So. We are paranoid to worry about them confiscating our guns, are we?

[Logan Darklighter]

We've been down this road before. 

Don't be fooled. Gun confiscation has already begun in NYPOSTED AT 11:31 AM ON APRIL 13, 2013 BY JAZZ SHAW

We've heard it over and over again, particularly on shows like Morning Joe. Anyone who thinks that the government is "coming to take your guns" is a paranoid loon, watching for black helicopters and guarding their sheep from soldiers. Unfortunately for those formerly right leaning, Second Amendment minded folks who bought into this story, reality has come screaming up from behind well ahead of schedule.
Following the passage of "The SAFE Act" in New York State, Big Brother got busy pretty quickly grabbing up the guns. Of course nobody was reporting on it very much until they managed tocollect them from the wrong guy and a judge made them give them back.

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Thursday, a state Supreme Court Judge ruled guns seized from David Lewis, 35, must be returned to him after he was incorrectly identified as violating the mental health provision of the SAFE Act.
"We know that from the health care agency to the State Police, there was some kind of breach," said Lewis' attorney, Jim Tresmond.

I don't know how much more chilling that lede could be, really. This isn't some worry about the government possibly confiscating guns. These are guns that were already confiscated by the government. But if you think that's as bad as it gets, guess again. Here's why his guns were taken.

Tresmond says his client was ordered to turn in his weapons last week because he was once on anti-anxiety medication, which is a violation of the SAFE Act. Wednesday, State Police informed the Erie County Clerk's Office that it made a mistake when it said Lewis was in violation of the state's new gun law.

For all the more liberal leaning readers who continue to ask "what's so bad" about universal background checks before we've even seen the specifics, this is your answer. In New York, you can be placed on a "list"of people with no Second Amendment rights on the say so of any doctor who has questions. And it already happened to David Lewis. Thankfully, he's getting his guns back...  for now. But what is the larger effect of this if we put it on a national scale?

The NY SAFE Act requires "mental health professionals, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, to report if an individual they are treating is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to him- or herself or others."
If such a determination is made, "the Division of Criminal Justice Services will determine whether the person possesses a firearms license and, if so, will notify the appropriate local licensing official, who must suspend the license. The person's firearms will then be removed."
The law has come under fire from gun-rights advocates as well as mental health professionals, who fear the new law discourages people from seeking professional help for mental health issues.

Okay, I can see your point about the adverse effect on those seeking help for mental disorders. If you know that you'll have your constitutional rights curtailed if you tell a doctor you are depressed or filled with anxiety, you might not go seek help. But that also sort of buries the lede here...
They're Already Taking Away Guns From People For Having ONCE Been Prescribed ANTI-ANXIETY MEDICINE.
Doug Mataconis gives the legal beagle perspective on catching up people seeking medical help in a legal net. (Read the whole thing.)

The SAFE Act in particular seems to me to be overly broad in defining what qualifies as a reportable condition. It's one thing for a person who is delusional on the level of a Seung-Hui Choi or Jared Loughner to be caught up in the net, it is quite another for someone who was apparently merely on an anti-anxiety drug to have their Constitutional rights limited. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? History is replete with examples of psychiatry being abused by the state, and the danger of abuse becomes even higher when the law broadens the number of conditions that are reportable to the state.

We have thus far been unable to get anyone from New York to own up to how many people have had their guns taken away this year under the new SAFE Act. Neither has the YNN news team. But the facts in evidence are not in dispute. The law is still so new that the "new law smell" hasn't worn off it yet but they are already going around and confiscating guns.
This new universal background check bill is the hot ticket in DC right now. You can read the full text of it here, which thus far contains nothing about expanding how one qualifies as "mentally ill" but there are multiple amendments to come, so we don't even know what will be in the final version. A repeating theme is that it will have to "do something" about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But how is that to be accomplished? Will it only affect those who have been adjudicated in court to be proven, dangerous, unstable individuals and who have had the opportunity to object to their classification? Or will it be something that slides closer to what we now have in New York?
And yet... we're all paranoid. Right, Joe Scarborough? I could insert one clip after another of the insulting, uninformed comments in the mainstream media made toward those who expressed concerns over this type of unbridled nanny state activity. But you've seen them all before. and there's no use boring you with them here again now. As for me, I'll stay in my basement, eating my Cheetos, cleaning my Glock and guarding the sheep. You never know.
UPDATE: (Jazz) From the comments. An excellent question.

Number one question for those who favor "universal background checks" – how do you enforce them?In other words, how will authorities know if an individual who possesses a firearm submitted to a background check?If they can answer this question without needing to resort to a database, or a registry, then I am all ears.

