0
1

[–] Tsilent_Tsunami 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Is the preferred alternative here to have the guy involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital, rather than just removing his weapon?

Here in California, you exhibit enough craziness (and it has to be a shitload, judging by those still walking around), and they'll 5150 you. It's a 72 hour minimum hold in a psychiatric hospital, and you lose most or all of your rights. Gun possession rights being one of the least of those.

0
1

[–] Voopin__Voopin 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

i read about this on thefreethoughproject

what they said was that he was reported by neighbors for "staring at them through the window" and for open carrying his .25 caliber pistol.

neither of those are illegal, and i dont consider open carrying to be "crazy". staring at people is debatably "crazy" but not to the extent that it warrants throwing someone into an asylum. NOR does it warrant taking the man's guns without due process as per the constitution.

scary implications here-- if a concerted effort were made by a few people who dislike you, they could use the ERPO to take your guns. That is absolutely uncostitutional.

my preferred alternative is NOT to let fuckwads get you thrown into the asylum (as per your example) and also NOT deprive innocent citizens of their due process rights. My preferred alternative is maybe if people complain on you, a cop could come and talk (if you're agreeable to it) and determine whether you're a danger. OR if the folks with an axe to grind are SOOOOOOO worried, they can take out a restraining order-- aka the current system which doesn't strip more rights from gun owners. (I think even getting a restraining order would be kinda hard to do, because none of his actions were threatening.)

0
1

[–] Tsilent_Tsunami 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

My preferred alternative is maybe if people complain on you, a cop could come and talk (if you're agreeable to it) and determine whether you're a danger.

They seem to have done that, and didn't reach agreement on his mental health level. "I'm not nuts!" "Yes you are!" It's a very interesting and difficult problem. Should there be a new mental health standard where you lose your 2nd amendment rights (and possibly other rights) without losing all your rights, as you would with a psychiatric hold?

I think few would argue for letting legitimately crazy people walk around in public with a weapon. But what about when they're just below the "lock em up" level? Should that level be lowered for gun owners? Or for vehicles-of-peace owners? There's a huge and obvious slippery slope here, and we can see how many (lefties/communists/etc) would be enthusiastic about the ride down. Can we, or should we, try to edge our way down it, just to that extent?

IMO, given the nature of negotiation and compromise, something like this is somewhat necessary, but there should be a LOT of pushback maintained to prevent the slide to the bottom. The problem here, aside from the actuality of crazies going on a shooting spree, is that arguing for letting them do that before acting is more based on a fear of the slippery slope (gun grabbers) than the shooting spree itself, which in turn gives them a stronger position.

Final question: Should the Cruz kid have been locked up, or just had his guns taken away?

0
1

[–] ShowMeYourKitties 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

People need to start shooting when they come on with this shit.

0
1

[–] dontforgetaboutevil 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Fucking pigs. The guy should have shot one.