Indy LTCH holder nabbed in Bloomington

[bwframe]

It's all good until they decide they don't like their meds anymore.

 

[coltaceguy]

I have no idea of the actual man involved in this case. However, most of you all would be "mentally unstable" per any judgement by a Monroe County judge such as in this case. It just seems to be a dangerous road to go down, LTCH revoked and guns taken.

As for the image I posted, the Long Island Medium sees visions, is she mentally unstable? TLC doesn't think so, thats why they pay her $55,000 an episode.

 

[sepe]

I have no idea of the actual man involved in this case. However, most of you all would be "mentally unstable" per any judgement by a Monroe County judge such as in this case. It just seems to be a dangerous road to go down, LTCH revoked and guns taken.

As for the image I posted, the Long Island Medium sees visions, is she mentally unstable? TLC doesn't think so, thats why they pay her $55,000 an episode.

Wrong. TLC pays her that much per episode because she brings in ratings. Ratings bring in advertisers. They don't give a if she is mentally unstable. They care about the almighty dollar.

 

[coltaceguy]

Wrong. TLC pays her that much per episode because she brings in ratings. Ratings bring in advertisers. They don't give a if she is mentally unstable. They care about the almighty dollar.

Just saying, saying someone is "mentally unstable" because they "see visions" is no justification for taking their right to bare arms.

 

[bwframe]

...However, most of you all would be "mentally unstable" per any judgement by a Monroe County judge such as in this case.

Actually, first it was LEO that determined the gent had mental issues. They sent him for a medical evaluation which determined he needed help. Then the judge ruled on the outcome.

Long story short. We may all be crazy, but those of us who act out on it are subject to the opinions of others.

 

[RandomName]

Every right has limitations. Folks can say its as simple as "shall not be infringed", but in that case a death row inmate would be allowed a loaded AK-47 in his cell, we could all have weaponized anthrax in a jar on our book case, and I could finally drive a tank to work and not worry about traffic. We all understand that some infringement is necessary to have a working society, and here's a big one: REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY DIFFER ON WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN. We tend to demonize those with a different opinion.

That said, I don't want lunatics having easy access to firearms. Look at the guy who shot up the Batman theater showing. If cops or a shrink had ran across him and realized he was a few french fries short of a happy meal, confiscated his weapon, and sent him in for a tune up a lot of lives would have been saved AND the anti-gunners would have had one less talking point.

Is it a slippery slope? Everything is. We have a speed limit? They could take it down to 15mph and we'd all have to bike! They could outlaw cars with a 3mph speed limit and we'd all have to walk! Speed limits are socialist and evil! That's stupid, and we all know its stupid. Cases like this must be evaulated on an individual basis, and as long as there is due process and its done transparently so that abuses can be seen, it is reasonable and should be expected. Leaving guns in the hands of whack jobs until after the commit a tragedy? That's not reasonable in my mind.

 

[TheReaper]

Every right has limitations. Folks can say its as simple as "shall not be infringed", but in that case a death row inmate would be allowed a loaded AK-47 in his cell, we could all have weaponized anthrax in a jar on our book case, and I could finally drive a tank to work and not worry about traffic. We all understand that some infringement is necessary to have a working society, and here's a big one: REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY DIFFER ON WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN. We tend to demonize those with a different opinion.

That said, I don't want lunatics having easy access to firearms. Look at the guy who shot up the Batman theater showing. If cops or a shrink had ran across him and realized he was a few french fries short of a happy meal, confiscated his weapon, and sent him in for a tune up a lot of lives would have been saved AND the anti-gunners would have had one less talking point.

Is it a slippery slope? Everything is. We have a speed limit? They could take it down to 15mph and we'd all have to bike! They could outlaw cars with a 3mph speed limit and we'd all have to walk! Speed limits are socialist and evil! That's stupid, and we all know its stupid. Cases like this must be evaulated on an individual basis, and as long as there is due process and its done transparently so that abuses can be seen, it is reasonable and should be expected. Leaving guns in the hands of whack jobs until after the commit a tragedy? That's not reasonable in my mind.

You're talking sense and that doesn't go well here on INGO's!

 

[sepe]

Every right has limitations. Folks can say its as simple as "shall not be infringed", but in that case a death row inmate would be allowed a loaded AK-47 in his cell, we could all have weaponized anthrax in a jar on our book case, and I could finally drive a tank to work and not worry about traffic. We all understand that some infringement is necessary to have a working society, and here's a big one: REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY DIFFER ON WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN. We tend to demonize those with a different opinion.

That said, I don't want lunatics having easy access to firearms. Look at the guy who shot up the Batman theater showing. If cops or a shrink had ran across him and realized he was a few french fries short of a happy meal, confiscated his weapon, and sent him in for a tune up a lot of lives would have been saved AND the anti-gunners would have had one less talking point.

Is it a slippery slope? Everything is. We have a speed limit? They could take it down to 15mph and we'd all have to bike! They could outlaw cars with a 3mph speed limit and we'd all have to walk! Speed limits are socialist and evil! That's stupid, and we all know its stupid. Cases like this must be evaulated on an individual basis, and as long as there is due process and its done transparently so that abuses can be seen, it is reasonable and should be expected. Leaving guns in the hands of whack jobs until after the commit a tragedy? That's not reasonable in my mind.

