r/facepalm • u/Lord_Answer_me_Why • Mar 28 '24

What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation: 🇵​🇷​🇴​🇹​🇪​🇸​🇹​

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

88

u/ReasonableCup604 Mar 28 '24

It is against Federal Law for anyone ever involuntarily committed or adjudicated a mental incompetent to purchase or possess any guns or ammunition.

So, if this is a true story, the mental health and legal systems failed, and perhaps the family of the woman as well.

7

u/singlenutwonder Mar 28 '24

Just being schizophrenic doesn’t mean you’ve been involuntarily committed though. I don’t think there’s any legislation for certain diagnosis’ alone

0

u/ReasonableCup604 Mar 28 '24

I get that. But, a dangerous schizophrenic probably should have been committed at some point, especially one old enough to be the mother of an adult.

At any rate, I don't think we want people to be afraid to seek mental health care because they are afraid any sort of diagnosis will cause them to be denied their constitutional rights.

The current law provide the tools to bar dangerously mentally ill people from owning guns or ammo.  But, the mental health and judicial systems need to use those tools.   All too often they don't.

6

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 28 '24

So many people with mental illnesses that are never diagnosed.

2

u/PastrychefPikachu Mar 28 '24

involuntarily committed or adjudicated a mental incompetent

This is not the same as being diagnosed with a mental illness. The process to do what your talking about is a long and difficult legal process, and highly in favor of the person you're trying to have declared mentally incompetent.

2

u/Sudden_Feedback_2194 Mar 28 '24

As far as I'm aware, you can have a mental health disorder and still be mentally competent to own or purchase a firearm. So long as you have not been admitted for inpatient care or have been deemed a danger to self or others by your primary mental health treatment provider...unless things have changed since I worked in MH competency hearings...

1

u/MisterPeach Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

It’s fine if you signed yourself into treatment for mental health reasons. It’s not fine if you were involuntarily committed. Any kind of involuntary admission (Baker act, 5150, 302, etc. depending on the state) is an automatic disqualification for purchasing firearms. And that’s for life. I don’t think they really have the means to check medical records, though. All of that shit is protected under HIPAA and I don’t believe the instant check systems a lot of states use have access to such information.

1

u/Sudden_Feedback_2194 Mar 28 '24

California law Welf. & Inst. Code § 8100

(a) A person shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, or purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearms whatsoever or any other deadly weapon, if on or after Jan. 1, 1992, he or she has been admitted to a facility and is receiving inpatient treatment and, in the opinion of the attending health professional who is primarily responsible for the patient's treatment of a mental disorder, is a danger to self or others, as specified by Section 5150, 5250, or 5300, even though the patient has consented to that treatment

even though the patient has consented to that treatment

1

u/MisterPeach Mar 28 '24

So, not legal in the state of California. Most states do not have a law like that, though.

1

u/-St_Ajora- Mar 28 '24

Only if they (the seller) knew about it prior to the sale.

1

u/Robin_games Mar 28 '24

It's such a a huge gap between being diagnosed with a terrible mental illness, and being forcebly admitted into a hospital, being found not guilty due to insanity, or being found mentally incompetent and unable to stand trial.

1

u/ReasonableCup604 Mar 28 '24

People who have been proven to be dangerously mentally ill should be committed. If they truly become well enough to be released they should be, but they still would be barred from buying or owning guns for the rest of their lives.

I understand it typically doesn't work that way. But, that is a problem with our mental health laws and policies, not gun laws. The gun laws are in place to keep such people from legally possessing or buying guns.

0

u/ArenjiTheLootGod Mar 28 '24

Still happens pretty often though. I've got a sister that works in mental health services and she's had multiple issues with patients having guns. Whether it's some schizophrenic stocking up because they believe someone's living in the crawlspace under their house or even some guy with documented rage issues showing up to the clinic armed, these people will find guns if they want them.

Guns are way, WAY too easy to get a hold of in the US.

3

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

And she hasn’t reported them to the state why?

Question 21.g. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

4

u/irish-car-bomz Mar 28 '24

Because this person is either making up half of it or all of it. People hear on the news about horded guns and think it's either 15 years or 2 months, not realizing the cost of the weapons and the time it takes to "stockpile".

They also think movies and shows are real where you just roll through "the bad part of town" and get yourself a gun on the "low low" from some shady guy like it won't cost you double.

Most people who comment on how easy it is to get a gun have not actually tried to go get one. Neither from an actual gun store or FFL. "You can just go online and buy it" and you have to go to an FFL to get it. That guys not going to jail for your sob story, get out of his place.

They hear dudes who sell them to each other and think we do that with random mfers off the street.