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

Finch: "...It's like I could see the whole thing, one long chain of events that stretched all the way back... I felt like I could see everything that happened, and everything that is going to happen. It was like a perfect pattern, laid out in front of me. And I realized we're all part of it, and all trapped by it.

Dominic: So do you know what's gonna happen?

Finch: No, it was a feeling. But I can guess. ...someone will do something stupid. And when they do, things will turn nasty. And then... 

I don't post this expecting to change any minds. At this point, you either see the problem, or... you don't. And nothing I or anyone else can say will convince you that we are all in terrible danger. 

[Black Aeronaut]

*Sighs* I know some people don't like it, but the straight dope is that if you want to be able to have guns while improving 'gun control' then there simply needs to be a database of who owns a gun. It's bad enough these days that people file the serial numbers off. (BTW: Is there law against possessing firearms that have had their serial numbers removed? As opposed to merely 'crime-x with possession of a firearm'?)

And background checks are a fact of life. Over at the temporary agency that I work at, temps had to undergo extensive background screenings before working at the San Antonio Stockade Show and Rodeo. Among the things checked for were aliases and, in particularly, sexual predator status. Background checks are becoming a fact of life. Otherwise, you would have the same situation in Japan where bad teachers keep on getting jobs in different schools despite doing things that should land them in prison. It's a little tangential, I know, but it applies simply because people are falsifying their pasts more and more.

Now, I'm not entirely sure, but from your tone you seem to believe we should do away with background checks altogether. Please, let me know if I'm wrong here. Personally, though, I feel that we are a lot better off having them because the last thing I want is people with documented violent behavior, or mentally disturbed in a manner that poses danger to others, in possession of fire arms.

Although I do agree they need to get their shit straight about what kinds of mental illness should preclude people from gun ownership. I'm pretty sure you'd agree that people with psychotic disorders shouldn't have guns. Bipolar disorder should probably count as well. Depression? That's... iffy. It's important to remember that manic-depressives are not anymore - it's now known as bipolar disorder and therefore a whole different kettle of fish. Clinical Depression, I would think, would only present a danger to the gun owner him/herself in the form of suicide.

Suicide prevention... shouldn't figure into gun control. Perhaps a voluntary system should be in place where a gun owner would, upon the advise of their psychologist or family, can turn their weapons over to local law enforcement for safe keeping until they have been given a clean bill of mental health.

Anyhow... Fixing background checks is only one half of the problem. The other half is fixing the completely and utterly broken mental health care system of our country. And to begin with, I feel that exceedingly stringent guidelines need to be set at the Federal level as a sort of 'minimum level of quality assurance'. These guidelines must be reasonable, but even so I can imagine some states will not be happy about the impact it may have on pork barrel projects.

Thoughts?

[Logan Darklighter]

Take note that I posted the article and while I agree with most of the tone and substance, the specific words weren't mine. 

I think private background checks carried out by businesses are a choice made by the business (or they should be). If a private individual or business wants to find out about you, they can use the existing tools available. I may not like it, but that's their right to set those bars for choosing employees (or customers). There's a common misconception (which I'm not saying you're making) that people make in regards to things like the first amendment and free speech. A company that requires a background check prior to employment or to selling you a gun is not infringing on your rights. You can always choose either not to seek employment there or to do your business elsewhere. You have a choice. Therefore it's not (technically) an infringement on Liberty. 
But lawmakers in the wake of Sandy Hook and Aurora are writing bills that if made into law would change that. I feel they are crossing the line. I feel that the current crop of gun bills violate the 2nd amendment. And I'm no longer as confident of the Supreme Court's wisdom on the constitutionality of laws these days. The court is too evenly split and could go either way. They should rule against these laws when they are challenged. I don't know for sure that the court will make the right decision though.

I do not like the idea of a central database on gun owners held by the federal government. That's "the slippery slope" and frankly it's already begun. And they are trying to control and track private ownership of guns even sold privately between individuals. That's the hard line I personally draw. "This far and NO FARTHER." What if a gun is passed down from father to son? What if you let someone borrow a gun and they have to use it to protect themselves? The way that some of these bills are written would have you go to jail for doing that even if no lives were lost! And much of these laws and regulations are un-enforceable in any case. It's stupid. 
Going off on a bit of a tangent here - 

Making cigarettes illegal or prohibitively expensive via taxation has created a thriving underground market for them in places like NY. Prohibition made alcohol illegal. What did that do? Made organized crime into the power that it was. The Mafia owed it's ascendancy to prohibition. What's the drug war done? Given power to the drug cartels in Mexico. Look at what happened there. Look at what's happened to us. There's no upside. Make guns illegal? Same thing. People will start trading and selling them illegally without reporting them. It already happens to some extent, but normally law-abiding people will start doing so. 

