Butters 0 #51 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd then there are medicals required if you want to be a pilot, or a tandem master. There's plenty of precedent. Should the government do medical (or other) background checks on public speakers? How about answering my question, or is this just a cop out on your part? I already did ... you should try this."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #52 September 5, 2008 >Should the government do medical (or other) background checks on public speakers? Usually, no. But in some situations (applying for a parade, rally or demonstration permit in certain cities) it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #53 September 5, 2008 QuoteMust be 18 years of age or older (for licensing purposes only) No felony convictions No addictions to illicit narcotics No traffic fines exceeding $499.00* No traffic or criminal bench/arrest warrants No court-ordered probation or parole No unpaid child support** No history of psychiatric holds for evaluation and/or observation*** No bail or own recognizance releases resulting from an arrest http://www.4sota.com/courses.htm Anyone want to call them and ask how they can prove someone has had such a history?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #54 September 5, 2008 Quote>Should the government do medical (or other) background checks on public speakers? Usually, no. But in some situations (applying for a parade, rally or demonstration permit in certain cities) it does. As some medical info is required to get CDL's or pilots licences. But I can think of no other protected right where mental records should be viewed"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #55 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteMust be 18 years of age or older (for licensing purposes only) No felony convictions No addictions to illicit narcotics No traffic fines exceeding $499.00* No traffic or criminal bench/arrest warrants No court-ordered probation or parole No unpaid child support** No history of psychiatric holds for evaluation and/or observation*** No bail or own recognizance releases resulting from an arrest http://www.4sota.com/courses.htm Anyone want to call them and ask how they can prove someone has had such a history? And that is public records, that you have been held for an eval for some reason. But, should being held be a permanant check against gun ownership?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #56 September 5, 2008 *** Psychiatric evaluation and/or observation of an individual does not necessarily constitute disqualification from our academy. However, the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) reserves the right to approve or deny an applicant a Guard Registration and/or an Exposed Firearms Permit if the applicant was committed under California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 and/or the applicant signed a waiver of rights from possessing a firearm or weapon for a period of ten (10) years and/or based on the results of the applicant's Department of Justice or FBI background."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #57 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOK, if you can tell me what "better background checks" would mean? Specifically? One that wouldn't allow people like the V. Tech shooter to slip through the cracks. So you want the government to maintain a database with individuals medical information to be used during background checks? Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't you need to meet a minimum medical standard in order to drive a car? No one objects to the state indicating on your driver's license that you need glasses Eyes are tested on site. You are not required to show medical records are you? And then there are medicals required if you want to be a pilot, or a tandem master. There's plenty of precedent. Ok, so you advocate giving up mental medical records and your right to privacy to stop a few nuts. Or are you say everyone who wants to own a firearm should go through a mental evaluation? Pilots, as truck drivers do, take specific exames that are not fishing expiditons. Based on tests. Are mental evals as black and white or are they more subjective? I understand the importance of right-to-privacy, and by and large I like as little govt intervention in my personal affairs as possible. That said, there has to be a balance between what we each want in our ideal world and what the reality is out there. What kind of registration/background check/process/training would you propose in order to help with the problem of people who shouldn't have guns getting their hands on guns? Do you think that it is even needed? I brought up driving as an example of government regulations requiring some kind of medical clearance. Your point that for driving/flying are based on tests that are pass/fail is valid. The thing is, and I think you'd agree, that the danger in cars/airplanes is that a lack of skill will cause an accident causing injuries/death and these tests are designed to filter those prone to these accidents. With guns, it appears to me that the danger is not so much in the accidental misuse as in the deliberate misuse. So any standard/check to make sure that the wrong people don't end up armed would HAVE to include a way to filter out those that would have a higher tendency to intentionally misuse a gun. Wouldn't it? Or is everything just fine? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #58 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuote>Should the government do medical (or other) background checks on public speakers? Usually, no. But in some situations (applying for a parade, rally or demonstration permit in certain cities) it does. As some medical info is required to get CDL's or pilots licences. But I can think of no other protected right where mental records should be viewed But as Scalia noted, it's not an UNLIMITED right. So the govt. CAN put on restictions, including review of appropriate medical history.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #59 September 5, 2008 >As some medical info is required to get CDL's or pilots licences. Agreed. When the public could be put at risk by a medical or mental condition arising from operation of some device, asking for medical information as a condition of operation of that device is not unreasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #60 September 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote And then there are medicals required if you want to be a pilot, or a tandem master. There's plenty of precedent. Should the government do medical (or other) background checks on public speakers? How about answering my question, or is this just a cop out on your part? I already did ... you should try this. Search shows that no, you didn't. Being untruthful doesn't help your case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #61 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOK, if you can tell me what "better background checks" would mean? Specifically? One that wouldn't allow people like the V. Tech shooter to slip through the cracks. So you want the government to maintain a database with individuals medical information to be used during background checks? Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't you need to meet a minimum medical standard in order to drive a car? No one objects to the state indicating on your driver's license that you need glasses Eyes are tested on site. You are not required to show medical records are you? And then there are medicals required if you want to be a pilot, or a tandem master. There's plenty of precedent. Ok, so you advocate giving up mental medical records and your right to privacy to stop a few nuts. Or are you say everyone who wants to own a firearm should go through a mental evaluation? Pilots, as truck drivers do, take specific exames that are not fishing expiditons. Based on tests. Are mental evals as black and white or are they more subjective? I understand the importance of right-to-privacy, and by and large I like as little govt intervention in my personal affairs as possible. That said, there has to be a balance between what we each want in our ideal world and what the reality is out there. What kind of registration/background check/process/training would you propose in order to help with the problem of people who shouldn't have guns getting their hands on guns? Do you think that it is even needed? I brought up driving as an example of government regulations requiring some kind of medical clearance. Your point that for driving/flying are based on tests that are pass/fail is valid. The thing is, and I think you'd agree, that the danger in cars/airplanes is that a lack of skill will cause an accident causing injuries/death and these tests are designed to filter those prone to these accidents. With guns, it appears to me that the danger is not so much in the accidental misuse as in the deliberate misuse. So any standard/check to make sure that the wrong people don't end up armed would HAVE to include a way to filter out those that would have a higher tendency to intentionally misuse a gun. Wouldn't it? Or is everything just fine? And you bring a point from which a good and logical debate could be had. kallend will not be so forthcoming in expressing his opinon on what a "completed" check would be. But to your point, how could what you ask be done?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #62 September 5, 2008 Quote>As some medical info is required to get CDL's or pilots licences. Agreed. When the public could be put at risk by a medical or mental condition arising from operation of some device, asking for medical information as a condition of operation of that device is not unreasonable. Which now leads us to the point where we ask (and kallend will not answer) what is appropriate info to have access to? Public records such as orders to hold for evals I think are fair game. But if someone is seeing a someone for depression and doing this on their own. Should a gun ownership screener have open access to this info?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #63 September 5, 2008 >Should a gun ownership screener have open access to this info? The screener - no. He just gets a "yes" or "no" on his computer screen. Decision should be made by a doctor who reviews the patient's record, as it is for aviation medicals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #64 September 5, 2008 Quote Search shows that no, you didn't. Being untruthful doesn't help your case. If you don't want to actually use the search functionality to find my answer to your question than stop making us use the search functionality to find your answers to our questions. Being arrogant doesn't help your case."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #65 September 5, 2008 QuoteQuote>As some medical info is required to get CDL's or pilots licences. Agreed. When the public could be put at risk by a medical or mental condition arising from operation of some device, asking for medical information as a condition of operation of that device is not unreasonable. Which now leads us to the point where we ask (and kallend will not answer) ? I answered already, in this thread. Use the texas CCW model (assuming mnealtx was truthful when describing its effectiveness).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #66 September 5, 2008 Quote Quote Search shows that no, you didn't. Being untruthful doesn't help your case. If you don't want to actually use the search functionality to find my answer to your question than stop making us use the search functionality to find your answers to our questions. Being arrogant doesn't help your case. Why not just admit you don't want to answer?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #67 September 5, 2008 Quote>Should a gun ownership screener have open access to this info? The screener - no. He just gets a "yes" or "no" on his computer screen. Decision should be made by a doctor who reviews the patient's record, as it is for aviation medicals. But there is no single source for medical information."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #68 September 5, 2008 Everyone keeps looking at this from a "legal" gun purchase perspective. Do you honestly believe a criminal wanting a gun buys it from a gun shop, a gun show, or a legal FFL holder? REALLY??? The convicted felon bikers I know that carry have other "sources". All the laws we could ever pass won't eliminate an alternate, illegal suplly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #69 September 5, 2008 QuoteWhy not just admit you don't want to answer? Why not just admit that you don't want to read through every post I've made to find the answer?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #70 September 5, 2008 Quote>Should a gun ownership screener have open access to this info? The screener - no. He just gets a "yes" or "no" on his computer screen. Decision should be made by a doctor who reviews the patient's record, as it is for aviation medicals. But the aviation medical records are done to specifically determine physical ability. And it is measurable. How would one get a yes or no for mental stability without a supjective judgement?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #71 September 5, 2008 QuoteOk, so you advocate giving up mental medical records and your right to privacy to stop a few nuts. Unfortunately those "few nuts" like Cho have a nasty habit of KILLING lots of people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #72 September 5, 2008 Quote Everyone keeps looking at this from a "legal" gun purchase perspective. Do you honestly believe a criminal wanting a gun buys it from a gun shop, a gun show, or a legal FFL holder? REALLY??? The convicted felon bikers I know that carry have other "sources". All the laws we could ever pass won't eliminate an alternate, illegal suplly. Cho did!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #73 September 5, 2008 I think butters, rushmc, etc, are making my point very nicely that the gun lobby effectively obstructs any and all suggestions that might make it harder for inappropriate people to buy guns. Thanks guys - have a safe weekend.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #74 September 5, 2008 thereby proving a mental issue! If we can close all the loopholes that do allow such purchases, how would you propose closing the illegal access points? Simply making the penalty stiffer might help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #75 September 5, 2008 Quotethereby proving a mental issue! . I believe that is just what we have been discussing for the past 40 posts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
