Upset over mentally ill people getting guns? Guess who you can thank for it.

[Little-Acorn]

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.

[Little-Acorn]

And now we've had another mass shooting by a mentally ill person in Santa Barbara.

And everybody is going through the same arguments, justifications, and outrage all over again, just like clockwork.

[gabosaurus]

Mentally ill people seeking guns will always be protected by mentally ill people defending their right to own guns.

[Jeff]

Mentally ill people seeking guns will always be protected by mentally ill people defending their right to own guns.

But what they wont have ( as long as we have the left running things ) is the law doing there job ( yes if they did there job then they may not be able to get the laws passed they want ) Gabby look it up ( its not hard ) this guy got this gun illegally, if the laws had been followed he never would of had a gun, and lets not forget about those that died by knife, I guess outlawing guns would make them alive :rolleyes: I know I will wait for Obama to address that last question than you ( and every other brain dead liberal ) will have a answer.

[Little-Acorn]

But what they wont have ( as long as we have the left running things ) is the law doing there job ( yes if they did there job then they may not be able to get the laws passed they want ) Gabby look it up ( its not hard ) this guy got this gun illegally, if the laws had been followed he never would of had a gun, and lets not forget about those that died by knife, I guess outlawing guns would make them alive :rolleyes: I know I will wait for Obama to address that last question than you ( and every other brain dead liberal ) will have a answer.

Please don't feed the trolls.

[gabosaurus]

But what they wont have ( as long as we have the left running things ) is the law doing there job ( yes if they did there job then they may not be able to get the laws passed they want ) Gabby look it up ( its not hard ) this guy got this gun illegally, if the laws had been followed he never would of had a gun, and lets not forget about those that died by knife, I guess outlawing guns would make them alive :rolleyes: I know I will wait for Obama to address that last question than you ( and every other brain dead liberal ) will have a answer.

The obvious answer to this is to change or amend the law.

[Drummond]

Mentally ill people seeking guns will always be protected by mentally ill people defending their right to own guns.

Correct me if I'm wrong .. but, doesn't the US Constitution itself defend the American right for citizens to own guns ?

Taking your statement literally, on face value .. I find I have a question to put.

It's this: are you trying to question the mental health of whoever it was who inserted that provision in the Constitution ?

[Jeff]

The obvious answer to this is to change or amend the law.

Why change a law that isn't being used now ? In fact I just come up on a article saying how the police where at this guys house just a couple of weeks ago and a Law called probably cause stopped them from finding his guns. Seems if they aren't going to follow one law why bother with the other? But seriously why change or amend a law they don't enforce ?

[Jeff]

OK seems the cops decided to follow a law called probably cause and not search the kids room, as for me I feel they had cause just by him putting threatening video's on You tube, Hell if a kid can get suspeneded at school for eating his pop tart into the shape of a gun they certainly ought to of searched this nuts room. But there ya go the law only follows the laws they want, maybe instead of changing laws ( as Gabby says ) maybe we need to get some cops that have a brain.




In the wake of yet another high-profile school shooting we are hearing the all too predictable calls for more laws, more restrictions.
The people who are raising the cry are afraid. They like to complain about how their plans for restrictions are just "common sense," but they're not. Laws restricting guns are the desperate gambit of frightened people.
We already have thousands of gun laws on the books across this country, from local to federal levels.
We also have laws regarding the police and how they may intervene in cases where they suspect a crime may be committed.
In fact, some of those laws brought police to the door of Elliot Rodger several weeks before he launched his attack. He had posted some of his threatening videos on YouTube and been reported, apparently, to local mental health officials who contacted the police. It's unknown who ratted him out, but Rodger himself and various news reports suggest it may have been his mother.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/05/police-chance-stop-santa-barbara-killer-missed/#LhXBh3EoBWMvOdbv.99




http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/05/police-chance-stop-santa-barbara-killer-missed/

[Little-Acorn]

Correct me if I'm wrong .. but, doesn't the US Constitution itself defend the American right for citizens to own guns ?

Taking your statement literally, on face value .. I find I have a question to put.

It's this: are you trying to question the mental health of whoever it was who inserted that provision in the Constitution ?

Please don't feed the trolls.