I guarantee you - the minute that those same Mexican drug cartels figure out that they can run GUNS across that border and make a profit? You think things are ugly on the border already? That's going to be full-scale war. 

And you just know some official pencil pusher somewhere is going to make the mistake of sending out a SWAT team to the wrong place one way or another. At some point, either they're going to run into resistance that gets many of them killed, or worse, they force entry into the wrong house by mistake and take innocent lives. (That last example has already taken place multiple times in the last few years. The militarization of the police should worry more people. But it hasn't been reported on enough.)

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on the Mental Health angle in general terms.

[Logan Darklighter]

Here - this guy is far more eloquent than I am. Listen to him. 

[robkelk]

Making cigarettes illegal or prohibitively expensive via taxation has created a thriving underground market for them in places like NY. Prohibition made alcohol illegal. What did that do? Made organized crime into the power that it was. The Mafia owed it's ascendancy to prohibition. What's the drug war done? Given power to the drug cartels in Mexico. Look at what happened there. Look at what's happened to us. There's no upside. Make guns illegal? Same thing. People will start trading and selling them illegally without reporting them. It already happens to some extent, but normally law-abiding people will start doing so.

[citation needed]

That doesn't match the evidence around here - "normally law-abiding people" do not buy, sell, or trade firearms illegally despite the expense of becoming and remaining licensed to do so legally in Canada.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Morganite]

while improving 'gun control' then there simply needs to be a database of who owns a gun.

That's kind of like saying "If I want to be stabbed, I have to accept being clubbed on the head".

I don't want either of those things. And I think the kind of 'improvements' being suggested will do a great deal of harm and no good, so I don't want them either.

In particular, the way people pushing gun legislation frequently seem to have no idea how the things they want to regulate actually work really doesn't fill me with confidence.

-Morgan.

[Logan Darklighter]

robkelk wrote:
That doesn't match the evidence around here - "normally law-abiding people" do not buy, sell, or trade firearms illegally despite the expense of becoming and remaining licensed to do so legally in Canada.

"The evidence around here" 
Why would you depend on "the evidence around here" when you are in Canada? 

Please don't take that as disrespect to Canada, but as you know, Americans and Canadians - despite many similarities - are markedly different cultures. And none more so than on a subject like this. Perhaps Northeastern states of the US are closer to your POV. Which might give you a false impression. 

I won't presume to speak for other parts of the country, but rest assured, Texans like myself will NOT stand for this sort of thing. Note also that Gov Perry is actively promoting Texas as a place for Gun Manufacturers to move to since many are moving out of states that are enacting these restrictive laws. 

And Virginia and West Virginia are busy wooing Beretta since they're moving out of Maryland. 

Other gun manufacturers are refusing to sell guns anymore to law enforcement in those areas. 

There are at least 44 gun manufacturers that now refuse to do business with police agencies in anti-second amendment states. This is definitely a growing trend. 

As for gun control laws being difficult to enforce, I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. Apparently some in law enforcement won't even bother trying. 

[robkelk]

robkelk wrote:

That doesn't match the evidence around here - "normally law-abiding people" do not buy, sell, or trade firearms illegally despite the expense of becoming and remaining licensed to do so legally in Canada.

"The evidence around here"

Why would you depend on "the evidence around here" when you are in Canada?

Because that evidence contradicts your hypothesis.

You made a statement that making firearm ownership expensive or illegal would drive law-abiding people to break the law. I asked for evidence of that claim, and pointed out the evidence available to me did not support your hypothesis.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Morganite]

The difference in the laws isn't the only factor leading to different results, I think is the point.

-Morgan.

[nemonowan]

I'll just leave you with this, then

[Rajvik]

And there's a reason i first of all stay out of political forums, second try and stay away from gun control debates and third have seen more forums ban discussions on gun control from their threads. I fight dirty, i fight using history, and the ingrained liberalness of the net hates to lose. That said i place the following before you:

Rob, again look at history, when Cigarettes were heavily taxed in Europe they were smuggled and a booming black market in them made them even more popular thus driving the demand, thus like NASCAR was born from bootleggers testing their cars amongst other bootleggers, so the Ciggarette boat industry boomed, yes those nice cabin forward designs came from the need for fast cargo movers that could handle Mediterainian conditions. The same thing happened as previously alluded to during prohibition both for cars and boats, why doesnt it happen in Canada, probably because you have a differnent mindset than americans who yes are a culture of the gun.

