Yeah, some common sense gun laws would have helped. People hearing voices should not have guns in their possession.
The moment he threatened a military base, he should have been locked up and getting treatment.
Already a law in Maine. They have a yellow flag law to stop this. We can’t go around knocking on every gun owner’s door and asking g if they hear voices.
The thing is, he was a prime candidate to fall under the Yellow Flag law with the threats he made.
The police didn't do their job and invoke it.
The problem was, when he made the threats, he was in New York. He was committed for 2 weeks in New York. Maine's yellow flag law had no jurisdiction.
New York has a red flag law, but his home and guns were in Maine.
We solve this problem with a FEDERAL Red Flag law.
Hey dude I hope you're doing good! I'm just popping in to add in here:
It is actually already a federal law that people who were IVC'd in any state have that reported into NICs and have their guns confiscated. It isn't "red flag laws" specifically which seek to broaden the law we already have (depending on state, with a burden of proof as low as "he said she said" in some cases, always at a secret hearing you aren't allowed to even know about much less defend yourself, and then they may return them 1yr later when you finally do get your day in court if you can prove the negative.)
So, we don't have a red flag law nationally, but we do have 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), [which states:] it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
Seems a lot of people (on and off lemmy) aren't aware of this law (which, in this case, would have prevented this had the beaurocrats done their jobs), just figured I'd let y'all know.
That's the problem... the word "adjudicated". Unless it goes through a judge, the guns are NOT confiscated and it does not show up on a background check.
So the Maine shooter was held, it didn't go through a judge, was not "adjudicated".
"In 2017, he was the subject of a Baker Act call, used to place persons under involuntary detainment for mental health examination for up to 72 hours.[6]"
"Garcia was then enlisted in the U.S. Army in June 2008, but he never completed basic training: he was terminated after three months due to mental health concerns.[39][40] Because this was an administrative separation, rather than a punitive discharge, Garcia's termination by the Army would not show up on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.[41]"
Ah, I see. To me that isn't necessarily a bad thing though, to require some proof before removal of one's rights. If anyone can just say "my ex said X" then what is stopping people from abusing that? Right wingers calling it in on trans people who are trying to protect themselves from right wing violence for instance, or an abusive ex having his ex-wife's guns taken so he can go hurt her, something like that. I personally believe it should require at least some proof that would hold up in court. I'm also not a huge fan of the whole "Take the guns first, due process second" approach that Trump supported with the red flag law secret hearings business, I think that if someone is making verifiable threats, you should be able to charge them with that in a normal, non-secret hearing, leading to the adjucated IVC, removal of rights, flagged in NICs, etc.
I think there is a way that we could all agree on, gun rights supporters and realistic gun control supporters alike (the no-guns crowd aside). Something like actually sending these people through a judge in a timely manner oughta at least be a step in the right direction.
Yeah, it's not that rights should be taken away without going through a judge, it's that more things NEED to go through judges to create the appropriate disqualifying paper trail.
I'd argue too that we need to expand what is a disqualifying event. If you look at the Michigan State shooter, he had been arrested on a felony gun charge, allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor, did his time, then when his background check was clear, he bought another gun, and here we are.
Should we allow people to plead down from felony to misdemeanor when the charge involves guns? A felony charge would have blocked him from buying a gun.
Maybe, when it comes to gun charges, a misdemeanor should also be a disqualifier? Right now it's only felony charges, but if someone has already proven they can't be trusted around a gun...
My only concern there comes from another opinion I have "A lot of shit that is a felony should be a misdemeanor, and a lot of shit that is a misdemeanor shouldn't even be a crime."
I'll need to look to see his specific charge, but off the top of my head I can think of two "gun charges" that should at least be misdemeanors if crimes at all.
CCW without a permit. IMO this should be a misdemeanor at best. Hell, about half of the states no longer require one, they certianly aren't necessary even if they're a good idea. I also posit that if voter ID laws are racist because black people can't get state IDs easily, CCW permits are the same (and also sometimes subject to sherriff approval and can be abused outright by a racist sherriff easily if you're in a shit county.) These laws typically do impact marginalized neighborhoods rather than gated communities, as the poor are more likely to work saturdays (when they have the classes), not be able to afford the 100+ dollar fee, etc.
Having guns and illegal drugs. Frankly, I don't think this should be a crime at all. "I believe gay married couples should be free to defend their marijuana farms with AR15s." Now, if they're using the guns to steal for drugs, well now they're committing real crimes (robbery) and we absolutely lock them up, but simply "yes I smoke weed and yes I will protect myself shall you try to kill me" should not even be a crime.
Brandishing or something with an actual victim I 100% agree though. Like I said idk what his specific gun crime was I have to look it up when I get a sec.
"In a 7–2 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that due process principles did not create a constitutional right to police protection, despite the existence of a court-issued restraining order."
No, but you can ask anyone that checks in to a ward saying their hearing voices if they have guns.
Sounds foolproof. People being involuntarily committed never lie to the people locking them up!
Too bad there's no way to find out if they have guns like, for example, looking to see if they have guns. But that would be impossible.
why not
We could enact a law that would have people take a yearly gun safety course which includes a psychological assessment to determine their fitness for gun ownership. Failure to comply would start a process for gun confiscation by the state. Failure to provide proof of completion would result in a $10,000 fine and confiscation of guns on the person and on their property.
Yeah here's me not wanting a gun for myself because I sleep walk. How is it that people with dangerous mental disorders can just get whatever they want?
Yeah, some common sense gun laws would have helped. People hearing voices should not have guns in their possession.
The moment he threatened a military base, he should have been locked up and getting treatment.