[Little-Acorn]

Why change a law that isn't being used now ? In fact I just come up on a article saying how the police where at this guys house just a couple of weeks ago and a Law called probably cause stopped them from finding his guns. Seems if they aren't going to follow one law why bother with the other? But seriously why change or amend a law they don't enforce ?

The liberals already changed the law. Now they would have to change it back. Will they?

They made it illegal to commit almost anybody to a mental institution without his consent. This Santa Barbara shooter would have been high on the list... but with the LPS Act and the subsequent Supreme Court case, people had no choice but to let the guy keep walking around free, until he announcd he WANTED to go into such an institution. Which he inconveniently declined to do.

You want to know why he was walking around loose after making his threats, and able to go around shooting anyone he pleased?

Call the ACLU. They made it possible.

[Jeff]

The liberals already changed the law. Now they would have to change it back. Will they?

They made it illegal to commit almost anybody to a mental institution without his consent. This Santa Barbara shooter would have been high on the list... but with the LPS Act and the subsequent Supreme Court case, people had no choice but to let the guy keep walking around free, until he announcd he WANTED to go into such an institution. Which he inconveniently declined to do.

You want to know why he was walking around loose after making his threats, and able to go around shooting anyone he pleased?

Call the ACLU. They made it possible.

I agree 100%

I read that this nut was under Doctors care for years so yes I am sure if they could he would of been hospitalized at one point if not maybe at the moment he should of been, but the fact that he had been treated medically for years means he could' t buy a gun legally so he either bought it through a private sale or it was given to him ( there was no record of him taking it without permission ) if he had bought it privately than who ever sold it needs to be held responsible. Along with gun ownership we have a great responsibility to make sure guns don't fall in the wrong hands.

[aboutime]

Would someone from the LEFT care to explain WHY... so little attention from Congress is paid on the LARGER numbers of Deaths inflicted EACH, and EVERY DAY In America from AUTOMOBILES, TRUCKS, and MOTORCYCLES?

Would someone from the LEFT, care to share the HUGE numbers...NOT MENTIONED about such deaths?

And, would you also like to expend as much energy as you use against GUNS, as you Obviously DO NOT against Motor driven vehicles???

When was the last time ANY member of Congress DECLARED "FORD or GM" Dangerous???

[Abbey Marie]

Would someone from the LEFT care to explain WHY... so little attention from Congress is paid on the LARGER numbers of Deaths inflicted EACH, and EVERY DAY In America from AUTOMOBILES, TRUCKS, and MOTORCYCLES?

Would someone from the LEFT, care to share the HUGE numbers...NOT MENTIONED about such deaths?

And, would you also like to expend as much energy as you use against GUNS, as you Obviously DO NOT against Motor driven vehicles???

When was the last time ANY member of Congress DECLARED "FORD or GM" Dangerous???

...or from abortions.

[Jeff]

...or from abortions.

Bingo , That is exactly what came to mind as I read AT's post

Yes the left is all up in arms, we must change the Constitution 3 people were murdered,( by guns that is, the other 3 that where killed by knives they will be quiet about, heck only the number of dead need be counted ) but yet how many thousands a year are murdered legally each year, if we want to change laws to protect people how about we start with the youngest.

[aboutime]

...or from abortions.


But, Abbey. We all know by now. Whenever we try to talk about abortion, in any form. We are instantly accused of all sorts of UN-Liberal, Un-progressive, Un-American, Intolerant kinds of things.

The left has the feeling only THEY are able to decide WHO, and WHAT everyone else...who is not as DUMB as they are...talks about.
Otherwise. We (the rest of us with brains), become Terrorists, Racists, Birthers, and Illegal aliens who WERE BORN HERE.

[gabosaurus]

When was the last time a nutcase ran into a school (or mall, or movie theater) and aborted 20 people? How often does someone drive into a school or mall and kill people? Same thing with knives, forks or toasters.

I personally believe that drunk drivers who kill people should be charged with capital murder. I doubt the alcohol lobby will allow that.

You have to look at the frequency of activity. Everything is a dodge by those who refuse to take responsibility for the actions of their peers.
Until it happens to you or your family, I am guessing the lot of you will still be in favor of anyone and everyone having access to guns. I talked to a woman once who was a hard core NRA supporter. Until someone broke into her husband's business and shot him in the head during a robbery.

[aboutime]

When was the last time a nutcase ran into a school (or mall, or movie theater) and aborted 20 people? How often does someone drive into a school or mall and kill people? Same thing with knives, forks or toasters.

