Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/10/2002 8:25:03 AM EST
[url]http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069253[/url]
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 8:33:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 8:35:38 AM EST
I'm just surprised it took THIS long to jump on it.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 8:37:44 AM EST
As we all know, liberals can get very petty. Some were ragging on us for not being overwrought about Sarah Brady having cancer, but at least we did not have the media doing it for us.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 8:38:46 AM EST
(Sigh.) It was a legitimate question. The board (Slate) on which it was published is an "Ask a question, get an answer" board. I'm sure Fox will cover it, too. And were [i]you[/i] aware of the California law? Were [i]you[/i] aware that the NRA "initially" supported it? And have [i]you[/i] ever cared for or lived with someone suffering from Alzheimer's? Information is not a bad thing. Thanks for the link. It was informative.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 8:46:10 AM EST
I'm siding with KBaker on this one. I didn't see anything spiteful or petty towards Heston in the article. I did, however, discover that the California state legislature is composed of bigger lunatics than I had previously suspected. I find it interesting that nobody (aside from KBaker and myself) caught the irony in the fact that Heston may be caught up in a stupid law that the NRA initially supported.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 8:50:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker: (Sigh.) It was a legitimate question. The board (Slate) on which it was published is an "Ask a question, get an answer" board. I'm sure Fox will cover it, too. And were [i]you[/i] aware of the California law? Were [i]you[/i] aware that the NRA "initially" supported it? And have [i]you[/i] ever cared for or lived with someone suffering from Alzheimer's? Information is not a bad thing. Thanks for the link. It was informative.
View Quote
It is a legite question.One that should be asked of any individual who becomes incompetent.However it may never progess to anything other than forgetfullness.However if slate is anything it is biased.There immediate assumption is guns should be taken away for any and every reason. As for Sarah Brady,she made her choices she will have to live and die with it.Wishing someone a death she is about to endur is not something I would do.Even though there was many a time I would haved loved to stand on her neck.I look at it as compassion.It would have kept her from smoking.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 8:55:55 AM EST
It's not "How petty can you get.?" It's "How Petty Can You Get?" [sniper]How'd I do?
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 9:09:49 AM EST
I read the article agian.They were fair.Gave links to NRA ect.The part of the law that gets me is his wife could not keep them.Is she to judged infirm because her husband may be.She doesnt have the intellegence to keep them out of reach? I'm just bettin Charlie can afford a safe.Change the lock problem solved.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 9:19:34 AM EST
I feel for the guy and his friends and family, this is a terrible disease, horrible , I was going to say more but that sums it up horrible. If he gets to that stage he will not even remember he had guns, so it is not a big issue. I wish him and his family well. When he gets it badly it would be wise to remove any weapons from the house, for his safety and others, fact of life, no aspersions cast on him it is not his fault. God Bless him and his
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 10:52:14 AM EST
Legal analysis by [url=volokh.blogspot.com]Eugene Volokh,[/url] pro-gun law professor (after citing the [i]Slate[/i] story:
Now I am not an expert on this area of the law, and I may well be mistaken, but I'm not quite sure that the law can really be read this way. Here's how I read it: Sec. 8100(a) bars people from possessing firearms while they're receiving inpatient care and are a threat to themselves (defined as showing some tendency towards suicide) or others (not clearly defined by the statute). Once the person is discharged (not just temporarily checked out, but discharged) from the inpatient facility, or if the person is not being treated as an inpatient, the section doesn't apply. I don't know much about Alzheimer's, but as I understand it, it doesn't generally call for being checked into an inpatient faciltiy. Sec. 8100(b) bars people from possessing firearms if they have communicate to a psychiatrist a serious threat of physical violence against an identifiable victim. Doesn't seem applicable here. Sec. 8102 provides for the temporary confiscation, which could be made permanent, of firearms from people who are "detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition." (It also provides for similar procedures for people covered by secs. 8100 and 8103.) I know of no plans for the detention or apprehension of Heston for such an examination, nor do I see any reason why the police to do that. Sec. 8103(a) is limited to people who are adjudicated by a court to be dangers to themselves or others, or as sex offenders. I suspect that very few of the millions of people who suffer from Alzheimer's are brought into court for such adjudications, unless they actually do something that seems dangerous. Sec. 8103(b), (c), and (d) are limited to people who were found to be not guilty of some crime by reason of insanity, or found mentally incompetent to stand trial on some criminal charge. Sec. 8103(e) applies to people who are placed under a conservatorship by a court. I am not an expert on conservatorship law, but as I understand it this is one category that might cover quite a few Alzheimer's patients, since this category may often be triggered even when a person hasn't done anything that seems physically harmful to others; as I understand it, conservatorships commonly take place to protect the subject's property, ability to get proper medical care, and so on. Still, I doubt that most Alzheimer's patients are placed under conservatorships; my sense is that the family usually works this out without court help. Sec. 8103(f) applies to people who are taken into custody by the government or assessed by the government on the grounds that they are dangers to themselves or to others -- again, my sense is that this generally applies only to people who have committed some dangerous-seeming acts that trigger government attention. I realize that some might say that anyone who is sufficiently mentally incompetent and has guns around may thus be a danger to others -- but even if this is so as a factual matter, the test isn't whether the person is a danger to others, but rather whether he has been taken into custody or assessed on those grounds, something that I doubt routinely happens until the person engages in some positive act that seems potentially harmful. Sec. 8103(g) applies to people who have been certified for intensive treatment after being taken into custody on grounds that they