Be respectful of others' views and choices.
 #93728  by Cbmarine
 
stephpd wrote:Several problems with this law.

First what is a 'mental health professional'? What are their credentials?
From HB 88: "As used in this section, the term “mental health professional” means any duly licensed professional qualified to render a psychiatric diagnosis including a duly licensed psychiatrist as defined in Section 5001(8) of Title 16, a licensed clinical social worker as defined in Chapter 39 of Title 24, an advanced practice nurse as defined in Section 1902(b) of Title 24 specializing as a psychiatric nurse, a licensed psychologist as defined in Chapter 35 of Title 24, or a credentialed mental health screener as defined in Chapter 5122 of Title 16."
Are they going to be present at the 'hearing'?
Can they be held accountable, or sued, in a civil court?
Interesting questions. Added to the list
That's what's the difference between these type laws and adjudication....
Don't understand your assertion. The described process appears to meet the definition of adjudication.
It also strips everyone in the house from owning any guns, ...
Very interesting point. Also added.
 #93729  by Kuntryboy816
 
Cbmarine wrote:
stephpd wrote:
It also strips everyone in the house from owning any guns, ...
Very interesting point. Also added.
Ha! Why would they stop with the immediate family?!? Why not prohibit the neighbors... the friends... the extended family... the gun shop down the street...??? At some point, in some way the respondent can get access to those firearms. Why don't we ban them from all LEO assistance? I mean, we don't want the possibility of this person getting access to ANY firearms, right? Where does the slope stop slipping?
 #93733  by bmel17
 
As Stephpd stated earlier, what in the current laws is lacking? I see no reason for a new law that will likely be ignored and used as a point in saying, "we made all these new laws and crazy people are still getting guns!" Now lets ban more guns and get plenty of restrictions out there.

And as for preventing a disaster so that other laws get rammed into our gullet by the powers that be, what about the crazy person that never sought help? What about the guy that wasn't reported to a so called "authority"? Apparently, shit happens and we can expect a tragedy of some sort in our future. It is inevitable. Something bad will happen someday. It's called life. Our reactions to a bad situation, especially when they are knee jerk ones prove to hurt us with feel good laws. HB 88 looks one of them to me.

I am against it.
 #93735  by Mr.Skellington
 
Against it.

I've said it before and its time to revisit it, do not trust someone who's livelihood is placed in between you and your rights. If healthcare workers are required to report any slight chance of harm to self or others then you best believe with a new law like HB88 your 2A rights will go down the tubes before their means of income for not reporting you will. Do not go into this lightly. Healthcare is very "CYA" so even if a Dr thinks your not really a harm to others he may still have to admit the possibility if other healthcare workers have made a pile of damning documentation.

Healthcare workers covers a broad swath of ground too. Would you like a social worker or someone who only completed a votech certificate program with the ability to cast doubt on you? Ok so only Dr's then? How much face time is needed with the actual Dr? Hopefully more than my dentist who pops in and gives the thumbs up to whatever the hygienist says.
 #93736  by stephpd
 
Cbmarine wrote:
stephpd wrote:That's what's the difference between these type laws and adjudication....
Don't understand your assertion. The described process appears to meet the definition of adjudication.



It can't be adjudication because we already have that process. This goes much further in infringing on our rights. It expands who can report you. It also removes them from any culpability if sued for making a false report. And originally the bill had no process where the victim could even be present at the hearing, thus removing due process or the right to face your accuser. Originally the bill was a closed hearing where 'evidence' was one sided and presented to the courts. Thus no due process (since you were never informed of the hearing) until after your firearms were seized and you had one chance in superior court to try and get your rights restored.

Make no mistake. This is not adjudication.

And to believe that the amendments proposed would be included in the next bill isn't how government works. This is a push by the gun grabbers to bypass the adjudication process and make it easier to take folks guns. It has nothing to do with preventing any crime, much like all the other laws they propose. That's why I say to look at countries like Australia and England. They've already instituted these type of laws and violent crime has gone up. Where in this country violent crime rates have been dropping over the last two decades,even as more folks acquire firearms.

