Anti gun legislation

[backcountrycruiser]

I can't disagree with your last comments on education, but it won't solve the problem with mentally ill people having the ability to legally source a gun. I doubt the types of education we're discussing will make there way into our our schools. Your first paragraph doesn't really make sense within the context of this discussion. Currently there are no laws to enforce that are prohibiting the sale of guns to the blind, mentally ill, or the mentally challenged.



Actually people who are medically declared mentally unfit(a broad term that Im using here) are prohibited from owning, possesing, or knowingly being in the presence of a firearm. My 60 year old father spent some time under a doctors care for siezure caused mental problems. After being sent home from the gerophyc facility, he was fine, all was good. Two years later he was back in good physical health and went to get his hunting tag. No Go. He was prohibited from purchasing his tag due to being institutionalized for a short period of time. It is difficult for him to get his rights back, not to mention expensive with the legal services that it requires.
Mike

 

[LACamper]

What part of 'shall not be infringed' do some people not understand?
Should you have to undergo a psych eval before speaking in public or posting on the internet? Should you have to apply for a license? How about a license to go to church? Nope. The constitution grants equal protection to free speech, religion, and fire arms.
The founding fathers went far out of their way to protect firearms ownership. That's why its second in the list of rights.
BTW, these rights are rights, not privledges. This means they weren't granted by the government. The government doesn't have the right to remove these rights. Can you imagine the outcry if someone lost his right to free speech because he was on anti-depressants some years ago? Or he was barred from practicing his religion?

On training: I'm all for it. I take all I can afford (its expensive...). But the government doesn't have the ability to make it mandatory.
I will go along with the fact that most states CCW programs do not require enough training. Most of the CCW training I had was legal lecture. Very little was tactics or range time or even gun handling. But, like my instructor told me, the CCW class is just an intro. Much more training should be taken.

Just remember, every time you think about giving the government more power, think about what happens if your party looses the next election. Do you want the other side having that ability to control or invade your life. We need to hang on to whatever bits of freedom we have left!

 

[Riptide]

So, if somehow someone were to screen out as psychologically unstable, and were somehow listed as unable to buy a firearm, what else would that person not be able to do?

Could he still buy diesel fuel? Could he still buy fertilizer? Could he still rent, or drive, a box truck?

I don't believe the Oklahoma City bomber used a gun.

Probably should have a permit of some sort to buy diesel...

 

[xtatik]

While at my old job on a Govt security contract, the contract company used this test to weed out applicants. It was administered by a third party company. I was the hiring officer for the contract. Five people I know personally, very well you might say, took this test. These five failed the test. And based on that test were un-hireable. Without going deep into the typing out these five peoples merrits, let me surfice to say that all of them are exceptional. Of the hundreds of applicants that "passed" this test I could only hire about 5 percent. Despite them passing the test, the rest were simply un-hireable do to non test related problems. Given my experience Im not sure I have alot of faith in the MMPI.
Mike
Mike

These five people you mention did not fail the "test". No one has ever passed or failed the MMPI.
It really shouldn't be referred to as a test. It is not a test, but that is the common vernacular, it is an inventory of personality traits. The test results had nothing to do with your friends not getting hired. The MMPI doesn't determine these things, the employer does. The employer establishes the hiring criterion and the MMPI revealed to the employer that these individuals did not have the personality traits the employer was seeking or did have traits they were looking to avoid. The employer might have been looking for specific sets or combinations of traits and your friends simply didn't possess them. It's hard to say without detail. The MMPI is not an "intelligence test". It doesn't care what you've achieved in the past, what accreditations you've earned, or whose recommendations you've accumulated in a given field. If as you say, you were the decisionmaker or authority in hiring these people, you should have known how this inventory works and what traits were desirable or not. In most case the results are kept very confidential and are only viewed by those above certain confidentiality levels with HR departments.
I have to say, while reading your post I couldn't help but think you may not understand its purpose. I'm certain each of the inventories revealed differing traits for each person and If your saying you are a better judge of personality traits...that's fine. That's an opinion you're entitled to, but it is completely contrary to a much greater knowledge base and the resultant opinions of a whole lot more people who I'm certain know a great deal more about the subject than yourself.
I understand you're only expressing your opinion based on a coincdence. But, I think we need to avoid vane attempts to discredit things we know little about.
More on the MMPI and it's use in hiring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_testing#Personality_tests

