Taking away their weapons and institutionalizing them against their will seems to be even more drastic a measure than just taking away their weapons, wouldn’t you say?
Fifty states, fifty answers.
If you are convinced they are indeed suicidal, then they can still grab a third rail or jump off a building or drive into opposing traffic. So doesn’t confining them seem to make sense?
But that doesn’t cover the other half-danger to immediate family/household members. What’s he going to do-throw them off a building, into traffic or onto a third rail? No, taking a way the weapon in light of an immediate danger doesn’t solve everything, but again, very few laws on the books offer perfect solutions.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
But institutionalizing them requires due process and is subject to all kinds of constitutional limits. That’s the point.
I don’t have any problem with taking someone’s guns away if you satisfy the requirements for institutionalizing them.
Not sure if its okay, but I’d like to provide a quote from your other thread about abortion providers being closed http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=825274
I’m not the deepest thinker, but it seems to me you are somewhat inconsistent in the importance of guaranteeing rights.
If Kentucky shuts down abortion providers, rights are denied. If a Judge says your nuts, takes your gun, well, that’s okay.
In only one of these cases is someone definitely going to do some killin’.
We are talking immediate danger to self and or others. How long does this “institutional” method take, and how often is it successful?
Sure, although I’d point out that the cleavers, axes, and ice picks remain in the home after the handgun is taken.
But the main point is one of due process. Keep the hearing but allow it to be adversarial instead of ex parte. Then I’m on board.
Yes, I would agree that it is. That is why I wouldn’t go for a 302 unless it was for real-real.
How often has it been successfully used for that reason?
Due to confidentiality laws, I’m not sure that information is even available. However, this site notes that PA is a leader in NICS disqualifications due to mental illness.
In most states, what happens is that the police come arrest you. They take you to a hospital for a psych evaluation within a short period (24 hours, say). If the psychologist says you’re a danger to yourself or others, you’re put in a health center of some kind until you get a court date. Within a few days, you’re seen by a judge and have a right to counsel.
So it’s either equal to or faster than an ex parte PFA process in terms of time from filing to safety.
Sorry I didn’t realize it was an ex parte hearing, I withdraw my support.
The objections:
[ol]
[li]No due process[/li][li]Time criteria can include things that are not immediate, but merely the near future however undefined that is[/li][li]Danger criteria is incredibly vague and includes anything that can cause injury to anyone else[/li][li]Specifically excludes mental health as rationale[/li][li]The notice period is short, and violation after the notice results in a 5 year disqualification from firearm possession[/li][/ol]
I believe the police can intervene on their own authority … as you said the law isn’t perfect protection … but it’s a step in the right direction …
I agree with everything here except the very last part … Pat will have been served, although that doesn’t mean he received service … there’s a cost to living the hunter/gatherer lifestyle …
My understanding that even in ex parte court, the legal standard of “clear and convincing” evidence is applied for these types of proceedings … Not as high a bar as criminal, but more than civil … so Dale may have had a psychiatric report in hand or something …
=====
Some background … a couple of years ago the Oregon legislature wrote a law requiring background checks on almost all gun transactions … guns shows, neighbor ladies, strangers in some dark alleyway … the gun advocates went ballistic and fought this law with everything they had …
… and lost in a big way …
I’m not hearing anything from these same people with this law … perhaps they know they’ll lose again …
Sec 3(3)(d):
If you can’t be trusted around guns, you can’t be trusted around knives or cars or hammers or pharmaceuticals, either, in my opinion. It should be a drastic measure. Taking basic civil rights (not to mention personal property) away from a person should not be a casual procedure. It is a big freaking deal.
So was my nephew’s death by self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head last year.
Would this law have stopped him? Or are you just playing up the emotional side of this because logic isn’t working? I have depression, I have considered suicide, so I am sympathetic to your position.
However, I am also the victim of an Illinois law that says I can’t own a firearm because I voluntarily checked into a psych ward in the past five years. I was not adjudicated mentally ill, I can not appeal, and there was no due process at all. My rights were taken because I sought help for my condition. A mistake I will not make again.
If you care about depressed people, you might want to rethink the idea that they should have their rights forcibly taken from them. It will end with all depression driven underground, and no one seeking or receiving any help at all. And in my opinion, that will result in far more suicides than simply treating people with respect and as equals, and in no way inferior based on their illnesses.
I would like to think that if we could have stopped him in that manner it might have impressed upon him how much we feared for his life-it might have been the tipping point. There’s no way to know for sure, is there?