Aside from the problem of names of mentally ill who should not possess firearms not being in the NICS system when they should be, here's the other end of the spectrum that is also a problem. Many of us know it's there but gun control advocates seem uninterested in addressing it.
NICS is the firearms background check system. Another of its problems is that people's names are wrongfully in the system which can result in lengthy and costly processes to get corrected. And what's the process for getting a person's name removed from the system even if they were mentally, adversely affected but have since been 'cured'?
Even though arguably mentally ill, this woman has not shown signs of being dangerous to herself or others and BOTH she and her husband have been denied their 2nd Amendment rights through (perhaps temporary) CONFISCATION. They may or may not be able to have their firearms returned after a hearing before a judge.
This is eerily similar to other issues and statements of recent note. In particular are the Veterans Administration notifications to an unknown number of veterans that they could lose their 2nd Amendment rights based on an administrative decision by the VA, without "due process"; the ridiculous statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein about the risk of veterans having so-called "assault weapons" because they "might" have PTSD (which is not exclusive to military veterans and does not automatically make someone a risk); and the equally ridiculous proposal for Florida state Senator Audrey Gibson who wants to require, by law, "anger management" training for anyone who wishes to purchase any firearm or ammunition.
What is "access" to firearms anyway? In this case, she clearly had access because she opened the gun safe. But what if her husband simply changed the combination? What if he offered to have his (or their) guns stored with a friend while the case was being investigated?
Should we worry that California is spending it's underfunded resources on chasing down a non-violent person who sought treatment for depression several months ago instead of chasing after the firearms suspected to be accessible to known criminals? The California backlog is in the tens of thousands. Are they trying to show short term success by reaching for low hanging fruit (people not likely to oppose them) while having no impact on violent crime or risk to others? Through what process and at what cost does a person who has ever been affected by mental illness get to recover their 2nd Amendment rights? Are you all familiar with the staggering statistics about how common depression is among us? Of what can cause someone to be diagnosed with PTSD? (It's NOT all about violent trauma.) If a judge rules against this woman, can her non-ill, non-criminal husband re-claim his firearms? Hers? Can they be sold or made gifts rather than be destroyed by the government?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
California Firearms Blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment