Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Ok, I get what your saying, but any kind of change like that has to be able to survive the courts.
And those ideas won't.
Protests are great, anger is great, I'm onboard absolutely with gun control.
More vigorous back ground checks is absolutely right, but that has to be defined and challenge proof.
Removing things like bump stock availability and bigger magazines and even redefining restrictive fire arms are realistic.
However at some point, protests have to move from we want change, to how we want that change to look at actually discussions or platforms of change or protests fizzle out.
A facebook rant is not a conviction, I'm just playing devils advocate here, but a facebook rant isn't going to hold up by itself unless your ok with minority report law enforcement. A rant on its own before a crime is committed is grounds for literally nothing.
Patient doctor confidentiality is a key tenant that you would have to break.
What's defined mental illness, if I see a therapist is that a denial grounds? Because if you do that, you will actually see less people seeking help.
Is a diagnosis where a patient is actively getting treatment either through therapy or drugs enough?
Like I said, I'm onboard, but these ideas will die the minute that Congress votes for it or a President signs an executive order because it will almost instantly be fought in court and probably over turned.
Right now background checks are based around things like convictions of previous crimes. Of documentation of people being voluntarily or involuntarily being committed for treatment.
How do you expand that?
|
With regards to the Facebook rants, it’s not a conviction, however, it is a glimpse into a persons psyche at that moment in time. If you post something threatening, etc on Facebook or any other social media platform, you can expect some follow up from the proper authorities. Just because social media allows a more wide range projections of your opinions or statements doesn’t mean anyone gets to hide behind it.
Also, doctors can be subpoenaed as well so the “privilege” you’re referring to is a bit of a misnomer.
I see you point on the therapy, however my argument would be that if you’re in therapy perhaps you should focus on that rather than purchasing a firearm.
It will take massive civil upheaval, it will take unprecedented gumption by politicians but the courts need to be brought to heel on this particular issue. The need for reform is unprecedented.
Finally as far as background checks go, I don’t believe criminal convictions should be required, a lower threshold should prevail. The onus should be on the individual to show why they should be allowed the privilege to own a firearm, not on the state.