Hey Larry, thanks for the reply. I’m not sure how to use the quote feature. But, let me try to clarify what I meant.
First, thank you for your family’s service! One thing the military does is control their weapons. When I was in, women were trained in combat arms, but could not have combat arms MOS. It was peacetime, and there was an armory with an armed guard 24/7 at every barracks. Soldiers did not have personal weapons, and only carried military weapons under authorized supervision.
Students in a college dorm, even at West Point or Annapolis, may not have weapons on campus. I hardly think that any non-military college could manage an armory of the type that would supervise the carrying of weapons on campus.
My first post covered a lot of material, in retrospect far too much. And yes, I did simplify. I’ll add some detail, since people actually read my post. It is good to know.
Regarding the gun scare, the local PD was notified after more than one parent called them after hearing their kids say that some guy was going berserk on the Internet targeting the school and giving a specific date of his planned attack. Most people thought he wouldn’t do anything, especially after putting it on a social media website. But, the Santa Barbara shooter did the same thing, and nobody reported it and look what happened. Six young women were gunned down in cold blood, after which he turned the weapon on himself and committed suicide. (To me this qualifies as the kind of madness I would like to see ended)
But the local PD took the threat at my GD’s school seriously, made three arrests in the early morning of the allegedly planned attack, and confiscated weapons. My GD (granddaughter) said that most kids thought they arrested the wrong guys. But with all of the police cruisers surrounding the school that morning, plus a local news program showing the police in force around the school early that morning, if anybody not arrested was serious about carrying out an attack, they must have changed their minds. Only about 1/4th of the students went to school that day, and all final exams scheduled for that day were rescheduled.
And in California Evidence Code 1024, the language says a mandated reporter MAY report a known person who, in the course of their professional relationship with the person, has expressed he or she has the means, motive, and state of mind to carry out a serious attack, even if there is no specifically identified victim. This is a fairly recent addition to existing law, which did “require” any professional licensed in a mental health field (social workers, psychologists, etc) if a specific intended victim was identified, and the licensee had a way to contact the prospective victim. Along with the mandate to report, the reporter would receive immunity from liability, AS LONG AS, the reporter appropriately documented their reasons for reporting, and it included the required information regarding, means, motive, and state of mind of the “dangerous person”. This is not about guns, the weapon could be a baseball bat, knife, poison - whatever. Personally, I ended my social work career felicitously, largely due to the mandated reporter requirements, and the copious amounts of case notes I was responsible for keeping under double locks, the annual continuing education requirements to stay up on law and ethics, and just a general feeling that I very well could be contributing to growing social problems rather than solving them.
When making the report, the person making the report needs to identify themselves as a mandated reporter, or the PD dispatch may or may not do anything.
There are specific situations where I needed to remember which was a “may" and which was a “must". And, heck yes, it was very frustrating.
Evidence code 1024 is not about kids ratting out their parents or neighbors. It is a law, which would have prevented the Colorado theatre mass murder, since the shooter was in therapy, his therapist did know he was a serious threat, but was incapable of doing anything about it because the Colorado confidentiality codes are too touchy-feely for her to have made a 1024-like report. That is exactly why I believe that a nationwide Evidence Code 1024 would do far more to prevent sickos from indiscriminate killing than UBC’s.
Nazi Germany? Not hardly. Not yet anyway. The protection against liability for a mental health professional who chooses to report not, is required to report, is still subject to keeping good case notes, and being willing to go to court to defend their actions if necessary. A case worker needs to be absolutely completely sure the person they are reporting is a clear and immediate danger to others to themselves, before they make the call. And yet, without a specifically identified victim, the law still says may, not shall.
Among the many thousands of people I dealt with in a professional capacity over the years, I never had a single case where I could have made such a report. But, I needed to know the rules to keep my license.
Does evidence code 1024 apply to the general public? No. The general public can call the police about anything at anytime. If a parent called the police because they knew of a person who had clearly demonstrated a threat, it is their right, I believe under existing laws in all 50 States. Is this Nazi Germany? I seriously hope not. I am glad that parents called law enforcement in the case of my GD’s high school about the last day of final exams. Nothing happened. Isn’t that what we want?
In conclusion, I am vehemently against building any kind of government database on private citizens who have not broken any laws, or who somebody thinks might. I strongly support our 2nd amendment rights. And, I do indeed see any kind of universal registration of weapons as a step on the path to losing our national sovereignty.
The small weapons treaty that John Kerry has put into motion through the UN is precisely that. If that idiotic move to make it possible to disarm all Americans gets ratified, then we might as well be in Nazi Germany.
Background checks when purchasing guns, fine. Then a State's DOJ should shred all data related to the background check, never give it to the Fed’s, and just deal with the persons denied gun ownership in a logical way. In California, it used to be that way. Even a convicted felon could purchase a gun five years after serving their sentence and staying out of trouble. Maybe they should have required them to take additional gun safety training. They didn’t. That’s my idea. But, now, they are marked for life. What kind of guns will they buy? Illegal ones. Will they feel rehabilitated? No.
I do not have a problem with my State knowing the serial number of a handgun I might own. It would make any legal handgun owner be more responsible about locking and controlling the whereabouts of their weapon.
As I started out to say, I was actually considering giving a handgun to my granddaughter when she turned 18 for her own safety. She could not purchase one herself until 21. But PA and NH allow 18 year olds to carry handguns given by a parent, spouse, or grandparent.
After careful consideration, I decided against it, even if she went to PA or NH for college. Federal law would have her expelled if the gun were discovered, or reported by a roommate, for example. And if discovered, it would very possibly get stolen. So, really the gist of my previous comment would better to have been limited to that. But I had at least three topics, sparsely identified, and got accused of trying to turn America into Nazi Germany.
I will try to be more succint in future posts.
And Larry, did I at least give you some notion of what madness I would like to end?
Ps. The clear code on a DL to purchase and carry a concealed weapon in all 50 states, heck yes. Legislators like to legislate. Let the AG crowd go on the defense with a bill like that. And let Bloomberg spend more useless millions.
