I'll say it again, Barkie: No one promised that living within a free society that respects rights and the rule of law, would result in a perfectly safe place to live. It's only promised that it's much better than any other alternative.
I'll say it again, Barkie: No one promised that living within a free society that respects rights and the rule of law, would result in a perfectly safe place to live. It's only promised that it's much better than any other alternative.
OK Hawk, bury your head in the sand and miss the good old days. Let the mentally ill go on shooting up society until the public has had it's fill, they you'll see how bad it gets. You either get proactive, or sit on your laurels and wait to be defeated.
You know I wonder, what do you think about America in the last 200 years locking away the mentally ill in asylums for life? Take away their freedom, but not their firearms?
Your meme is idiotic as it pertains to this discussion.
I'll say it again, Barkie: No one promised that living within a free society that respects rights and the rule of law, would result in a perfectly safe place to live. It's only promised that it's much better than any other alternative.
OK Hawk, bury your head in the sand and miss the good old days. Let the mentally ill go on shooting up society until the public has had it's fill, they you'll see how bad it gets. You either get proactive, or sit on your laurels and wait to be defeated.
The overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones, i.e., where liberalism prevails. That's a huge clue to a major solution.
I'll say it again, Barkie: No one promised that living within a free society that respects rights and the rule of law, would result in a perfectly safe place to live. It's only promised that it's much better than any other alternative.
OK Hawk, bury your head in the sand and miss the good old days. Let the mentally ill go on shooting up society until the public has had it's fill, they you'll see how bad it gets. You either get proactive, or sit on your laurels and wait to be defeated.
The overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones, i.e., where liberalism prevails. That's a huge clue to a major solution.
Did I at ANYTIME make the case for gun free zones? How in the hell are you going to drag into this conversation gun free zones with discussing the mentally ill and preventing them access to firearms. That is it Hawkeye, because I am vocal on one aspect of red flag laws, I'm now categorized as anti-gun, anti-constitution, in support of gun free zones? You see, this is why some here see you as extreme, there is no room for movement.
I gauren-damn-tee you, were ANYONE in this conversation go to sleep at night with a severely manic person in your home, your first order of business would be to lock up everything in the house that could be used as a weapon..it's that spooky.
I have to be honest with you, as someone with bipolar in the family, it would scare the hell out of me to not have any recourse in disarming somebody having a manic episode.
You’d need to live with full blown mania to understand the precarious situation a firearm in the mix would have.
So let me put it to you folks, should there be recourse to disarm somebody in mental distress? What should the criteria be for disarming somebody who is hearing voices?
If they have been adjudicated mentally deficient by a court of law, they can legally told they cannot have a firearm. Just like any felon released from prison, that works doesn't it.
No, too slow. When some people go manic, they can go from normal to out of their gourd in a matter of a few days, what would work is if the law maintained you could take the guns so long as the person is guaranteed a hearing within three days. There are a lot of laws I would like to see put on the books, if anyone is 5150'd more than twice in one month, the family can petition the court to h ave their loved one institutionalized. As much as I hate the hell out of Gavin Newsom, he is finally seeing the light..
Up to two years forced treatment. Most people would respond in under six months. My daughter was 5150'd EIGHT TIMES in one year, every time they let her out in three days, AGAINST our pleas to keep her in.
Excerpt.
People could come into the program through short-term involuntary hospital stays (also known as “5150s”), through the criminal justice system or at the recommendation of family members, mental health providers or first responders, among others. They would not need to be homeless to participate.
The court would order a tailored plan involving some combination of housing, medication and services, and would offer the support of a full clinical team, as well as a public defender and a “supporter” who could help a participant make care decisions and prepare advanced mental health directives.
Unlike with conservatorships, which can be indefinite, participation would be time limited – one year, with the possibility of an additional one-year extension.
A stream of state and local leaders spoke to the urgency of the need at the news conference, held on the San Jose campus of Momentum for Health, a behavioral health treatment organization.
Before this when a person was 5150'd they would get a hearing in three days. Only the bad cases would be held over on a 5250, which is a three week hold. after that, 95% are right back out on the street, but I would say 90% never even get 5250'd It is a worthless revolving door, and it gives families NO recourse, NONE!
Why don't you fund her treatment yourself, if the powers that be in CA think she needs hospitalization, why not pony up the money?
If you are locking up your guns, what is the problem? Did you need the State to tell you to?
Last edited by worriedman; 12/31/22.
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-Richard Henry Lee
Endowment Member NRA, Life Member SAF-GOA, Life-Board Member, West TN Director TFA
I have to be honest with you, as someone with bipolar in the family, it would scare the hell out of me to not have any recourse in disarming somebody having a manic episode.
You’d need to live with full blown mania to understand the precarious situation a firearm in the mix would have.
So let me put it to you folks, should there be recourse to disarm somebody in mental distress? What should the criteria be for disarming somebody who is hearing voices?
No one ever claimed that living withing societies that respect basic rights, and have rule of law, creates perfect safety for all. Just that it's far better than the alternative.
And that's why the Founders codified the right to Bear Arms.
There are lots of reasons to disarm the people and tyrants will always find a good one.
The risk of armed peoples doing bad things with those arms is real.
