Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson and Aurora … yet nothing on gun control

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

So, you have to volunteer the information? And if you didn't volunteer it and your referees weren't aware, you could still get a gun? I'm confused as to how that makes any sense, unless they require you to receive a psychiatric evaluation in order to obtain a gun license.



As long as the person is licensed to carry in that jurisdiction and isn't brandishing or threatening anyone, probably not.

Most of those with a mental illness aren't constantly in crisis-mode or flipping out or whathaveyou. If they abide by the law, we shouldn't curtail their rights. And, frankly, the government has ZERO business in one's medical history unless one volunteers the information oneself.

Do they not have HIPAA-type legislation in the UK?

If you did not volunteer information and your referees kept quiet or did not know, yes you would get a gun. There is a compromise whereby the police are not invading privacy unless they have reason to do so.

I would expect someone with paranoid schizophrenia to have their gun taken off them there and then. Clinical depression is another and I know of one where a threat to commit suicide, but not with the gun, was enough to take the gun off the person. We react there and then rather than wait and see.

We have Data Protection laws regarding storage and security of information.

[BStrong]

Just ran across this, slightly out of date as MacDonald has been decided, but interesting none the less

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cg...text=lawreview

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

California has penalty enhancement for firearms possession or use in the commission of a crime across the board, and it doesn't seem to interfer in gang violence in the least

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms

California Bureau of firearms, a division of the DOJ.

Read and be amazed.

Do the police actively go out to search for guns? I see this "Any person who is enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang is prohibited from possessing ammunition. A violation is a misdemeanor." How much of a sentence would that attract?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

IIRC, any of them, as long as that person is properly licensed for their gun and jurisdiction and as long as that person has not committed any felonies.

Just because someone has a mental illness, even a "scary" one, does not preclude that person from enjoying the same rights and liberties as every other American citizen.

I'm pretty sure it does. In Illinois anyone who has been treated for mental illness in the last 5 years is ineligible to own a firearm.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I'm pretty sure it does. In Illinois anyone who has been treated for mental illness in the last 5 years is ineligible to own a firearm.

Oh? So the background checks cover medical information in Illinois? I find that pretty hard to believe. Perhaps you mean that if a person has been ordered by the court/a judge to receive treatment? Because most of the mentally ill nowadays seek treatment voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Nessie

I would expect someone with paranoid schizophrenia to have their gun taken off them there and then. Clinical depression is another and I know of one where a threat to commit suicide, but not with the gun, was enough to take the gun off the person. We react there and then rather than wait and see.

Threats to oneself or others is a compelling enough reason for disarming a law-abiding citizen. But are you saying you would expect that simply because a person has been diagnosed with a particular illness they should not be able to enjoy the same rights as any other citizen? What if that person is effectively medicated and/or has no history of violence?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

Oh? So the background checks cover medical information in Illinois?

You are required to reveal such an illness when you apply for an FOID card.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

.......


Threats to oneself or others is a compelling enough reason for disarming a law-abiding citizen. But are you saying you would expect that simply because a person has been diagnosed with a particular illness they should not be able to enjoy the same rights as any other citizen? What if that person is effectively medicated and/or has no history of violence?

Then it could go either way depending on the local Chief Constable's thoughts on the matter. If the applicant is unhappy about a decision, it can then be appealed to a sheriff (our name for a judge).

I cannot find any examples of such decisions, so cannot comment on the likelihood of decisions.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You are required to reveal such an illness when you apply for an FOID card.

Ah, I see. So, infringement on my Second Amendment rights AND invasion of my privacy just to get a gun in Illinois? I'm glad I turned down moving to Chicago...

[3point14]

Originally Posted by BStrong

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as the SC cases Heller and MacDonald have defined it - an individual not otherwise prohibited has a right to possess a firearm in common use for self defense purposes.

Oh, I see.

The question was in response to a poster talking about UK firearms regulations.

We have no such confusingly worded constitutional right so I was wondering what he was on about.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by Nessie

So it is a violent state with easy access to guns, that is a recipe for disaster.

Perhaps broad brushes should also be strictly licensed. The resulting pictures look so much like they were painted by a hyperactive 4-year-old hopped up on methamphetamine. If you're going to share recipes, perhaps you should stick to cookies...er...biscuits. :rolleyes

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Give it time and with a concerted effort to stop and search all gang members and it should start to make a difference. We have seen knife crime fall with increased targeted stop searches and mandatory sentences.