The whole idea that we need to compromise our rights away is flawed. In each and every instance where we've allowed compromises it's done nothing to prevent violent crime. Matter of fact the people that study these things say the exact opposite. Read John Lott's 'More guns, less crimes.' There are numerous people that started out as supporting gun control but changed their stance when they independently studied the facts. Yet no instance of any statistician changing from pro gun to pro gun control. Even the latest reports from the CDC and Congress come to these same conclusions.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
 #93737  by Owen
 
Cbmarine wrote:But we need something in place to catch the Aaron Alexis types before they do something like the Navy Yard or Sandy Hook here in Delaware. If that type of tragedy occurs here, I predict that we will get HBs 88, 58 and 67 plus SBs 23 and 37 rammed down out throats without recourse.
All we need to make them safe is to get rid of "Gun Free (Crime) Zones". The kid in CO recently was not stopped by a law on the books but rather buy a good guy with a gun. All we need is more good guys with guns not more laws.
 #93738  by stephpd
 
Owen wrote:
Cbmarine wrote:But we need something in place to catch the Aaron Alexis types before they do something like the Navy Yard or Sandy Hook here in Delaware. If that type of tragedy occurs here, I predict that we will get HBs 88, 58 and 67 plus SBs 23 and 37 rammed down out throats without recourse.
All we need to make them safe is to get rid of "Gun Free (Crime) Zones". The kid in CO recently was not stopped by a law on the books but rather buy a good guy with a gun. All we need is more good guys with guns not more laws.
I can't even figure out how these type of laws are supposed to stop someone. It's like lets make murder illegal and it will never happen. :roll:

There are no laws that prevent any crimes. The people intent on these, and especially mass shooter, killed by cop, folks plan on dying anyway.

Besides which there were already laws in place that could have been used in both those cases that weren't used. More laws aren't about that, since the older laws weren't used either. But it does make us all less free. and provides no added safety. They are just more 'feel good' laws that take away from our rights.

Like the magazine bans. Cops being exempt, and realistically so are the criminals. That means it only applies to the laws abiding that's carrying a gun for self protection. Limit the amount of ammo they can carry in a gun while the criminal is not even considering these laws and carrying the maximum amount. Thus we're stuck with trying to reload under a stressful situation all while the criminals are blasting away at us.

As Ben Franklin so eloquently wrote;
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

As equally important was the idea of Blackstone when he wrote; "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."

The principle is much older than Blackstone's formulation, being closely tied to the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. An early example of the principle appears in the Bible (Genesis 18:23-32),[1][2] as:


Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?[3] ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."[4]


These are the basis on which our country was founded. Not some socialistic ideals of the collective and that we should restrain all free men in the hopes of catching a criminal.

So why should we be so willing to give the socialist more of what they want? What do we gain? Or what has been gained as we've given them what they wanted before. All those bils are just a shadow of what they truly want. And that is all guns banned from personal possession. It's been the underlying mantra of the gun control people for longer then we've been alive.

Back in the 70's one group was called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. They've since expanded to include all firearms and call themselves the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. But like all the gun control groups it's not about preventing crime but control over people.

Much of it a distraction as they try and maintain some form of political correctness in their names. They'll change the names as time goes on to make it 'sound' more reasonable. Currently they're pushing the gun violence theme and I've also heard them talking about gun safety, as if they've ever been involved with that. Remember these people count legit police and other civilian self defense shootings as just more 'gun violence'. So much so they included the Boston Marathon bomber on their list of victims of gun violence.
 #93750  by mdak06
 
Given that Delaware currently does not have mandatory gun registration, how do they plan to determine whether or not a Delaware resident owns a firearm? Are they simply going to ask a person whether or not they have firearms, and if they say "no" then assume that they are telling the truth? Are they going to get a search warrant to search one's entire property for firearms in an attempt to find whatever they might have? Are they planning on creating a gun registry, using this law as an excuse to do so?

I find it very difficult to support any law that removes a person's right to self-defense via firearm before he has been convicted of a violent crime. "Pre-crime" legislation tends to be horrible law and sets an awful precedent.

Also, as stephpd mentioned, the loss of doctor/patient confidentiality is a serious issue of concern. In part because of that, this law creates the possibility that those who need mental health treatment will avoid it for fear of losing their firearms.