US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Coito ergo sum]

If one starts with the proposition that people are basically good.

That's where you are going wrong.

Quite possibly. If we start with the opposite assumption, then a lot of what follows is not very nice. Nevertheless, I have found that a person's view of humanity in general is often a reflection of themselves.

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

A government agency or department is inefficient and incompetent, you say? How odd.

I've met at least a dozen people in real life and they were all awful, old chap.

I've met a few. That is why I stated my basic premise with the qualifying "by and large." I would love to be able to say that everyone is entirely "good" (whatever that means), but unfortunately this is not mathematical. Generally speaking, though, the folks I've run into in my life tend to be generally honest when it counts, reasonably kind, fairly charitable, and for the most part more interested in helping other people than the opposite.

Re govt agency incompetence - it's incompetence that kills.

It appears fairly certain that government is, generally speaking, incompetent at worst, inefficient at best. Rather than a necessary evil, I consider government a necessary inefficiency.

Anyway, aren't the mentally ill allowed to defend their homes?

The short answer to that question is, "yes."

[Clinton Huxley]

If one starts with the proposition that people are basically good.

That's where you are going wrong.

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

No, many states have simply refused to comply with the federal request to provide information on people who have been "adjudicated mentally defective" or "involuntarily committed" to a mental institution or is incompetent to handle their own affairs. In part this is due to the fact that many states simply do not keep records of such individuals at the state level, and the NICS (National Instant Check System) law does not require the states to do so (nor could it, due to separation of powers and state sovereignty issues), so such records are "incomplete" at the FBI.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. A bit of a problem here, perhaps?

[Seth]

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

I've said many times in the past that the best thing we could do in the US as far as gun control goes is to simply enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Actually, the best thing would be to get rid of most of the laws and have just a few uniform laws nationwide like "don't use your gun in a criminal manner" and "don't use your gun carelessly or recklessly, because if you do you will go to jail for a long time."

Oh, wait...that's already the case, and more. Firearms in the US are the most closely-regulated consumer product in the world already.

[Clinton Huxley]

To put it bluntly, how mental do you have to be before you are refused a gun?

[Coito ergo sum]

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

I've said many times in the past that the best thing we could do in the US as far as gun control goes is to simply enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Actually, the best thing would be to get rid of most of the laws and have just a few uniform laws nationwide like "don't use your gun in a criminal manner"

Unnecessary law, since doing anything in a criminal manner is criminal, unless you are calling for an enhanced punishment or separate punishable offense, say, for murder if committed with a gun. Murder is already wrong, and using a gun ought not be an element of the offense any more than using a knife or a Chuck Norris round-house kick.

and "don't use your gun carelessly or recklessly,

That too would seem to be subsumed within current crimes, like "criminally negligent homicide" or "manslaughter," where specific intent to kill is not an element of the crime.

because if you do you will go to jail for a long time."

Oh, wait...that's already the case, and more. Firearms in the US are the most closely-regulated consumer product in the world already.

That's highly debatable. I think prescription pharmaceuticals come to mind as a consumer product which is far more highly regulated than firearms. One needs a license to manufacture them, they require a prescription to take them, only a certain profession can issue those prescriptions and that profession has to be licensed, they can't be imported into the US for sale, manufacturers are subject to inspection, carrying a prescription pharmaceutical without the prescription on hand is illegal, and reams of pages of other regulations apply.

Firearm regulation in states ranges from just a few pages in the law codes, to a fair bit of regulation. Most state regulation deals with licensing and registration, and the restriction of certain types of weapons. But, they're really not all that complex or closely regulated, at least not compared to pharmaceuticals and the like.

[Seth]

To put it bluntly, how mental do you have to be before you are refused a gun?

You have to have been adjudicated to be mentally ill by a judge, or you have to have been adjudicated incompetent to handle your own affairs by a judge, or you have to have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. By the way, VOLUNTARY time spent in a mental institution or seeking psychiatric treatment (for things like depression or suicidal ideology or any treatment that's not involuntary) doesn't disqualify you. There are tens of thousands of police officers who have sought and received mental health counseling and who are using anti-psychotic and anti-depression drugs.