Without Probable Cause such searches (and items seized) tend to be thrown out of US courts; that darn Constitution and SCOTUS.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Perhaps broad brushes should also be strictly licensed. The resulting pictures look so much like they were painted by a hyperactive 4-year-old hopped up on methamphetamine. If you're going to share recipes, perhaps you should stick to cookies...er...biscuits. :rolleyes

I know, but it is an internet discussion forum, so short posts to the point are easier on the eye

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Without Probable Cause such searches (and items seized) tend to be thrown out of US courts; that darn Constitution and SCOTUS.

Same here and probable cause can be 'they are a gang member' or the search was voluntary and consented to.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Oh, I see.

The question was in response to a poster talking about UK firearms regulations.

We have no such confusingly worded constitutional right so I was wondering what he was on about.

UK vs. US regulations. The OP seemed to be mostly about US laws, so that's where I was coming from.

Also, "she".

Originally Posted by AlBell

Without Probable Cause such searches (and items seized) tend to be thrown out of US courts; that darn Constitution and SCOTUS.

With the exception of "stop and frisk" laws...

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Same here and probable cause can be 'they are a gang member'

IANAL but I doubt that'll work in US courts. We have lawyers here who, with luck, will confirm or reject my assertion.

Quote:

or the search was voluntary and consented to.

That deserves the laughing dog smiley.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Originally Posted by Nessie

Same here and probable cause can be 'they are a gang member'

IANAL but I doubt that'll work in US courts. We have lawyers here who, with luck, will confirm or reject my assertion.

IANAL either, but isn't arresting someone solely on the basis of the people with whom they associate unconstitutional (freedom of association, and all that)?

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Same here and probable cause can be 'they are a gang member' or the search was voluntary and consented to.

That can only be accurate if you happen to be talking about some country other than the USA, which happens to use the phrase "probable cause" somewhere in its legal system but in a way completely different from and contradictory with its use in American law. Here, the cause for a search, seizure, or arrest has to be a sign of a particular crime in a particular place and/or a particular time, not membership in a group that's likely to be criminals in general. Acting otherwise would be a violation not only of the Fourth Amendment (where the phrase "probable cause" originates) but also the First (freedom to assemble with whom you choose), as well as a handful of more recent laws & rulings & policies on discrimination and civil liberties, and would end the offending police officer's or judge's career promptly, probably followed by a civil lawsuit which takes away most of the money (s)he has ever earned or ever will for the rest of his/her life.

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

IANAL either, but isn't arresting someone solely on the basis of the people with whom they associate unconstitutional (freedom of association, and all that)?

Yes, but also keep in mind the difference between a search and an arrest. A search of property can be done without the property's owner being arrested, and a search warrant and an arrest warrant are two separate documents. The Fourth Amendment explicitly includes both searches and arrests, though.

What police are allowed to do on the basis of knowing that someone is in a gang is talk to him/her without arresting him/her, including going wherever (s)he leads them. There's nothing to stop them from getting and using whatever information (s)he might disclose to them or any evidence (s)he might turn over, on a voluntary basis, without executing either an arrest warrant or a search warrant. This can include threatening the gang member with near-future arrest or search, even if they don't have a warrant for it yet.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Do the police actively go out to search for guns? I see this "Any person who is enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang is prohibited from possessing ammunition. A violation is a misdemeanor." How much of a sentence would that attract?

Yes, the state DOJ runs multi agency enforcement actions aimed at individuals in the prohibited class ( Felons, 5150's, individuals subject to a TRO or RO) with firearms (handguns in 99.9% of cases) registered that were not transfered or otherwise legally disposed of.

Depending on jurisdiction and legal status (Parolee on probation or other) the consequences could be as little as confiscation of the firearm (non-violent 5150's) to being remanded to custody for a parolee, to being charged with felon in possession.

The sentences are a whole other story due to chronic overcrowding in the penal system.

Here's an old study (1986) on the subject, but still valid in part:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...32&context=lcp

Personally, my belief is that until we propagate and enforce draconian penalty enhancements on criminal firearms use, such laws have no effect.

