Colorado considers gun ban for people 'suspected' of being dangerous

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Now you know why gun registration is a bad idea. I suppose a vindictive spouse or ex could say any cop or military personnel is potentially "dangerous" because of their job and training. Once they know you have guns they will make laws to come and take them from you.



They will use doctors, counselors, and psychologists to administer this and say it is a health issue. Just like asking if you have guns in your home.





http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...gun-ban-for-people-suspected-being-dangerous/

.
Colorado considers gun ban for people suspected of being dangerous

Published April 04, 2013

Associated Press




DENVER – Legislation that would block people who are suspected of being dangerous from possessing a firearm is expected to be introduced in Colorado, setting up the next fight over gun control laws.

The bill would allow psychologists, nurses, family therapists and counselors to ask that a person's name be entered into the national background check system, prohibiting possession of a firearm for a year.

A draft of Democratic Rep. Beth McCann's proposal says the gun ban would apply to people "who pose a threat of harm."

The NRA says it's "most unconstitutional" legislation of the session.

Limits on ammunition magazines and required background checks on all gun sales already have been signed into law this year in Colorado.

McCann says she's working on the bill and will file it soon.
.

.

 

[SabbathWolf]

This is not going to work out so well.
You can "suspect" anything you like about anybody you want to.

 

[Deer_Freak]

Think people who want to take another mans property, be it a screwdriver or a gun are dangerous. The should be treated as you would a common thief.

 

[longknife12]

This was withdrawn last nite...
Dan

 

[Yo Mama]

Awwww, withdrawn? That's no fun. I was hoping she'd push it, would have been president for thowing out this garbage in the future while we still have the Supreme Court on our side.

 

[Zoogster]

Such a thing is already essentially done in CA. The criteria for a 72 hour psychiatric hold is simply an officer or family telling a professional they believe they are a danger to self or others based on some observations.
There is some discretion, but if for example it is a police officer they will almost always go through with it.
They are then held for up to 72 hours for observation.

The person is then banned from possessing firearms for 5 years.



The fact that they would be using counselors and psychologists to admister this in Colorado actually means it already has the people involved that could already make a 72 hour hold happen immediately without question. So such legislation would be unnecessary in CA.


Unlike a commitment there is no judicial process, magistrate, no possible appeal, no evidence or challenging of evidence, etc

So for example if a left leaning psychologist in a place like California was to hear the guy they know has firearms is now feeling depressed after a divorce etc and decide that this person poses a risk based simply on owning guns and thier emotional state, they could become a prohibited person for years.
Likewise a police officer can do the same thing for people who have committed no crime, but who they want to remove from some situation. Family argument, person seems upset? They have committed no crime? May become a prohibited person for years.

California also has firearm registration, and closed the 'gun show loophole' so all transfers for through an FFL. A list of registered owners is automatically cross checked in a statewide computer database for such people.
When someone receives a 72 hour observation they are red flagged, and an armed team is sent to confiscate thier firearms.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Power to the Doctors..........

Doctors in Virginia were given a great deal of power under the law in the infamous 1924 Racial Integrity and Sterilsation Acts, partial overturned by a Supreme Court decision in a 1967 case and entirely repealed by the state of Virginia in 1975.

Under this law a total of 6,683 people were sterilized. Callie Buck was declared "feeble minded" and involuntarily sterilized. And her mother. And her 3 year old daughter. When Doris Buck was hospitalized for appendicitis, the doctors noted she was related to Callie. While Doris was under for the appendectomy, the doctors went ahead and sterilized her without notification or consent. In 1980 she finally learned she had been sterilized during her appendectomy. Researchers and reporters who interviewed Callie believe she was misdiagnosed in the first place.

Doctors are like fire or government, occassionally useful to have a rpound, but need to be kept on a tight leash. Hubris and Arrogance often have a comma MD after their name. Rights should not be limited by whim or opinion.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

This is one of the reasons I always answer a flat "No" if I'm ever asked if I own firearms , assuming I have no legal obligation to answer.

 

[beatledog7]

There are lots of people who suspect Sandy Hook was a hoax, and there are lots of people who suspect that a certain elected official is ineligible for the office he holds by nature of his nativity.

Suspecting something is not a legal basis for denying a right.

 

[r1derbike]

Delete Post

 

[oneounceload]

Hitler has reared his head - this time in Colorado.

What about keeping these same people from driving cars, buying alcohol, kitchen knives, and on and on

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

If you really were not planning on being "dangerous", but they accuse you of it anyway, might they not just push you over the edge, and "make" you dangerous? I know a lot of good old boys that just want to have their guns and be left alone, and have no criminal intent whatsoever, but if the government makes them criminals, they intend to " act" like criminals. Will it ever stop?

 

[hso]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=711544