• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s the trick… the Nashville shooter had no criminal record and bought the guns 100% legally. There is no gun restriction that would block someone who passes the background check from buying a gun.

    BUT:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting

    “Hale was under care for an emotional disorder and had legally purchased seven firearms, including three recovered from the shooting scene, between October 2020 and June 2022.[1]”

    If someone is under psychological care, should that be allowed to pop up on a background check? Maybe not as an instant disqualification the way a court ordered commitment or conviction would, but as an advisory note? Leave it to the discretion of the firearms seller? “By the way, this person is undergoing psych care, you could be held liable if they use this firearm in a crime.” That kind of thing?

    Because right now, the only stuff that shows up on the background check are things that were ruled on by a judge, and sometimes not even all of those.

    For example:

    The guy who shot up Michigan State University:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting

    “McRae was arrested in June 2019 for carrying a weapon without a concealed pistol license.[38] Initially charged with a felony, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful possession of a loaded firearm as part of a plea agreement in November 2019.[39] He was originally sentenced to twelve months’ probation, which was later extended to 18 months, and in May 2021, he was discharged from probation.[35] Because McRae was not convicted of a felony, his ban on possessing weapons ended with the end of his probation.[40]”

    Arrested for a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, was allowed to buy guns again.

    Had he been convicted of the felony, he would have been blocked from owning a gun. The misdemeanor was not a barrier and did not appear on the background check.

    Maybe it should have? Maybe ANY gun charges, felony OR misdemeanor should bar you from gun ownership?

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stopping people in therapy from owning guns is a good way to stop people from getting mental health care.

      And anyone who has therapy billed to insurance has a mental health diagnosis. That’s just the nature of healthcare billing in the U.S.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Supreme Court specifically addressed that in 2016 in my favorite one of these cases because it didn’t initially seem to involve firearms:

            Caetano v. Massachusetts - 2016
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

            Woman was being threatened by an abusive ex and bought a taser for protection.

            MA charged her saying that tasers didn’t exist at the time of the 2nd amendment, so she had no right to own one.

            Enter the court:

            “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]

            Anything you take into your hands for defense is allowed under the 2nd amendment. So, no, you don’t have the right to a cruise missile or a tactical nuke, but if you can carry it, it’s yours.

            • Zaktor
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So I can carry Sarin gas “for the purpose of offensive […] action”? How about a non-grandfathered automatic weapon? Hand grenades? MANPADS?

              This ruling is nonsense, along with the expansion of the second to self-defense 15 years ago. We’ve banned the stuff that could support a rebellion and legalized the stuff that’s just good for murder.

                • Zaktor
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Who the fuck cares what the Geneva convention bans? That’s a nation-to-nation treaty. We won’t use this if you won’t, not “no one can ever use this”. And the very fact that you approve of “destructive devices” being banned but not handguns proves the whole damn point. The 2nd is about rebellion, but we let the government defang rebellion while playing to petty interpersonal fears. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to define the rules regarding fighting off robbers, you need it to define the rules for fighting off the government.

                  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Not according to the Supreme Court and they are the ones who decide this stuff:

                    McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

                    "the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”

              • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Of course. Just waiting for the “No one wants to take your guns” comment. But everything they propose as “common sense” would do just that. But it also very likely that they just have no idea what semi-auto means and just repeat what’s on TV. That’s the extent of ‘critical thinking’.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I like your idea, also consider the adverse impact: people will sometimes not treat their mental disorders anymore because they could pop up in a background check.

      There has to be some more nuance to this. I didn’t study law though,so idk how to make it better.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I don’t know how to make it better either. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ But when you start looking at the shooters who had documented mental health issues that never showed up on background checks, it gets a little scary.

        Right now, it only counts for the background check if it goes through a Judge.

        So when the Jacksonville shooter had an involuntary mental health hold under Florida’s Baker act, that didn’t stop him from later buying the guns completely legally:

        https://www.thedailybeast.com/ryan-palmeter-named-as-jacksonville-shooter-who-targeted-and-killed-3-black-people-at-dollar-general-store

        Same with the Buffalo shooter:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting

        “In June 2021, Gendron had been investigated for threatening other students at his high school by the police in Broome County.[20][58][64] A teacher had asked him about his plans after the school year, and he responded, “I want to murder and commit suicide.”[65] He was referred to a hospital for mental health evaluation and counseling but was released after being held for a day and a half.[20][64][66]”

