Trump Is Caving In

[MJY65]

I’ve had enough background checks between purchases, permit, NFA, global entry, etc I’m a verified “good” guy.

Me too. If we've gone through the Global Entry background check and sat for a personal interview with a CBP agent, there should not be a need for anything further. It is my understanding that the GE database is being constantly refreshed and queried, so any disqualifying activity is flagged between renewals.

[Ghost]

Old article, interesting read.Comments are worth the read too.

http://www.startribune.com/depression-is-no-barrier-to-a-gun-carry-permit/360510081/

Minnesota is a “shall issue” state, meaning the sheriff has no discretion to deny my permit without demonstrating a “substantial likelihood” that I pose a danger to myself or others. Even if I were denied, I could hire an attorney and appeal. But that wasn’t necessary. My permit was approved without so much as a welfare check. No one contacted my spouse or my doctor.

Had the county taken that one extra step, it would have learned about my diagnosis and treatment at the Minneapolis Veterans Medical Center for depression, PTSD and substance abuse stretching as far back as 1992. Without hesitation, my wife would have informed them that my medical record contains a V.A. psychiatrist’s note recommending that I “never own another gun.”

Taken together, this seems to rise to a level of “substantial likelihood.” But the decision is binary under the current law. There is no middle ground where I can maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy and at the same time protect myself when I’m healthy from times when I am not. This is a common blind spot in legislation throughout the U.S., and it affects a lot of good people with diagnoses like mine.

<snip>

Doing the math, Minnesota can expect that thousands of the more than 200,000 citizens with permits to purchase — as many as 8,900 — will experience a major depressive disorder this year. Like me, they’re not appearing on the sheriff’s radar. Unlike me, they don’t receive treatment.

[Tronster]

Even in your article the author mentions in the comments that he should not have been able to get a carry permit or buy a gun, and is highlighting the shortcomings of the system. Obviously the mental health aspect is not clear cut black or white, and needs to find a balance between HIPPA privacy vs gun regulation. I support that those who have proven to have criminal intent (felons, drug users, domestic abusers, etc) should not be able to just waltz into any gun shop and buy a gun. Some would like to do away with NICS checks all together. Ok fine. An individual with a criminal history and a violent disregard for the law just walks in, buys a gun no questions asked, and then kills your spouse or child. Are you really going to just chalk it up as “Well, that’s the price we pay for unfettered gun rights”, shrug your shoulders, and go on about your day?

Gun laws have always been about finding a balance between securing our right to own guns as a bulwark against future tyranny, vs limiting abuse of that right today. Apparently, we have differing views of how much ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable vs inconvenience. And when America collapses (and it will, every great society in history does) you may just find yourself running into the street, gun in hand, with no one to fight, and it will have all been for naught.

I’m going to bow out as I’ve spent enough time on this. You advocate for your policies, I’ll advocate for mine.

[xd ED]

Old article, interesting read.Comments are worth the read too.

http://www.startribune.com/depression-is-no-barrier-to-a-gun-carry-permit/360510081/

Minnesota is a “shall issue” state, meaning the sheriff has no discretion to deny my permit without demonstrating a “substantial likelihood” that I pose a danger to myself or others. Even if I were denied, I could hire an attorney and appeal. But that wasn’t necessary. My permit was approved without so much as a welfare check. No one contacted my spouse or my doctor.

Had the county taken that one extra step, it would have learned about my diagnosis and treatment at the Minneapolis Veterans Medical Center for depression, PTSD and substance abuse stretching as far back as 1992. Without hesitation, my wife would have informed them that my medical record contains a V.A. psychiatrist’s note recommending that I “never own another gun.”

Taken together, this seems to rise to a level of “substantial likelihood.” But the decision is binary under the current law. There is no middle ground where I can maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy and at the same time protect myself when I’m healthy from times when I am not. This is a common blind spot in legislation throughout the U.S., and it affects a lot of good people with diagnoses like mine.

<snip>

Doing the math, Minnesota can expect that thousands of the more than 200,000 citizens with permits to purchase — as many as 8,900 — will experience a major depressive disorder this year. Like me, they’re not appearing on the sheriff’s radar. Unlike me, they don’t receive treatment.

Seems to me that anyone justifying, or condemning a course of action or policy based on a self-diagnosis of a disqualifying mental illness in and of itself, while problematic, might well point to an accurate diagnosis.