The general rule is that you have to, in court before a judge or to a licensed physician, be a danger to yourself or others, and you're entitled to both substantive and procedural due process in that determination. We don't deny people their fundamental civil rights merely because they might be odd or seem "crazy" to someone else. The bar is much higher than that.

[Clinton Huxley]

To put it bluntly, how mental do you have to be before you are refused a gun?

You have to have been adjudicated to be mentally ill by a judge, or you have to have been adjudicated incompetent to handle your own affairs by a judge, or you have to have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. By the way, VOLUNTARY time spent in a mental institution or seeking psychiatric treatment (for things like depression or suicidal ideology or any treatment that's not involuntary) doesn't disqualify you. There are tens of thousands of police officers who have sought and received mental health counseling and who are using anti-psychotic and anti-depression drugs.

The general rule is that you have to, in court before a judge or to a licensed physician, be a danger to yourself or others, and you're entitled to both substantive and procedural due process in that determination. We don't deny people their fundamental civil rights merely because they might be odd or seem "crazy" to someone else. The bar is much higher than that.

Interesting and potentially subjective. What happens if a gun-owner is declared incompetent? Are their weapons confiscated?

[Seth]

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

I've said many times in the past that the best thing we could do in the US as far as gun control goes is to simply enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Actually, the best thing would be to get rid of most of the laws and have just a few uniform laws nationwide like "don't use your gun in a criminal manner"

Unnecessary law, since doing anything in a criminal manner is criminal, unless you are calling for an enhanced punishment or separate punishable offense, say, for murder if committed with a gun. Murder is already wrong, and using a gun ought not be an element of the offense any more than using a knife or a Chuck Norris round-house kick.

Wow! Got the point in one post! Good for you. You see, CES is exactly right, no specific "gun laws" are actually required at all, because everything bad that one can do with a gun is already prohibited by other laws. And if you don't do anything wrong with your gun, why should there be a raft of laws controlling every little thing about them, from "drop tests" to magazine capacity to banning cosmetic items?

Law-abiding people should be allowed to carry whatever firearms they wish to carry, wherever they wish to carry them (with the consent of the owner if it's private property), in any peaceable manner, concealed or otherwise, and it should be totally unremarkable that they do so. Only if they MISUSE their firearms should they be subject to legal sanction.

and "don't use your gun carelessly or recklessly,

That too would seem to be subsumed within current crimes, like "criminally negligent homicide" or "manslaughter," where specific intent to kill is not an element of the crime.

because if you do you will go to jail for a long time."

Oh, wait...that's already the case, and more. Firearms in the US are the most closely-regulated consumer product in the world already.

That's highly debatable. I think prescription pharmaceuticals come to mind as a consumer product which is far more highly regulated than firearms. One needs a license to manufacture them,[/quote]

One needs a license (a number of them actually) to manufacture firearms, and unlike pills, every single firearm ever manufactured in the US must be serially numbered and the records kept FOREVER and given to the government on demand.

they require a prescription to take them,

No, they require a prescription to ACQUIRE them, as do firearms in many states.

only a certain profession can issue those prescriptions and that profession has to be licensed,

All commercial sales of firearms must be done by persons licensed to do so by the federal government. You cannot be in the business of even FIXING firearms without a license.

they can't be imported into the US for sale,

Foreign firearms that do not meet the "sporting purposes" test cannot be imported. Further, all imports of firearms or even firearms components are strictly regulated by the federal government with severe penalties for smuggling.

manufacturers are subject to inspection,

Firearms and ammunition manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are subject to unannounced inspections of their facilities and records by the BATFE. Persons owning Class III (NFA) firearms or destructive devices like machine guns, short rifles, short shotguns, explosives and other controlled devices are subject to inspection of their storage facilities and paperwork. The paperwork for such devices must always be with the device/weapon. Additionally, you must OBTAIN PERMISSION from the BATFE before moving an NFA item between states. To get this permission you must tell the BATFE exactly WHEN you will be moving the weapon across state lines, and exactly WHERE you will be going, and what ROUTE you will take (so that they can make sure you aren't transporting it through a state that bans such devices) and when you plan to RETURN to your home. (This requirement, by the way, is why I don't own any NFA firearms...too much paperwork and I don't like inviting the BATFE into my house whenever they decide to inspect my paperwork and gun safe.)

carrying a prescription pharmaceutical without the prescription on hand is illegal, and reams of pages of other regulations apply.

