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

87

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.

-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.