[Erud]

Even in your article the author mentions in the comments that he should not have been able to get a carry permit or buy a gun, and is highlighting the shortcomings of the system. Obviously the mental health aspect is not clear cut black or white, and needs to find a balance between HIPPA privacy vs gun regulation. I support that those who have proven to have criminal intent (felons, drug users, domestic abusers, etc) should not be able to just waltz into any gun shop and buy a gun. Some would like to do away with NICS checks all together. Ok fine. An individual with a criminal history and a violent disregard for the law just walks in, buys a gun no questions asked, and then kills your spouse or child. Are you really going to just chalk it up as “Well, that’s the price we pay for unfettered gun rights”, shrug your shoulders, and go on about your day?

Ahh yes, the old; "If it saves just one child" argument. People die every day of all kinds of horrible, unfair things. The human mortality rate is 100%, so statistically-speaking, deaths caused by criminals who illegally purchased firearms don't even make a blip on the charts. At any rate, infringing on the constitutionally-protected, God-given rights of US citizens will not stop criminals from getting guns and killing people. It only makes certain people feel better. You get that part, right?

If you really want to save lives, there are a lot bigger fish out there to fry. Think about how many lives could be saved by a national 30-mph speed limit with automatic jail time for any offense. You could virtually eliminate all traffic deaths with one law.

[Ghost]

Old article, interesting read.Comments are worth the read too.

http://www.startribune.com/depression-is-no-barrier-to-a-gun-carry-permit/360510081/

Minnesota is a “shall issue” state, meaning the sheriff has no discretion to deny my permit without demonstrating a “substantial likelihood” that I pose a danger to myself or others. Even if I were denied, I could hire an attorney and appeal. But that wasn’t necessary. My permit was approved without so much as a welfare check. No one contacted my spouse or my doctor.

Had the county taken that one extra step, it would have learned about my diagnosis and treatment at the Minneapolis Veterans Medical Center for depression, PTSD and substance abuse stretching as far back as 1992. Without hesitation, my wife would have informed them that my medical record contains a V.A. psychiatrist’s note recommending that I “never own another gun.”

Taken together, this seems to rise to a level of “substantial likelihood.” But the decision is binary under the current law. There is no middle ground where I can maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy and at the same time protect myself when I’m healthy from times when I am not. This is a common blind spot in legislation throughout the U.S., and it affects a lot of good people with diagnoses like mine.

<snip>

Doing the math, Minnesota can expect that thousands of the more than 200,000 citizens with permits to purchase — as many as 8,900 — will experience a major depressive disorder this year. Like me, they’re not appearing on the sheriff’s radar. Unlike me, they don’t receive treatment.

Seems to me that anyone justifying, or condemning a course of action or policy based on a self-diagnosis of a disqualifying mental illness in and of itself, while problematic, might well point to an accurate diagnosis.

It's been my experience that anti's only see guns for killing and are of the belief that they can't trust themselves with them so therefore everybody else must think the same way they do and shouldn't have them either.

In this article you have a guy that has zero sense of self control so I'm not sure why we should feel safe around him. He's vilified the gun into thinking he's safe as long as he doesn't have a gun but at the point he has a gun he could easily be unhinged killer guy?

It also shows that somebody who goes through something traumatic be it war, divorce, family death etc. decides they should go get some help and the person helping them puts a note in a file that they may never be able to rectify.

It also goes to show that background checks are again, useless and are trumped by personal responsibility and morals for which our society seems to pride itself of neither.

[Ghost]

Oh and on the under 21 thing.

[xd ED]

It's been my experience that anti's only see guns for killing and are of the belief that they can't trust themselves with them so therefore everybody else must think the same way they do and shouldn't have them either.

In this article you have a guy that has zero sense of self control so I'm not sure why we should feel safe around him. He's vilified the gun into thinking he's safe as long as he doesn't have a gun but at the point he has a gun he could easily be unhinged killer guy?

It also shows that somebody who goes through something traumatic be it war, divorce, family death etc. decides they should go get some help and the person helping them puts a note in a file that they may never be able to rectify.

It also goes to show that background checks are again, useless and are trumped by personal responsibility and morals for which our society seems to pride itself of neither.

Had a similar very conversation with another forum member at lunch yesterday.
A neighbor and his wife had a long, storied history of domestic conflict, to the point law enforcement was involved numerous times.

this neighbor's feeling about guns was that no one should have them because sometimes he got so mad he was afraid he'd shoot someone if a a gun was present.

Your litmus test is, of course the correct one;
if someone is not considered unsafe to to be among motor vehicles, eating utensils, building materials, or hand and power tools, there's no reason to prohibit access to firearms either.