 

[xtatik]

I can't disagree with your last comments on education, but it won't solve the problem with mentally ill people having the ability to legally source a gun. I doubt the types of education we're discussing will make there way into our our schools. Your first paragraph doesn't really make sense within the context of this discussion. Currently there are no laws to enforce that are prohibiting the sale of guns to the blind, mentally ill, or the mentally challenged.



Actually people who are medically declared mentally unfit(a broad term that Im using here) are prohibited from owning, possesing, or knowingly being in the presence of a firearm. My 60 year old father spent some time under a doctors care for siezure caused mental problems. After being sent home from the gerophyc facility, he was fine, all was good. Two years later he was back in good physical health and went to get his hunting tag. No Go. He was prohibited from purchasing his tag due to being institutionalized for a short period of time. It is difficult for him to get his rights back, not to mention expensive with the legal services that it requires.
Mike

Sorry to hear your father went through this. It shouldn't have required any legal process. He should have simply had the same physician who originally deemed him unfit unwind that decision. You say he was in good physical health, but was it determined the resulting mental problems had abated as well? For his sake, I hope so.

 

[backcountrycruiser]

These five people you mention did not fail the "test". No one has ever passed or failed the MMPI.
It really shouldn't be referred to as a test. It is not a test, but that is the common vernacular, it is an inventory of personality traits. The test results had nothing to do with your friends not getting hired. The MMPI doesn't determine these things, the employer does. The employer establishes the hiring criterion and the MMPI revealed to the employer that these individuals did not have the personality traits the employer was seeking or did have traits they were looking to avoid. The employer might have been looking for specific sets or combinations of traits and your friends simply didn't possess them. It's hard to say without detail. The MMPI is not an "intelligence test". It doesn't care what you've achieved in the past, what accreditations you've earned, or whose recommendations you've accumulated in a given field. If as you say, you were the decisionmaker or authority in hiring these people, you should have known how this inventory works and what traits were desirable or not. In most case the results are kept very confidential and are only viewed by those above certain confidenatility levels with HR departments. I have to say, while reading your post I couldn't help but think you may not understand its purpose. I'm certain each of the inventories revealed differing traits for each person and If your saying you are a better judge of personality traits...that's fine. That's an opinion you're entitled to, but it is completely contrary to a much greater knowledge base and the resultant opinions of a whole lot more people who I'm certain know a great deal more about the subject than yourself.
I understand you're only expressing your opinion based on a coincdence. But, I think we need to avoid vane attempts to discredit things we know little about.
More on the MMPI and it's use in hiring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_testing#Personality_tests

That is exaclty my point, this test can be used by someone with a higher pay grade and rank than me, to hire who they deam appropriate. Naturally within the company's rights. But it can be, presumably, manipulated the same way to determine who is mentally qualified to carry a gun. My point is that and only that. I understand its purpose, it was used to thin the application pile. If you do not pass the test according to the agencies predetermined needs, then you couldnt even continue with the application. There was no recourse even when they had my vote. The man responsible for staffing the contract. To prove that point, the class one railroad that I work for now uses the same third party company to administer the same test with different parameters. Two of the five men came to work at the railroad (by passing the test, and yes the answered truthfully)and gave me a reference as well. Same tests different parrameters. Who ever sets them can decide what they are looking for. If I was adminstering the test and I set the needed parameters then I might be inclined to trust the results. I certainly dont think that sanity or stability is something that a test like this can prove or disprove. To me if you this test prevents you from applying for a good job, or protecting you family and self, then you failed it. Regardless if it cant be passed or failed.

 

[xtatik]

So, if somehow someone were to screen out as psychologically unstable, and were somehow listed as unable to buy a firearm, what else would that person not be able to do?