The same is true of firearms, and that's just the FEDERAL regulations.

Firearm regulation in states ranges from just a few pages in the law codes, to a fair bit of regulation. Most state regulation deals with licensing and registration, and the restriction of certain types of weapons. But, they're really not all that complex or closely regulated, at least not compared to pharmaceuticals and the like.

I disagree, though it might be a close call. Every aspect of firearms manufacture, sale, possession, carrying and use of firearms is strictly regulated, right down to when and where you are allowed to shoot it.

[Seth]

To put it bluntly, how mental do you have to be before you are refused a gun?

You have to have been adjudicated to be mentally ill by a judge, or you have to have been adjudicated incompetent to handle your own affairs by a judge, or you have to have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. By the way, VOLUNTARY time spent in a mental institution or seeking psychiatric treatment (for things like depression or suicidal ideology or any treatment that's not involuntary) doesn't disqualify you. There are tens of thousands of police officers who have sought and received mental health counseling and who are using anti-psychotic and anti-depression drugs.

The general rule is that you have to, in court before a judge or to a licensed physician, be a danger to yourself or others, and you're entitled to both substantive and procedural due process in that determination. We don't deny people their fundamental civil rights merely because they might be odd or seem "crazy" to someone else. The bar is much higher than that.

Interesting and potentially subjective. What happens if a gun-owner is declared incompetent? Are their weapons confiscated?

They can be, but not permanently. That would be a violation of the private property right. However, a judge may order a person to give up his weapons for any number of reasons, and the person must then dispose of them himself. If the person is an immediate danger to himself or others, police officers can seize and hold the firearms until the person obtains a court order to return them or give them to someone else. In the case of someone adjudicated mentally ill, the arms can be given to another family member or friend or the person's guardian, if there is one. But the government cannot simply confiscate and forfeit lawfully-owned firearms of a person who has become mentally disqualified.

However, a person who is disqualified under the law who KNOWINGLY possesses a firearm (or a single round of ammunition) not only can forfeit the weapon, but can go to jail for five years just for possessing it.

[mistermack]

I must admit I took a couple of my guns to the buyback program, a Ruger .22 semi and an old M1...

I had bought them second hand years earlier, but my failing eyesight meant it was time for them to go...

Made $50 bucks profit on the deal, too!

As I understand it, the buyback was mainly of semi-automatic weapons, or anyway concentrated on multi-shot weapons. And the motive was to reduce the chances of someone going mental and taking dozens or hundreds of lives very quickly.
That still leaves loads of guns out there.
Was there by any chance a huge spike in the numbers of defenceless unarmed citizens mowed down by armed criminals, as we are constantly told that there would be?

Look here. It seems that the buyback neither increased nor decreased homicide rates.

Nobody said it would. It was introduced after the Port Arthur massacre to make it harder for something similar to happen again. That's why the focus was on multi-shot weapons. Maybe it's had an effect on the rates of massacres, who can tell?

As there are still plenty of guns out there, and the people most likely to commit murder can still get illegal weapons, it's not surprising that the murder rate didn't alter.
Gun death would only be a small proportion of the overall number anyway, I would have thought.
There's a lot wrong with gun ownership, besides incidents that lead to a homicide conviction using a multiple shot weapon.

[Coito ergo sum]

To put it bluntly, how mental do you have to be before you are refused a gun?

You have to have been adjudicated to be mentally ill by a judge, or you have to have been adjudicated incompetent to handle your own affairs by a judge, or you have to have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. By the way, VOLUNTARY time spent in a mental institution or seeking psychiatric treatment (for things like depression or suicidal ideology or any treatment that's not involuntary) doesn't disqualify you. There are tens of thousands of police officers who have sought and received mental health counseling and who are using anti-psychotic and anti-depression drugs.

