Marty Daniels, Owner of Daniel Defense, goes full gun control.

[RazorBurn]

I’ll make this as succinct as possible. With respect to mental health issues and legitimate issues of violence risk NICS is not necessarily the problem. The dismissal of due process is.

A practitioner identifies someone as a viable risk, cool, follow due process and get a judge to sign off on it, whilst putting actionable mechanisms in place to permit restoration of rights after the fact.

This, this, AAANNNNNDDDDD THIS!!!

As long as it has full DUE PROCESS in it I can support it. If there's no full due process, then all I can say is that we're are all gonna be well and truly ****ed at some point in the near future.

Think about it! Are you really going to support the government to take away your guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? If we abandon the 14th Amendment, we might as well abandon them all.

No, I am in no way advocating giving away any of our rights, but if you give away due process you are handing them all the keys to the kingdom. Which by the way, is exactly what Feinstein and Schumer want you to do!

I forgot who posted the Thomas Massie video. Thanks to whoever did!

[RazorBurn]

For those who are curious about what the big deal is about:

Thanks for posting that!

[sidewaysil80]

I have zero issue with someone being flagged for mental health issues being EVALUATED by a professional and THEN getting their day in court prior to having guns confiscated or not being allowed to purchase. PTSD or w/e mental health issue needs to be examined and then a decision made by the courts on a case by case basis. With that, if law enforcement/treatment center/family has legitimate evidence that someone is a threat to others or themselves and a judge concurs than I'm okay with firearms restrictions prior to full fledged hearing/rebuttal.

[Averageman]

I have zero issue with someone being flagged for mental health issues being EVALUATED by a professional and THEN getting their day in court prior to having guns confiscated or not being allowed to purchase. PTSD or w/e mental health issue needs to be examined and then a decision made by the courts on a case by case basis. With that, if law enforcement/treatment center/family has legitimate evidence that someone is a threat to others or themselves and a judge concurs than I'm okay with firearms restrictions prior to full fledged hearing/rebuttal.

That sounds like a very fair way to handle the issue and yes I believe it can and should be done.
I would be surprised though if it would work. The VA isn't the smoothest running machine by any stretch and I can see years passing before the issue is resolved.
I understand the VA has gotten much better, but it had nowhere to go but up when I got out.

[MegademiC]

So he did not follow the law and go to the court to get a modification due to lost employment? So he did not follow through with his responsibilities he ****ed up, not the courts fault. His fault, his responsibility, should not be blaming that on anyone but himself.

Where is the justification for denying his constitutional rights?

[jpmuscle]

Where is the justification for denying his constitutional rights?

Some animals are just less equal than others in his eyes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillBrink]

So the NRA is backing this bill?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The alternative to giving the middle finger is sitting on your thumb. And you won't have to worry about using your trigger finger, because your guns will be gone.

I'm not sitting on my thumbs. I worked the press, the city council, the NRA, local lawyers and social media when the latest guns stuff came up in Denver. Sisyphus had it easy compared to that task.

Mental disorder. Addiction. You smoke? Can't quit, no guns for you. Like your coffee? No guns for you. You like being tied up and spanked? Disorder, mental perversion, no guns for you.

Didn't Nazi Germany sterilize those with "mental disorders?" Have a mental break down, sterilized. I mean, if we want to label someone who is emotional, as having a mental disorder because they get upset and have been having a hard time, then do we pull their rights?

This is literally crazy. When we are talking about the Florida shooter that had tens of interactions and indicators that should have raised a flag and......... nothing. You seriously have some self-worth issues or something going on if you think that the Fix NICS program is going to geared to come after people with no real issues. We have to have something that can stop people like the MSD shooter, Aurora, Laughner and the Sandyhook mutant.

The idea that this is what makes the gun confiscation happen is delusions of overly high self-importance and too low self-esteem. That people think that they will be lumped in with those monsters- that you won't be able to distinguish yourself against those kind of accusations shows seem real head trash.

The standard is keeping guns out of the hands of people that will hurt others or themselves- and we don't need to dig deep on this. What are we talking about? 10-20 a year? You really think that the local PD and hospital want to babysit all these people to reach down to Joe Gun Owner? Where exactly do they get the money for all this? Even the ACLU stood up against the Obama Social Security rule.

So on one side we have this irrational fear of people coming with butterfly nets and bags for our guns and on the other we try to keep the guns away from the 100 most insane people in the US. Never mind that people that are even close to this should be in the funny farm on general principle, guns or not. To think that they are going to reach that far down into the population to come after your guns? How many millions of people are actually crazier than you (hopefully).

But sure. It's all about you. They are coming for you. They are going to ask about your mother, not listen to the answer and take your guns. Sure, that makes sense.

Some people here think that they are Ann Frank or something.

[jpmuscle]

It’s pretty evident you have no understanding as to how history as born out the terminal efforts you so comfortably support.

Irrespective of how innocuous, well intently, or hell even virtuous a given call for change may be inevitably corrupted and used against those it sought serve.

Consider the whole gun violence epidemic is a crock of shit and more people have died via other chronic means why should we be expected to want to do any damn thing for “the greater good”? Evil exists and the world can be a violent place, deal with it.

Why are you so eager to castrate your individual freedom and liberty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomMcC]

With all this talk about mental illness, and due process...is there an actual standard definition of mental illness that isn't subject to the whims, political views, and subjective notions of people with dubious intentions and suspect morals? Law is about precision, or it used to be. Since psychiatry and psychology are pretty suspect "sciences", can law even co-exist with it? Which expert witch doctor is one supposed to believe when it comes to some poor soul caught up in the horror of being in a court room full of people he doesn't know deciding whether he's cccrrrrraaaaazzzzyyyyyy and what his destiny is. It seems that moral evil is a bit easier to get a handle on, at least from my point of view.