United We Stand - uwsboard.com

I think this is an interesting approach to this issue that balances 2nd Amendment issues with public safety and welfare.
====================

"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/

133743Hokie wrote:I think this is an interesting approach to this issue that balances 2nd Amendment issues with public safety and welfare.
====================

"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/

I'd be willing to listen to a proposal like this so long as there is due process. And I'll go one further, I'd be willing to restrict the age of firearm purchases to 21 and above (except for active military), but if we're going to do that then we should also change the voting age to 21 and above. If we're going to say that people are not mature enough to own guns and drink alcohol until they are 21, then why the hell are we allowing them to help determine our leaders?

133743Hokie wrote:I think this is an interesting approach to this issue that balances 2nd Amendment issues with public safety and welfare.
====================

"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/

Nah.

If someone is that dangerous, they warrant being involuntarily committed. People who have been involuntarily committed are already prohibited. It's an established process which uses due process and doesn't impact the gun rights of other people in the home (recall that Lanza used his mom's gun). All of these people had no business being out on the street.

USN_Hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I think this is an interesting approach to this issue that balances 2nd Amendment issues with public safety and welfare.
====================

"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/

Nah.

If someone is that dangerous, they warrant being involuntarily committed. People who have been involuntarily committed are already prohibited. It's an established process which uses due process and doesn't impact the gun rights of other people in the home (recall that Lanza used his mom's gun). All of these people had no business being out on the street.

Disagree. This is recognition of habits way earlier than commitment level. And this isn't calling for detaining or confining people (again, it is for those cases recognized that are not commitment level), but for short term restriction of ownership. It's very logical and follows the pattern of a system that has worked fairly well (nothing is perfect) on the abuse side. Certainly an improvement, and one that would likely reduce some of the incidences.

UpstateSCHokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I think this is an interesting approach to this issue that balances 2nd Amendment issues with public safety and welfare.
====================

"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/

I'd be willing to listen to a proposal like this so long as there is due process. And I'll go one further, I'd be willing to restrict the age of firearm purchases to 21 and above (except for active military), but if we're going to do that then we should also change the voting age to 21 and above. If we're going to say that people are not mature enough to own guns and drink alcohol until they are 21, then why the hell are we allowing them to help determine our leaders?

The proposal does contain due process.

I think this is an excellent idea

133743Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I think this is an interesting approach to this issue that balances 2nd Amendment issues with public safety and welfare.
====================

"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/

Nah.

If someone is that dangerous, they warrant being involuntarily committed. People who have been involuntarily committed are already prohibited. It's an established process which uses due process and doesn't impact the gun rights of other people in the home (recall that Lanza used his mom's gun). All of these people had no business being out on the street.

Disagree. This is recognition of habits way earlier than commitment level. And this isn't calling for detaining or confining people (again, it is for those cases recognized that are not commitment level), but for short term restriction of ownership. It's very logical and follows the pattern of a system that has worked fairly well (nothing is perfect) on the abuse side. Certainly an improvement, and one that would likely reduce some of the incidences.

Again - if someone is really that dangerous, why aren't they committed for evaluation? The involuntary commitment - even if only held for a day - bars them from ownership until a judge adjudicates otherwise.

UpstateSCHokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I think this is an interesting approach to this issue that balances 2nd Amendment issues with public safety and welfare.
====================

"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/

I'd be willing to listen to a proposal like this so long as there is due process. And I'll go one further, I'd be willing to restrict the age of firearm purchases to 21 and above (except for active military), but if we're going to do that then we should also change the voting age to 21 and above. If we're going to say that people are not mature enough to own guns and drink alcohol until they are 21, then why the hell are we allowing them to help determine our leaders?

I believe if you can fight and die for your nation, your old enough to drink and buy a weapon. Let’s lower the age to 18.

I see a big issue with soon to be ex-spouses, or ex-spouses. Protective orders are handed out like candy during divorce and custody proceedings. Many times, they're not valid, because they're obtainment is intended as a legal maneuver or taken out of of pure spite.

HokieJoe wrote:I see a big issue with soon to be ex-spouses, or ex-spouses. Protective orders are handed out like candy during divorce and custody proceedings. Many times, they're not valid, because they're obtainment is intended as a legal maneuver or taken out of of pure spite.

Sure.

Again, though - can anyone tell me that Cho, Lanza, the jackass in Florida, etc. should not have been committed?

Would a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" have stopped Lanza? The answer is NO.