Could he still buy diesel fuel? Could he still buy fertilizer? Could he still rent, or drive, a box truck?

I don't believe the Oklahoma City bomber used a gun.

Probably should have a permit of some sort to buy diesel...

Gosh, I don't know what else this individual wouldn't be able to obtain. I understand your point and tactic. I suppose you could interject a thousand alternates. But, aside from the obvious implications of each, they would have little real relevance to this discussion. Statistically, the method McVey used isn't used as often. We're discussing guns.

 

[backcountrycruiser]

Sorry to hear your father went through this. It shouldn't have required any legal process. He should have simply had the same physician who originally deemed him unfit unwind that decision. You say he was in good physical health, but was it determined the resulting mental problems had abated as well? For his sake, I hope so.

Thanks, it was the hardest time of my life. A person cant imagine how horrifying it is to temporarely loose control of your mind. It was determined by all attending doctors that he was fit to return to society. But that isnt exactly enough. I requires the courts to review and reverse his hunting/guns status. The cost isnt really in protection from a lawyer, but navigating all the paperwork and processes. It was devistating to be declared mentally damaged, both when he went into the hospital and again when he tried to resume his most loved pastime.
Mike

 

[xtatik]

Ok we'll end this with... It may be a "fantasy" but I firmly believe that guns in the hands of our citizens and military benefits the whole world. One can argue the finer points forever, but the World without America's leadership, even with all our warts, would be a much darker place. It would be frightful to live in a world without the US keeping the peace. Imagine if Russia, China or even Germany was the only super power.

Well, you've completely jumped subject on me here...Ah, you tricky devil.
Now you're talking "citizens and military". Earlier, (post#94) you were talking citizens v. our own nations military and extolling the virtues of having an armed populus to fend off ones own government....Oh well, I already addressed this issue. But, know that in general, I agree with what you've said above.

 

[xtatik]

That is exaclty my point, this test can be used by someone with a higher pay grade and rank than me, to hire who they deam appropriate. Naturally within the company's rights. But it can be, presumably, manipulated the same way to determine who is mentally qualified to carry a gun. My point is that and only that. I understand its purpose, it was used to thin the application pile. If you do not pass the test according to the agencies predetermined needs, then you couldnt even continue with the application. There was no recourse even when they had my vote. The man responsible for staffing the contract. To prove that point, the class one railroad that I work for now uses the same third party company to administer the same test with different parameters. Two of the five men came to work at the railroad (by passing the test, and yes the answered truthfully)and gave me a reference as well. Same tests different parrameters. Who ever sets them can decide what they are looking for. If I was adminstering the test and I set the needed parameters then I might be inclined to trust the results. I certainly dont think that sanity or stability is something that a test like this can prove or disprove. To me if you this test prevents you from applying for a good job, or protecting you family and self, then you failed it. Regardless if it cant be passed or failed.

With all due respect, I think you're still misunderstanding the purpose of this inventory. The test itself cannot be manipulated in the ways you've mentioned. Individuals can manipulate or change the criteria within the organization that orders the test. In most governmental cases, court-ordered or not, it's administered by a psychologist that has no stake in the outcome. In the case of testing for mental fitness for gun ownership, these standards would have to be established and well known in order to avert any post-test types of manipulation. I would hope that inputs from all sides of the issue would be heard and allowed constant involvement. Yep, even from the NRA.

 

[xtatik]

It was determined by all attending doctors that he was fit to return to society.

I understand, but persons can have different types of disorders (physical or mental) and still function fine in society. An example could be a pilot who begins to have heart or vision problems. Society (passengers, or those on the ground) would be endangered if he continued to fly. It's always a sad thing, but it's reality and for the greater good.

 

[Wyowanderer]

I understand the distinctions. But, if I can't have my SAM, what chance will I have at taking down my suddenly gone tyrannical government and its combined armed forces? We're not the distant British franchise we were at the time the 2A was conceived. I can well understand why it was written, when it was written, but I don't see how it functions in this way in these times.

