The Current U.S. Regulation Regarding Mental Illness
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued regulations that define an “adjudication” as a “determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person is, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” This includes a finding of insanity or incompetency in a criminal case.
“Committed to a mental institution” is defined as a “formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority.” The definition makes clear that “the term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission.”
-----------------------
The Supreme Court has held that an involuntary commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that requires due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based only on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment. Doing so might discourage troubled people from getting the help they need, even those with conditions that bear no increased risk of violence.
If a person was banned from legally purchasing a gun based on the current regulations, and the condition for which they were banned has been resolved, I think that too should be reported in the NICS system so the record can be updated.
As for preventing mentally ill persons that fall under current regulations from getting their hands on guns via family members or friends, it's too bad we can't regulate common sense. I have mixed feelings about what, if any, federal governmental intervention should be taken to address that problem.
To my knowledge, the mother of the Oregon massacre can not be prosecuted for the actions of her son even though we'll most likely find out that the guns he used were in fact purchased by her. (If not, I apologize).
Whether or not they were locked up shouldn't matter. If the parent and child (in this case) live in the same residence, that's all the proof that's required.
An easy law to pass, which should be somewhat of a deterrent, would be to make the weapon provider as culpable as the person that pulled the trigger.
In this case, she serves 8 life terms. And her property and assets are also subject to litigation.
If you know you live with an unstable person and have guns that are accessible, you yourself are on a slippery slope.
(10-10-2015, 10:05 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Whether or not they were locked up shouldn't matter. If the parent and child (in this case) live in the same residence, that's all the proof that's required.
An easy law to pass, which should be somewhat of a deterrent, would be to make the weapon provider as culpable as the person that pulled the trigger.
In this case, she serves 8 life terms. And her property and assets are also subject to litigation.
I think a federal law like that is worth consideration if the person who provided the access can be proven to have done so intentionally and had definite knowledge of the mental illness, MS.
Like her son, the Oregon shooter's mother has Asperger's, according to media reports. Asperger's is not categorized as a mental illness (it's classified as a developmental disorder) and is not associated with an increased propensity towards violence, according to the medical experts. So, in that particular mass murder case, even though the mom knew of her son's Asperger's and blamed it for his troubles, she couldn't be considered culpable under your proposed law.
But, if it could be shown that the mom knew that her troubled son had been discharged from the Army for attempted suicide, your proposed law would apply to her if the wording of it included culpability for people who provide voluntary access to those with a documented history of violence against self and others (similar to what Gunnar suggested upthread).
Just thinking out loud again.
(10-10-2015, 09:59 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]As I see it, "well-regulated" should include screening who is eligible to safely participate by bearing arms.
Agreed.
I don't know what the answer is. As this thread shows, we have talked extensively about this subject and we go in circles. There are mass shootings every week now. I can remember a time, not that long ago, where I felt shocked by these murders, that's not to say I no longer am but now it's more like, "Again. Another one". 
(10-10-2015, 10:05 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]To my knowledge, the mother of the Oregon massacre can not be prosecuted for the actions of her son even though we'll most likely find out that the guns he used were in fact purchased by her.
I say charge her now.
Why not start with "aiding and abetting"?
Quit pussy-footing around and start using the laws we have on the books.
Let her defend HER actions instead of lawful gun owners defending their Constitutional rights.
If she provided a weapon to her fucked-up kid, she is culpable under existing laws.
How many new laws will it take to define "well regulated" for some of you?
Crazies and criminals do not respect the rights of others.
Maybe it's time we start using their playbook against them . . . Quid Pro Quo.
BTW - Your paranoia regarding your kids' safety at school might be considered a mental illness. Just sayin' . . .
Yes, I'm mentally unstable in thinking that there's a possibility of a school shooting, since there are never any school shootings.
(10-10-2015, 01:08 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2015, 10:05 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]To my knowledge, the mother of the Oregon massacre can not be prosecuted for the actions of her son even though we'll most likely find out that the guns he used were in fact purchased by her.
Why not start with "aiding and abetting"?
Quit pussy-footing around and start using the laws we have on the books.
Because, unless there is evidence to suggest that these three legal elements of aiding and abetting occurred, there is not likely probable cause to charge idiot mom with "aiding and abetting".
