A Gun Control Measure Conservatives Should Consider

[Jazzhead]

HERE is a link to a new column by the National Review's David French touting the possibility of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs),  a reform that is currently on the books in five states and promises to provide a route to take guns away from idiots like the Florida school shooter, without imposing "collective punishment" on law-abiding gun owners.



 

  Felons, the dangerously mentally ill, perpetrators of domestic violence — these people have not only demonstrated their unfitness to own a weapon, they’ve been granted due process to contest the charges or claims against them. There is no arbitrary state action. There is no collective punishment. There is, rather, an individual, constitutional state process, and the result of that process is a set of defined consequences that includes revoking the right to gun ownership.

Now, let’s back up for a moment and apply this reasoning to our contagion of mass shootings. Time and again mass shooters give off warning signals. They issue generalized threats. They post disturbing images. They exhibit fascination with mass killings. But before the deadly act itself, there is no clear path to denying them access to guns. Though people can report their concerns to authorities, sometimes those authorities fail or have limited tools to deal with the emerging danger.

What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away.

A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):
1.It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2.It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3.It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4.In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
5.The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

Thoughts?   

[Cyber Liberty]

There are no consequences for malicious reporting.

There's no feedback loop between the accused and NICS.  The accused deserves to know if he's been put on the crap list, and be notified when he's off.

Just two things off the top of my head.

[thackney]

Thoughts?

I don't understand the logic that a person deemed too unstable to have legal access to a firearm is safe to leave uncontrolled in society, particularly to drive a vehicle.

[INVAR]

Who decides what criteria denotes someone is unfit to own a firearm because they are declared to have a  'mental illness'???

I recall some prominent Democrats who were busy fostering the notion that bible-believers, returning veterans, and Conservative patriots in state militias were 'mentally ill' and a danger to society.

Shall we have them determine the criteria?  Because that is who will determine it if imbeciles ever make this suggestion government policy.

[sneakypete]

Here is my proposal. Go back to the laws in place in 1933,which were Constitutional.

When someone commits murder,armed robbery,rape,etc,etc,etc,give them serious time in a serious prison with no time off for "good behavior". If they cause problems,all they can look forward to is more time added to their sentence. If they are serving life without parole and think they have nothing to lose,prove them wrong by locking them in a small room by themselves with no tv,no radio,and no communications with anyone other than the guard that feeds them twice a day. You wouldn't have to do that to more than a few before the other lifers decided they DID  have something to lose if they acted out.

[INVAR]

Here is my proposal. Go back to the laws in place in 1933,which were Constitutional.

When someone commits murder,armed robbery,rape,etc,etc,etc,give them serious time in a serious prison with no time off for "good behavior". If they cause problems,all they can look forward to is more time added to their sentence. If they are serving life without parole and think they have nothing to lose,prove them wrong by locking them in a small room by themselves with no tv,no radio,and no communications with anyone other than the guard that feeds them twice a day. You wouldn't have to do that to more than a few before the other lifers decided they DID  have something to lose if they acted out.

^^^^ THIS.

Except I would say bring back the Death Penalty for murder in all cases without exception.

Deterrence works.  3-hots and a cot with cable TV for the rest of your life.... not so much.

[massadvj]

Congress will never pass a ban on guns based on mental health for the simple reason that doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies will all oppose it.  Who will seek help with their mental health if it means being on a list to curtail your freedom?  This is why so many Democrats are opposed to this idea as well.

Personally, I could support it if it was limited to people who have been identified as a threat to themselves or others, but even that is a slippery slope.

[LauraTXNM]

There are no consequences for malicious reporting.

There's no feedback loop between the accused and NICS.  The accused deserves to know if he's been put on the crap list, and be notified when he's off.

Just two things off the top of my head.

The "reporter" is a family member or housemate; natural repercussions would be a definite consequence for reporting, malicious or otherwise.  As far as I know in the case of CA, there is a hearing with the individual to establish an initial hold for 3 months, and then another hearing to extend it to a year.  The individual is definitely "in the loop".

[LauraTXNM]

I don't understand the logic that a person deemed too unstable to have legal access to a firearm is safe to leave uncontrolled in society, particularly to drive a vehicle.

