an AW if it has a detachable magazine. How many of them have detachable magazines?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

55. huh? Which version?

would ban a rifle with a 10 round fixed magazine capacity?

[iverglas]

20. oh yeah

But I do support arming the officers appropriately.

And then the loon's mother would be alive today.

She was dead when the police got there, I hope we're not forgetting.

Me, I support something that would have kept those firearms out of his hands in the first place, not to bloody mention keeping them out of his hands once they'd been removed. Words just about fail me, here.

The report then says: "Officers went to 1714 E. Gimber and found no signs of any trouble inside. While inside, they found a large quantity of guns/ammunition, inside Mr. Anderson's bedroom and another bedroom."

Is there really some way that this, in itself, can *not* be regarded as pretty solid evidence that this guy was both mad and dangerous?

Officers took the guns to IPD's property room for safekeeping.

Anderson was delusional and dangerous, police said. He was taken to St. Francis Hospital on Jan. 20, but was not arrested.

Alice Anderson told police in January that her son Kenneth had been at her residence and was "carrying the handgun all day inside the house and rambling on about everyone coming to get them. She said Mr. Anderson would toss the handgun into her lap and tell her to use it if she needed and not to trust anyone."

On March 8, in spite of cautionary warnings from officers who had previous contact with Anderson, the department gave Anderson his guns back.

Well, I guess if she had any other kids, they've got the makings of a nice lawsuit ...

Anybody ever consider that if there were some decent public laws in the US to protect people in the first place, there might be a few fewer of those nasty lawsuits?

[MrBenchley]

24. Worth noting

that thanks to the gun lobby and the GOP, this nutcase could have walked into any gun show in the state and evaded a background check...

Not that gun dealers are much to shout about....just last week we had the shitheel in the Midwest who sold the gun to the guy who shot his grandson and himself out of his "private collection" instead of his "store" so he didn't have to do all that paperwork...

[DoNotRefill]

56. I guess i'm mad and dangerous, then....

"Is there really some way that this, in itself, can *not* be regarded as pretty solid evidence that this guy was both mad and dangerous?"

This guy had a couple of guns. If that means he's automatically mad and dangerous, I guess I must be 50 times worse than Jeffrey Dahmer in your eyes.

As much as you hate it, Iverglas, mere possession of legal firearms is NOT a sign of mental illness, just as being a muslim is NOT evidence that a person is a terrorist. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[iverglas]

62. dear me, perhaps you misunderstood

Is there really some way that this, in itself, can *not* be regarded as pretty solid evidence that this guy was both mad and dangerous?

This guy had a couple of guns. If that means he's automatically mad and dangerous, I guess I must be 50 times worse than Jeffrey Dahmer in your eyes.

That he was mad was the premise; no one seemed to be in any doubt on that point.

That he was mad and had

a large quantity of guns/ammunition,
inside Mr. Anderson's bedroom and another bedroom.

adds up to "dangerous" -- and as I've just said elsewhere, not necessarily as a result of having guns, but as the reason he had guns; the guns were the evidence of the dangerousness in his case, not just the cause of it. He had guns because he was a raving paranoid, not because he appreciated their artistry. You'll notice that right after what you quoted, I did quote the basis for the "mad" characterization:

... Anderson was delusional and dangerous, police said. He was taken to St. Francis Hospital on Jan. 20, but was not arrested.

Alice Anderson told police in January that her son Kenneth had been at her residence and was "carrying the handgun all day inside the house and rambling on about everyone coming to get them. She said Mr. Anderson would toss the handgun into her lap and tell her to use it if she needed and not to trust anyone."

Or I don't know, maybe you really thought that I was saying that possession of firearms was evidence of both madness and dangerousness ...

As much as you hate it, Iverglas, mere possession of legal firearms is NOT a sign of mental illness, just as being a muslim is NOT evidence that a person is a terrorist. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm afraid that I'm about reduced to saying "I know you should, but what should I?"

As much as you hate it, my dear boy, I just am not an idiot and am not wont to say things like "possession of firearms is evidence of madness", not least of all because I don't think them.

[DoNotRefill]

64. How do you figure he was mad?

He had guns. He didn't trust people other than his mother (demonstrated by the fact that he gave her loaded guns...if he thought she was after him, why do that?)

What you call insane paranoia, we generally call "street smarts" or cynicism or a variety of other terms.

I think the people across the street from where I live are selling crack. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. And I have a shitload of guns in my bedroom. When I go away from the house for long periods of time, I make sure my wife has a handgun and a rifle to defend herself with. Many people think I'm completely fucking bonkers. That doesn't mean I should be involuntarily committed, because I haven't ILLEGALLY endangered anybody.