The general rule is that you have to, in court before a judge or to a licensed physician, be a danger to yourself or others, and you're entitled to both substantive and procedural due process in that determination. We don't deny people their fundamental civil rights merely because they might be odd or seem "crazy" to someone else. The bar is much higher than that.

Interesting and potentially subjective. What happens if a gun-owner is declared incompetent? Are their weapons confiscated?

I'm pretty sure that is what happens today. If they hang onto them, then they'd be in violation of the law.

[Clinton Huxley]

Hmmmm....so you could get a court case where a defendant has had their weapons confiscated for being a nut but has a tame doctor willing to say that they are sane?

[Coito ergo sum]

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

I've said many times in the past that the best thing we could do in the US as far as gun control goes is to simply enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Actually, the best thing would be to get rid of most of the laws and have just a few uniform laws nationwide like "don't use your gun in a criminal manner"

Unnecessary law, since doing anything in a criminal manner is criminal, unless you are calling for an enhanced punishment or separate punishable offense, say, for murder if committed with a gun. Murder is already wrong, and using a gun ought not be an element of the offense any more than using a knife or a Chuck Norris round-house kick.

Wow! Got the point in one post! Good for you. You see, CES is exactly right, no specific "gun laws" are actually required at all, because everything bad that one can do with a gun is already prohibited by other laws. And if you don't do anything wrong with your gun, why should there be a raft of laws controlling every little thing about them, from "drop tests" to magazine capacity to banning cosmetic items?

That is not exactly true, since there are some reasonable regulations that can apply directly to guns, such as "if you transport your weapon within city limits, you need to keep it in the trunk or a locked cabinet" or, manufacturing safety regulations, regulations concerning sales of weapons (such as business licenses to register gun merchants). Reasonable regulations could include regulation of the kind of ammunition - such as "no rocket propelled grenades," no "home use stinger missiles," and no poison tipped bullets, or whatnot. There could also be reasonable regulations such as "if you commit a felony using a gun, you can't own one anymore." There are lots of reasonable regulations that would allow a "well regulated militia" (all the people) to have a right to bear arms which is, well, "well regulated."

Law-abiding people should be allowed to carry whatever firearms they wish to carry,

Not poisoned tip weapons - not a 2000 to 6000 round per minute minigun - not an M-61 Vulcan - not stinger missiles or rocket propelled grenades. Not in my opinion, anyway.

wherever they wish to carry them (with the consent of the owner if it's private property),

Not courthouses or high schools, for example, and particularly not the arms I listed above, and others like them, in courthouses and high schools. I don't want some pissed off litigant awaiting the judge's ruling while holding his M-16, or a fucked up high schooler with a gun.

in any peaceable manner, concealed or otherwise, and it should be totally unremarkable that they do so.

Whether something is "remarkable" is like whether something is "good" or "bad," purely subjective. I think it should be quite "remarkable" that someone straps a minigun to his SUV and rides down Main Street with it on a busy night.

Only if they MISUSE their firearms should they be subject to legal sanction.

Not "only."

and "don't use your gun carelessly or recklessly,

That too would seem to be subsumed within current crimes, like "criminally negligent homicide" or "manslaughter," where specific intent to kill is not an element of the crime.

because if you do you will go to jail for a long time."

Oh, wait...that's already the case, and more. Firearms in the US are the most closely-regulated consumer product in the world already.

That's highly debatable. I think prescription pharmaceuticals come to mind as a consumer product which is far more highly regulated than firearms. One needs a license to manufacture them,[/quote]

One needs a license (a number of them actually) to manufacture firearms, and unlike pills, every single firearm ever manufactured in the US must be serially numbered and the records kept FOREVER and given to the government on demand.

they require a prescription to take them,

No, they require a prescription to ACQUIRE them, as do firearms in many states. [/quote]

No firearms require a prescription. Only some firearms require a permit or a license, and only some require registration.

only a certain profession can issue those prescriptions and that profession has to be licensed,

All commercial sales of firearms must be done by persons licensed to do so by the federal government.