Unfortunately, attempts to enforce gun laws to the fullest extent of the law seems to work other places, but not California:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ed-2640743.php

At least to folks that believe putting people in jail for violating the law is counterproductive.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I don't get your points 2 and 3. The US is responsible for the state of its domestic gun market and exporting and smuggling of its guns abroad.
That is the US government and those responsible for dealing with guns, not every Tom, Dick and Harry in the US for those who think when I speak out about guns I am referring to and condemning the US as a whole.

Why would we be responsible if someone smuggles a gun into another country?

So, I wrecked my new truck yesterday. It's the manufacturers fault I was following too closely to the vehicle in front of me?

Same logic.

The US is not responsible if someone imports a gun LEGALLY, abiding by the laws of both nations. You're foolish to think otherwise.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Nessie

In the UK all that is needed is a Police National Computer (PNC) check. That lists everyone in the UK who has convictions, is a missing person, is a disqualified driver and/or who has a firearms certificate. It takes seconds to do.

The two systems are separate here in the US for a simple reason.

FOIA requests.

Freedom of Information Act requests can be made for anything in the DMV database, as as the keystrokes an officer makes on his laptop. Most have tracking software, etc.

The fact that I have a CWP is private information, and not covered under the FOIA laws of Florida.

It's a matter of privacy.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Mental illnesses and addictions are two matters that would greatly impact on a persons ability to safely possess a gun.

Regarding chronic and acute illnesses, for example if someone was to have a bout of serious depression and the police were to find out they can and have had their guns seized from them. If they recover they can and have had their guns returned to them. If they don't they don't get their guns back. I know of guns being seized from someone who was found to be an alcoholic, having turned to drink after his wife died.

Sucks for people in the UK.

Here in the US, we have some very basic rights.

Originally Posted by Nessie

I think that is perfectly reasonable.

Maybe in your county, but here in the US, it's not. It's the whole "shall not be infringed" thing.

Originally Posted by Nessie

If someone was found to be mentally ill in the USA, would they be allowed to keep their guns?

Sometimes. Depends on the mental illness, and the status, etc. etc. etc.

In Florida, an MD has to recommend to the court that the patient is not fit for a firearm, and they have to go through a process. The courts decide, and not without a hearing.

Here's the wording from the actual form.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf


Section F

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Give it time and with a concerted effort to stop and search all gang members and it should start to make a difference.

1- The gang bangers don't wear uniforms to allow for easy identification.
2- Not every person who's illegally carrying a firearm is a gang banger.
3- What reasonable suspicion does an officer have to just stop someone?
4- The USC prohibits unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure.

Originally Posted by Nessie

We have seen knife crime fall with increased targeted stop searches and mandatory sentences.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/c...crime.19134633

Which couldn't happen in the US legally.

We have a right to not be randomly stopped and searched by the police. It's in our Constitution. Pretty high on the list too.

Originally Posted by Nessie

Since Chicago's gang and crime problems are on a pretty monumental scale, I would imagine there is a lot of work to be done compared to in Glasgow and its knife crime and gangs.

It's (IMO) because the police have been so lax and corrupt for so many years, that it's just not able to be controlled without some serious changes. IMO, the biggest one is the fact that they don't allow law abiding citizens to have a CWP. Hence, the bangers and scum know they're pretty safe to commit crime at their leisure.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by stokes234

That entire post was horrific.

I'd agree, your post was ******* horrific. It's based on ignorance, and bias. Cannot get more horrific than that.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Nessie

If you did not volunteer information and your referees kept quiet or did not know, yes you would get a gun. There is a compromise whereby the police are not invading privacy unless they have reason to do so.

I would expect someone with paranoid schizophrenia to have their gun taken off them there and then. Clinical depression is another and I know of one where a threat to commit suicide, but not with the gun, was enough to take the gun off the person. We react there and then rather than wait and see.

We have Data Protection laws regarding storage and security of information.

And we have laws that protect the individual from bull **** laws like this.

Specifically, the 2nd and 4th amendments, which allow me to have firearms, and not be searched for those firearms without cause, and which guarantees me the right to due process under the law.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by 3point14

We have no such confusingly worded constitutional right so I was wondering what he was on about.

Before I comment, are you confused about the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?

What do you mean by that?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by AlBell

IANAL but I doubt that'll work in US courts. We have lawyers here who, with luck, will confirm or reject my assertion.

IANAL, but this one is easy to answer, and the answer is you're correct.

Originally Posted by AlBell

That deserves the laughing dog smiley.

At your request sir!