If you ask them about me, they'll tell you I'm an asshole, a paranoid, and extremely dangerous, with WAY too many guns in my house.

BTW, given your position WRT guns and comments you've made about refusing to rent to gun owners, I DID seriously think you meant that people who own guns are indeed dangerous...otherwise, why wouldn't you rent to them?

[iverglas]

70. such questions

BTW, given your position WRT guns and comments you've made about refusing to rent to gun owners, I DID seriously think you meant that people who own guns are indeed dangerous...otherwise, why wouldn't you rent to them?

Given that the person to whom I *did* rent (as I'm sure you recall) was my contractor and good buddy, who *did* own guns ... well, there goes that little thesis, eh?

I don't believe I ever said I would refuse to rent to gun owners. In fact, I'm quite sure I didn't say that. What I did say was that I have a term in my lease that prohibits firearms from being brought onto or kept on the property.

I have no control over what tenants do with their personal property. I have no way of knowing how they're handling firearms inside their apartment. In the 20+ years I've lived here, I've had 3 incidents of theft from my home and two incidents in which my car was broken into. I almost caught someone stealing from one of my neighbour's homes, and another neighbour has had a couple of car break-ins. I do not plan to be any kind of a party to any firearm being stolen and transferred to the illegal market.

I also have no way of knowing when and whether anyone I rent to might have a bit too much to drink or get a little peeved with a spouse or friend ... or me ... and bring out the firearm. Those are the circumstances in which a large proportion of homicides occur in Canada, and again they are circumstances over which I have no control. The only control I have is to make the rule and impress the importance of it on anyone renting the apartment. No firearms on property I own, period.

Some property owners prohibit dogs, some prohibit barbecues ... not all dogs will bark all night or bite the neighbours' kids, and not all tenants will start house fires with their barbecues ... although the tenants across the street did just that; burned half the house down after a little drunken hibachi-ing. Just no way of knowing for sure who's "dangerous", is there?

As I did say, since my buddy the contractor is one of the very few people I have ever known who owns firearms, and since the likelihood of anyone I would consider renting to owning a firearm is about zero (and I have seldom rented to anyone but close friends so far) -- really, civil servants and young immigrant families, the basic mix in my neighbourhood, just don't own firearms here -- the issue just doesn't come up. But firearms owners are entirely welcome to apply. They just aren't welcome to keep firearms on my property in my neighbourhood.

How do you figure he was mad?

I dunno. I guess I read several newspaper reports describing his behaviour and the comments of those who had observed him and were concerned about his having firearms because of what they had observed. A lot of them weren't actually crack dealers.

[skippythwndrdog]

6. I am indeed saddened by her loss.

It is a terrible thing when anyone dies as a result of criminal activity - or by virtually any other means that shortens a life from it's natural end.

I feel compelled to note that this post points out once again that the American public is ignorant of the definition of AW's and the current laws in place to restrict their ownership.

I also agree that LEO's need to be adequately armed to perform their duties and help prevent such tragedies in the future.

[Spinzonner]

9. I think that the gun situation is approaching intractibility

and that prohibition is almost always a futile tool

But please explain to me how your last sentence doesnt presage an arms race between law enforcement and gun ownership if certain classes of firearms are not prohibited from civilian ownership.

[skippythwndrdog]

11. I believe that the concept that criminals will always find access

to their firearms of choice has been established both by government agencies responsible for enforcement of firearms laws and by a wealth of information available both on and off the WWW.

There will always be an arms race between cops and criminals. History has proven that repeatedly.

Why not arm the cops with the best weapons available? The criminals certainly arm themselves well.

[DoNotRefill]

57. heh....

"But please explain to me how your last sentence doesnt presage an arms race between law enforcement and gun ownership if certain classes of firearms are not prohibited from civilian ownership."

How does prohibiting classes of weapons from private ownership do anything but GUARANTEE that the government will WIN the arms race?

You appear to be assuming that we have a sane and rational government. I wonder where you've been since 2000....

[skippythwndrdog]

8. I would like to see a link, please.

[MrSandman]

13. Is this it?

http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/171264-1254-092.html

Doesn't say anything about a judge though.

[skippythwndrdog]

16. Thanks, MrS

[thomas82]

14. It wouldn't matter

As you see the AWB did not prevent this murder/shooting (WHAT!! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT THE VPC AND SARAH BRADY CAN NEVER BE WRONG!!!).

A tougher ban will not stop this kind of shooting because if a 10 round fixed mag 1950 rifle is banned, it will be banned with allot of hunting rifles i.e Remington 1100 shotgun and 742 rifle.

(SUCH EVIL GUNS)



Anyway the Rifle was obtained illegally right? (what!! the Brady bill failed?? I thought more laws meant less crime??)

like I said only law abiding citizens obey laws.

