Disturbed felon had gun permit, arsenal, Minnesota police say

[quade 4]

Okay, would somebody tell me why this is acceptable?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-minnesota-felon-gun-permit-20130122,0,3677896.story

Quote

Christian Philip Oberender killed his mother with a shotgun in 1995, when he was 14.

He was committed to a state hospital after being deemed mentally ill and a possible threat.

He's since been released, and in May, he got a legal gun permit in Minnesota and amassed an arsenal of 13 guns -- including an AK-47 and a Tommy gun. He began to post photographs of the guns on Facebook along with notes sympathizing with the gunmen at Columbine High School and Sandy Hook Elementary School, officials said.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Clearly, it is not. As the article stated, the system failed. The state agencies did not do what they were supposed to do.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[dmcoco84 5]

This doesn't help "your case(s)", by any means...

This shows: people lie, and government is incompetent.

[quade 4]

Quote

This doesn't help "your case(s)", by any means...
This shows: people lie, and government is incompetent.

Funny. It shows me the NRA's attempts to stymie tightening of laws to prevent this from happening have been successful at allowing it to happen.

It shows me that some people's attempts here to denounce criminal and mental health checks is irresponsible.

I can't wait to hear Lawrocket's response here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

So, the official on the ground, who had more facts than us at his disposal, assessed that this was a failure of government agencies to enforce the standard.

You, with only this article and your beliefs to go on, reject that assessment in favor of blaming a private organization that had no apparent involvement?

I admit that I haven't been following the plethora of threads with fastidious fascination. But I don't recall anyone denouncing criminal checks or mental health checks. I agree with those who rejected mental evaluations, but mental health checks are an existing part of the system...a system that did not function in this case and should be corrected / held accountable. Nothing in the article suggested the laws were at fault / porous / ineffective. It said the law was not being enforced.

Generally, I think that has been the NRA position as well. I don't care to defend everything the NRA does, but I'm not sure villification by insinuating they want murderous lunatics to have guns is going to win me over to your side of this argument.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 4]

Quote

By the early 1980s, the NRA took a strong stand against criminal background checks, charging that they were an invasion of privacy and diverted police from real crime to paperwork.

Source; http://www.txstate.edu/cpm/hobby/Publications/contentParagraph/01/content_files/file74/National_Rifle_Association.pdf

Quote

Gun Lobby Would Scrap State Database That is Best in Nation

Richmond, Virginia— The National Rifle Association (NRA) is calling on its membership to help repeal a 1989 law that created the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP). A state-of-the-art database that is second to none in the nation, the VFTP works in conjunction with the FBI’s National Instant Background Checks System (NICS) to check the background of those purchasing firearms in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Source; http://vacps.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:nra-seeks-to-weaken-background-check-system-in-virginia&catid=36:posts

Quote

A bill pushed by the National Rifle Association to eliminate criminal background checks for many handgun buyers in Michigan was rejected by state lawmakers Wednesday, after a heavy lobbying effort by law enforcement officials, municipal leaders and gun control advocates.

Source; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/michigan-gun-bill-nra-background-checks_n_2295413.html

Quote

The NRA has spoken out in favor of a bill that passed in the Colorado House of Representatives this week that will repeal state-run background checks on people purchasing firearms. But the bill still faces strong opposition in the state senate. Here are the details.

Source; http://news.yahoo.com/nra-supports-colorado-bill-repealing-state-background-checks-003500218.html

I could go on, but the list is nearly endless.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Sorry. I tried to give you some credibility and read what you posted. I couldn't get through the first piece, because it does not say what you pretend it does. It argues that the NRA has not been consistent in its position on checks and waiting periods. If I were to cherry pick like you did, I would present (from the same article):

"NRA published a firearms control pamphlet in which they said "a waiting-period could help in reducing crimes of passion and preventing people with criminal records or dangerous mental histories from acquiring guns.""

"...NRA abandoned its earlier opposition to "gun control" laws and supported instant background checks at the point of sale--requiring an expensive and non-existent federal computerized system of criminal records to be created and be accessible by gun dealers."

"This year the NRA is against the Brady Bill because it only requires a waiting-period but not a background check."

"Several times this year the NRA has supported both waiting-periods and background checks."

"After decades of battling gun control advocates, the NRA has become one."

When everything was in context, the author was clearly an advocate of more gun control and against the NRA. But his list of 'facts' is heavily laced with his opinion of goals and intents of the NRA and he ends with no rational argument either way. Your selection of one part was not representative of the piece, (just like my selection here) so I decided to save myself the trouble of reading the others.

