Oregon proposes "mental health emergency" hold on gun purchases

"I'm pro, but" --weren't you complaining about how no one will stand up for gun rights in WA the other day?

Seriously; ponder your position some more. You tossed out Autustic, which is a continuum from locked-in nutbars to unnoticeable ticks that do not affect quality of life. You are tossing out exaggerated terms that have no practical use in bounding policy and most of which are completely unenforceable (yup, let's disarm all the alcoholics; you gonna use a booze registry?), and may not even be capable of meeting due process due to their subjectivity.

"I think even the framers of the constitution themselves would have agreed that not EVERYONE has the mental capacity to own firearms responsibly."
"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms" --Jefferson
If they are not slaves, committed, or incarcerated, what are they? This logic you hold will be abused and used to target political undesirables. It was during Jim Crow, it was during the Soviets' reign, and it is being used in Euro nations where one must 'prove' their sanity when seeking a gun permit, since that's the closest thing to an enforceable mechanism.

TCB

Tony k said:

Except that this bill would explicitly deny the person exhibiting erratic behavior from being notified that they are on a "mental health emergency" no buy list. Also, it doesn't specify "erratic or threatening behavior." It just says mental heath emergency, which is a very broad net. I could imagine all kinds of ways that phrase could be twisted to fit the accuser's intent--well intended or not.

Lack of due process is the heart of the issue to me.

Click to expand...

The person is notified of the hold if they try to purchase a firearm. If they don't, what's the pressing need to tell them, and if someone is having a mental health emergency, that news could make a bad situation worse. I think "notification of the hold upon attempt to purchase a firearm" is a fair balance of the competing factors.

The hold is temporary, and expires on its own within 30 days. And even within that 30 days, there is due process to remove the hold, either through medical evidence or through a proceeding in the circuit court.

(2) A person described in subsection (1) of this section may obtain
documentation from a health care provider that the person is not a
danger to self or others and provide the documentation to the De-
partment of State Police Firearms Unit. Upon receipt of the doc-
umentation, the department shall cause the firearm purchase hold to
be removed.

(3)(a) A person described in subsection (1) of this section may file
a petition for relief from the firearm purchase hold with the circuit
court in the person’s county of residence. A person petitioning for re-
lief under this subsection shall serve a copy of the petition on the
Department of State Police Firearms Unit at the same time the peti-
tion is filed with the court.
(b) Petitions filed under this subsection shall be heard within five
judicial days of filing. The judge shall then make findings and con-
clusions and issue a judgment based on the findings and conclusions
in accordance with the requirements of law.
(c) Relief from the firearm purchase hold shall be granted when the
person demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the per-
son does not pose a danger to self or others with a firearm.

Click to expand...

Are we just working ourselves into a frenzy again?

I get the slippery slope argument.... and I often agree that slopes can be slippery.


But, the most likely abusive scenario I see happening is this:

Crazy Ex calls police and says I'm a danger to myself and others with firearms. They ask questions... she makes something up that sounds alarming. She tells them where I live, work, etc etc.


Now lets think about this. What's the current policy when the get calls about dangerous people with guns? They check into reports of dangerous people with guns,,,, Right?


So, the Police come to my house/work and I confirm that I'm Mr Not Crazy Ex.

I ask why they're at my house (or work) ... they fib and tell me they got a call and thought they should do a well-fair check or maybe they just say they're checking with people to see if they saw anything odd in the neighborhood today or maybe point a random car and ask if its mine.

We have a normal conversation.

They see I'm not a danger to others.

They return to their duties and (should) look into Crazy Ex calling and reporting me.

The NRA-ILA has an article on there site about this: Anti-Gun Bill Rears its Ugly Head Before Oregon’s 2016 Legislative Session Conven

This bill is going to make for some interesting divorces, custody battles and probate disputes between "family" members in Oregon.

Do they really think that the mothers of the UCC or Sandy Hook murders would have thrown their kids names into the system? How about a bill making it easier for those in need to access mental health resources.

After the Val Hoyle debacle, no one wants to sign anymore...

They'll just ignore the signature gathering efforts. They won't even fully tabulate the responses gathered. This is a common theme around here, unfortunately. The system is quite rigged.

As far as letter writing goes, the folks voting for this aren't going to be swayed not to, and the folks voting against it aren't going to be swayed to vote for it.

I suspect rampant abuses of this system in short order.

I thought there was already a mechanism in place for contacting the authorities when someone is acting in a fashion that causes concern: call the police.

If a person is deemed too unstable to be allowed access to firearms, why are they allowed to run free, with unfettered access to knives, baseball bats, cans of gasoline, and automobiles?

I see this proposed legislation as simply a way that lawmakers can say, "see, we care - we're doing something."

As far as the politics of it goes, it's a win-win for legislators. Anybody who disagrees can be lumped into the group of "gun crazies", who "want to put guns in the hands of the mentally ill". It need not matter that it is putting the determination of someone's civil liberties (even temporarily) in the hands of another party who may or may not have any experience, education, or emotional stability to make that determination.

Remember, the person who accuses you is facing a several thousand dollar fine... if you can PROVE they were falsely reporting.

I could see where this could be seriously abused. Ever have a prescription for anything for an episode of depression after you were injured, lost your career, your marriage, and your dog got hit by a car? Take an SSRI to deal with overeating and quitting smoking? Well, now you've joined the ranks of the "mentally ill". Smoked some weed, and had it come up on a drug test fifteen years ago, and were sent to some treatment program by your employer, because their insurance carrier demands it? Doesn't matter that pot is now legal in your state - you've joined the ranks of "drug addicts".

How about this: we take people who really are a danger to themselves or others, and have them committed or treated, instead of just letting them run rampant?

For what it's worth, I'm sure some educators would probably have me stripped of my 2A rights for my sig line...

-Bill