Criminals do not obey laws and will have whatever kind of Rifle/gun they want. Tougher gun regulations will only punish hard working law abiding citizens. You know what? I think we should reward good citizens and punish criminals, sounds like a good concept right?
Tom

[iverglas]

23. and there it was, right there in reply #1

Funny how ignorance is so often the result of ... the verb form.

[skippythwndrdog]

25. Odd thaat I should ask for a link?

the tag at the end of the origination post:
An officer in Indy got waxed by a gun nut with an SKS

An SKS is not mentioned in either of the links offered by MrBenchley. Given that the emboldened text above is a direct quote from the origination post that was stated as fact, it is logical to assume that there was perhaps another report from which that information was gathered.

[iverglas]

29. oh, well, in that case

Odd thaat I should ask for a link?
the tag at the end of the origination post:
An officer in Indy got waxed by a gun nut with an SKS
An SKS is not mentioned in either of the links offered by MrBenchley.

I guess just odd that you wouldn't specify that you were asking for a link for that particular fact, and not for the story in the post you were responding to by saying no more than "I would like to see a link please" ... and odd that you would say "thanks" for exactly the same link as MrBenchley had given, to which I referred, which gave no info at all about the kind of firearm, and that the poster you were thanking seemed not to have understood that this was what you were looking for, either ...

[MrBenchley]

31. Our "pro gun democrats" need a link to important information, Iverglas

like "What kind of gun was used in the killing?" and "Can we post a picture of the gun so we can beat our meat over it?"

Depraved psychos, er, Inquiring minds want to know....

[Pert_UK]

17. Is it really appropriate to refer to the death of a Police officer as...

them "getting waxed"?

Just a thought.....

P.

P.S.
Isn't it "whacked", anyway? Not that it would be appropriate either....

[MrBenchley]

19. It is for our "pro gun democrats"

for whom decency and honesty are impossible....

[Endangered Specie]

38. waxed, whacked, iced, capped, they are much more cleaner than say...

shot dead, or murdered... helps sleeping at night I guess. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

39. Plus they sound so ruff and tuff....

[Endangered Specie]

40. Real "manly", too.

:eyes:

[LibLabUK]

26. How come...

the US law enforcement agencies don't follow the example of most of the rest of the world and arm their armed officers with submachineguns as their primary weapon?

Surely, with massive numbers of weapons in private hands, the law enforcement officers should be given every advantage in their job?

[FeebMaster]

30. Who knows?

There's nothing stopping them.

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

33. Let's See.....

the average patrol officer "qualifies" - what? Yearly?

The politicrats don't really want them shooting much. Might imply that the peasants were restless and had to be restrained.

Would I WANT a patrol officer who qualifies yearly EQUIPPED with a machinegun? I think NOT!

I'm minded of a story from a former DC cop about a drug best gone bad and over 50 shots exchanged at <25 feet between the officers and the skels and NO ONE was hit. And this was in the days of revolvers as service weapons.....

In the peoples repbulic of Maryland, SWAT Teams have to FIGHT for adequate "room clearing" time to keep in practice.....

Let's leave the machineguns in the "Die Hard" movies.....

:hippie:

[Paladin]

34. And Leave The Constant Cop-Bashing.....

...to the gun militants in this forum. As predictable as it is unseemly. Tell me, are you one of those advanced thinkers who believes that law enforcement personnel---who receive firearms training, have to pass periodic qualification tests, and who are subject to departmental review every time they use a firearm while on duty---are somehow not to be trusted with machineguns, but that the public at large, geeks, psychos and assorted losers included, ought to have free access to those same machineguns? That's the kind of tripe we're used to seeing from you guys; it used to be mildly entertaining, but it's gotten really old......

[MrSandman]

35. Most around here have ...

One in the car. An SMG would get in the way for so many things.

[happyslug]

45. Security

When Dillinger was robbing banks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, his preferred place to pick up weapons was local Police Stations. They kept their weapons in their station often NOT locked at all (and most times with just a simple chain and pad lock). Dillinger would walk in the front door, shoot anybody who tried to stop him (often there was No one) use bolt cutters to cut the chain or pad lock and walk out with any rifles, shotguns, submachine guns and even Light Machine Guns the locals police had.

In the 1960s and 1970s the West German Baader-Meinhof gang did the same in West Germany. They liked the HK MP-5 and stole enough of them from the West German police to arm themselves.

Thus the problem of where do you keep the guns when you are NOT using them? The Feds disliked the idea of the officers taking them home each night (This would disperse the weapons and minimize loses but the Feds disliked the idea that the weapons may not be under lock and key). The local Police Department rarely had the funds to build a safe that meant US Government standards (Except int he bigger cities and even than only in some locations). National Guard Armories are NOT an option for while most have the Safes (for the National Guard Guns) but rarely are these fully maned all the time (They have alarms if anyone touches them but rarely guarded 24 hour a day).