A "shrink" did believe that he was a threat and shared her concerns as did the university. Apparently, his "shrink" had warned one of the university LEOs. From what I've read, she did what she was suppose to and nothing came of it. I'm not sure if she was suppose to go confiscate the weapons herself since the warning didn't go anywhere (it wasn't the only warning she gave either).

 

[Mr. Habib]

Educate yourself:

IC 35-47-14
Chapter 14. Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm


IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-2
Warrant to search for firearm in possession of dangerous individual
Sec. 2. A circuit or superior court may issue a warrant to search for and seize a firearm in the possession of an individual who is dangerous if:
(1) a law enforcement officer provides the court a sworn affidavit that:
(A) states why the law enforcement officer believes that the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm; and
(B) describes the law enforcement officer's interactions and conversations with:
(i) the individual who is alleged to be dangerous; or
(ii) another individual, if the law enforcement officer believes that information obtained from this individual is credible and reliable;
that have led the law enforcement officer to believe that the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm;
(2) the affidavit specifically describes the location of the firearm; and
(3) the circuit or superior court determines that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is:
(A) dangerous; and
(B) in possession of a firearm.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-4
Filing of return after warrant is served
Sec. 4. If a court issued a warrant to seize a firearm under this chapter, the law enforcement officer who served the warrant shall, not later than forty-eight (48) hours after the warrant was served, file a return with the court that:
(1) states that the warrant was served; and
(2) sets forth:
(A) the time and date on which the warrant was served;
(B) the name and address of the individual named in the warrant; and
(C) the quantity and identity of any firearms seized by the law enforcement officer.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.


IC 35-47-14-5
Requirement of hearing on whether firearm should be returned or retained
Sec. 5. (a) Not later than fourteen (14) days after a return is filed under section 4 of this chapter or a written statement is submitted under section 3 of this chapter, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the seized firearm should be:
(1) returned to the individual from whom the firearm was seized; or
(2) retained by the law enforcement agency having custody of

the firearm.
(b) The court shall set the hearing date as soon as possible after the return is filed under section 4 of this chapter. The court shall inform:
(1) the prosecuting attorney; and
(2) the individual from whom the firearm was seized;
of the date, time, and location of the hearing. The court may conduct the hearing at a facility or other suitable place not likely to have a harmful effect upon the individual's health or well-being.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-6
Burden of proof at hearing; court orders
Sec. 6. (a) In a hearing conducted under section 5 of this chapter, the state has the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence.
(b) If the court, in a hearing under section 5 of this chapter, determines that the state has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is dangerous, the court may order that the law enforcement agency having custody of the seized firearm retain the firearm. In addition, if the individual has received a license to carry a handgun, the court shall suspend the individual's license to carry a handgun. If the court determines that the state has failed to prove that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual from whom it was seized.
(c) If the court, in a hearing under section 5 of this chapter, orders a law enforcement agency to retain a firearm, the law enforcement agency shall retain the firearm until the court orders the firearm returned or otherwise disposed of.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.


IC 35-47-14-7
If firearm seized is owned by another individual
Sec. 7. If the court, in a hearing conducted under section 5 of this chapter, determines that:
(1) the individual from whom a firearm was seized is dangerous; and
(2) the firearm seized from the individual is owned by another individual;
the court may order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the owner of the firearm.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.


IC 35-47-14-8
Petition for return of a firearm
Sec. 8. (a) At least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date on which a court orders a law enforcement agency to retain an individual's firearm under section 6(b) of this chapter, the individual may petition the court for return of the firearm.
(b) Upon receipt of a petition described in subsection (a), the court shall:
(1) enter an order setting a date for a hearing on the petition; and
(2) inform the prosecuting attorney of the date, time, and location of the hearing.
(c) The prosecuting attorney shall represent the state at the hearing on a petition under this section.
(d) In a hearing on a petition under this section, the individual:
(1) may be represented by an attorney; and
(2) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual is not dangerous.
(e) If, upon the completion of the hearing and consideration of the record, the court finds that the individual is not dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(f) If the court denies an individual's petition under this section, the individual may not file a subsequent petition until at least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date on which the court denied the petition.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-9
When law enforcement agency may be ordered to destroy firearm
Sec. 9. If at least five (5) years have passed since a court conducted the first hearing to retain a firearm under this chapter, the court, after giving notice to the parties and conducting a hearing, may order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to destroy or otherwise permanently dispose of the firearm.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

I have educated myself. The question was "what was he convicted of". He was never charged with a crime, much less convicted of anything.

 

[TheReaper]

I have educated myself. The question was "what was he convicted of". He was never charged with a crime, much less convicted of anything.

I guess that you didn't read it, he doesn't have to be "convicted" of anything. If you don't like the law, change it.

 

[Mr. Habib]

I understand the law that you referenced. You are right, under the law his guns could be, and were, confiscated. The fact remains that he was not charged or convicted of any crime.

 

[Glock19]

Well, he has like 5 years before they get destroyed to prove hes not mental to get them back.

 

[Ted]

Instead of people merely quoting, ".....shall not be infringed.", let us instead look toward the original intent of the Framers.

Did colonial times have criminals and the insane? Yes.

If this guy would have been determined to be dangerous to others during colonial times, would he have been permitted to possess a firearm? It would have been likely that he would have committed, and wouldn't have been permitted to leave the institution.

Medical science today, has advanced treatment to allow people to function outside institutions.....but such people aren't quite yet fully responsible.

Did the Framers make a concerted effort to arm the insane and prisoners? No.

There has to be context to a statement, without merely quoting it.