Second: it has been proven time and time again that these "Anti Assault weapon" laws accomplish nothing, Columbine occured during the Clinton assault weapon ban, didnt stop it. not to mention that these guns that they ban are not by Definition assault weapons they simply physically resemble them or other military "styled" weapons. the most dangerous firearm in a school, a pump action 12 ga shotgun loaded with buckshot which is a common hunting weapon stateside.

Third: Universal background checks nor any of these laws are going to keep the weapons from the hands of the criminals who either buy them on the black market, steal them, or use something else.

Finally, I'm a person who has had extensive training in various things that could cause harm and one of the things i've learned over the years is how to either scrounge up or make my own weapons, the one thing that has been said in a thousand places is that once its free, you cant put the genie back in the bottle
 

[robkelk]

Definitely the idea that registering weapons will keep them out of the "wrong" hands is a false idea - the gun registry put into place after the École Polytechnique shootings in Montréal didn't stop the Dawson College shootings in the same city. That's why our politicians decided to get rid of that registry - it wasn't working.

Background checks and licensing, though, do keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. Not completely - reference the Dawson College shootings - but enough to save some lives.

And you've had training in this area - but how many of your neighbours have? Check the statistics on accidental firearm deaths before you answer that.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Morganite]

I'll just leave you with this, then

That's a rather... head-in-the-sand tack to take when actual spurious confiscations are taking place. Or do you think having ever been on anti-anxiety medication isn't one?

On gun bootlegging: There's already a pattern of California residents leaving the state to buy things that state's laws bar. Why should we think it wouldn't happen on a larger scale given larger scale bans?

Also, cost isn't the only thing that matters. Canada's gun laws might not be as onerous as you think.

Background checks and licensing, though, do keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Citation needed, as they say. Everything I hear makes it sound like people who snap and go on rampages do not, in fact, exhibit any obvious signs before doing it.

Also, how do you keep the system from being abused? There's a guy on the TV Tropes forum who, in a perfect world, would like a psychiatric evaluation to be required for a gun permit... but in the world we've got, knows that there'd be a lot of people rejected due to political bias. It'd probably invite the same "you can get a gun if and only if you're rich" problems that have been seen in may-issue districts, too.

-Morgan.

[khagler]

You seem to be assuming that people pushing "keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill" want to keep it from being abused. I don't think this is a very safe assumption.

In any case, I don't think keeping a weapon out of the hands of some little old lady who made the mistake of telling her parents she was a lesbian as a teenager and then spent years locked up in a mental hospital being tortured as a result is in any way a desirable goal.

Someone (I forget who) one wrote that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted outside a cage. I've found that the victim disarmament crowd actually agree with that--they just want to turn the whole world into a cage.

[Dartz]

I've always felt the best argument for firearms regulation is the one nobody's talking about...

Not having a police force armed to the hilt in response to the potential for a full blown shootout every time they knock on a door. I've had armed soldiers knock at my door in the middle of the night- it's spooky. But I never felt threatened by them - it was just the bomb disposal team doing it's thing across the street, letting me know it wasn't safe to go out. (They also came to my school when I was younger and let us play with their toys, but that's another story.)

Ultimately, I tend to make a mental equivalence between firearms and cars. Both are useful tools. Both are also capable of wreaking havoc in the wrong hands. One requires an extensive licensing process to get your hands on... and that privilege can be revoked by lawful authority if it's abused. Or if a person looses competence through illness.

Even with the 'right' to own arms, I always wondered why there aren't any encouragements to get official training. It seems strange that someone can walk into a shop, wait a week, then walk out with a deadly weapon and no training in its proper use. This seems like a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[robkelk]

Background checks and licensing, though, do keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Citation needed, as they say.

Ludwig J, Cook PJ: Homicide and suicide rates associated with implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. JAMA 284:585–91, 2000
Webster DW, Vernick JS, Zeoli Am, et al: Association between youth-focused firearm laws and youth suicides. JAMA 292:594–601, 2004
Miller M, Lippmann SJ, Azrael D, et al: Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the United States. J Trauma 62:1029–35, 2007
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ECSNorway]

A question:

a) How do you judge who is sufficiently "mentally ill" that they should not be allowed to own a gun? Who is equipped to tell the difference between a Jared Loughner and a David Lewis?

b) What happens if you disagree with that decision? Is there an appeals process?

c) Who determines, under law, who is qualified to make the decision?
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[khagler]

ECSNorway wrote:

---

A question:

a) How do you judge who is sufficiently "mentally ill" that they should not be allowed to own a gun? Who is equipped to tell the difference between a Jared Loughner and a David Lewis?

b) What happens if you disagree with that decision? Is there an appeals process?

c) Who determines, under law, who is qualified to make the decision?