This is what I was trying to tell you. You are not persuading me by ignoring the facts in the article and cherry pickings quotes from others. There are lots of coherent, reasonable arguments for reasonable and effect controls on firearms. You aren't presenting any right now.

Nothing personal. Just picking at your logic, really.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Quote

This doesn't help "your case(s)", by any means...
This shows: people lie, and government is incompetent.

Funny. It shows me the NRA's attempts to stymie tightening of laws to prevent this from happening have been successful at allowing it to happen.

It shows me that some people's attempts here to denounce criminal and mental health checks is irresponsible.

I can't wait to hear Lawrocket's response here.

Quade... the guy clearly shouldn't have been let out in the first place. Send him back to Briarcliff.

And he is a felon... there are already laws in place.

And... your continued NRA crap, is dumb and getting old.

NOTE: I'm not even a NRA member.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Gun Lobby Would Scrap State Database That is Best in Nation

Richmond, Virginia— The National Rifle Association (NRA) is calling on its membership to help repeal a 1989 law that created the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP). A state-of-the-art database that is second to none in the nation, the VFTP works in conjunction with the FBI’s National Instant Background Checks System (NICS) to check the background of those purchasing firearms in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Source; http://vacps.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:nra-seeks-to-weaken-background-check-system-in-virginia&catid=36:posts

Quote

Most disturbingly, the elimination of the VFTP would effectively repeal Virginia’s One-Handgun-Per-Month law, which was enacted in 1993 to curb illegal firearms trafficking. According to the Virginia State Police, the state would be unable to enforce the law without the VFTP.

“Unable to repeal the One-Handgun-a-Month law through our legislature last session, the NRA has now devised an underhanded method to achieve its goal of increased gun sales,” said Andrew Goddard, President of the Richmond Million Mom March Chapter. “Apparently, straw purchasers and traffickers now fall under the heading of ‘law-abiding citizens.’”

A goal of increased gun sales? That is not the goal of the NRA.


Regardless, the NRA doesn't speak for all firearm owners...

Just as as the Racist Reverend Jackson, doesn't speak for all Black Americans.


The only reason I read this article is because I live in Virginia, otherwise I could care less what the NRA says, or what is said about the NRA.

I'm not against background checks... but I am against the one hand gun a month law.

That law is so fucking stupid. My dad wanted one for him and one for my mom. Had to wait a month... fucking stupid.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

This doesn't help "your case(s)", by any means...
This shows: people lie, and government is incompetent.

Funny. It shows me the NRA's attempts to stymie tightening of laws to prevent this from happening have been successful at allowing it to happen.

It shows me that some people's attempts here to denounce criminal and mental health checks is irresponsible.

I can't wait to hear Lawrocket's response here.

it doesnt help your case because from the very start some bleeding heart decided he should be released way too early from prison and out in the population of others. This has nothing to do with the NRA.

[regulator 0]

By the way how IS the weather under that bridge grandpa?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Clearly, it is not. As the article stated, the system failed. The state agencies did not do what they were supposed to do.

Just as in engineering, sometimes it takes a crash (or in this case, just a near-miss, thank God) to identify a less obvious defect that needs to be corrected. For example:

Quote

The state's gun laws don't require fingerprints or a Social Security number for weapon purchaes, and Oberender flipped his name around for his gun-permit application and lied about his mental health history, the Star-Tribune reported.

His juvenile record -- for killing his mother -- had not been attached to his adult file, leaving a gap in his background, the paper reported.

These are at least 4 gaps in the system that need to be remedied. So let's remedy them.

It would be helpful to views this less in terms of public debate, and more in terms of safety engineering: keep chipping away at the problem, not necessarily in one fell swoop, but continuous incremental improvements, and good progress can be made.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Funny. It shows me the NRA's attempts to stymie tightening of laws to prevent this from happening have been successful at allowing it to happen.

What laws would prevent this from happening? Oh, yeah - the laws in existence. How about this: Prison time for the person who approved the permit?

Quote

It shows me that some people's attempts here to denounce criminal and mental health checks is irresponsible.

I can't wait to hear Lawrocket's response here.

When did I ever denounce crimina checks? I didn't. When did I ever denounce checks to see whether a person has an adjudicated history of mental health problems? I didn't.

This guy has been ADJUDICATED.

Paul - why was he investigated? Apprehended? Oh, yeah - for being a felon in possession. How do you make this stricter - "We will tighten the law and say that even less possession is required for an even lesser felon. Then we'll show them."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,118]

>A goal of increased gun sales? That is not the goal of the NRA.

NRA to gun industry: "your fight is our fight."


=============================
NRA Gun Control Crusade Reflects Firearms Industry Financial Ties

Posted: 01/11/2013 12:54 am EST

Throughout its 142-year history, the National Rifle Association has portrayed itself as an advocate for the individual gun owner’s Second Amendment rights. In turn, the NRA relied on those gun owners, especially its 4 million or so members, to pressure lawmakers into carrying out its anti-gun control agenda.

In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares. That alliance was sealed in 2005, when Congress, after heavy NRA lobbying, approved a measure that gave gunmakers and gun distributors broad, and unprecedented, immunity from a wave of liability lawsuits related to gun violence in America’s cities.

It was a turning point for both the NRA and the industry, both of which recognized the mutual benefits of a partnership. That same year, the NRA also launched a lucrative new fundraising drive to secure “corporate partners” that’s raked in millions from the gun industry to boost its operations.

But that alliance, which has grown even closer in recent years, has led to mounting questions from gun control advocates about the NRA's priorities. Is the nation’s most potent gun lobby mainly looking out for its base constituency, the estimated 80 million Americans who own a firearm? Or is it acting on behalf of those that make and sell those guns?

According to a 2012 poll conducted by GOP pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 74 percent of NRA members support mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, a position that the NRA has stridently opposed. “There’s a big difference between the NRA’s rank and file and the NRA’s Washington lobbyists, who live and breathe for a different purpose,” Mark Glaze, the executive director of the gun control group, said.
. . .

“The NRA is basically helping to make sure the gun industry can increase sales,” Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat and longtime gun control advocate, told The Huffington Post. McCarthy last week proposed a bill that would ban new sales of new large ammunition clips that increase the lethality of weapons like those used in mass shootings in Connecticut, Colorado and Wisconsin.

“No one is challenging NRA members' right to own guns,” McCarthy said. "We’ve had large mass shootings which have [involved] large mass assault weapons clips. These clips aren’t used for hunting.”

. . .

Close ties between the NRA and gunmakers go back at least to 1999, when the NRA publicly declared its support for the firearms industry as it prepared to defend itself from a rash of liability lawsuits filed by cities and municipalities.

“Your fight has become our fight,” then-NRA president Charlton Heston declared before a crowd of gun company executives at the annual SHOT Show, the industry's biggest trade show.
==========================d.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

A goal of increased gun sales? That is not the goal of the NRA.

It is, actually. Gun manufacturers are major financial supporters of the NRA.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[quade 4]

Quote

When did I ever denounce checks to see whether a person has an adjudicated history of mental health problems? I didn't.

You recently stated you thought it would be a violation of HIPAA. And were against the sharing of mental health information. You were pretty adamant about it too.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=HIPAA&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=Lawrocket&sb=score&mh=100

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

________________________________________ In Reply To ________________________________________
When did I ever denounce checks to see whether a person has an adjudicated history of mental health problems? I didn't.
________________________________________

You recently stated you thought it would be a violation of HIPAA. And were against the sharing of mental health information. You were pretty adamant about it too.

http://www.dropzone.com/...;sb=score&mh=100

I highlighted the important part, Paul. “Adjudicated.” An “adjudicated” history of mental health problems. That means that a person has received due process. It means that a person’s actions have made them subject of a judicial process. It means that the person’s mental health has been made at issue because of some action for which police power has been utilized.

I have no problem with that. HIPAA doesn’t count with judicial records. What HIPAA does cover is a person’s private medical information. It forbids the health care provider from releasing a person’s medical and psychological records. An anal fissure is nobody’s damned business. A person’s use of a therapist to help cope with a divorce is nobody’s damned business. A kid on Strattera for treatment of ADHD is nobody’s damned business. That a person received a prescription for methadone for control of back pain is nobody’s damned business. That a person entered rehab for treatment of alcoholism is nobody’s damned business.

Did you know that mental health records are considered so sensitive that a health care provider is not even required to release mental health notes to a patient?

But for some reason people think that the government should have access to those, for the stated purpose of deciding finding out whether a woman was ever in rape crisis counseling and more specifically what exactly was discussed during those sessions.

That is what HIPAA protects, Paul. The release of records just like that. I'm sure that PTSD would be considered cause to deny a person the right to legally purchase a firearm. Indeed, let's make sure that we publicize the reasons why each permit was denied, thus to let the People know that if they want a gun, then expect to read about their lives on a government website.

Let's compare to the rapist. "Denied because you have a felony conviction." Or, "Found not guilty by reason of insanity." Already public record.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Okay, would somebody tell me why this is acceptable?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-minnesota-felon-gun-permit-20130122,0,3677896.story

Quote

Christian Philip Oberender killed his mother with a shotgun in 1995, when he was 14.

He was committed to a state hospital after being deemed mentally ill and a possible threat.

He's since been released, and in May, he got a legal gun permit in Minnesota and amassed an arsenal of 13 guns -- including an AK-47 and a Tommy gun. He began to post photographs of the guns on Facebook along with notes sympathizing with the gunmen at Columbine High School and Sandy Hook Elementary School, officials said.

It is the same acceptable as the illegal immigrant and illegal border crossing acceptable.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

________________________________________ In Reply To ________________________________________
When did I ever denounce checks to see whether a person has an adjudicated history of mental health problems? I didn't.
________________________________________

You recently stated you thought it would be a violation of HIPAA. And were against the sharing of mental health information. You were pretty adamant about it too.

http://www.dropzone.com/...;sb=score&mh=100

I highlighted the important part, Paul. “Adjudicated.” An “adjudicated” history of mental health problems. That means that a person has received due process. It means that a person’s actions have made them subject of a judicial process.

So you think the legal training of judges and lawyers makes them better able to evaluate health issues than medical professionals. Interesting.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

>So you think the legal training of judges and lawyers makes them better able to
>evaluate health issues than medical professionals. Interesting.

That's true of everything. Rape cases. Wrongful death cases. Even murder cases. In all those cases, a judge/jury decides issues which include medical issues; doctors do not.

Which works out, I think. While doctors (or police) can make emergency decisions, but only a court can determine guilt (or competency) and make a final decision to deprive someone _else_ of their rights. They, of course, use all the information available to them, including the expertise of doctors.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>So you think the legal training of judges and lawyers makes them better able to
>evaluate health issues than medical professionals. Interesting.

That's true of everything. Rape cases. Wrongful death cases. Even murder cases. In all those cases, a judge/jury decides issues which include medical issues; doctors do not.

Which works out, I think. While doctors (or police) can make emergency decisions, but only a court can determine guilt (or competency) and make a final decision to deprive someone _else_ of their rights. They, of course, use all the information available to them, including the expertise of doctors.

Are you suggesting a jury trial now (juries decide facts, judges decide law).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

>Are you suggesting a jury trial now (juries decide facts, judges decide law).

Nope.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So you think the legal training of judges and lawyers makes them better able to evaluate health issues than medical professionals. Interesting.

News out of Perry's own camp has been limited since he came out of seclusion to promote the Greatest Hits release in 2011. But signs of a solo comeback picked up this past September when Universal Music Publishing Group announced it had signed a deal to handle Perry's publishing. The singer didn't say anything about a new album in his statement about the deal. But there was this: "We look forward to working with him on both his iconic catalog and his new songs," Zach Horowitz, the publishing company's chairman, was quoted as saying in a press release. Maybe Horowitz can be the one to listen to Perry's latest demos and tell him he's not singing out of tune.

No, I do not. I do not think politicians (most of whom are lawyers) have any business looking into your medical records and mental health records absent probable cause that you have either broken a law or that you constitute an immediate danger. Thus, under HIPAA, only a judicial subpoena may be used to access your records. Subpoenas may only be issued with cause as determined by the court AND subpoenas may be quashed before they are honored.

HIPAA demands that your records stay private. I frankly think that judges are pretty uniquely suited to determine whether a doctor should be required to disclose mental health records.

Thank you think that politicians are best suited for determining what privacy you just shouldn't have is interesting to me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Thank you think that politicians are best suited for determining what privacy you just shouldn't have is interesting to me.

That's why we elect them, to make laws for us, like HIPPA and ERISA, and FERPA, and ...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thank you think that politicians are best suited for determining what privacy you just shouldn't have is interesting to me.

That's why we elect them, to make laws for us, like HIPPA and ERISA, and FERPA, and ...

Indeed! They enacted these laws because physicians, insurance companies, etc., were busily revealing private medical information. And in fact, people STILL violate HIPAA and when they do there is trouble. http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/security-privacy/ucla-health-system-pays-865000-over-priv/231001236

I am saying that these bars to the release of personal information are EXACTLY what President was discussing. The laws preventing the release of private medical records are a significant barrier to the identification of anyone who has ever been depressed. To do that, the government has to have unfettered access to all personal medical and mental histories.

HIPAA is a codification of the right of privacy. Are you willing to overturn Roe v. Wade?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

• Quote