It also begins a slippery slope towards gun registration seeing as how a private transferee wouldn't know about a "GVRO." Obviously, the next step would be to ban private transfers, which would require registration in order to determine if a gun had been illegally transferred.

In short, there's already a system in place and it would work better - people just need to use it! If someone is so dangerous, they should be involuntarily committed for evaluation to determine if they're a danger to themselves or others. Don't move that determination to an angry spouse or a political system which wants any reason to disarm the public.

USN_Hokie wrote:Again - if someone is really that dangerous, why aren't they committed for evaluation? The involuntary commitment - even if only held for a day - bars them from ownership until a judge adjudicates otherwise.

Here in Virginia involuntary commitment is extremely hard to do if a person is an adult. If the person refuses to be committed then there isn't much anybody can do.

HIPAA laws and legislation protecting the rights of people with mental issues (even those who pose a danger) have made even judges very leery of issuing orders.

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Again - if someone is really that dangerous, why aren't they committed for evaluation? The involuntary commitment - even if only held for a day - bars them from ownership until a judge adjudicates otherwise.

Here in Virginia involuntary commitment is extremely hard to do if a person is an adult. If the person refuses to be committed then there isn't much anybody can do.

HIPAA laws and legislation protecting the rights of people with mental issues (even those who pose a danger) have made even judges very leery of issuing orders.

I'm not up to date on VA laws. My understanding is that in many states, a police officer can refer someone for mental evaluation. Let's say it is hard - why not fix that instead of making more laws? A GVRO is still made on the basis of mental health, is it not? So, why should HIPAA not still be in play?

At what point do we say "yeah that person can't be trusted to not go on a murdering spree, but let's leave him on the street?"

I think the mental health system in this country is in complete disrepair. We take people who are a danger to themselves and others....then send them home with a cocktail of drugs to maintain their sanity? Why?

USN_Hokie wrote:I'm not up to date on VA laws. My understanding is that in many states, a police officer can refer someone for mental evaluation. Let's say it is hard - why not fix that instead of making more laws? A GVRO is still made on the basis of mental health, is it not? So, why should HIPAA not still be in play?

At what point do we say "yeah that person can't be trusted to not go on a murdering spree, but let's leave him on the street?"

I think the mental health system in this country is in complete disrepair. We take people who are a danger to themselves and others....then send them home with a cocktail of drugs to maintain their sanity? Why?

The ACLU has made it almost impossible to even touch mental issues...unless a person has shot up a house or something first.

Yes the police "can" refer a person but the police, because of these rulings from the courts, are extremely hesitant to get involved. The "old" days of the cops picking up a person of being "nuts" and taking them to a mental health facility ended in 1999. The specter of a civil rights civil suit against the department is daunting.

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:I'm not up to date on VA laws. My understanding is that in many states, a police officer can refer someone for mental evaluation. Let's say it is hard - why not fix that instead of making more laws? A GVRO is still made on the basis of mental health, is it not? So, why should HIPAA not still be in play?

At what point do we say "yeah that person can't be trusted to not go on a murdering spree, but let's leave him on the street?"

I think the mental health system in this country is in complete disrepair. We take people who are a danger to themselves and others....then send them home with a cocktail of drugs to maintain their sanity? Why?

The ACLU has made it almost impossible to even touch mental issues...unless a person has shot up a house or something first.

Yes the police "can" refer a person but the police, because of these rulings from the courts, are extremely hesitant to get involved. The "old" days of the cops picking up a person of being "nuts" and taking them to a mental health facility ended in 1999. The specter of a civil rights civil suit against the department is daunting.

I agree that the ACLU has been a problem here and one of my arguments has always been that HIPAA needs reform. GVRO's are still, at their core, a mental health issue - are they not?

It's a catch 22: either the basis for a GVRO is mental health, in which case all these issues you mention for involuntary commitment are still in play - or the basis for denying someone their civil rights is a determination of the mental facilities without any mental evaluation?

We're not talking about denying someone's rights based on a tweet or youtube comment, are we? I'm fine with that being the basis for an involuntary evaluation, but I'm not fine with someone losing their rights solely on that basis. It's a dangerous precedent.

USN_Hokie wrote:I agree that the ACLU has been a problem here and one of my arguments has always been that HIPAA needs reform. GVRO's are still, at their core, a mental health issue - are they not?

It's a catch 22: either the basis for a GVRO is mental health, in which case all these issues you mention for involuntary commitment are still in play - or the basis for denying someone their civil rights is a determination of the mental facilities without any mental evaluation?