Thus the Police often do NOT have a place their can keep the weapon when it is NOT is use AND be able to get the weapon when it is needed.

A second problem is many smaller Police Departments (and I believe this is even true of New York City Police, but I did a quick check on the Web and I could not find anything that would tell me it is NO longer NYPD policy) Police Department expect the officer to BUY HIS OWN WEAPON. The Feds have a problem with this for while the Feds are willing to waive the $200 tax on buying an Automatic Weapon to a Police Department, they are NOT willing to do so just because a Police Office wants to buy an Automatic Weapon (Please note the Sheriff Deputy that killed Bonnie and Clyde had purchased his Thompson and than his BAR at his own expense).

Thus US police have NOT purchased Sub-machine guns. The Feds are willing to do so for their own Law Enforcement units (Marshals, Secret Service, FBI etc) but not local and state forces. The State has shown an willingness to buy for their State Police forces but not any local units. The local units suffer from the above two problems BUT NO ONE WANTS THE FEDS OR THE STATE TO TAKE THEM OVER. Thus local police (who do MOST of the policing in the US) do NOT have ready access to Automatic Weapons.

[Endangered Specie]

36. "guns back into the hands of a documented mentally ill individual"...

So this guy was a previous criminal? thats just shitty.


ps: it isnt an assault weapon, according to the nomenclature. Wasnt there a thread about the SKS in here?

[happyslug]

46. No Documentation of mental illness.

Under US law you are viewed as Competent until a Judge rules you are not. In this Man's case he NEVER went in front of a Judge. No one wanted to be bothered taking the case to a judge. The first thing someone had to do was get him in front of a Psychiatrist. That is easier than you may think, all you have to do is report someone is acting irrationally and the Police MUST pick him up. They will pick the person up and take him to a Psychiatric Hospital. A Psychiatrist will examine him or her and determine if he or she is rational. If he or she is Rational the person is left go (And can sue the person who called the Police in if there was no justification for the the arrest). Family members often do this but only if he is a danger to himself or others, just mental insatiability is not enough. Often when the person is at that level it is to late.

Now if the person is ruled to be in-rational by the Psychiatrists, he or she is detained for observation (but no more than three days). At the end of the three days a hearing in front of a Judge must be held whether the person is rational or not. It is only after that hearing in front of a judge does someone has a "History of Mental Illness".

Notice the problem, he had weapons, but did not have much of any other assets. If he was committed he would be a burden on the tax-payers, thus he was ignored and hoped that nothing would go wrong. Happens all the time and most time no shooting (even if the person has firearms).

The real issue is HOW to solve the problem, and the best solution would be additional funding for mental health in the US, but such funding has been cut constantly since the 1960s. People would prefer their taxes go to pay for a funeral of a Police Officer than to keep some "nut" in a half way house (which is what many of these people need). Most people like this person do not need complete hospitalization just someone to clam them down when their go irrational. Had this person been in such a situation i.e. in a home even with his guns, the caretaker could have talked him out of the problem early instead of it become a police problem when he went for his rifle.

In the alternative if the caretaker had seen the person deteriorate he could have called the police when he was sleeping and without the use of any violence had the police take him away. Sad case, not only for the officer and his family, but for the man who shot him and his family.

P.S. Now there are alternatives to Police commitment, but all of them costs money and if his family had none, no commitment is made till he is a Clear danger to himself or others. You can commit such a person WITHOUT the police but you have to hire your own Psychiatrist AND lawyer and start comment procedures. Cost money, money people with no income can not afford so you have disasters like this instead. Additional funding for Mental Health would permit more early commitments but as I said above no funding.

[iverglas]

51. whoa, whoa; stop right there

No Documentation of mental illness.
Under US law you are viewed as Competent until a Judge rules you are not.

Oops. Apple, orange.

"Documentation of mental illness" does not = "finding of mental incompetence".

A person can be "documented" as mentally ill -- i.e. have a record of treatment for a mental illness -- and be perfectly competent. Many people are precisely that.

I also see a red herring.

Is disqualification from possessing firearms a matter of competence, or of dangerousness?

Can a paranoid schizophrenic, say, who is perfectly competent to manage his/her own affairs, not be, on the other hand, too dangerous to permit to possess firearms? I think so. I would hope that your laws say so. For instance: is a paranoid schizophrenic who is able to function in employment and pay the rent and buy groceries, as long as s/he takes his/her medication, but whose psychosis results in him/her perceiving dangerous enemies where there are none if s/he stops taking the meds, or in him/her believing that his/her acts are subject to external compulsion, a good candidate for firearms possession? Not by me.