Already a law in Maine. They have a yellow flag law to stop this. We can’t go around knocking on every gun owner’s door and asking g if they hear voices.
https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/34-B/title34-Bsec3862-A.html
The thing is, he was a prime candidate to fall under the Yellow Flag law with the threats he made.
The police didn't do their job and invoke it.
The problem was, when he made the threats, he was in New York. He was committed for 2 weeks in New York. Maine's yellow flag law had no jurisdiction.
New York has a red flag law, but his home and guns were in Maine.
We solve this problem with a FEDERAL Red Flag law.
Hey dude I hope you're doing good! I'm just popping in to add in here:
It is actually already a federal law that people who were IVC'd in any state have that reported into NICs and have their guns confiscated. It isn't "red flag laws" specifically which seek to broaden the law we already have (depending on state, with a burden of proof as low as "he said she said" in some cases, always at a secret hearing you aren't allowed to even know about much less defend yourself, and then they may return them 1yr later when you finally do get your day in court if you can prove the negative.)
So, we don't have a red flag law nationally, but we do have 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), [which states:] it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
Seems a lot of people (on and off lemmy) aren't aware of this law (which, in this case, would have prevented this had the beaurocrats done their jobs), just figured I'd let y'all know.
That's the problem... the word "adjudicated". Unless it goes through a judge, the guns are NOT confiscated and it does not show up on a background check.
So the Maine shooter was held, it didn't go through a judge, was not "adjudicated".
Same for Jacksonville:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Jacksonville_shooting
"In 2017, he was the subject of a Baker Act call, used to place persons under involuntary detainment for mental health examination for up to 72 hours.[6]"
Same for Allen, Texas:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Allen,_Texas_mall_shooting
"Garcia was then enlisted in the U.S. Army in June 2008, but he never completed basic training: he was terminated after three months due to mental health concerns.[39][40] Because this was an administrative separation, rather than a punitive discharge, Garcia's termination by the Army would not show up on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.[41]"
Ah, I see. To me that isn't necessarily a bad thing though, to require some proof before removal of one's rights. If anyone can just say "my ex said X" then what is stopping people from abusing that? Right wingers calling it in on trans people who are trying to protect themselves from right wing violence for instance, or an abusive ex having his ex-wife's guns taken so he can go hurt her, something like that. I personally believe it should require at least some proof that would hold up in court. I'm also not a huge fan of the whole "Take the guns first, due process second" approach that Trump supported with the red flag law secret hearings business, I think that if someone is making verifiable threats, you should be able to charge them with that in a normal, non-secret hearing, leading to the adjucated IVC, removal of rights, flagged in NICs, etc.
I think there is a way that we could all agree on, gun rights supporters and realistic gun control supporters alike (the no-guns crowd aside). Something like actually sending these people through a judge in a timely manner oughta at least be a step in the right direction.
Yeah, it's not that rights should be taken away without going through a judge, it's that more things NEED to go through judges to create the appropriate disqualifying paper trail.
I'd argue too that we need to expand what is a disqualifying event. If you look at the Michigan State shooter, he had been arrested on a felony gun charge, allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor, did his time, then when his background check was clear, he bought another gun, and here we are.
Should we allow people to plead down from felony to misdemeanor when the charge involves guns? A felony charge would have blocked him from buying a gun.
Maybe, when it comes to gun charges, a misdemeanor should also be a disqualifier? Right now it's only felony charges, but if someone has already proven they can't be trusted around a gun...
My only concern there comes from another opinion I have "A lot of shit that is a felony should be a misdemeanor, and a lot of shit that is a misdemeanor shouldn't even be a crime."
I'll need to look to see his specific charge, but off the top of my head I can think of two "gun charges" that should at least be misdemeanors if crimes at all.
CCW without a permit. IMO this should be a misdemeanor at best. Hell, about half of the states no longer require one, they certianly aren't necessary even if they're a good idea. I also posit that if voter ID laws are racist because black people can't get state IDs easily, CCW permits are the same (and also sometimes subject to sherriff approval and can be abused outright by a racist sherriff easily if you're in a shit county.) These laws typically do impact marginalized neighborhoods rather than gated communities, as the poor are more likely to work saturdays (when they have the classes), not be able to afford the 100+ dollar fee, etc.
Having guns and illegal drugs. Frankly, I don't think this should be a crime at all. "I believe gay married couples should be free to defend their marijuana farms with AR15s." Now, if they're using the guns to steal for drugs, well now they're committing real crimes (robbery) and we absolutely lock them up, but simply "yes I smoke weed and yes I will protect myself shall you try to kill me" should not even be a crime.
Brandishing or something with an actual victim I 100% agree though. Like I said idk what his specific gun crime was I have to look it up when I get a sec.
Except HE reported having heard voices and threatened to shoot up a military base. No knocking required, the police knew and did nothing
The police don’t do shit when they hear children screaming and dying. They’re not gonna do shit about this.
Here's the scariest Supreme Court decision you'll read today:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525280/
"In a 7–2 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that due process principles did not create a constitutional right to police protection, despite the existence of a court-issued restraining order."
No, but you can ask anyone that checks in to a ward saying their hearing voices if they have guns.
Sounds foolproof. People being involuntarily committed never lie to the people locking them up!
Too bad there's no way to find out if they have guns like, for example, looking to see if they have guns. But that would be impossible.
why not
We could enact a law that would have people take a yearly gun safety course which includes a psychological assessment to determine their fitness for gun ownership. Failure to comply would start a process for gun confiscation by the state. Failure to provide proof of completion would result in a $10,000 fine and confiscation of guns on the person and on their property.
Yeah here's me not wanting a gun for myself because I sleep walk. How is it that people with dangerous mental disorders can just get whatever they want?
"common sense gun law" is meaningless