We're not talking about denying someone's rights based on a tweet or youtube comment, are we? I'm fine with that being the basis for an involuntary evaluation, but I'm not fine with someone losing their rights solely on that basis. It's a dangerous precedent.

Not just the ACLU but in re to last years legislation the NRA also played a big role.

The NRA and the ACLU teamed up.

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:I agree that the ACLU has been a problem here and one of my arguments has always been that HIPAA needs reform. GVRO's are still, at their core, a mental health issue - are they not?

It's a catch 22: either the basis for a GVRO is mental health, in which case all these issues you mention for involuntary commitment are still in play - or the basis for denying someone their civil rights is a determination of the mental facilities without any mental evaluation?

We're not talking about denying someone's rights based on a tweet or youtube comment, are we? I'm fine with that being the basis for an involuntary evaluation, but I'm not fine with someone losing their rights solely on that basis. It's a dangerous precedent.

Not just the ACLU but in re to last years legislation the NRA also played a big role.

The NRA and the ACLU teamed up.

First I've heard of that. Any more details?

USN_Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:I agree that the ACLU has been a problem here and one of my arguments has always been that HIPAA needs reform. GVRO's are still, at their core, a mental health issue - are they not?

It's a catch 22: either the basis for a GVRO is mental health, in which case all these issues you mention for involuntary commitment are still in play - or the basis for denying someone their civil rights is a determination of the mental facilities without any mental evaluation?

We're not talking about denying someone's rights based on a tweet or youtube comment, are we? I'm fine with that being the basis for an involuntary evaluation, but I'm not fine with someone losing their rights solely on that basis. It's a dangerous precedent.

Not just the ACLU but in re to last years legislation the NRA also played a big role.

The NRA and the ACLU teamed up.

First I've heard of that. Any more details?

First you’ve heard of this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USN_Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:I'm not up to date on VA laws. My understanding is that in many states, a police officer can refer someone for mental evaluation. Let's say it is hard - why not fix that instead of making more laws? A GVRO is still made on the basis of mental health, is it not? So, why should HIPAA not still be in play?

At what point do we say "yeah that person can't be trusted to not go on a murdering spree, but let's leave him on the street?"

I think the mental health system in this country is in complete disrepair. We take people who are a danger to themselves and others....then send them home with a cocktail of drugs to maintain their sanity? Why?

The ACLU has made it almost impossible to even touch mental issues...unless a person has shot up a house or something first.

Yes the police "can" refer a person but the police, because of these rulings from the courts, are extremely hesitant to get involved. The "old" days of the cops picking up a person of being "nuts" and taking them to a mental health facility ended in 1999. The specter of a civil rights civil suit against the department is daunting.

I agree that the ACLU has been a problem here and one of my arguments has always been that HIPAA needs reform. GVRO's are still, at their core, a mental health issue - are they not?

It's a catch 22: either the basis for a GVRO is mental health, in which case all these issues you mention for involuntary commitment are still in play - or the basis for denying someone their civil rights is a determination of the mental facilities without any mental evaluation?

We're not talking about denying someone's rights based on a tweet or youtube comment, are we? I'm fine with that being the basis for an involuntary evaluation, but I'm not fine with someone losing their rights solely on that basis. It's a dangerous precedent.

I agree re HIPAA reform. Single payer will take care of a lot of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:I agree that the ACLU has been a problem here and one of my arguments has always been that HIPAA needs reform. GVRO's are still, at their core, a mental health issue - are they not?

It's a catch 22: either the basis for a GVRO is mental health, in which case all these issues you mention for involuntary commitment are still in play - or the basis for denying someone their civil rights is a determination of the mental facilities without any mental evaluation?

We're not talking about denying someone's rights based on a tweet or youtube comment, are we? I'm fine with that being the basis for an involuntary evaluation, but I'm not fine with someone losing their rights solely on that basis. It's a dangerous precedent.

Not just the ACLU but in re to last years legislation the NRA also played a big role.

The NRA and the ACLU teamed up.

While true, their reasoning seemed sound to me. Saying that someone with a mental illness, who needs to have someone manage their benefits, should not be able to have a gun, is a bit of a broad brush. Also doesn’t seem like proper due process.
Now, maybe as a red flag that triggers further review, it makes sense. But it seemed like a blind set of facts that may or not have any meaning.

HokieFanDC wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:I agree that the ACLU has been a problem here and one of my arguments has always been that HIPAA needs reform. GVRO's are still, at their core, a mental health issue - are they not?

