How do we reduce gun violence?

The fact that it does not apply universally to all state constitutions. This particular clause is what is classified as an oddball in structure.

 

I'm an NRA member and gun owner and 2nd Amendment supporter.

I wouldn't mind some sort of police power, subject to due process, to confiscate guns from the dangerously mentally ill. For example, let's just say some friend or family member were to call the police on Dylan Roof, the Carolina church shooter and say, "I'm concerned that Dylan is acting really weird, and I think he's posted a manifesto talking about violence, and he's got a gun", I think the police should check that out. I think that if they find that he did post that manifesto, they should confiscate his guns, subject to a hearing in court.

Same thing with insane people like Jared Loughner and James Holmes. These people did not commit crimes before their shooting sprees. (OK, Holmes built bombs, but nobody knew.) Nevertheless, if interviewed by the police, and if, in the officer's opinion, the person is significantly mentally ill, and the officer reasonably believes there is a potential threat to the public, and that person is armed, I do think that, as an emergency community safety function, the police should be allowed to temporarily confiscate weapons from the person, subject to a court hearing and due process. I think a judge should have some options, such as ordering that the person submit to a psychiatric evaluation before a final disposition is reached. If the evidence ultimately shows that the person has some definable illness or disorder that makes it dangerous to the public for that person to possess firearms, I think the firearms should not be returned, and all of the person's info should be entered into the state and national databases making it impossible to pass a background check.

As always, the expectation is that police always act in good faith. Acting in bad faith (malfeasance) should result in firing and in civil or criminal liability to the officer and his City or County.

In most states, a police officer is empowered to take a mentally ill person into custody and deliver them to a state mental institution if the officer reasonably believes that the person, due to mental illness, poses a danger to himself or others, or the person is unable to care for themself. In my state, they may be held up to 5 days before being brought before a judge, but they must be brought to the judge. The judge hears all the evidence from the officer and the mental health professionals and then renders a decision.

So, you see, there is a similar process already in effect. That process takes the body of the person. The process I'm suggesting takes the guns of the person.

I am liable to hear that this is a terrible idea and that the police and government would abuse this power. Personally, I doubt it. And if they did, there are ways to address that.

My 2 cents.

 

You're on record as saying arms are guns.
I'll earmark this thread should you ever endulge me with this debate again.

Thanks for playing!!

 

By the way, I understand life in Berkeley is a jump from reality but here's the definition of arms.

"arms
ärmz/Submit
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel
"the illegal export of arms"
2.
distinctive emblems or devices, originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
synonyms: crest, emblem, coat of arms, heraldic device, insignia, escutcheon, shield
"the family arms""


And you're on record as agreeing "arms" are guns, good job!
You meant "shields", right?

Buwaa hahahaahahahaha!!!!

 

Including rocket launchers, fortunately SCOTUS defined arms in 1939 without the help of the confused masses at Berkeley.

Again, thanks for playing! Look forward to reading more from you.

 

I cringe as I post an agreement with most of what you're posting.
The problem as I see it, reality that is... states take action to treat mentally ill through court ordered action and don't report to the universal background system, NICS as we know it.
Kalifornia could confiscate a mentally ill persons guns, not report to NICS and that resident move to Nevada and buy a gun after passing NICS background check.

Problem isn't that we don't have a universal background check system because we do.
Problem is states not reporting as each state should, Kalifornia, New York and Connecticut included.

 

Well I'm glad you agree with most of it. And yes, there should be a nationwide system that enters people into the national database who have been adjudged to have profound mental illness, like schizophrenia for example, or who have been involuntarily committed to mental hospitals and so forth.

 

NICS is the Universal Background Check system, few people realize this and why I don't know.
It's not being used to potential and the question should be why NICS isn't being used to potential?
Ask a pro-gun control nut that question in person and all you'll get back is a blank stare followed with stuttering.

 

It matters because, keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess.

 

Yes; you have nothing but continuance and diversion. Here is the question I am asking:

What do you mean by "keep and bear Arms"?

The People have a right to "acquire and possess" private property in the class called Arms.

- - - Updated - - -

No reading comprehension, either?

What do you mean by "keep and bear Arms"? The People have a right to "acquire and possess" private property in the class called Arms.

 

Explain the difference.

 

Thank you for acknowledging you don't have a clue or a Cause.

Acquire and possess is declared an inalienable right in State Constitutions; it is recognized as a "natural" right, along with defense of self and property.

Our Second Amendment claims Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed by gun lovers with Arms, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of your own laws, dude.

 

You said "acquire and possess" is different from "keep and bear".

Please explain the difference between the two. You still didn't do that, and I can still see there's a man behind the curtain.

 

No morals, either; i got it.

- - - Updated - - -

Still don't understand the difference?

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union by Persons who acquire and possess Arms for defense of self and property.

 

Pretend to be Dorothy, click your heels three times and post "people have a right to "acquire and possess" private property in the class called arms all you want.

It still won't change context of Miller or Heller interpretation of 2nd Amendment.
The ONLY thing I asked of you was to define "arms".

Thanks for playing!!!!

 

When you stop feeding the trolls, they go away.

 

I'm dangling this one.......

 

It doesn't matter what Arms mean for the purposes of this argument; you simply refuse to distinguish keep and bear from acquire and possess; only well regulated militias may keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union and not be Infringed.

 

SCOTUS decision on Miller in 1939 and Heller decision again say you're dead wrong.
Don't like it, take it the the the USSC.
That would be the same SCOTUS that interpreted same sex marraige for the cake eaters....

 

Then cite a state constitution that mentions acquire and possess, rather than keep and bear. Then explain how the difference has any relevance regarding the fact that "subject only to police powers" is classified as an oddball concerning state constitutions.

 

So what; our Second Amendment says I am dead right.

And, Article 4, Section 2 covers your other argument.

- - - Updated - - -

The difference is relevant by function.

 

If you are being honest, you know that it is YOUR interpretation of the second amendment that says you are dead right.

Everything in the constitution is up for interpretation correct? Isn't that why we have the USSC?

 

Explain what the difference is, and how it applies.

 

Still no clue and no Cause?

I don't have to lie or resort to fallacies; unlike those of your point of view.

You are welcome to cite the rules of construction for any law.

- - - Updated - - -

Here it is:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Simply acquiring and possessing private property confers no special rights or obligations.