Bill Aims To Take Guns From Those At Risk Of Inflicting Harm

[Spanz]

i can see this hapening in MA:
1) You come home, find your wife banging the mail man on the kitchen table
2) you are devastated, tell her you want a divorce
3) she calls the cops and says "he seems very depressed. I do not know why. He is delusional and paranoid, he accused me of cheating on him, which is ridiculous. But i think he might harm himself with all of his guns"
4) Blamo

 

[VetteGirlMA]

It would be great if GOAL could provide some input to it's members on what we can be doing as citizens.

 

[robjax]

i can see this hapening in MA:
1) You come home, find your wife banging the mail man on the kitchen table
2) you are devastated, tell her you want a divorce
3) she calls the cops and says "he seems very depressed. I do not know why. He is delusional and paranoid, he accused me of cheating on him, which is ridiculous. But i think he might harm himself with all of his guns"
4) Blamo

or.....you come in and find your wife banging the mailman on the kitchen table and the next thing she knows is that she just received a letter from my lawyer from an address down the street from my perpetual fishing spot in the Florida keys.

we need a fishing emoji...something with a nice sport fisherman and them hauling in a marlin....

 

[allen-1]

Saw this one coming in Connecticut. And after your firearms are taken, (for your own good of course) - they CANNOT transfer back to you your assault weapons - because the transfer of them is illegal and there's no provision in the law for the transfer back...

I do not know what the ultimate outcome of that legislation was, I lost track of it. But it is one more potential layer of sht on this particular sandwich since Maura's 07/20 proclamation.

 

[exo]

Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?

Why don't you educate yourself a bit about existing law before advocating for new ones?

 

[42!]

Per the Constitution, rights can only be denied as the result of a Trial by a Jury.

Obviously not from MA. We got laws that do exactly this.... Or did I miss the sarcasm

 

[Waher]

The guns as a 'public health issue' strategy is exactly what this is part of. Meanwhile real diseases, infectious insects, and pill mill doctors are devastating the country

 

[cobalt]

wouldn't it be great if everyone who posted in this thread took the time to call and/or write their legislative representatives?

Thank you if you did.

If you didn't... then get to it - before you make a complaining post.

 

[hv55maxx]

Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?

You're looking at this all wrong. If someone is truly a danger they should either be in a mental health facility, or a jail, or they are free to do as they please within the law. It is a failure of the nation's mental healthcare system and also the criminal justice system. mind you set up by the same knucklefu(k monkeys running the zoo now.

 

[71montess]

Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?

Are you a DemocRAT ?

 

[Waher]

wouldn't it be great if everyone who posted in this thread took the time to call and/or write their legislative representatives?

Thank you if you did.

If you didn't... then get to it - before you make a complaining post.

What if your representatives responded to a polite well crafted letter with a downright rude and condescending letter indicating they are perfectly happy to NOT represent you? Because all of mine do that to me. Most people here get b.s. form letter responses from 'representatives'.

 

[42!]

What if your representatives responded to a polite well crafted letter with a downright rude and condescending letter indicating they are perfectly happy to NOT represent you? Because all of mine do that to me. Most people here get b.s. form letter responses from 'representatives'.

My last email he had someone else respond for him, and she only commented on one of the topics. I'm still waiting to hear his thoughts on my suggested bill.

 

[weekendracer]

Just playing devil's advocate, but honestly if someone is so out of shape that people start saying 'he needs help', that person is deep down the rabbit hole. How many times have you ever heard someone say, "Yep, I knew he was going to off himself." Almost never, or after it happens people say something, but it's too late.

I'm not for this type of legislation, but it's not like something similar isn't needed for that one person who notices and says something, with stout protections for the person who is the subject of the issue. Sealed records after the person is helped, and I mean sealed completely unless medical necessity to reopen.

 

[drgrant]

Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?

The bottom line is taking away someones rights without a COURT OF LAW (aka DUE PROCESS) being involved should be completely illegal.

Maybe if people want to argue that process should be improved, that's understandable, but most of the moonbat bullshit that most people want amounts to someone saying something, and the kopsch taking away the person's guns/rights based strictly on the word of whoever that someone is... and that's not due process, it's garbage.


-Mike

 

[MisterHappy]

Just playing devil's advocate, but honestly if someone is so out of shape that people start saying 'he needs help', that person is deep down the rabbit hole. How many times have you ever heard someone say, "Yep, I knew he was going to off himself." Almost never, or after it happens people say something, but it's too late.

I'm not for this type of legislation, but it's not like something similar isn't needed for that one person who notices and says something, with stout protections for the person who is the subject of the issue. Sealed records after the person is helped, and I mean sealed completely unless medical necessity to reopen.

Never happen. Once it's on record it's there forever.

Remember, sealed juvie records are fair game for LTC denials.

 

[42!]

The bottom line is taking away someones rights without a COURT OF LAW (aka DUE PROCESS) being involved should be completely illegal.

Boy that sure would be nice. This due process thing should be a law or something. I know it would make things better for me.

 

[swatgig]

This is just another feel-good anti-gun law proposed by Linsky that will to NOTHING.

There is already a law on the books that allows someone to petition the courts if someone is mentally ill and poses a danger to himself/herself or others.

See General Law Chapter 123 Section 12.

(e) Any person may make application to a district court justice or a justice of the juvenile court department for a three day commitment to a facility of a mentally ill person whom the failure to confine would cause a likelihood of serious harm. The court shall appoint counsel to represent said person. After hearing such evidence as he may consider sufficient, a district court justice or a justice of the juvenile court department may issue a warrant for the apprehension and appearance before him of the alleged mentally ill person, if in his judgment the condition or conduct of such person makes such action necessary or proper. Following apprehension, the court shall have the person examined by a physician designated to have the authority to admit to a facility or examined by a qualified psychologist in accordance with the regulations of the department. If said physician or qualified psychologist reports that the failure to hospitalize the person would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of mental illness, the court may order the person committed to a facility for a period not to exceed three days, but the superintendent may discharge him at any time within the three day period. The periods of time prescribed or allowed under the provisions of this section shall be computed pursuant to Rule 6 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

[MisterHappy]

At least Linsky is doing something!