Not all sales of firearms are "commercial" sales. A person doesn't need a license to sell his rifle. A person commits a felony if he sells his prescription painkiller.

You cannot be in the business of even FIXING firearms without a license.

In the business? Yes. But, you can fix your friends firearm, or your own. You can't diagnose your friends illness and prescribe him even an aspirin. That's practicing medicine without a license.

they can't be imported into the US for sale,

Foreign firearms that do not meet the "sporting purposes" test cannot be imported.

No prescription meds can be imported for sale at all.

Further, all imports of firearms or even firearms components are strictly regulated by the federal government with severe penalties for smuggling.

There are far more restrictions on the same conduct for pharmaceuticals, both state and federal.

manufacturers are subject to inspection,

Firearms and ammunition manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are subject to unannounced inspections of their facilities and records by the BATFE. Persons owning Class III (NFA) firearms or destructive devices like machine guns, short rifles, short shotguns, explosives and other controlled devices are subject to inspection of their storage facilities and paperwork. The paperwork for such devices must always be with the device/weapon. Additionally, you must OBTAIN PERMISSION from the BATFE before moving an NFA item between states. To get this permission you must tell the BATFE exactly WHEN you will be moving the weapon across state lines, and exactly WHERE you will be going, and what ROUTE you will take (so that they can make sure you aren't transporting it through a state that bans such devices) and when you plan to RETURN to your home. (This requirement, by the way, is why I don't own any NFA firearms...too much paperwork and I don't like inviting the BATFE into my house whenever they decide to inspect my paperwork and gun safe.)

At most, that's the same as pharmaceuticals, which are subject to inspections and regulations of the same kind.

carrying a prescription pharmaceutical without the prescription on hand is illegal, and reams of pages of other regulations apply.

The same is true of firearms, and that's just the FEDERAL regulations.

False, because I can carry a rifle without a license, because it doesn't require a license. I can't carry prescription antibiotics in my pocket without a prescription, or I'm committing a felony. Score another one for pharmaceuticals being more highly regulated than guns.

Firearm regulation in states ranges from just a few pages in the law codes, to a fair bit of regulation. Most state regulation deals with licensing and registration, and the restriction of certain types of weapons. But, they're really not all that complex or closely regulated, at least not compared to pharmaceuticals and the like.

I disagree, though it might be a close call. Every aspect of firearms manufacture, sale, possession, carrying and use of firearms is strictly regulated, right down to when and where you are allowed to shoot it.

You disagree, but in every instance/example we've discussed, the prescription pharmaceutical industry is far more regulated, or at most (inspections of manufacturers and licensing of manufacturers) they are about equivalent.

It's just not true that "every aspect of firearms manufacture, sale, prossession and carrying and use of firearms is strictly regulated." In most states the purchase, possession and carrying of long guns is hardly regulated at all. Just some rules about transporting it in a vehicle, sometimes, and about whether it can be loaded, and whatnot. But, I can go to Dick's Sporting Goods 5 minutes from here and buy a deer rifle and a box of ammo, walk it out to my car in hand, put it in the trunk, and drive to the woods, load and shoot a deer same day. I can't go to the drug store and buy an antibiotic. Game-set-match - QED.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hmmmm....so you could get a court case where a defendant has had their weapons confiscated for being a nut but has a tame doctor willing to say that they are sane?

What do they do in England regarding this issue?

Some folks are allowed to have private weapons in England. If one of them is adjudicated insane, then are they still allowed to have the arms? Are they confiscated? I think the answer to that question will, well, answer your question.

[Clinton Huxley]

Hmmmm....so you could get a court case where a defendant has had their weapons confiscated for being a nut but has a tame doctor willing to say that they are sane?

What do they do in England regarding this issue?

Some folks are allowed to have private weapons in England. If one of them is adjudicated insane, then are they still allowed to have the arms? Are they confiscated? I think the answer to that question will, well, answer your question.

I could probably look that up but I doubt many people legally have 9mm automatic pistols that may get confiscated in the first place. I'm really interested in the certainty that mentally unstable people in the thousands carry firearms in the US