1. She had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by her son;
2. She had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense;
3. She assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substantive offense.
If there's probable cause to suggest that idiot mom did those things, then I agree she should be charged with "aiding and abetting" immediately.
If it turns out that idiot mom bought the guns for her troubled son because he couldn't legally do so (but there is no evidence indicating she knew of his plan to commit a crime), I think charging her using the straw purchasing law on the books would be appropriate and the likelihood of conviction would be high.
Gee . . . wouldn't a straw purchase satisfy all three elements of aiding and abetting the felonious purchase of a firearm?
Silly me.
I thought there were laws and paperwork addressing this issue.
Especially if he attempted or threatened suicide.
Be aggressive, charge the bitch and let her do the explaining.
(10-10-2015, 01:54 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I'm mentally unstable in thinking that there's a possibility of a school shooting, since there are never any school shootings.
Didn't I say "might"?
Thanks for the butt hurt self diagnosis!
So . . . what's your solution?
Or will you continue displaying symptoms of combat PTSD and fixate on the fact your kids are most likely the next victims of a school killer?
Your "thinking" reads more like an obsession with high probability of fruition than a remote possibility.
You should be more fearful when your kids are in a car. Far greater likelihood of death or injury.
How 'bout home schooling?
You already have a gun free zone . . .
In a snarky mood Tiki?
How's your Resting Bitch Face on a scale of 1-10.
10 being really bitchy.
I don't think making an observation about a school in relation to a potential shooter on the loose sounds all the strange.
The fact that it bothers you so much says a lot.
(10-10-2015, 02:45 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Gee . . . wouldn't a straw purchase satisfy all three elements of aiding and abetting the felonious purchase of a firearm?
Silly me.
I thought there were laws and paperwork addressing this issue.
Especially if he attempted or threatened suicide.
Be aggressive, charge the bitch and let her do the explaining.
Well, we're all silly and wrong sometimes, Tiki. At least, I know I am.
No evidence has been released to the public supporting a charge of "aiding and abetting" against the idiot mom. Based on what we know now, that law on the books is not applicable in this case. That answers your question as to "why not charge her with aiding and abetting now?"
Law enforcement has indicated that all of the guns they found were purchased legally. If it turns out that idiot mom legally purchased the guns, but did so because her son legally could not, the law on the books prohibiting straw purchases can be used to file charges against her.
Still, straw purchasing the guns for her son would not legally equate to "aiding and abetting" UNLESS there is evidence that she had knowledge and intent pertaining to the crimes he carried out with those guns.
So, she should be charged with one or both of those offenses if probable cause turns up to support those charges. To charge her without probable cause, as you suggest, would be a violation of her Constitutional rights.
If no evidence is turned up to suggest that she committed either of those offenses, I don't know of any offense currently on the books which would apply to idiot mom in this case.
Not in a snarky mood.
No idea about my RBF.
Yeah, Spy . . . every time I attend a school function for one of my relatives, my first thought is "OMG! This could be a death trap!"
You've mentioned your fear of your children's safety at school on numerous occasions . . . specifically when it comes to armed murderers.
It's more than an observation, sport. Once is an observation. Five or more times is Alzheimer's or obsession.
Yes . . . it's a tad over text top and paranoid.
Again . . . attack the messenger and seize the moral high ground.
And buy your kids bullet proof garments.
Some of these parents should be charged at least with gross negligence. Not sure what the requirements are for that but the term certainly applies. Even if that mother couldn't fathom her son harming others, he attempted suicide FFS. Why not just leave a bunch of nooses laying around too.
Yeah, silly me, a guy with grade school aged kids, concerned over another crazy wanting to 'outdo' Lanza.
Seems really 'out there' doesn't it?
We all know that guns are in short supply and crazies never get their hands on guns.
We also know these whack jobs are never looking to one up the previous guy.
So, yes, while the chances are slim, I do think about it.
I can see your attitude, with no dog in the fight, is much what I expect.
You could care less.
You think MS is paranoid? FU said he won't even sit in a Olive Garden unless he has full view of all the doors and armed for guerrilla warfare.
(10-10-2015, 04:11 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, silly me, a guy with grade school aged kids, concerned over another crazy wanting to 'outdo' Lanza.