That is a really good point, and something I've been thinking about a lot.  How many of us take medication that warns against "operating a motor vehicle"?  I know I have, painkillers after my C-section.  How seriously do we take these prohibitions?  Do they really mean these people shouldn't be driving?  Should we hold them as legally binding?  No answers here, just kind of a scary thought ;(.

[LauraTXNM]

Here is my proposal. Go back to the laws in place in 1933,which were Constitutional.

When someone commits murder,armed robbery,rape,etc,etc,etc,give them serious time in a serious prison with no time off for "good behavior". If they cause problems,all they can look forward to is more time added to their sentence. If they are serving life without parole and think they have nothing to lose,prove them wrong by locking them in a small room by themselves with no tv,no radio,and no communications with anyone other than the guard that feeds them twice a day. You wouldn't have to do that to more than a few before the other lifers decided they DID  have something to lose if they acted out.

I still don't think that this works as deterrence for people who are mentally ill.

[LauraTXNM]

^^^^ THIS.

Except I would say bring back the Death Penalty for murder in all cases without exception.

Deterrence works.  3-hots and a cot with cable TV for the rest of your life.... not so much.

Deterrence doesn't work if you're nuts.

[INVAR]

That is a really good point, and something I've been thinking about a lot.  How many of us take medication that warns against "operating a motor vehicle"?  I know I have, painkillers after my C-section.  How seriously do we take these prohibitions?  Do they really mean these people shouldn't be driving?  Should we hold them as legally binding?  No answers here, just kind of a scary thought ;(.

Do we want to empower the state to monitor and test each and every citizen of the country to ensure that they are following prescription protocols?

Maybe empower the state to simply ban and restrict all opioids from dispense to the public?  Require all citizens to keep their medicines at their doctor's office and make them go there to receive them? 

Empower government to require extra insurance and limits upon what kind of medicine bureaucrats say you are permitted to have, if any?

If we as a people want safety and security above all else, - then we do not want liberty.  We want Government to be our god and our nanny.

Which is how despotic meddlesome tyrannies are established.

[LauraTXNM]

Congress will never pass a ban on guns based on mental health for the simple reason that doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies will all oppose it.  Who will seek help with their mental health if it means being on a list to curtail your freedom?  This is why so many Democrats are opposed to this idea as well.

Personally, I could support it if it was limited to people who have been identified as a threat to themselves or others, but even that is a slippery slope.

You're right.  This is a HUGE slippery slope.  But we're already beginning the downward slide, I think.  We have to get serious about this as a society.  (And I already know someone from college who's a disability advocate and strongly opposes forced/mandated medication for schizophrenics.)

[INVAR]

Deterrence doesn't work if you're nuts.

No. But it REMOVES such nuts from ever harming anyone else and removes them from being a further burden on society.

[dfwgator]

The only gun control measure they should consider is "Aiming for the Center of Mass".

[roamer_1]

Thoughts?

@Jazzhead
A useless waste of time, and yet another law that limits legal ownership without an impact upon the criminals it intends to limit.

I will bet there are roughly 200 guns available to me right now, today, through wholly legitimate private sales, in my reasonably defined local area... No paper, no title, no background checks. Just walk up hand the money, receive the merchandise and walk away.

That is not even touching the illegal market, where stolen guns are fenced and distributed (way cheaper than legit, btw), and that is not touching any intention to steal a gun myself, which would be a simple matter...


QUITE LITERALLY. any law you may offer will only effect the law abiding. It will have ZERO effect on a criminal mind, or a criminal action.

Plastic-banana, feel-good, bullshit.

[LauraTXNM]

Do we want to empower the state to monitor and test each and every citizen of the country to ensure that they are following prescription protocols?

Maybe empower the state to simply ban and restrict all opioids from dispense to the public?  Require all citizens to keep their medicines at their doctor's office and make them go there to receive them? 

Empower government to require extra insurance and limits upon what kind of medicine bureaucrats say you are permitted to have, if any?

If we as a people want safety and security above all else, - then we do not want liberty.  We want Government to be our god and our nanny.

Which is how despotic meddlesome tyrannies are established.