I personally believe that drunk drivers who kill people should be charged with capital murder. I doubt the alcohol lobby will allow that.

You have to look at the frequency of activity. Everything is a dodge by those who refuse to take responsibility for the actions of their peers.
Until it happens to you or your family, I am guessing the lot of you will still be in favor of anyone and everyone having access to guns. I talked to a woman once who was a hard core NRA supporter. Until someone broke into her husband's business and shot him in the head during a robbery.



You asked? How bout this? Dr. Kermit Gosnell

[Jeff]

When was the last time a nutcase ran into a school (or mall, or movie theater) and aborted 20 people? How often does someone drive into a school or mall and kill people? Same thing with knives, forks or toasters.

I personally believe that drunk drivers who kill people should be charged with capital murder. I doubt the alcohol lobby will allow that.

You have to look at the frequency of activity. Everything is a dodge by those who refuse to take responsibility for the actions of their peers.
Until it happens to you or your family, I am guessing the lot of you will still be in favor of anyone and everyone having access to guns. I talked to a woman once who was a hard core NRA supporter. Until someone broke into her husband's business and shot him in the head during a robbery.

Gabby I understand what you are saying but with this logic abortion is the one crime that does happen everyday like clock work, Everyday the clinics open and kill .

I also agree whether the weapon of choice is guns, knives, or forks it is murder, but ya might want to clue your side into this fact because all I hear is how we need to outlaw guns, and we all know if ya take away the guns from the law abiding citizen than only the criminals will have them ( wow that makes me feel so safe ) but lets look at it your way, if they outlaw guns and Everyone hands them in there will just be another weapon to commit murders with.

As for the frequency, like I said murders take place everyday in the abortion clinics we don't see people rushing into malls and such everyday.

As for it not mattering to ya until it hits home, this is what conservatives have been saying forever, liberals want the government to take care of them and all is fine until the day someone kills ( rapes, beats ect... ) a loved one, then they will be wishing they had a way to protect themselves.

AS for your NRA supporter maybe if her husband had been carrying he would of been able to protect himself and would be here today, and maybe not but at least if he was carrying he had a chance, without carrying you are a sitting duck and our laws prove that, most of the tragedies that have taken place as of late have been in Gun Free Zones. That isn't coincidence, when a criminal ( or any human being ) uses their head they will always go to were it will be the easiest .

Gabby the difference between liberals and conservatives is we don't need the Government ( or anyone else ) to baby sit us, and given the fact that the Government is currently being run by criminals that is all the more reason not to give up our rights as Americans.

[Little-Acorn]

Gabby I understand what you are saying but with this logic abortion is the one crime that does happen everyday like clock work, Everyday the clinics open and kill .


You expected logic from little gabby?

Please don't feed the trolls.

[gabosaurus]

No one wants to outlaw guns. Certainly not me. My sister and I own guns and we know how to use them.
I just wonder why gun owners are upset about gun registration. You register your vehicles. Some register their pets and mechanical appliances.
Same with screening. A 24- or 48-hour waiting period would eliminate a lot of crimes of passion.
Lastly, I don't see why anyone needs more than a hang gun or a hunting rifle. Yes, I know criminals will still have them. But because they will still have them, they will be easily identifiable as criminals.
The constitution says you can own guns. Nothing more.

[Jeff]

No one wants to outlaw guns. Certainly not me. My sister and I own guns and we know how to use them.
I just wonder why gun owners are upset about gun registration. You register your vehicles. Some register their pets and mechanical appliances.
Same with screening. A 24- or 48-hour waiting period would eliminate a lot of crimes of passion.
Lastly, I don't see why anyone needs more than a hang gun or a hunting rifle. Yes, I know criminals will still have them. But because they will still have them, they will be easily identifiable as criminals.
The constitution says you can own guns. Nothing more.

Fair enough Gabby my mistake , I ASSumed you where following suite with your party, take a look at the Bill's some on your side have tried to pass, as for registration that is just a slow way to outlawing guns, once the Government knows who has what then they come after them, you only have to look at Connecticut to see that, registration is not what this country is all about, and History shows us that.

As for not needing more than a Hand Gun or a hunting rifle please explain to me what the difference between a semi auto 223 and a Bolt action 30-06 are ?