A finding of incompetence is commonly made in order to protect an individual's own interests. Disqualification from possessing firearms may be in an individual's own interests, but it is at least as importantly in society's interests.

In this Man's case he NEVER went in front of a Judge. No one wanted to be bothered taking the case to a judge. The first thing someone had to do was get him in front of a Psychiatrist. ...

Yes ... and do you maybe not think that this is the basis of the complaint in this case? That all of those proceedures and proceedings, whichever of them may have been necessary in order for the individual to be disqualified from possessing firearms, were not taken??

A Psychiatrist will examine him or her and determine if he or she is rational.

It's been quite some time since I was placed in a forensic psychiatric ward while a student, and even since I was appointed to represent incompetent individuals as a lawyer, but I really don't think that's accurate.

Whether an individual is "rational" is not the criterion for whether s/he may be detained against his/her wishes for psychiatric reasons. The issue is whether s/he is dangerous, to him/herself or other people or both.

Here's the statute that applies where I'm at:

http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/m-7/20040802/whole.html

20. (1) The attending physician, after observing and examining a person who is the subject of an application for assessment under section 15 or who is the subject of an order under section 32,

... (c) shall admit the person as an involuntary patient by completing and filing with the officer in charge a certificate of involuntary admission if the attending physician is of the opinion that the conditions set out in subsection (1.1) or (5) are met.

... 5) The attending physician shall complete a certificate of involuntary admission or a certificate of renewal if, after examining the patient, he or she is of the opinion both,

(a) that the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,
(i) serious bodily harm to the patient,
(ii) serious bodily harm to another person, or
(iii) serious physical impairment of the patient,
unless the patient remains in the custody of a psychiatric facility; and

(b) that the patient is not suitable for admission or continuation as an informal or voluntary patient.

That -- not competence -- strikes me as an appropriate test (at a minimum -- i.e. the threshold should certainly be no higher) for whether someone is qualified to possess firearms.

As I think you say:

Family members often do this but only if he is a danger to himself or others, just mental insatiability <instability?> is not enough.

-- but I fail to see how you reach this conclusion:

It is only after that hearing in front of a judge does someone has a "History of Mental Illness".

"Mental illness" is a medical determination, not a legal or judicial one.

Most people like this person do not need complete hospitalization just someone to clam them down when their go irrational. Had this person been in such a situation i.e. in a home even with his guns, the caretaker could have talked him out of the problem early instead of it become a police problem when he went for his rifle. (emphasis added)

Good grief. Yes, let's just light the fuse on that bomb and hope that it rains before it burns all the way. What is this new ability to predict the behaviour of the by-definition unpredictable, the psychotic, on which we're basing the assertion that a caretaker could have "talked him out of" his problem?

"In a home even with his guns"?? What sane caretaker do you suppose would agree to those conditions in the case of a person placed in his/her care specifically because of the potential danger s/he presented to him/herself and/or other people??? Who other than someone who saw him/herself as having no choice -- as the mother in this case plainly did -- would agree to those conditions? If the "home" in question were a placement ordered or facilitated by the state, surely you are not suggesting that the individual would have some right to have those guns with him/her!?!

Conversely to your thesis, how about the person being in his/her own home, or somewhere else, under some form of supervision -- e.g. to ensure that medication is being taken as a condition of release from involuntary admission ... and, oh, maybe precisely to ensure that s/he is not in possession of firearms?

You can commit such a person WITHOUT the police but you have to hire your own Psychiatrist AND lawyer and start comment procedures.

If that's actually true where you're at, it's bizarre and sad indeed. I would have thought that most civilized places had legislation like what I quoted above, which requires no private funds at all. The issue is protection of the public, whether the public be related by blood to the dangerous individual or not, and that protection is a public responsibility, not a private privilege, surely.

(Under the legislation I quoted, an examining physician may sign the application for a psychiatric assessment, e.g. if the police take the person to a hospital, or a justice of the peace may order an assessment where sworn information indicates that the conditions for involuntary admission exist.)

Additional funding for Mental Health would permit more early commitments but as I said above no funding.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with that. But what can be done is a separate issue from what may be done.

And I'm quite certain that, as a law student, I could have diagnosed this guy after a I'd spent a week of afternoons on the ward, and justified an involuntary admission. And that involuntary admission really would have created a "history of mental illness".

Looking for some hard info, I find (emphases added):

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010200a.htm

Persons who would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm as a result of data obtained from the NICS background check include: ... Individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or determined to be mentally incompetent

http://www.michiganinbrief.org/edition07/Chapter5/FirearmReg.htm

The new laws outline the basic requirements for CCW license eligibility. Applicants must ... never have been involuntarily committed for mental illness

-- i.e. not, or not only, never adjudged mentally incompetent.


