It’s something current federal law does and has done for decades. A person who is involuntarily committed to undergo inpatient treatment at a mental health facility by a court of law is classified as a “prohibited person” and cannot own or have access to firearms.
The catch is that a person cannot be deprived of any right without due process - typically a literal day in court. Therefore an individual with mental health problems that have not caused enough trouble to land them in front of a judge can’t be declared a prohibited person.
Due process does not always require a hearing before court action. There are emergency injunctions, ex parte protective orders, temporary restraining orders, certain classes of summary process. When a guy owns assault weapons and is hearing voices, due process can wait a couple weeks.
It’s also the type of legislation thats been applied and immediately abused. So the reason most states don’t have it is that the gov can’t be trusted to have discretion of basic human rights.
Nope, get fucked. You don’t get to insist that actual people get murdered month after month just because you’re capable of imagining legislation being misused.
Even disregarding how deeply fucked in the head it is to be more upset at the idea of a gun owner losing their guns than innocent people losing their lives, you could address that misuse through voting, protest or incremental reforms.
A gun owner losing access to their guns is not a tragedy even remotely comparable to a room full of children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner and “being able to murder anyone at any time with minimal effort” is not a “basic human right”.
Which is something gun control typically aims at
It’s something current federal law does and has done for decades. A person who is involuntarily committed to undergo inpatient treatment at a mental health facility by a court of law is classified as a “prohibited person” and cannot own or have access to firearms.
Source link: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition
The catch is that a person cannot be deprived of any right without due process - typically a literal day in court. Therefore an individual with mental health problems that have not caused enough trouble to land them in front of a judge can’t be declared a prohibited person.
Due process does not always require a hearing before court action. There are emergency injunctions, ex parte protective orders, temporary restraining orders, certain classes of summary process. When a guy owns assault weapons and is hearing voices, due process can wait a couple weeks.
I believe you missed my use of the word “typically”.
Sorry bud, best I can do is ban suppressors and shotgun pistol grips. At least they won’t be able to shoot you ergonomically.
It’s also the type of legislation thats been applied and immediately abused. So the reason most states don’t have it is that the gov can’t be trusted to have discretion of basic human rights.
Nope, get fucked. You don’t get to insist that actual people get murdered month after month just because you’re capable of imagining legislation being misused.
Even disregarding how deeply fucked in the head it is to be more upset at the idea of a gun owner losing their guns than innocent people losing their lives, you could address that misuse through voting, protest or incremental reforms.
A gun owner losing access to their guns is not a tragedy even remotely comparable to a room full of children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner and “being able to murder anyone at any time with minimal effort” is not a “basic human right”.