        Same with the Parkland shooter:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland_high_school_shooting

        “The Florida Department of Children and Families investigated him in September 2016 for Snapchat posts in which he cut both his arms and said he planned to buy a gun. At this time, a school resource officer suggested[94] he undergo an involuntary psychiatric examination under the provisions of the Baker Act. Two guidance counselors agreed, but a mental institution did not.[95] State investigators reported he had depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However Psychologist Frederick M. Kravitz later testified that Cruz was never diagnosed with autism.[96] In their assessment, they concluded he was “at low risk of harming himself or others”.[97] He had previously received mental health treatment, but had not received treatment in the year leading up to the shooting.[98]”

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe only include it if it’s an involuntary mental health hold and/or have practitioners have an option to report if the individual should in their opinion be barred from purchasing a firearm (with the capacity to revoke that opinion, if their situation changes)?

    • Fondots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe ANY gun charges, felony OR misdemeanor should bar you from gun ownership?

      In general I’m not opposed, but I think that needs to come with some sort major reform to make our gun laws more consistent across the country, because currently there can be situations where you can be legally carrying a firearm in accordance with all of your state laws, but make a wrong turn or miss your exit and cross state lines and you’re technically committing a felony because the laws are different in that state. Then you’re just a burned out tail light away from prison time if you get pulled over and the cop finds out you have a gun.

      Not that it’s a super common situation, but it’s not totally outlandish either, and I don’t think that’s exactly the kind of person we want to punish with these laws, especially since those are the sort of thing that you know would be enforced inconsistently- the white guy gets directions back to his home state and the nearest AutoZone to fix his tail light and sent on his way, and the black guy gets arrested on the spot (if not tazed, beaten, or shot)

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s absolutely true and something I think about when I leave the house.

        I live in Portland, Oregon which is just a river and a bridge away from Vancouver, Washington.

        I have a concealed carry permit for Oregon, but Oregon and Washington don’t have laws for reciprocity.

        So my carrying concealed in Oregon is perfectly legal, but would get me in trouble in Washington and vice versa.

        So it’s contingent on me, the gun owner, to be aware of the laws and remain in compliance. Mostly going “Do I need to go to Vancouver today?” If yes, leave the gun at home.

        • Fondots@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          From my personal experience, I live near Philly, which is similarly a river and a bridge away from NJ, where gun laws are drastically different. I don’t drive in the city super often, and there are some real doozies of confusing intersections, at least one of them is right by a bridge to Jersey, so once or twice I’ve gotten stuck in the wrong lane because city traffic sucks and no one would let me change lanes, and so I had to make a quick detour into the garden state, find somewhere to turn around and head back to the city of brotherly love. At no point was “go to Jersey” on my itinerary, and yet it happened.

          I don’t carry a gun, but if I did that would put me in a potential bad position. As it is, I can take that detour to Jersey with impunity and only be out a few minutes of my time and maybe a couple bucks in tolls and gas rather than make some unsafe turns and lane changes trying to stay on the PA side of the river. If I did carry a gun though, that becomes a matter of weighing the risk of a potential felony in Jersey against the risk of driving like an unsafe asshole in PA. That’s obviously kind of a shitty choice I’d rather not have to make.

          • LrdThndr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I live in TN and have a carry permit. Last week, I had to drive up to PA.

            During the drive, I passed through TN, VA, WV, MD, and PA. Every single state honored my permit except for Maryland. I had to stop in WV, disarm myself, unload the gun, then lock the gun and ammo into SEPARATE locking compartments in the trunk. In order to be legal by federal law, I had to straight-through Maryland without stopping. Fortunately, on 81, Maryland is only like 15 minutes, but still - if I had had some kind of emergency, had to get off the highway, and got pulled over for any reason, it would have been a firearms charge.

            I pulled off at a gas station to do the unload, got witnessed by some random lady getting gas, who promptly panicked, jumped in her car, and sped off. I expected to get blue-lighted the entire way to PA after that.

            I’m really fucking tired of the inconsistency. Make some laws, fine, but make them fucking consistent. Don’t make me have to spend an hour online digging through different states’ laws just to make sure I don’t become an accidental felon.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fortunately here there are only 2 paths to Washington and you pretty much have to do either intentionally.

            I-5 gets backed up so you sit in traffic for 20-30 minutes before you hit the final exit in Oregon.

            I-205 has the exit to the airport before you’re on the bridge to WA so it’s kind of hard to miss.