Now, whether that fact would have had any effect ...

http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/nics.htm
(Just a handy reference on a quick google, which I'm taking at face value)

Mental Health: 33 states keep no mental health disqualifying records and no state supplies mental health disqualifying records to NICS. The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that 2.7 million mental illness records should be in the NICS databases, but less than 100,000 records are available (nearly all from VA mental hospitals). States have supplied only 41 mental health records to NICS. Combined with the federal records, the GAO estimates that only 8.6% of the records of those disqualified from buying a firearm for mental health reasons are accessible on the NICS database.

... · Less than one in 10,000 prospective buyers have been stopped based on the mental health disqualification.

And see: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s1706.html

[DoNotRefill]

58. Iverglas....in the US....

it's perfectly legal for people who are under psychiatric care to own guns, even if they've been diagnosed as having a mental disorder. The operative language for denying Second Amendment rights is "adjudicated mentally defective". That means that the person has received due process of law, and has been found to pose a risk to themselves and to others.

There are two kinds of commitments, as I'm sure you know. There are voluntary commitments, which have no real legal standing, and there are involuntary commitments, which are basically felonies as far as the exercise of civil rights goes. The idea is that if a person is mentally well enough to seek treatment on their own, we don't want to discourage them from doing so by taking away their civil rights if they seek treatment. If they're dangerous to pose enough of a threat that they are to be deprived of their liberty, then they lose other civil rights too.

Would you REALLY advocate removing people's civil rights because they voluntarily seek treatment from a mental health professional? Wouldn't that most likely lead to some serious unintended consequences?

[iverglas]

61. again ... you seem to be talking to me ...

As for the guy getting the gun, what crime did he commit prior to this one which would have prevented him from exercising his civil rights?

You know, I keep expecting better of you, I keep being disappointed.

You're familiar with that NICS thing, I assume? I'm not, actually. But I gather that some sort of background check is required when people buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. And I gather that people who have been ... how did that go? Oh yeah ...

Individuals who have been INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED to a mental institution **OR** determined to be mentally incompetent

-- and the Michigan CCW rules seem to say that "involuntarily committed" stuff too.

Would you REALLY advocate removing people's civil rights because they voluntarily seek treatment from a mental health professional?

What is it about the words "INvoluntary" and "voluntary" that prevents you from noticing the difference between them? Who the hell said ANYTHING about people who "VOLUNTARILY seek treatment"? Surely you're not suggesting that *I*, or any of the sources I quoted, did.

If they're dangerous to pose enough of a threat that they are to be deprived of their liberty, then they lose other civil rights too.

Yeah, and amazingly, I'll bet THOSE will be the people we're talking about here, eh? Kinda because, like, the things I quoted said INVOLUNTARY.

I don't have a clue what these "other civil rights" you're on about might be, and I fail to see the relevance of them to anything we're talking about. You can call firearms possession a "civil right" if you want; I'll be hearing something resembling Swahili when you do it.

Entitlement to possess firearms is not automatically lost, in the US, as I understand it, by virtue of involuntary commitment and as part of some package deal "loss of civil rights" that occurs as a result of some particular status having been acquired. Entitlement to possess firearms is lost, as a result of an involuntary commitment, only by statute. Absent that statute, that entitlement would NOT be lost.

You people and your 18th century chatter about "losing" "civil rights" ... it reminds me of the history of the Civil Code of Quebec I was just having to read, and the business of "civil death". It really has been abolished all over the civilized world, you know? There just is no such thing as a person who does not have civil rights.

People do NOT "lose" "civil rights" in the modern world by virtue of their status. People are denied the ability to exercise certain rights by due process. If this 18th-century language you're speaking really is the lingua franca down there, we simply can't communicate. I can no more speak that lingo than I can discuss how many angels can be crammed onto the point of that needle. It's like Latin. It's a dead language. It doesn't convey the meanings of the modern world.

I just have to keep asking. Fundamental rights are "unalienable"; how can they be "lost"?? Oops, I mislaid my liberty. Darn, I sold my life for a mess of potage when I wasn't quite awake.

As such, it was legal for him to own guns.

Yes -- and that indeed seems to be the crux of the problem, isn't it just?

Good god, I say again. The man was a raving paranoid lunatic with guns. He wasn't dangerous because he had guns -- he obviously had guns because he was dangerous -- because he was a raving paranoid lunatic. The guns were evidence of his dangerousness, not merely the source of his dangerousness.