So you are one of those that if you have a collapsible stock on your 223 hunting rifle then it really isn't a hunting rifle :laugh: or if the gun is painted black it is a machine gun .


News flash, I have shot a 223 ( many will hunt with, it is usually called a kids rifle or a woman's ) it will do the job but I personally like the knock down power of the 30-06 ( at least here in the south it is a better choice ) so tell me the difference and then you may understand why the argument you throw forward is so silly.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Correct me if I'm wrong .. but, doesn't the US Constitution itself defend the American right for citizens to own guns ?

Taking your statement literally, on face value .. I find I have a question to put.

It's this: are you trying to question the mental health of whoever it was who inserted that provision in the Constitution ?
As a liberal she has to question the validity and correctness of the Constitution. It is a holy requirement my friend! The liberal faith commands it because that damn Constitution condemns about 85% of
all they believe in and proudly stand for!!!
Only citizen group to fear in this nation more than liberals is the American Muslims!!! Both are hell-bent on destroying us and being dictators here ruling with an Iron fist and quick death for all not gladly and eagerly becoming slaves!!
I have no doubt that should I live another twenty years they will have fought me and almost certainly ended my life..
Not because I wish it but rather because they will attempt to murder all that opposes them in the future. Just as soon as they feel they have enough power to win!!! -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

As a liberal she has to question the validity and correctness of the Constitution. It is a holy requirement my friend! The liberal faith commands it because that damn Constitution condemns about 85% of
all they believe in and proudly stand for!!!
Only citizen group to fear in this nation more than liberals is the American Muslims!!! Both are hell-bent on destroying us and being dictators here ruling with an Iron fist and quick death for all not gladly and eagerly becoming slaves!!
I have no doubt that should I live another twenty years they will have fought me and almost certainly ended my life..
Not because I wish it but rather because they will attempt to murder all that opposes them in the future. Just as soon as they feel they have enough power to win!!! -Tyr

Nice rant, tyr, but it does nothing to answer any of my questions.
As I said before, the Constitution says you can own guns. It does not say they can't be licensed, registered or otherwise regulated.
You can prattle on about Muslims and liberals all you want. Some of us liberals are proud gun owners. We will be glad to shoot you if we find you in our house. Your Constitutionally protected gun collection will be passed on to your heirs. :cool:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nice rant, tyr, but it does nothing to answer any of my questions.
As I said before, the Constitution says you can own guns. It does not say they can't be licensed, registered or otherwise regulated.
You can prattle on about Muslims and liberals all you want. Some of us liberals are proud gun owners. We will be glad to shoot you if we find you in our house. Your Constitutionally protected gun collection will be passed on to your heirs. :cool:



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of the words-- "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

You said--
It does not say they can't be licensed, registered or otherwise regulated.


Every one of those is an infringement !!!!!!

It does not state--"except they may force by law licensing, registration and other regulations"!!

The Supreme Court keep ruling against the stand you just took and the justification you just cited!

My rant was dead on. You stand on the wrong side of this issue.
I didn't call for your head but your "in the house" remark is a two-way street my friend. ;)-Tyr

First the Feds shut down all the state militias now they go after the second part!!!

[Jeff]

Nice rant, tyr, but it does nothing to answer any of my questions.
As I said before, the Constitution says you can own guns. It does not say they can't be licensed, registered or otherwise regulated.
You can prattle on about Muslims and liberals all you want. Some of us liberals are proud gun owners. We will be glad to shoot you if we find you in our house. Your Constitutionally protected gun collection will be passed on to your heirs. :cool:

One that asks for questions answered ought to answer questions asked of herself, of course that is unless you have no idea what you are talking about :eek:

As for some liberals :laugh: and gladly shooting :laugh::laugh: yea OK !!!!

[jimnyc]

As I said before, the Constitution says you can own guns. It does not say they can't be licensed, registered or otherwise regulated.


What part of the words-- "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Liberals spend as much time as possible trying to rewrite the 2nd or to reinterpret it. Now wait, you'll soon be hearing about a new definition of infringed!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Liberals spend as much time as possible trying to rewrite the 2nd or to reinterpret it. Now wait, you'll soon be hearing about a new definition of infringed!!