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Alaska's homicide by firearm rate is 2.68 per 100,000. That is slightly under the US average of 2.97 per 100,000. Canada's is 0.51 per 100,000, England & Wales it is 0.7 per 100,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...map-statistics

Nessie when I read this I thought the rate for E&W was far too high and I was right. I think you have made a typo here. The rate is actually 0.07 per 100,1000

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by AlBell

IANAL but I doubt that'll work in US courts. We have lawyers here who, with luck, will confirm or reject my assertion.


That deserves the laughing dog smiley.

That sounds like we are more pro active and the police have better support from the courts for searching.

The police in Scotland need reasonable suspicion, which can be anything from behaviour to information from a credible source. They can search without reasonable cause if a serious incident has taken place, so people found nearby a stabbing for example. Then an Inspector or above can authorise blanket searches in a named area for up to 24 hours without cause to suspect the individual. That would be used where there has been gang violence.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotla...archandseizure

The police can ask to search anyone and most consent. I cannot find a link, but there was a court ruling a while back which said that the police do not need to tell people that they do not have to give consent for searches.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Why would we be responsible if someone smuggles a gun into another country?

So, I wrecked my new truck yesterday. It's the manufacturers fault I was following too closely to the vehicle in front of me?

Same logic.

The US is not responsible if someone imports a gun LEGALLY, abiding by the laws of both nations. You're foolish to think otherwise.

If Americans are involved in smuggling weapons out of America to countries where they are to be used for crime or terrorism, how is that not American's responsibility? Are you saying that the US authorities turn a blind eye or support smuggling arms out of the USA for use in Mexico's drug war or formerly for terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Originally Posted by triforcharity

The two systems are separate here in the US for a simple reason.

FOIA requests.

Freedom of Information Act requests can be made for anything in the DMV database, as as the keystrokes an officer makes on his laptop. Most have tracking software, etc.

The fact that I have a CWP is private information, and not covered under the FOIA laws of Florida.

It's a matter of privacy.

We have FOI and a system for requests as well, which includes requesting the information contained on the PNC.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Sucks for people in the UK.

Here in the US, we have some very basic rights.




Maybe in your county, but here in the US, it's not. It's the whole "shall not be infringed" thing.



Sometimes. Depends on the mental illness, and the status, etc. etc. etc.

In Florida, an MD has to recommend to the court that the patient is not fit for a firearm, and they have to go through a process. The courts decide, and not without a hearing.

Here's the wording from the actual form.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

We have the same rights and the kind of person who is likely to have their gun taken from them or refused to be allowed to have one is the same in the UK as the USA. You have to be dangerously mad, not just a little but depressed.


Section F

Originally Posted by triforcharity

1- The gang bangers don't wear uniforms to allow for easy identification.
2- Not every person who's illegally carrying a firearm is a gang banger.
3- What reasonable suspicion does an officer have to just stop someone?
4- The USC prohibits unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure.




Which couldn't happen in the US legally.

We have a right to not be randomly stopped and searched by the police. It's in our Constitution. Pretty high on the list too.



It's (IMO) because the police have been so lax and corrupt for so many years, that it's just not able to be controlled without some serious changes. IMO, the biggest one is the fact that they don't allow law abiding citizens to have a CWP. Hence, the bangers and scum know they're pretty safe to commit crime at their leisure.

Sounds like we have more leeway to search criminals than you have. I say that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

And we have laws that protect the individual from bull **** laws like this.

Specifically, the 2nd and 4th amendments, which allow me to have firearms, and not be searched for those firearms without cause, and which guarantees me the right to due process under the law.

We have rights as well including the right to have guns and not be randomly searched except in exceptional circumstances.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Nessie

If Americans are involved in smuggling weapons out of America to countries where they are to be used for crime or terrorism, how is that not American's responsibility? Are you saying that the US authorities turn a blind eye or support smuggling arms out of the USA for use in Mexico's drug war or formerly for terrorism in Northern Ireland?

You're confusing two different issues.

Fast and Furious and NI.

FAF most certainly is going to end up with indictments.

As far as the whole NI thing you keep throwing around, do you have a linkey?
What I AM saying, and I've already made it VERY clear, is that if a gun is imported legally, abiding by the laws of both nations, what that gun is used for AFTER that has no bearing on either nation.

Using your logic, I should be free to sue Ford for the accident I had. I mean, they make the vehicle, right? They produced it, then legally sold it to me....