But as TRH says it's a much better option than disarming the people for their safety.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
In NY, the "Supreme Court" is actually the trial level court. Above that is the Court of Appeals. This was a trial court case.
Ex-boyfriend requested a red flag order for a women, which was granted. Judge found that RKBA is a fundamental right, not subject to such action without due process, and simply filing a request doesn't make muster. He ruled that the required due process has to be on a par with the requirements for imprisoning someone.
Only a moron would think otherwise
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I have to be honest with you, as someone with bipolar in the family, it would scare the hell out of me to not have any recourse in disarming somebody having a manic episode.
You’d need to live with full blown mania to understand the precarious situation a firearm in the mix would have.
So let me put it to you folks, should there be recourse to disarm somebody in mental distress? What should the criteria be for disarming somebody who is hearing voices?
No one ever claimed that living withing societies that respect basic rights, and have rule of law, creates perfect safety for all. Just that it's far better than the alternative.
And that's why the Founders codified the right to Bear Arms.
There are lots of reasons to disarm the people and tyrants will always find a good one.
The risk of armed peoples doing bad things with those arms is real.
But as TRH says it's a much better option than disarming the people for their safety.
There is legal recourse through due process, in a court of law just show proof that they are mentally not allowed to possess
Plus don't be a wimp
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I have to be honest with you, as someone with bipolar in the family, it would scare the hell out of me to not have any recourse in disarming somebody having a manic episode.
You’d need to live with full blown mania to understand the precarious situation a firearm in the mix would have.
So let me put it to you folks, should there be recourse to disarm somebody in mental distress? What should the criteria be for disarming somebody who is hearing voices?
If you're going to take their guns, shouldn't you take the car? Knives? Baseball bats? Lighters? Gasoline? Hockey sticks? Axe? Hammer? Nail gun? Acetone? Bleach? Sticks? Steel toed shoes? Glass? Kitchen utensils?
There is nothing confusing about the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.
YES, we have taken keys and put kitchen knives in the safe, and locked bedroom doors. We are talking about people who belong in a hospital, but the system is geared to allow them NOT to be hospitalized. Straight up, you are given the choice of dealing with it in your home, or pushing your child into the street, really, those will be your choices. If your loved one lives alone it’s just as hard. Think Berkowitz, or any others who had voices tell them what to do, it’s scary schitt, trust me.
Let me give you an example, my daughter once in full mania, took a frozen Turkey out of the freezer, put it on her front lawn, doused it with lighter fluid and lit it on fire. She told the neighbors she was cooking it, and asked them if they would like some when it was done cooking. Cops were called, she was 5150’d, we begged the hospital to keep her in until she is medicated, three days later the released her, still manic as hell. Should I have recourse to get her guns from her?
She is doing well today, on her meds, back in school, very mellow and clear headed, but the monster is always there under the surface.
That is a whole bunch of words to tell the Campfire that you squat to pee.
What if Jessie's girl is Stacy's mom, and her phone number is 867-5309
Yesterday, a NY judge struck down a restriction on having firearms in a place of worship, there should be lots of changes to carry restrictions in 2023.
Yesterday, a NY judge struck down a restriction on having firearms in a place of worship, there should be lots of changes to carry restrictions in 2023.
My church has as many folks with firearms... as they have Hymnals...
It is a good thing...
The world is getting right sporty.
AN ARMED POPULATION... IS A POLITE POPULATION.
Always has been... always will be.
If you are not actively engaging EVERY enemy you encounter... you are allowing another to fight for you... and that is cowardice... plain and simple.
But, will the NY Appeals Court uphold his decision? Will this have to go to the US District Court, then to SCOTUS?
Let's hope so. It needs to be a US Supreme Court decision, so all of them can go at once.
LOL, You do realize that by the time this and others reach the SC, the make-up of the SC will have dramatically changed, either, by assassinations, court packing, or both.
Be careful what you wish for.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
If the SC rules this way, DeSantis will be very Sad.
Although he did not sign the FL Red Flag Law, he supports it 100% and encourages other States to build their RFL based on FL law.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
But, will the NY Appeals Court uphold his decision? Will this have to go to the US District Court, then to SCOTUS?
Let's hope so. It needs to be a US Supreme Court decision, so all of them can go at once.
LOL, You do realize that by the time this and others reach the SC, the make-up of the SC will have dramatically changed, either, by assassinations, court packing, or both.
Be careful what you wish for.
Steve...
You are a pisspot...
As we call it in the South
Last edited by CashisKing; 12/31/22. Reason: Damn autocorrect typos
If you are not actively engaging EVERY enemy you encounter... you are allowing another to fight for you... and that is cowardice... plain and simple.
But, will the NY Appeals Court uphold his decision? Will this have to go to the US District Court, then to SCOTUS?
Let's hope so. It needs to be a US Supreme Court decision, so all of them can go at once.
LOL, You do realize that by the time this and others reach the SC, the make-up of the SC will have dramatically changed, either, by assassinations, court packing, or both.
Be careful what you wish for.
Steve...
You are a pisspot...
As we call it in the South
Check out my predictions, not batting 1000, but damn close.
Wake the Fu*k Up, or don’t, the choice is yours.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.