- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,748
Top, I agree with this post word-for-word.
United States & Gun Control discussion.
- Thread starter Diamondback 2/2
- Start date
Open ended question here...
When we talk about banning people with mental health problems from buying/owning guns, what types do we refer to? PTSD? Depression? ADHD?
I'm curious as it feels like we are tossing the phrase "mental health issues" around pretty loosely.
Apologies if this was discussed further back in this thread.
When we talk about banning people with mental health problems from buying/owning guns, what types do we refer to? PTSD? Depression? ADHD?
I'm curious as it feels like we are tossing the phrase "mental health issues" around pretty loosely.
Apologies if this was discussed further back in this thread.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,748
That whole thing is a sticky-wicket. My fear about those types of rules is having men and women who need help, but are afraid to ask because they are worried about losing their guns.
Reference the age standards when it comes to hotels, rental cars, etc. Those are policies that industries decided on their own to put in place based on actual data showing how high risk people under the age of 25 were/are. I was stationed in Norfolk/Virginia Beach as hotels in that area started to increase the age limit, and for good reason. A lot of the under 21 military personnel in the area would figure out a way to get booze, rent a room, invite 10, 20, 30 people over for a party, and wreck everything. Bottles being smashed in parking lots, fights, loud music, shouting, etc. With cars, there's a reason insurance costs more until you turn 25 as well. Because data shows that younger people are more high risk for tickets/accidents. So I actually agree with those policies. I don't see how those anecdotes have any relation to a gun control discussion. The data makes sense for hotels and rental car companies. It doesn't for gun control. Same with the age to enlist in the military. "Oh, so you're saying we can trust an 18 year old in combat, but not with a car and a hotel room?" You're goddamn right I am. Is that 18 year old's PSG and PL with him when he's partying in a hotel room, or driving a rental car? No. They are there in the field, on the gun range, and in combat. So the argument doesn't really hold water.
Topkick
Verified Military
@CDG, help me understand. So, you stand for 18 year olds buying and owning guns, but not to rent a hotel room? If you can't trust them with a room, should we trust them with a gun?
i don't mean to sound confrontational, but i see that as an odd way to see things. I mean, there is no current policy for an 18 year old civilian to be supervised when using a rifle.
i don't mean to sound confrontational, but i see that as an odd way to see things. I mean, there is no current policy for an 18 year old civilian to be supervised when using a rifle.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,748
My friends over on my favorite gun-board are losing their minds right now. Trying to figure out how to only say positive things about their President, but fuming over the fact that el' Presidente' has gone full front on "bump stocks" and saying things like:
"...but take the guns first, go through due process second."
BETRAYAL: Trump Says Government Should 'Take The Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second'
To keep myself somewhat sane, I still fall back on my mantra of, "I would have voted for anyone over Hillary", but at least I will admit that. If she had been in office and did/said exactly what Trump did above, the tone of my fellow gun owners would be very different.
"...but take the guns first, go through due process second."
BETRAYAL: Trump Says Government Should 'Take The Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second'
To keep myself somewhat sane, I still fall back on my mantra of, "I would have voted for anyone over Hillary", but at least I will admit that. If she had been in office and did/said exactly what Trump did above, the tone of my fellow gun owners would be very different.
DocIllinois
Verified Military
You're not off base; that phrase is tossed around here very loosely.
Search my content and read the posts in this thread addressing that very issue and the associated misperception.
Bonus points if you read the literature.
policemedic
Verified SWAT
DC v. Heller does not mean what you think it does.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,306
In relation to this case?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,748
When you have time, would you be willing to expand on that just a bit. (Reader's Digest version).
I see that case thrown around this board often.
Kraut783
SOF Support
Heh...thinking this is the issue...it purely addressed DC as a Federal district and not a state.
"Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states"
"Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states"
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,588
[Q
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,748
Walmart jumped on the "21 to buy guns and ammo" bandwagon a few hours ago.
Similar to the existence of the TSA, it's all "dog and pony." If anything, this will bring younger shooters into legit gun stores where they will be helped by someone who actually knows a thing or two about guns. It might actually be educational for them.
Similar to the existence of the TSA, it's all "dog and pony." If anything, this will bring younger shooters into legit gun stores where they will be helped by someone who actually knows a thing or two about guns. It might actually be educational for them.
With stores now deciding they won't sell guns or ammo to legal age residents, are they setting themselves up for lawsuits? I'm not thinking age discrimination but if a bakery refuses to sell a cake to a gay couple, how is this any different?
Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆
Verified Military
I'm not sure that is applicable. That case was against a law, not against a private business.
Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆
Verified Military
Do laws not apply to private business?
Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆
Verified Military
If a private business chooses not to sell firearms that is their choice. A business that decides to sell firearms but discriminate by age, who they sell to, essentially making up their own rules is an issue. Until a law is passed play by the rules.
Private businesses do not create public law. They influence the hell out of those creating the rules, legally and illegally, but they are not creating a law saying you must be 21. And there are lots of other places to go shopping.
policemedic
Verified SWAT
Certainly. It’s an important case.
Here is the crux of the problem. Heller does not grant an unlimited right to possess firearms because (amongst other reasons) the Court is quite clear that no right is unlimited.
In its opinion, the Court said:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
While there are people who take the opposite view—as @ThunderHorse has above—that position is neither supported by Heller nor legally sound.
The bare bones essence of Heller is that Heller, a DC special policeman (essentially, an armed guard with very limited arrest authority), wanted to register a handgun in the District. He was denied because DC banned the registration of handguns except for those who received a discretionary one-year license from the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department. DC also had a trigger lock requirement that would prevent a gun from being kept ready for use; those lucky enough to get the one-year license would have to render their guns useless for self-defense in the home. Heller filed suit, and the case see-sawed its way to the SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS held that a ban on entire classes of firearms i.e. handguns was unconstitutional, as was the trigger lock requirement. The Court did not have to deal with the licensing issue because Heller conceded this point (as long as licensing was done fairly) during oral arguments.
It did not establish an unfettered right pursuant to the 2nd Amendment.