Originally Posted by Nessie

Sounds like we have more leeway to search criminals than you have. I say that is a good thing.

I disagree, to a point. I have a problem with a hunch being all the cause you need to search someone. I have no problem with busting criminals. What I DO have a problem with, is violating a persons 4th Amendment rights.

Originally Posted by Nessie

We have rights as well including the right to have guns and not be randomly searched except in exceptional circumstances.

Exceptional must mean something different to you. A few posts up you posted that LE in your country can search people in the area of a crime for 24hrs? Huh?????? That doesn't sound like exceptional to me.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

UK vs. US regulations. The OP seemed to be mostly about US laws, so that's where I was coming from.

Up to speed now.

Quote:

Also, "she".

Ooops, sorry.

[joey] How you doin'? [/joey]

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

Ah, I see. So, infringement on my Second Amendment rights AND invasion of my privacy just to get a gun in Illinois? I'm glad I turned down moving to Chicago...

There's no 2nd Amendment right to a gun if you are mentally ill. And it's not just Illinois that bars mental patients from owning firearms.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Same here and probable cause can be 'they are a gang member' or the search was voluntary and consented to.

It's not illegal to be a gang member in the USA.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

You're confusing two different issues.

Fast and Furious and NI.

FAF most certainly is going to end up with indictments.

As far as the whole NI thing you keep throwing around, do you have a linkey?
What I AM saying, and I've already made it VERY clear, is that if a gun is imported legally, abiding by the laws of both nations, what that gun is used for AFTER that has no bearing on either nation.

Using your logic, I should be free to sue Ford for the accident I had. I mean, they make the vehicle, right? They produced it, then legally sold it to me....



I disagree, to a point. I have a problem with a hunch being all the cause you need to search someone. I have no problem with busting criminals. What I DO have a problem with, is violating a persons 4th Amendment rights.



Exceptional must mean something different to you. A few posts up you posted that LE in your country can search people in the area of a crime for 24hrs? Huh?????? That doesn't sound like exceptional to me.

Regarding Northern Ireland, from about 1969 to 1998 the was The Troubles, which is the rather innocuous name given to the civil war between largely Catholic Irish Republicans who wanted all Ireland to be united and those who were prepared to bomb and shoot to get their way, against the Nationalists who wanted to keep NI as part of the UK, mainly Protestants with the British army and police kind of caught in the middle. In that their job was to stop the fighting. But the army and police were employed by the British government so were seen by Republicans as also the enemy.

The Republicans with the likes of the IRA or PIRA or Real IRA, as the terrorist groups kept splitting, were smuggling in weapons and used sources from the USA, to Gaddafi, to FARC to any European gun dealer prepared to supply them.

I have only ever spoken out against gun smuggling to the likes of terrorists and drug barons and how countries of origin should stop it. I don't understand why you keep on going on about legitimate, lawful exporting. I have not spoken out against that, so quite why you think that is my logic is beyond me.

A hunch is based on experience where you see activity that makes you suspect someone has something on their possession they should not have. We have laws allowing searches for drugs, weapons and stolen property on a person without a warrant required. The police here also use intelligence gathering to trace those believed to be carrying weapons and then target them.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's not illegal to be a gang member in the USA.

But being in a gang known to use and carry weapons gives a reasonable cause to search.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Nessie

But being in a gang known to use and carry weapons gives a reasonable cause to search.

Maybe in your county, but rarely in ours.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Maybe in your county, but rarely in ours.

That is possibly a significant reason why our gang problem and use of weapons in violence is far lower than yours.

[triforcharity]

That could be true. However, our Bill of Rights isn't just going to be tossed aside so that we can arrest a few gang bangers.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

That could be true. However, our Bill of Rights isn't just going to be tossed aside so that we can arrest a few gang bangers.

Do you have to arrest them to search them and take their guns though? I thought the "fruit of the poison tree" deal stopped prosecution but the cops get to keep any contraband (in this case guns) found.

If the purpose is to get illegal guns off the streets, that might be enough.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by marplots

Do you have to arrest them to search them and take their guns though? I thought the "fruit of the poison tree" deal stopped prosecution but the cops get to keep any contraband (in this case guns) found.

I envision lawsuit(s) for return of illegally seized property and money damages for the civil rights violation(s).

Quote:

If the purpose is to get illegal guns off the streets, that might be enough.

I'd guess, no. ymmv.

IANAL.