It's a catch 22: either the basis for a GVRO is mental health, in which case all these issues you mention for involuntary commitment are still in play - or the basis for denying someone their civil rights is a determination of the mental facilities without any mental evaluation?

We're not talking about denying someone's rights based on a tweet or youtube comment, are we? I'm fine with that being the basis for an involuntary evaluation, but I'm not fine with someone losing their rights solely on that basis. It's a dangerous precedent.

Not just the ACLU but in re to last years legislation the NRA also played a big role.

The NRA and the ACLU teamed up.

While true, their reasoning seemed sound to me. Saying that someone with a mental illness, who needs to have someone manage their benefits, should not be able to have a gun, is a bit of a broad brush. Also doesn’t seem like proper due process.
Now, maybe as a red flag that triggers further review, it makes sense. But it seemed like a blind set of facts that may or not have any meaning.

Oh, that's what Kong was talking about? If so, I think that's another argument and I agree there from a due process perspective.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieJoe wrote:I see a big issue with soon to be ex-spouses, or ex-spouses. Protective orders are handed out like candy during divorce and custody proceedings. Many times, they're not valid, because they're obtainment is intended as a legal maneuver or taken out of of pure spite.

Sure.

Again, though - can anyone tell me that Cho, Lanza, the jackass in Florida, etc. should not have been committed?

Would a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" have stopped Lanza? The answer is NO.

It also begins a slippery slope towards gun registration seeing as how a private transferee wouldn't know about a "GVRO." Obviously, the next step would be to ban private transfers, which would require registration in order to determine if a gun had been illegally transferred.

In short, there's already a system in place and it would work better - people just need to use it! If someone is so dangerous, they should be involuntarily committed for evaluation to determine if they're a danger to themselves or others. Don't move that determination to an angry spouse or a political system which wants any reason to disarm the public.

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.

HokieJoe wrote:I see a big issue with soon to be ex-spouses, or ex-spouses. Protective orders are handed out like candy during divorce and custody proceedings. Many times, they're not valid, because they're obtainment is intended as a legal maneuver or taken out of of pure spite.

The GVRO requires tangible, provable evidence. Not supposition or belief or feelings.

USN_Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Again - if someone is really that dangerous, why aren't they committed for evaluation? The involuntary commitment - even if only held for a day - bars them from ownership until a judge adjudicates otherwise.

Here in Virginia involuntary commitment is extremely hard to do if a person is an adult. If the person refuses to be committed then there isn't much anybody can do.

HIPAA laws and legislation protecting the rights of people with mental issues (even those who pose a danger) have made even judges very leery of issuing orders.

I'm not up to date on VA laws. My understanding is that in many states, a police officer can refer someone for mental evaluation. Let's say it is hard - why not fix that instead of making more laws? A GVRO is still made on the basis of mental health, is it not? So, why should HIPAA not still be in play?

At what point do we say "yeah that person can't be trusted to not go on a murdering spree, but let's leave him on the street?"

I think the mental health system in this country is in complete disrepair. We take people who are a danger to themselves and others....then send them home with a cocktail of drugs to maintain their sanity? Why?

No, a GVRO is not necessarily made on the basis of mental health. It is based on the provable evidence of threat and danger.

133743Hokie wrote:No, a GVRO is not necessarily made on the basis of mental health. It is based on the provable evidence of threat and danger.

I know...my comments were directed at USN and committing someone.

133743Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: Sure.

Again, though - can anyone tell me that Cho, Lanza, the jackass in Florida, etc. should not have been committed?

Would a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" have stopped Lanza? The answer is NO.

It also begins a slippery slope towards gun registration seeing as how a private transferee wouldn't know about a "GVRO." Obviously, the next step would be to ban private transfers, which would require registration in order to determine if a gun had been illegally transferred.

In short, there's already a system in place and it would work better - people just need to use it! If someone is so dangerous, they should be involuntarily committed for evaluation to determine if they're a danger to themselves or others. Don't move that determination to an angry spouse or a political system which wants any reason to disarm the public.

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.

If you want to argue that people in a mental state where committing mass murder of defenseless kids shouldn't be removed from society for treatment, that's an argument I'd welcome. I sure as hell wouldn't want to defend that.

Ironically, you chastise me for supporting court-ordered mental evaluations for crazy folks while you endorse removing someone's civil rights based on a "threat" (danger is implied if they own guns). I'm pretty sure that I stand on higher ground from a personal freedom perspective.