Seems really 'out there' doesn't it?
We all know that guns are in short supply and crazies never get their hands on guns.
We also know these whack jobs are never looking to one up the previous guy.
So, yes, while the chances are slim, I do think about it.
I can see your attitude, with no dog in the fight, is much what I expect.
You could care less.
Mother fucker. It's "couldn't care less". Pet peeve.
Carry on.
(10-10-2015, 04:09 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Some of these parents should be charged at least with gross negligence. Not sure what the requirements are for that but the term certainly applies. Even if that mother couldn't fathom her son harming others, he attempted suicide FFS. Why not just leave a bunch of nooses laying around too.
It frustrates me that negligence laws don't pertain, or aren't enforced, in regards to most of the parents of toddlers who shoot themselves and/or others with their parent's loaded guns too. Annually, there are as many or more toddlers who shoot themselves/others as there are mass murderers (though the associated fatalities are higher for the mass murderers).
Should a parent's second amendment rights be stripped because they happen to have a young child or a disturbed adult child in the house? Even if the answer is "no" in either or both cases, I think it's clearly negligent to make/leave guns accessible in the home no matter how many times the young or disturbed person is told not to touch them and whether they've been provided gun safety training.
I'm in favor of a federal child safety storage law (or revision of negligence laws to include such) which could be expanded to apply to gun owners with either young children OR mentally disturbed adult children/relatives/friends in the residence. But, there doesn't seem to be a lot of weight behind pushing something like that through.
As for the Oregon shooter, he was not 'dishonorably discharged' from the Army for the attempted suicide, so that wasn't reported to NICS and didn't prohibit him from legally buying and possessing guns.
And, we don't know yet if he had a documented mental health record that should have prohibited him from legally purchasing guns under current regulations.
It's also not been revealed how he attempted suicide or if his mother was aware of the attempt.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/accused-oreg...1444249903
(10-10-2015, 02:10 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2015, 06:17 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.
I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.
You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.
I am sick and tired of those who continue with same, old, outdated, tired, redundant excuses about their God given rights to own a million guns and a pickup load or more of ammo......... I don't give a hoot whether you like me or not. I care more about innocents losing their lives every day. Sorry, you don't think I talk nicely to you, but I don't like gun fanatics who think only of themselves. I have read reliable statistics showing that even gun enthusiasts and majority of Americans would like to tighten up gun laws and get this, even some NRA members agree with this.
Yes . . . many gun enthusiasts and NRA members would welcome cogent measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who are irresponsible and would cause mayhem.
I find it distasteful that both you and Spy claim some sort of moral high ground, suggesting that those who desire and exercise their guaranteed 2nd Ammendment rights, somehow don't care about victims ("innocents") killed by the actions of criminals or the deranged. Talk about the "same old horse-shit rhetoric"!
It seems, to me, that the anti-gun crowd doesn't respect the same Constitution that allows gays to marry, demands equality for the races, protects freedom of speech, provides the right for a woman to have an abortion, allows the freedom to practice religion and the right of free speech.
Pray tell . . . what cogent new law will save the innocents from homicide by guns?
Why have the majority of mass killings happened while a Democrat is in the White House?
Maybe it isn't a mental health problem or the proliferation of guns, after all.
Or maybe the constitutional rights of the mentally ill and the criminals, trump those of law abiding citizens or the body politic?
Too bad the ACA didn't address this "health crisis".
Probably a glitch in the website.
Tiki, Your statement above, "Why have the majority of mass killings happened while a Democrat is in the White House?" shows your lack of knowledge re this issue......Your biting comments go in and out of my ear because I question the veracity of what you say......and to be honest, I think you are full of shit. What "moral high ground" is so distasteful to you, oh wise one?
(10-10-2015, 05:16 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]You think MS is paranoid? FU said he won't even sit in a Olive Garden unless he has full view of all the doors and armed for guerrilla warfare.
Unlike Spy, who seems to suffer with "gun massacre free-floating anxiety" and apparently does NOTHING to promote the safety of ALL the students at his children's school (except for his weepy, bitch-wailing in this forum), FU acknowledges the potential for a threat and is prepared to act and to protect the public.
I'd rather be with an armed FU than a tissue-packing, quaking Spy, while enjoying unlimited salad and bread sticks.