I know. They are already rewriting history and now rushing to rewrite the dictionary to fit their insanity in and try to make it believable to even smart people, to even decent people!!! Problem is it seems to be working because the opposition to it all has basically been silenced out of fear!
Fear of reprisals they deliver in many, many ways.
FEAR DESTROYS WILL AND LACK OF WILL LEADS TO DEFEAT!!-Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Liberals spend as much time as possible trying to rewrite the 2nd or to reinterpret it. Now wait, you'll soon be hearing about a new definition of infringed!!

Providing an ID is considered an infringement of the right to vote, but all kinds of restrictions are ok to owning a gun. Funny how that works.

[NightTrain]

Providing an ID is considered an infringement of the right to vote, but all kinds of restrictions are ok to owning a gun. Funny how that works.


Right - except it doesn't say "The right of the people to vote shall not be infringed", if it did then I would say that it is illegal to require I.D. to cast your ballot.

Mandatory registering of guns is an infringement; therefore it's unconstitutional. Liberals will say it's nothing to worry about, but then you'll get things like cops showing up at your door to confiscate your registered guns when they pass a law outlawing them.

This exact scenario played itself out this year in Connecticut and New York :

"For those who believe that confiscation of their registered property is the next and final step, free Americans can look to Australia and Great Britain where virtually all of those nations’ duly licensed gun owners were disarmed of registered firearms to pay the price for the acts of lone madmen. Registration led to confiscation. Period. It always will.

But Americans don’t have to look far to see tyranny.While honest Connecticut citizens stood in long registration lines, licensed owners of registered long guns in New York City were receiving letters that began:
“It appears you are in possession of a Rifle and/or shotgun
[listed below] that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than [five] rounds of ammunition. Rifles and Shotguns capable of holding more than five [5] rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess. …
“Immediately surrender your rifle and/or shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. …”
In addition to forfeiting their property to police for destruction, licensed New York City gun owners were offered two other choices: permanently remove their guns to a location outside the city with proof or have their guns permanently altered by a city-approved gunsmith.
None of these registered firearms—all previously acceptable to New York City as “sporting,” including many .22s—nor their licensed owners ever had anything to do with violent crime.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/30/nra-president-james-porter-registered-firearms-today-confiscated-firearms-tomorrow/#ixzz33JLpuAUt

[aboutime]

Providing an ID is considered an infringement of the right to vote, but all kinds of restrictions are ok to owning a gun. Funny how that works.


Abbey. I know this will sound nuts but...How bout requiring Voters to carry an ID with their gun to the polls?

Two birds with one stone? Or too much Democrat Hypocrisy???

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey. I know this will sound nuts but...How bout requiring Voters to carry an ID with their gun to the polls?

Two birds with one stone? Or too much Democrat Hypocrisy???

Lol. Hey, the black panthers already pretty much do this, and there are no repercussions.

[Jeff]

Right - except it doesn't say "The right of the people to vote shall not be infringed", if it did then I would say that it is illegal to require I.D. to cast your ballot.

Mandatory registering of guns is an infringement; therefore it's unconstitutional. Liberals will say it's nothing to worry about, but then you'll get things like cops showing up at your door to confiscate your registered guns when they pass a law outlawing them.

This exact scenario played itself out this year in Connecticut and New York :

"For those who believe that confiscation of their registered property is the next and final step, free Americans can look to Australia and Great Britain where virtually all of those nations’ duly licensed gun owners were disarmed of registered firearms to pay the price for the acts of lone madmen. Registration led to confiscation. Period. It always will.

But Americans don’t have to look far to see tyranny.While honest Connecticut citizens stood in long registration lines, licensed owners of registered long guns in New York City were receiving letters that began:
“It appears you are in possession of a Rifle and/or shotgun
[listed below] that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than [five] rounds of ammunition. Rifles and Shotguns capable of holding more than five [5] rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess. …
“Immediately surrender your rifle and/or shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. …”
In addition to forfeiting their property to police for destruction, licensed New York City gun owners were offered two other choices: permanently remove their guns to a location outside the city with proof or have their guns permanently altered by a city-approved gunsmith.
None of these registered firearms—all previously acceptable to New York City as “sporting,” including many .22s—nor their licensed owners ever had anything to do with violent crime.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/30/nra-president-james-porter-registered-firearms-today-confiscated-firearms-tomorrow/#ixzz33JLpuAUt

NT I brought up Connecticut early on here, Gabby doesn't want to know the truth she just wants to spread her special kind of hatred :beer: