Molon Labe: BANG!

[Denny347]

Another question for Denny or other police. When you confiscate all of their weapons, will this include all knives i the house?

Not usually

It seems to me if someone is dangerous to themselves or others they could do a lot of damage with almost anything.

Yes, we take reasonable steps but of course we cannot cover all bases.

When someone is on suicide watch they have their belts and shoelaces taken away.

Yes. Cannot have them in lock-up either for all arrests.

The only safe place for someone who is actually dangerous is in a straitjacket locked in a padded room.

Or secured to a hospital bed, where they typically wait for medical treatment.

 

[2A_Tom]

The old ice pick through the eye orbit sweeping away all emotion.

 

[JettaKnight]

The bar for a judge to issue an order for an leo to remove guns should be VERY HIGH... And by VERY HIGH, I mean it almost NEVER happens. I would prefer to see 10 guys who in all likelyhood should have their guns removed, but the judge refuses to make that order, than one 'legit' good guy's guns removed for 'safety'. Those who would give up liberty to gain safety deserve neither (paraphrasing B. Franklin).

It seems like after every mass shooting we find out the shooter was a crackpot and then we cry, "why didn't we do anything if we knew this guy was loon!"

Then comes something like this and our response is, "Don't do anything to disarm anyone!"




No answer here, just an observation.

 

[2A_Tom]

I just want everyone to be really careful and use common sense.

There have to be ways to take someone into custody that minimize risk to officers and suspects alike.

I do not agree with no knock raids in the middle of the night either.

Look at how many have wound up with innocent people hurt.

 

[alabasterjar]

It seems like after every mass shooting we find out the shooter was a crackpot and then we cry, "why didn't we do anything if we knew this guy was loon!"

Then comes something like this and our response is, "Don't do anything to disarm anyone!"




No answer here, just an observation.

This is what I am struggling with. The problem isn't the gun, it's the individual. I can come up with 100 ways to hurt, injure, kill, maim my targets without firearms. It's just that the firearm is generally more efficient. I've seen stats from the 2nd A side stating that we are safer now than ever. But even many gun owners are quick to jump on the bandwagon when there is a mass shooting to say "we have to do something". I certainly don't have the answers...

Like many/most of the murderers you mention, the issue is mental illness,, not the firearm. Let me rephrase this another way; if I am deemed to be enough of a danger for the state to remove some of my rights (RTKBA), then it seems more logical to me that the state should remove me (I.e. Mental home) instead removing only the firearms. I recognize that free issue with this statement is that mental homes don't really exist anymore.

 

[HoughMade]

I don’t believe HIPAA applies here but maybe houghmade will be by. They are not covered entities...

You are correct. Not a HIPAA violation.

The Privacy Rule applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and to any health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with transactions for which the Secretary of HHS has adopted standards under HIPAA (the “covered entities”). It also applied to "Business Associates" of any of these entities. That is, the "covered entities" may have to hire a billing company or….lawyers. The HIPAA Privacy rules applies to the "covered entities" and the "Business Associates".

What the reporter is talking about, I believe, is that he can't get information from any official source about the mental health specifics because they will not tell him due to confidentiality laws. The state, when it gets involved in healthcare situations, may itself be covered by HIPAA.

More likely, in addition to HIPAA, there is a rich variety of state laws governing healthcare confidentiality which are not HIPAA, which is a federal law, but reporters, not being lawyers but, apparently believing they are, simply call "HIPAA" regardless of the confidentiality law at issue. Mental health issues generally receive the highest level of confidentiality protection.

 

[Tanfodude]

It seems like after every mass shooting we find out the shooter was a crackpot and then we cry, "why didn't we do anything if we knew this guy was loon!"

Then comes something like this and our response is, "Don't do anything to disarm anyone!"




No answer here, just an observation.

What do you think, is it just ok to disarm someone you dislike by swatting them? Considering as there are people out there that are totally anti 2A and some have publicly expressed to reporting a person with firearms just to get them harrassed.

You should know by now mistakes and abuses can happen on the side of authority that will definitely ruin a person's life.

If the claim is very valid and with strong evidence that a person is really danger to others and themselves, I have no problem removing that person from society and his access to firearms. And yes, I agree on all those previous mass shooters would have beem prevented as there were signs, evidences and reports before the event happened but there was inaction.

 

[JettaKnight]

If the claim is very valid and with strong evidence that a person is really danger to others and themselves, I have no problem removing that person from society and his access to firearms. And yes, I agree on all those previous mass shooters would have been prevented as there were signs, evidences and reports before the event happened but there was inaction.

Could that be the case in this story?


As to the signs and evidence, hindsight is 20/20. If firearms were removed, I'm sure there would be some outrage in all those cases.


I don't have the answer, but there is some balance between individual liberty and societal safety. Personally, I'd like to err on the individual liberty side of the balance beam, but not out to edge.

 

[Tanfodude]

Could that be the case in this story?


As to the signs and evidence, hindsight is 20/20. If firearms were removed, I'm sure there would be some outrage in all those cases.


I don't have the answer, but there is some balance between individual liberty and societal safety. Personally, I'd like to err on the individual liberty side of the balance beam, but not out to edge.

Not for this case I hope (story is severely lacking in detail) . I'm just referring to the other members' concerns on the process for this hence the questions/discussions are more on what it takes to get this order passed rather than the actual prevention of potential tragedies or effectiveness of this law. But yeah, I'm in the same boat as you.

 

[alabasterjar]

Can anyone explain to me how this actual, real case is different than the discussion here: Turn Them In or Get Nuked

In the "Turn Them In or Get Nuked" thread, ''Molon Labe" is directly or indirectly being thrown around pretty causally. I agree completely, by the way, but explain to me why this case is so substantially different. Seriously, I'm not trying to be an @$$hat (although my wife might argue, it's a pre-existing condition).

The actual facts in this case are desperately wanting. There may be details that clearly set this apart from the turn them in or get nuked scenario, but so far, I have not seen anything suggesting this is the case. Again, I am not criticizing LEO. From what I've read, it sounds like LEO was executing lawful orders (no pun intended); but that doesn't mean they were executing Constitutional orders.

Where does the rubber meet the road? Seriously... If state.gov wants to remove all of your semi-auto rifles, how does that actually happen? It won't be by nuke, it will be by a city, county, or state LEO. Based on the turn them in or get nuked thread, the proper response is Molon Labe.

So which is it?

 

[Denny347]

The actual facts in this case are desperately wanting. There may be details that clearly set this apart from the turn them in or get nuked scenario, but so far, I have not seen anything suggesting this is the case. Again, I am not criticizing LEO. From what I've read, it sounds like LEO was executing lawful orders (no pun intended); but that doesn't mean they were executing Constitutional orders.

I can 100% guarantee that there ARE details that were not released.

 

[DRob]

I can 100% guarantee that there ARE details that were not released.

That's almost always the case but it seldom makes a difference in the court of INGO.

 

[Denny347]

That's almost always the case but it seldom makes a difference in the court of INGO.

Or the court of public opinion. Been there in the hot seat myself so I know firsthand how WRONG these stories can be and many times are.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Washington state red flag law to include minors

 

[2A_Tom]

Had Adam Lanza been red flagged they could have confiscated all of the guns that he had access to. (his mothers)

There would not be a big push to confiscate your guns today!

 

[JettaKnight]

Had Adam Lanza been red flagged they could have confiscated all of the guns that he had access to. (his mothers)

There would not be a big push to confiscate your guns today!

Had Adam Lanza been "red flagged", many gun owners and gun owner groups would have cried foul.

Such is the paradox.

 

[2A_Tom]

Purple.

Had Lanza been red flagged, I would not have had a problem. Had they confiscated his mother's weapons I would have pitched a fit.

 

[Libertarian01]

Here is one of the concerns I have with the "red flagging" concept: there are thousands and thousands of people who post stupid stuff, say hostile things, act in weird ways, everyday, AND DO NOTHING WRONG!!!

Now in theory I think they're fine, the problem is that we are trading rights for safety. And I don't mind the trade, to a point. But I am very concerned with the threshold we set on exactly what needs to occur to have rights oppressed.

The largest mass murder of almost 3,000 people used box cutters and airplanes. 169 dead in Oklahoma City, using diesel fuel and fertilizer. These weren't crazy, these were intentional. No guns needed.

Then we have to look at the laws themselves. Does the accused have an automatic right to a lawyer? Does the accused have an automatic right of appeal? Are LE legally required to store what they have taken indefinitely?

If we're going to trample rights for safety then we had better make certain that we have safety catches to try to return to full restoration of rights as soon as possible.

Regards,

Doug

 

[actaeon277]

Here is one of the concerns I have with the "red flagging" concept: there are thousands and thousands of people who post stupid stuff, say hostile things, act in weird ways, everyday, AND DO NOTHING WRONG!!!

Now in theory I think they're fine, the problem is that we are trading rights for safety. And I don't mind the trade, to a point. But I am very concerned with the threshold we set on exactly what needs to occur to have rights oppressed.

The largest mass murder of almost 3,000 people used box cutters and airplanes. 169 dead in Oklahoma City, using diesel fuel and fertilizer. These weren't crazy, these were intentional. No guns needed.

Then we have to look at the laws themselves. Does the accused have an automatic right to a lawyer? Does the accused have an automatic right of appeal? Are LE legally required to store what they have taken indefinitely?

If we're going to trample rights for safety then we had better make certain that we have safety catches to try to return to full restoration of rights as soon as possible.

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

we are trading rights for safety. And I don't mind the trade,

Regards,

Doug

I never before knew that was a Libertarian principle! You learn something new every day.