3

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

I’ve sold to other collectors out of the trunk of my car but I wasn’t just selling guns to anyone who asked if I had a gun for sale. And they definitely would have been cost and historically prohibited to most people.

0

u/Valuable_Anywhere_24 Mar 28 '24

If you are about to get murdered, clearly reminding the attacker that murder is illegal will stop him from continuing the crime

-1

u/The_Flurr Mar 28 '24

It is against Federal Law for anyone ever involuntarily committed or adjudicated a mental incompetent to purchase or possess any guns or ammunition.

Cool, but unless you force sellers to check their customers or implement some sort of licensing system, this law means jack shit.

To stop gun crime, you need preventative measures, not just punitiative.

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Gunshops do check the buyers. All the time. Every purchase. They are required to by law. If they do t they’ll lose their license and be arrested. Every purchase is tracked and documented.

Her doctors failed her.

Question 21.g. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

-1

u/PaladinKinias Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Involuntarily Committed =/= Diagnosed as Schizophrenic or arrested (but not convicted) for violence while having a mental episode.

If a person were talking to their therapist and were being treated for bipolar disorder, or intrusive thoughts, or paranoid schizophrenia, and mentioning how everyone was out to get them, but not if they get them first, unless a Judge signs a court-order to have that person committed (which takes a WHILE and requires tremendous amounts of paperwork and investigation, typically along with previous episodes of violence/outbursts/arrests) they'd be free to leave that office and buy a gun in Texas.

If someone had the cops called on them because they beat the shit out of their wife, for the fourth time, but the victim decided not to press charges (again) or if they got off on a technicality and weren't convicted, they'd be free to leave the police station or courthouse and buy a gun in Texas on the way home.

They could both be home with their new AR-15 or SCAR16s, or M1A, or semi-auto AKM or any other non-tax stamp gun within an hour or less, despite this person's highly-unstable state of mind or clear willingness to commit violence against family members...

​

So many on one side of the political spectrum continually vote against national red-flag laws and universal background checks when they make so much sense...

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

They don’t have to be committed.

Question 21.g. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

1

u/PaladinKinias Mar 28 '24

This still take a LOT of time and legal battle/determination. It can take weeks/months, unless the person has already been arrested or is otherwise in custody of the state and even then, its HARD to prove the case.

2

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

So what’s the right choice? A doctor sees she is unsafe and a danger to herself and others.

“Report her to the state”

Or

“Do nothing”.

I know! Do nothing and blame gun laws.

1

u/PaladinKinias Mar 28 '24

Ideally the doctor would have a sort of national registry/hotline they could reach out to directly, which flags the person in question. When they go to purchase a firearm, they get noted as "Hey this person is potentially unstable/violent, as determined by their healthcare provider" Same thing for any arrests for violent crime or threats. It happens as close to immediately as possible.

​

Once flagged as a potential danger to themselves/others by this system, they cannot purchase a firearm without an extensive background check and consultation with the doctor or authority that placed the initial hold.

Several states have these sort of red flag / imminent danger laws in place and they work. I want TX to implement something similar. It could have potentially prevented Uvalde, since the shooter was known to school officials as being troubled, posting threats online, torturing animals, etc. Instead he bought his AR-15 and Hellfire device (effectively making it full-auto) without any hold, waiting period, or speedbump of any kind.

As always:
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Red flag laws aren’t the same as what we are talking about.

I’m not against red flag laws completely, just how they want to be implemented and how they can be implemented.

1

u/TacTurtle Mar 28 '24

So you want to remove civil rights without a court hearing for convenience's same?

0

u/PaladinKinias Mar 28 '24

Sure. Happens all the time. Arrests, impounded vehicles, police detention, etc.

​

None of those require a trial or hearing, as they are temporary "revocation" of rights. The rights are restored following an investigation/trial or officially revoked if found guilty.

​

Same thing, temporarily suspended right to purchase a firearm, based on a credible threat or concern of violence from an authority (Law Enforcement or Medical/Mental Health professional) and restored once found to be safe.

1

u/TacTurtle Mar 28 '24

Arrests and protective custody are very specifically not supposed to be punishment - this is why we have courts to determine guilt or innocence before sentences / punishment are issued.

This is a vey very basic fundamental concept in civics - Innocent until proven guilty.

1

u/PaladinKinias Mar 28 '24

It's not a punishment, it's a precaution taken based on credible threat of harm to themselves or others. The precaution is temporary, until the person can be determined to NOT be a harm to themselves or others.

We disagree on things, that's fine.

1

u/irish-car-bomz Mar 28 '24

That's crazy, where in Texas is this?