A. It's been a while since I bought a gun from an FFL, but as I recall the wording on the form is "involuntarily committed" (note that being involuntarily committed doesn't require anything that could possibly be deemed "mental illness," it just requires someone with the power to do so deciding to lock you up). Nobody is so equipped.
B. You're screwed. No.

C. Politicians who want to ensure that only they and their bully-boy enforcers have guns.

[ECSNorway]

khagler wrote:

---

ECSNorway wrote:

---

A question:

a) How do you judge who is sufficiently "mentally ill" that they should not be allowed to own a gun? Who is equipped to tell the difference between a Jared Loughner and a David Lewis?

b) What happens if you disagree with that decision? Is there an appeals process?

c) Who determines, under law, who is qualified to make the decision?

A. It's been a while since I bought a gun from an FFL, but as I recall the wording on the form is "involuntarily committed" (note that being involuntarily committed doesn't require anything that could possibly be deemed "mental illness," it just requires someone with the power to do so deciding to lock you up). Nobody is so equipped.
B. You're screwed. No.

C. Politicians who want to ensure that only they and their bully-boy enforcers have guns.

Well, yes. But I'm asking that of the people who actually think we legitimately need -only- these steps, not the fascists who actually run the parties.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Morganite]

Well, at least if you're a veteran, there's a hearing involved somewhere.

-Morgan.

[Rajvik]

Rob, local and regional accidental shootings are rediculously low. The accepted explanation being that we are taught safe gun handling from an extremely early age. Those of us that worry over such things think that gun safety and handling should be taught in school, thought we dont agree at what age. The idea being that you take away the mistique of the gun at that early age and drill in safe handling practices that the accidental shooting rates will drop even more.
 

[robkelk]

The idea being that you take away the mistique of the gun at that early age and drill in safe handling practices that the accidental shooting rates will drop even more.

Agreed. In Canada, one is required to take - and pass - a firearms safety course before being licensed to purchase a firearm. I don't have the numbers available, so I can't say how that corresponds to any difference in per-capita numbers of accidental deaths by firearms in our two countries, but I do know that any such event makes the national news up here.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[khagler]

Rajvik wrote:

---

Rob, local and regional accidental shootings are rediculously low. The accepted explanation being that we are taught safe gun handling from an extremely early age. Those of us that worry over such things think that gun safety and handling should be taught in school, thought we dont agree at what age. The idea being that you take away the mistique of the gun at that early age and drill in safe handling practices that the accidental shooting rates will drop even more.

The NRA has various safety and training programs, including one meant for use in schools with very small children that focuses on teaching them to leave the area and tell and adult if they find a gun. Unfortunately, the victim disarmament crowd actively opposes safety programs because their efforts to drum up public support are completely dependent on ignorance and fear, and benefit from accidental shootings.
I actually did learn gun safety and handling in school, in the mid-80s. This was before the current system of official bigotry became prevalent in US schools--today I would probably have been arrested for reading "Guns and Ammo" during lunch.

As a side note, many shooters use the term "negligent discharge" rather than "accidental shooting," because it's nearly impossible for any gun made since the late 19th century to go off without the operator doing something negligent.

[ECSNorway]

A proposal I've heard, and kind of like. This one will give all the "we want universal background check" folks all that they supposedly want, and the "no gun registry allowed" folks all that they supposedly want, too.

It's simple.

Joe Schmoe wants to buy a gun.

Joe takes a licensed firearms-safety course. It could be from the NRA, his local PD, the Boy Scouts, whatever.

This course includes a free and automatic background check on Joe. No record is kept of the check aside from "pass/fail".

At completion of the course, Joe is issued a card that says "Joe Schmoe has completed a federally licensed firearms safety course and passed the appropriate background check. This card good for five years from date xx/xx/20xx."

Joe goes to a firearms dealer. Joe shows the card. The dealer verifies it isn't a forgery and checks the tickbox on the sales book that says "customer passed background check". The sale is completed.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[khagler]

Personally, I'm no more interested in a gun owner registry than a gun registry, and I'm also uninterested in a Jim Crow law that restricts gun ownership to people with the right wealth, political connections, and skin color to get into a "federally licensed firearms safety course."