NRA and the Like, Get Out Your Checkbooks

Those deemed mentally dangerous are supposed to be reported to the Feds for the NICS background checks by the States. Problem is, most States do not comply.

 

Mental health physicians are required by law to report.......they failed to do so

Keep diggin that hole

 

Maybe it's all that head banging you do that has you confused. Yes, his mother DID report him but his doctor was only thinking about it. They went to his home not once but 3 times and he was convincing. So tell me, what were they to do, force their way in??

 

In other words, more laws would not change a thing.

 

Lax laws??? WHAT lax laws??? Mister I have been licensed since 1980 to carry a weapon and I don't need someone who knows nothing about the law trying to tell me what is what. I was a reserve police officer for 3 years and have 3 son-in-laws that are police officers today. Now, what were you saying about "lax laws"???

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, not hardly. With over 24,000 gun laws in this nation today what good will one more do??

 

Probable cause....ever heard of it...... By all means keep up your ignorance of the law

They went three times and somehow it's still the guns fault.

You people are amazing.......not a compliment

 

Free speech and freedom of religion can't directly cause someone's death. A mentally unstable person getting a gun can.

Personally, I think that all gun sales should require documentation from a professional therapist, at the expense of the buyer, vouching that the person has no mental illnesses that would cause them to pose a danger to the general public if the person owned a gun.

 

He killed three people with a knife. Going to require a professional therapist before someone can buy cutlery?

 

The nuts are. Most of us want common sense gun control, like not letting people who are crazy own guns, and not allowing people to buy machine guns and grenades, both of which the NRA supports ownership of.

 

I believe they would still need a warrant unless they believed a crime was occurring at the time. Just because someone files a report should not give the police the power to search your home without a warrant IMO.

 

Probable cause is the reason for the warrant.......not the search

The search comes afterward.......and technically all they need is permission from the homeowner

And in plain sight, needs no warrant

 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/doctor-patient-privilege/

Doctor–Patient Privilege is a legal privilege, arising from a doctor’s obligation of confidentiality. It refers to the right to exclude from discovery and evidence in a legal proceeding any confidential communication that a patient makes to a physician for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment, unless the patient consents to the disclosure. This privilege belongs to the patient, not the doctor and therefore only a patient may waive the privilege. A patient can sue the physician for damages if the doctor breaches the confidence by testifying.

In the U.S, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege. At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction. For example, in Texas there is only a limited physician-patient privilege in criminal proceedings and civil cases.

So it depends upon the State and the case. Just as Attorney-Client Privilege depends upon the case and the State;

Attorney-Client Privilege Law & Legal Definition

Attorney-client privilege is an evidentiary rule that protects communications between a client and his or her attorney and keeps those communications confidential. It protects both attorneys and their clients from being compelled to disclose confidential communications between them made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining legal advice or assistance. The privilege is designed to foster frank, open, and uninhibited discourse between attorney and client so that the client's legal needs are competently addressed by a fully prepared attorney who is cognizant of all the relevant information the client can provide. The attorney-client privilege may be raised during any type of legal proceeding, civil, criminal, or administrative, and at any time during those proceedings, pre-trial, during trial, or post-trial.

In United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950) the court articulated five requirements necessary to establish attorney client privilege. They are first, the person asserting the privilege must be a client, or must have sought to become a client at the time of disclosure; second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, the communication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively — no non-clients may be included in the communication; fourth, the communication must be for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, or assistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime; fifth, the privilege may be claimed or waived by the client only (usually, as mentioned, through counsel).

However, even when all the requirements have been met, the courts can still compel disclosure of the information sought. The courts base exceptions to the privilege on rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states that "the recognition of a privilege based on a confidential relationship … should be determined on a case-by-case basis." In examining the privilege on a case-by-case basis, the courts weigh the benefits to be gained by upholding the privilege (preserving the confidence between attorney and client) against the harms that may be caused if they deny it (the loss of information valuable to the opposing party).

The attorney-client privilege is considered as one of the strongest privileges available under law.

 

So far, the right-wingers’ posts have been their typical “whistling in the dark” trying to hide their gut-wrenching fear of the unknown. This particular unknown being the boogie-man of how successful will the majority of Americans be in their efforts to pass common sense gun control laws. To add to this fear is the question of, how many states will follow California’s lead? Scarier yet, will the federal government jump on the bandwagon?

To lessen these fears, right-wingers should contribute regularly to their trusted politicians that oppose the will of the majority and instead, vote as the NRA demands. Although, these contributions might only work on federal lawmakers.

 

Taxcutter says:
Gun control is hitting what you are aiming at.

If Big Government takes away gun rights what will they give the people back in return?

Who gets to determine who is crazy? The IRS? The VA?

 

A professional therapist would make that determination, just like they do in cases when a criminal tries to plea insanity.

 

Plato once said "A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something." The NRA supports none of those and to claim they do is dishonest. Who determines crazy? 30 years ago being gay was considered insane by many people. Like it or not "crazy" people and fools have rights, to remove them they should be adjudicated by a judge according to the law. Not a doctor, parent, spouse, or friends. Now the above could have the "crazy" person committed and they should. If they are that dangerous they do not need to be in society to kill.

If I was "crazy" and wanted to kill innocent people and die myself the lack of a gun would not stop me. Any person with access to the Internet, a car, diesel fuel, and fertilizer could dwarf the death toll of these killings.

 

Taxcutter says:
And who pays that professional therapist? Big Government?

 

The NRA lobbies for lifting the ban on machine gun ownership every year. They also lobby to have businesses forced to allow customers to carry guns onto their property, claiming that carry rights outweight private property rights.

 

That is the way I understand it as well. I thought you were saying the report alone gave the police the right search the home.

 

The only times a police officer can enter a home without a warrant is if he has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed on the property at that time, such as hearing someone scream, or seeing something that is typical of a particular crime, and during pursuit of a criminal that is in his sights.

 

LOL, Kalifornia is the state of Governor "Moonbeam", generic hippies stuck in Woodstock, ultra-wealthy techies & Hollywood "stars" who live in their own little fantasy land, is politically dominated by the loony left including gun-runner Leland Yee. Kalifornia is teetering on economic collapse and people are leaving in droves.

Kalifornia no longer sets the trend. It already has the strictest gun control in the nation, and it has some of the worst crime zones in the nation. Nobody except the idiot lib states cares what Kalifornia does.

 

Please post a link for me to see for myself, thank you.

The NRA actually helped get it passed to begin with that was a different era however.
Private property rights trump my right to carry there in my opinion. I do not carry in public nor would force someone to let me carry on their property. I would take my business elsewhere.

 

Psssst...

That's southern California beginning with Sin Fransisco.

There's a lot of resentment towards southern California, here in the north, especially over rights since they keep on using their political clout to just take our water without paying us.

There is a movement in northern California to separate California and form a new state, the state of Jefferson.

 

This thread has nothing to do with attorney client privilege. Try. And keep up.

 

I know, I have friends stationed there. I hope the movement to split the state into several states succeeds (I doubt it will since that would result in a net gain of conservative Senate seats, and the "progressives" will never allow that).