Are you forgetting that the powers that be, especially the military, are citizens? I have no doubt that they'd take up arms in defense of the Constitution.
And tyrannical government isn't limited to ours; owning firearms may keep other nations from invading CONUS.
I was also hoping you cite the example of the NRA's support of the individual's right the keep & bear SAM's.

 

[backcountrycruiser]

With all due respect, I think you're still misunderstanding the purpose of this inventory. The test itself cannot be manipulated in the ways you've mentioned. Individuals can manipulate or change the criteria within the organization that orders the test. In most governmental cases, court-ordered or not, it's administered by a psychologist that has no stake in the outcome. In the case of testing for mental fitness for gun ownership, these standards would have to be established and well known in order to avert any post-test types of manipulation. I would hope that inputs from all sides of the issue would be heard and allowed constant involvement. Yep, even from the NRA.

I appreciate your respect and passion. However I dont think I am missunderstaning, just not typing out the idea right. Yes individuals can manipulate or change the criteria, lets change individuals to the ATF. An agency that has had a cloudy, secretive couple of years. Plus I suspect that the psychologist that interprits the test, if there is one, has to use his judgement to do so. Judgement that is tainted by life. Even if they used a company like I am familiar with, and there is no psychologist, just a computer that reads the little cirlcles that you fill in, and spits out a result. Those programs are written as a substitute for a live psychologist's interpretations. And those interpretations are tainted by life experience as well, you may not interpret it the same way I do.... Yes you are correct, the standards would have to be established and well known, with inputs from all sides. Just like the FBI's no fly lists. No one knows how you get on their list, and no one knows how you get off. I dont think that our governement, either side of the spectrum can manage that type of transparenty on such a large scale. If they could, I doubt that the testing would have any measureable effect on crime rates.
Mike

 

[xtatik]

What part of 'shall not be infringed' do some people not understand?

I can own a pistol, but I cannot own a SAM missile. Reading the Amendment verbatim and knowing it well, logically most would realise it's already been infringed. The Amendment says "to bear arms", but the Amendment has its limitations, and in the case of me wanting to own that SAM missile I mentioned earlier, I guess I'm just TSOL.

Should you have to undergo a psych eval before speaking in public or posting on the internet?
Should you have to apply for a license? How about a license to go to church? Nope. The constitution grants equal protection to free speech, religion, and fire arms.

Actually, no it doesn't. I cannot offer human or animal sacrifices to a deity in this country(where are my freedoms going?).
I have the right to free speech, but I cannot slander someone.(Oh man, this sucks!)
So, continuing with this, I don't think it's logical to allow known psycho's or the blind to play with my SAM missile, or a pistol.

The founding fathers went far out of their way to protect firearms ownership. That's why its second in the list of rights.
This means they weren't granted by the government. The government doesn't have the right to remove these rights.

The government granted, it giveth, and the government can taketh, the government is we-eth (is that a word?)
The Preamble (which is exactly that, and serves as a preamble to all that follows) states that we ordain that document. It does not support itself, we support it. It's like I stated earlier in the thread. The Constitution wasn't immaculately conceived. It was written by men who formed a governing body, a government. At the time, they wrote it in a way that they felt best represented the wants and concerns of the people it was meant to serve.

Can you imagine the outcry if someone lost his right to free speech because he was on anti-depressants some years ago? Or he was barred from practicing his religion?

A severely depressed person doesn't pose an immediate threat to himself or society by way of his speech or religious beliefs. A severely depressed person with a gun is a bad combination and can pose an immediate threat.

 

[MP@HOME]

Yes, all We need is one more law to end all evil in our Country.
We should make it a crime to murder anybody, I am sure this could have
stopped this tragedy in AZ, or maybe just one more gun law,like don't use
guns to commit a crime. Law abiding people don't need more regulations,
punish criminals, It is not my fault .
Also Arizona is not the only state where You don't need a permit to carry a
gun, in other states anybody that applies for a permit can get it and there
has not been a rash of shootings by permit holders in the decades that I have
heard about ,even without any special training.