He SHOULD HAVE BEEN involuntarily committed when he was first taken into a treatment facility. He wasn't. If he had been, it would NOT have been legal for him to own guns. It was ONLY legal for him to own guns because someone didn't do his/her/their job. If that job involved applying for a judicial determination and a judicial order of commitment, in the jurisdiction in question, so be it. That was what they were pretty obviously required to do.

And saying that it was "legal" for him to own guns is pretty much like saying that it's legal for a murderer to walk free because the judge forgot to sign the warrant of committal to a place of incarceration after passing sentence. Or that it's legal for me to walk out of a restaurant without paying because the server mistakenly place a blank piece of paper on my table instead of the bill. It was ONLY "legal" because of an oversight or refusal to perform a duty.

And very obviously, what this suggests to me is that considerably more control is needed over who gets guns, starting with a permanent record of qualification to get guns, i.e. a licence -- for which the proper investigation is done, first, to determine not whether someone is disqualified, but whether s/he is qualified to own guns.

And that, of course, is NOT a "loss of civil rights", it is a justifiable restriction on the exercise of a right. Just as in the case of any other activity that society reasonably and justifiably requires its practitioners to hold a licence permitting them to engage in.



(edited to replace a vague pronoun)

[DoNotRefill]

63. It's a terminology problem.

I think we're both so used to our systems, and what certain words mean, that we get a disconnect when slightly different meanings exist for the use of the same words.

Here's what I'm saying. For a person to lose their rights to own a firearm, they must be adjudicated mentally defective. This happens at a hearing, before a judge, with due process and all of that stuff. The result is one of two options: Either the person is ruled to be mentally defective, or they are not. If the person is adjudicated mentally defective, they lose a bunch of rights, (to vote, to own guns, to enter into contracts, et cetera) since it's the legal equivalency of being found guilty of a felony, just without the jail time (although they can be institutionalized). This is what "involuntary commitment" means.

Now here's the thing. A person can be diagnosed as being mentally incompetent by a doctor. THAT diagnosis of being mentally incompetent does NOTHING to affect their legal status, and is NOT being "adjudicated mentally defective". If this happens, it doesn't matter WHAT kind of mental illness they have. They can be diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur that thinks he's Napoleon and Wellington is after him, while simultaneously being a kleptomaniac with a compulsive need to steal ladies underwear from unattended laundromats, and he's STILL able to buy a gun, as long as he hasn't been adjudicated mentally defective. So, YES, a person can have a LONG history of mental illness, can have been diagnosed with every disorder in the DSM-I through IV, could have spent 95% of his life in a mental institute, and STILL be able to buy a gun provided that he hasn't been stripped of his rights by a court. As long as the person hasn't been adjudicated mentally defective, his commitment is voluntary, and legally is the same as a person seeing a shrink to get over nicotine cravings.

"He SHOULD HAVE BEEN involuntarily committed when he was first taken into a treatment facility."

Why? On what grounds? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from RTFA, this guy had a bunch of guns, carried guns around the house, had certain paranoid tendencies, handed his mother a gun, and that's IT. What had he done at that point to be stripped of his rights? Based upon the facts as presented in the article, there wasn't sufficient cause for a TDO, much less his being adjudicated mentally defective. And in case you didn't know it, paranoia is an all-American pastime, NOT a crime.

I don't see how possession of guns is evidence of somebody being dangerous. Please explain this to me. I own far more guns than this yahoo owned. This guy had stuff that I'd consider to be barely worthy of being considered firearms...stuff I'd consider to be beneath a "serious" gun nut. Is that somehow evidence that I am dangerous?

"but whether s/he is qualified to own guns."

Here we get into a basic philosophical difference. America generally operates on the principle of "anything not expressly forbidden is permitted". Unless somebody has done something to lose their rights, they should be allowed to exercise them without harassment by the G.

[TX-RAT]

67. Kinda hinges on what committed means.

(Have you ever been committed to a mental institution?)
Can you commit your self into a institution?
How would committing yourself effect your ability to purchase a gun?

[slackmaster]

71. I believe "committed" means declared incompetent by a court of law

Checking yourself into a mental hospital doesn't count.

[TX-RAT]

72. Wouldn't you need to be committed before being declared.

Your being committed for observation.
If the end results are the same, with both observations coming to the same conclusion. Incompetent.
Why shouldn't they be treated the same.

[slackmaster]

73. Only a court has the power to declare someone incompetent

Things can get ugly when someone in your family has mental health issues. A friend of mine is working part-time as a chauffer for a very wealthy elderly lady in La Jolla. She's about 90 and feels she is of sound mind, but her son, in his late 60s, is trying to get her declared incompetent so he can take over her assets. My friend shuttles her between her lawyer's office, the courthouse, shopping, coffee places, and home over and over and over. He says she's enjoying burning up cash in case her son prevails.

