Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 4/20/2007 8:24:36 AM EDT
So let me ask, if Cho had been "Baker Acted" would that not have made him a no go on the NICS? If I remember reading correctly, he was Baker Acted, it was then that he was deemed to be not a threat to himself or others. So, does getting put in for a 72 hour watch void out somebody's rights to purchase firearms, or does it mean that somebody like Cho would have to go before a judge and actually be "adjuticated" through the court system?

One of my concerns on this is that anybody can Baker Act anybody else, bullshit or not, and even if you're cleared in the 72 hours, the fact that you were involuntarily hospitalized will show up on your record. With talks going on between the NRA and the Dems regarding making the NICS more comprehensive in regards to access to mental health records and usage of such as disqualifiers, would it not also be possible for people (like the journalist who posted the list of CCW's) to arbitrarily Baker Act anybody who owned a firearm?

Backdoor ban/confiscation?
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 8:40:51 AM EDT
I'm sure under any new law, someone would have to be actually adjudicated to be denied access to firearms. It's called Due Process. even when police make an arrest, they can't actually be CHARGED until they are arraigned by a judge and a PC determination is made. The problem I have with any proposed new law is that if you get some anti-gun judge, he could find anyone that owned a gun to be "a danger to themselves or others" and prevent them from owning guns anymore based on little to no evidence.
Top Top