No assault rifles for people on behavioral meds or people with a history of violent crime

I recently made a thread in which I asked what arguments there are against keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. A select few people made a good point: how do you define crazy? It wasn't my intention to refer to any standard of'crazy,' as none really exist. It's a subjective term. However, that is no reason we can't decide what kinds of people shouldn't have certain guns. I think we can easily objectify that.

I propose banning the sale of assault rifles to people falling into one of two categories, until such people can demonstrate to a judge that they are of sound mind.

1. People on certain behavioral medications (this would have prevented the sale to the Florida shooter);
2. People who have been convicted or plead guilty to violent crimes (most states have a list of crimes that are deemed violent).

I don't give a **** what the ACLU says. They're not always right. They're not the kings of liberalism.

 

No objections? Let's make it law.

 

Why just assault rifles? How about no firearms at all for those people.

 

Conservatives would never accept the idea of depriving any one person of all types of guns. I anticipate one screaming "hur dur but what about self defense?!" Besides the Florida shooter would have done a lot less damage with a pistol. If we can't prevent shootings like this, the least we can do is make them less lethal.

 

They'll get a friend with no record of either to buy for them. Any more bright ideas?

 

Registration of all guns. Banning of private sales without background checks.

 

I could not support #1 since you are not specific enough.

Broward Co. quit arresting students for bad or violent behavior which is a new liberal issue. If so this guy would not be able to purchase a weapon

 

You do understand that the friend will have committed the crime by selling the weapon without a background check, right?

 

I would include all automatic/semi-automatic weapons. So rifles/revolvers would be allowed.
Remember, the Virginia Tech sicko who killed over 30 people was armed only with two semi-automatic pistols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

But I could live with your idea just fine.
It's a good start.

I wonder what objections the NRA-types will come up with. Lots, I assume.

 

Licensing of gun ownership. Prohibition of private sales. (If you need a rather hard to get license to sell liquor why not guns?) Mandatory sentencing with serious jail time for violations. Most importantly liability for damage caused by stolen guns and insurance required. You have to carry insurance to protect others from your car, why is your death-dealing weaponry immune from having to protect the innocent?

 

I intentionally left #1 open so people can tell me what kind of medications would concern them. For instance, I could see some people getting upset over Ambien, which is technically a behavioral medicine. So is Ritalin. But I'm more concerned about people on anxiety medication. And of course the "crazy pills" (e.g., Valium).

 

I'm totally okay with this. In fact lets add firearms in general to that.

 

I think you should expand the ban on these people to all guns.

 

lets add free speech to this as well. We cant have internet trolls getting these maniacs all riled up. right op?

 

Remember this is a compromise.

There are plenty of perfectly sane people who take anxiety medication. We don't need to leave them completely defenseless. Let them own some classes of firearms.

 

Convicted felons are not allowed to buy weapons now. I haven't noticed that prevents most them from accessing fire arms. Most murders are done by people with a fairly lengthy rap sheets that began when they were in junior high.
Please note had the FBI done it's damn Job Mr. Cruz would not have been on the street to do the shooting.

 

Not all violent crimes are felonies.

 

Anybody who honestly thinks a gun is an effective defense is so completely contradicting ALL the credible research I've heard (Sock puppet King John Lott's "figures" showing something like every person in some areas being mugged twice a day notwithstanding) that I question their capacity to make objective judgments at all in this area. Even WITH a gun you're really pretty much defenseless against another one in most circumstances, that's just they way things are. Far more effective as a defense against guns are laws making them difficult to get

 

The FBI does its damned job very well. They have thwarted thousands of attempts to disrupt of our way of life, and continue to do so.
You are, of course, aware of this as I am. Another government agency interviewed the shooter and deemed him not to be a threat.
That is no excuse for the FBI, and you know since I am sure that you have never been involved in a fck up at your job. Me neither.

 

EXACTLY what I expected from the likes of you.

Thank you for at least being consistent.

 

Question 11c on Form 4473, which you have to fill out when purchasing a firearm from a dealer, anywhere in the USA, asks specifically "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a
felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year,even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?"

Notice the "any other crime", so not limited to felonies.

Question 11i asks specifically "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"

So again, these restrictions are not limited to felonies. Why don't you know this already?

In regards to point #1, question 11e asks specifically "e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Why would we need new laws reflecting the goals you have when we already have those laws?

Form 4473 on ATF site:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4...n-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

 

Sorry but you are incorrect. A felony is defined as a crime for which the penalty is over one year in prison, or death. So your "any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for over one year" is just describing felonies. But don't take my word for it. If you google the definition of felony, the first definition that comes up is a crime for which the punishment is over one year in prison. Look it up. (I can't link from my phone.)


Thank you for reinforcing my statement that the current law is under inclusive.

 

With no signs of violence, none of them.

 

How about all guns should be registered and the last person the gun is registered to is responsible for any use of that gun unless reported stolen?. The last person registered is also responsible for ensuring that the next person registers the gun, the transfer done through a registered dealer and has a background check before transfer, Guns are passed around too easily with many eventually ending up in the illegal held guns pool

 

Federal HIPAA laws are also playing a part in not allowing federal agencies from accessing metal health information on potential or current gun owners. You know the laws that state the medical community cannot disclose your medical history.
The rules were changed in January 2016, to allow disclosure if you were involuntarily committed to a mental institution or otherwise have been determined by a courts to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs.
So if you voluntary commit your or treated as an outpatient for metal health issues HIPAA laws prevent that being disclosed to the State/federal background check.

I'll bet more than a few people obtained weapons prior to January 2016 that probably shouldn't have them.

Hell now that I think about it I know 2 people that are on disability for depression related issues and both own at least long guns.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=dx...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.1277...0.0.4EKq0bP8lZA

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/NICS/index.html