Sad situation.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

74. aaaargh

to no one in particular, just to this discussion.

People are committed -- involuntarily -- because they are determined by medical professionals to be a danger to themselves and/or others or to be at risk of serious physical impairment.

It appears that in some jurisdictions this determination must be made, and this action must be taken, by some sort of judicial body; where I'm at, the action is reviewable by a judicial body, but is taken by medical professionals.

People can be adjudged incompetent without being a danger to anyone at all. A person with dementia is incompetent to handle his/her affairs, but may be no danger to anyone. Competence has nothing inherently to do with dangerousness. It has to do with a need for protection because of an inability to make decisions that are in one's own interests.

I have no idea what the "adjudged mentally defective" that DoNotRefill keeps bringing up is. It appears to be a matter of competence, NOT dangerousness.

"(Involuntarily) committed" does *not* mean "declared incompetent by a court of law". It means "found to be a danger to him/herself or others" by reason of a mental disease/disorder/etc., by whatever person or body has the authority to do that.

As far as I can tell, the relevant legislation in the US -- legislation relating to disqualification from purchasing firearms -- has to do with dangerousness -- because it refers to involuntary commitment, which is based on dangerousness and not on incompetence, and does NOT refer to adjudication of incompetence.

And I am still at a loss to make any sense of the "loss of civil rights" business. A person who is involuntarily committed does not lose rights. That is the entire reason why the commitment must be either ordered by a judicial body (in US jurisdictions) or reviewed by a judicial body (in my jurisdiction)!!

The commitment, which means loss of a certain degree of liberty (*NOT* of the RIGHT to liberty), must comply with due process. And it must continue to comply with due process. A person cannot be interned indefinitely on an involuntary commitment; s/he has rights of review.

An adjudication of incompetence may involve no loss of physical liberty at all. The individual may continue to live in his/her home and simply not have the ability to enter into contracts, e.g. Or the person may be in an institution because s/he is unable to care for his/herself in terms of basic needs -- but not as a person committed to that institution. See the post of slackmaster's immediately above mine -- the individual he is talking about is not dangerous to herself or anyone else, she is simply incompetent to handle her affairs.

I am completely failing to see how anyone interprets the legislation governing purchase of firearms in the US as having anything to do with adjudication of competence, when it appears to refer quite plainly to involuntary commitment which is what is ordered on a finding of dangerousness, *not* incompetence.

And I would repeat that being involuntarily committed does *not* carry with it the automatic loss of "civil rights". By statute, the person can be prohibited from purchasing firearms even after release -- i.e. when the person no longer has the status of "involuntarily committed". Before that statute was enacted (and it appears to be the "Brady Bill"), that "right" was not lost. A person who had been involuntarily committed and then released could purchase a firearm just like anybody else.

[TX-RAT]

77. "adjudged mentally defective"

Question 12-f
Firearms transaction record
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective( which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution.

A yes answer will prohibit you from purchasing a firearm.

[iverglas]

79. okay then

That's what I spent quite a bit of time looking for last night. All I could come up with was the us-gov info site, which referred only to involuntary commitment.

So we've come full circle.

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective( which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) ***or*** have you ever been committed to a mental institution. (emphases added)

The two things are two separate issues. One is an issue of competence, and one is an issue of dangerousness.

The issue in THIS CASE was DANGEROUSNESS, *NOT* incompetence -- involuntary commitment, *NOT* adudication of incompetence. Involuntary commitment occurs because of dangerousness, *not* because of incompetence.

So all of the blah-blah (no, not yours) about adjudications of incompetence was exactly as irrelevant as I've been saying it was from the very beginning.

[DoNotRefill]

82. wrong....

"So all of the blah-blah (no, not yours) about adjudications of incompetence was exactly as irrelevant as I've been saying it was from the very beginning."

"The two things are two separate issues. One is an issue of competence, and one is an issue of dangerousness."

in both cases, there MUST be a ruling by a competent court that the person has some form of mental defect. That's what being "adjudicated mentally defective" means. In short, NEITHER can be satisfied WITHOUT having the mental competency hearing, and a finding of mental incompetence is what removes the civil rights, NOT which FORM of incompetence there is.

If the court rules that you're mentally defective for NON-VIOLENT reasons (like you're mentally retarded, so they're going to treat you as a juvenile, even though you're over-age and don't pose a threat to anybody except the pizza man due to accidentally stepping on his toes trying to get the pizza for the pizza party) you STILL lose your right to own a gun, despite the fact that you're far from dangerous.

[DoNotRefill]

81. you can be voluntarily committed....

and it doesn't affect your legal ability to buy guns. It's only if you're committed via the judicial process that it strips you of your rights.

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.