Yes, this is the problem.  A couple of cases to consider, that are already an issue:

1) People who have TB, who have to take meds on a schedule to avoid infecting others.  Right now, healthcare people are having to go their houses daily to watch them take their meds.  It's a form of quarantine, I suppose.  But they are trying to mandate compliance with the TB regimen.

2) People who have various mental illnesses who are functional when on their meds but become delusional and dangerous when off them.  Different programs work to monitor their compliance.

I don't see a way around this enforced medication with regard to specific diseases.  Maybe the guideline would be something that necessitates a quarantine.  Rather than locking someone in their house or an institution for the rest of their lives, by complying with their medication regime they could function in society.

But these diseases, both mental and physiological, DO EXIST.  And with antiobiotic-resistant infections coming up, they're not going away.

Simply saying we can't let the government control this, is burying our heads in the sand. 

[LauraTXNM]

No. But it REMOVES such nuts from ever harming anyone else and removes them from being a further burden on society.

Definitely.  But then you're just waiting until they act out in their insanity and kill a bunch of people.  I didn't bring up deterrence; you did.

[LauraTXNM]

@Jazzhead
A useless waste of time, and yet another law that limits legal ownership without an impact upon the criminals it intends to limit.

I will bet there are roughly 200 guns available to me right now, today, through wholly legitimate private sales, in my reasonably defined local area... No paper, no title, no background checks. Just walk up hand the money, receive the merchandise and walk away.

That is not even touching the illegal market, where stolen guns are fenced and distributed (way cheaper than legit, btw), and that is not touching any intention to steal a gun myself, which would be a simple matter...


QUITE LITERALLY. any law you may offer will only effect the law abiding. It will have ZERO effect on a criminal mind, or a criminal action.

Plastic-banana, feel-good, bullshit.

As far as I'm aware, all of these mass murderers obtained their weapons legally.  They were "law-abiding" until they shot a bunch of people.  There are obviously a few "law-abiding" people who shouldn't buy weapons.  But there's no possible way to weed them out?

[roamer_1]

But these diseases, both mental and physiological, DO EXIST.  And with antiobiotic-resistant infections coming up, they're not going away.

Simply saying we can't let the government control this, is burying our heads in the sand.

But another thing that exists: 3D Printers. And it ain't going away neither. within ten years, every sort of firearm will be able to be printed out at home. All you need is the data file. And how do you limit that?

[dfwgator]

But another thing that exists: 3D Printers. And it ain't going away neither. within ten years, every sort of firearm will be able to be printed out at home. All you need is the data file. And how do you limit that?

Also drones with the ability to fire on a target remotely.

[roamer_1]

As far as I'm aware, all of these mass murderers obtained their weapons legally.  They were "law-abiding" until they shot a bunch of people.  There are obviously a few "law-abiding" people who shouldn't buy weapons.  But there's no possible way to weed them out?

No, of course there is no way to weed them out, unless you care to try to lock down private sales (which is wholly impossible) - And that does *NOTHING* to the street level illegal market. If someone wants to buy a gun, they most definitely can, and that cannot be legislated away.

Whether your assertion that the guns were acquired legally is true or not, it does not mean that these people will continue to be law abiding - If that were indeed the fact, they would be ill prepared to carry a weapon into an illegal zone and illegally murder multiple people. The point is sheer fallacy.

[roamer_1]

Also drones with the ability to fire on a target remotely.

That's true... and the eventual means to counteract them, as offense v. defense will inevitably dictate.

[LauraTXNM]

But another thing that exists: 3D Printers. And it ain't going away neither. within ten years, every sort of firearm will be able to be printed out at home. All you need is the data file. And how do you limit that?

Definitely true.  And I don't know any answer for that one.  And it won't be long before people will also be able to produce proteins in 3D printers, creating poisons or diseases they can then unleash.  I don't know what we do about that either.  So I guess the best thing we can do is look at the behavior we can SEE, the kid who makes threats or hurts animals.

[LauraTXNM]

Also drones with the ability to fire on a target remotely.

Very true, and very scary.  Three of my son's friends have drones.  None of them have exhibited any violent behavior I'm aware of, and that's the only symptom I know to look for.  So I'll just have to hope they're not secretly divebombing squirrels.