are threats to themselves or others or are gravely disabled; again, though, it's limited to people who have been taken into custody on these grounds, which to my knowledge Alzheimer's patients generally aren't, at least until they engage in specific acts that suggest to the authorities that they are a danger. As I read the sections, a doctor is not obligated to report anything to the police except if the patient communicates to the doctor a serious threat of physical violence against an identifiable victim. See secs. 8101(b), 8105(c). Perhaps there are other statutes that require a doctor to report a patient's disability, but I'm unaware of them, and the Slate article didn't mention them. So the bottom line: Based on my reading of the statute that Slate cites, and other sections referred to by the statute, an Alzheimer's patient will generally not be stripped of his right to own a gun unless he (1) is placed under a conservatorship, (2) communicates to a psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against an identifiable victim, or is (3) taken into custody by the government or assessed by the government on the grounds that the person is a threat to others or is gravely disabled, something that typically (to my knowledge) doesn't happen unless the person commits some act that is seen by government authorities as potentially dangerous. If Heston can avoid fitting under these categories -- which seems quite likely, at least unless it is found necessary to place him under conservatorship for financial or medical care reasons -- then he won't have to give up his guns. All of this is a legal analysis, not a policy analysis. Whether people who are suffering from Alzheimer's should have their guns taken away is a different question; to evaluate it, I take it we should investigate, among other things, (1) how often such people harm others or inadvertently harm themselves with guns, (2) how likely people are to err in diagnozing sufficiently severe cases of Alzheimer's, and (3) more broadly, how concerned we are about ceding considerable legal power to the expert judgment of psychiatric professionals. The answer might be that people who are suffering from "full-blown Alzheimer's" should have their guns taken away; I just haven't investigated the matter closely enough to tell. But as a legal matter -- and stressing again that I am not an expert in this field -- my tentative view is that Slate's analysis, and especially its unqualified "Yes" answer to the question that it asks, is not quite sound. Charlton Heston has enough to worry about; I don't think he needs to worry that he will be officially stripped of a right that he believes to be quite valuable, and the loss of which might be greeted with some pleasure by some (though surely not all) of his political adversaries. I welcome correction, though, from others who are more knowledgeable on this statutory scheme than I am.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 11:04:50 AM EST
More bullsh*t reporting. There was absolutely no mention of the need for a reported threat, or a legal finding, an voluntary or involuntary committment, etc. Sure it's a long section, but this kind of oversimplification leaves the impression that the police can just show up and take his guns if a nosy neighbor complains. There's another possibility that could haunt him on this, which I'd rather not go into for fear of fueling something by the liberals. I really think the smart thing for him to do is either quietly transfer his firearms to someone else who will keep them available for him to use, or make an announcement that in consultation with his NRA-member physician (hoping, here), he will get rid of them at an appropriate time in the future. He should be able to afford a bodyguard. But think about the rest of us - what would we do in such a situation?
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 11:05:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 11:19:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By Maynard: Do you think that if ,uhmm let's say, Janet Reno were to suffer from a debilitating neurological disease that the media would angle it in such a way that they would touch on the topic of her gun rights? Why is it news? IMO, it shouldn't be. Will they also report or ask whether he will still be able to operate a vehicle next?
View Quote
When you say "he", are you speaking of Janet Reno, driving around Florida with who knows what for protection? Who's willing to go to bat for HER?
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 11:20:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By prk: More bullsh*t reporting. There was absolutely no mention of the need for a reported threat, or a legal finding, an voluntary or involuntary committment, etc. Sure it's a long section, but this kind of oversimplification leaves the impression that the police can just show up and take his guns if a nosy neighbor complains.
View Quote
However, that's how laws (that even the NRA "initially" supports) get twisted. Look at what Maryland Attorney General Curran is doing, using Federal law to take the right to arms away from anyone who ever was convicted of a crime where they [i]could have been[/i] given a sentence of two years or more. In his case, if there were [i]no sentencing guidlines[/i] then [i]you [b]could have received[/b][/i] a sentence of "two years or more." That's the problem with passing law after law after law - someone can twist, fold, spindle and mutilate the law to do whatever they want with it. The more complex the law, the likelier they are to do it.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 3:16:50 PM EST
It sure is comforting to know how compassionate the dummycrats are. How about all those mean spirited republicans?????(sarcastic)
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 3:20:20 PM EST
Only one line from that article really disturbs me.
The DA would then file a motion to revoke Heston's gun ownership rights.
View Quote
That one.
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 3:56:30 PM EST
hey Chuck, move on down here to TEXAS. we all have mental disorders
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 4:47:05 PM EST
Have a friend who had three radios shot off his back while in Nam,the last one tore up his backside,back and some of his leg . He got a well earned (free ticket home). Due to the trauma of his wounds and the drugs needed monthly for his eternal pain,he can no longer own firearms! He has a bumper sticker on his Tauras that says{ Peace Live In It or Die In It!) I know there are a lot of Vets that can't own guns for this very same reason, Another friend of mine was shot in the hip while on a ladder of a copter. He swears it was by our guys,but he has the same prob can't own a gun. He bought one anyway saying what are they going to do to me,send me to Nam? Kill me well they had thier chance. Something needs to be done so the Nam and other wounded Vets can own Firearms! My younger brother was in Chue Lia,operation starlight,and extended an extra year in the Corps. Now I know he has problems Agent Orange,Scisoprenia .ect and has no bussiness with a gun . But am sure there are many disabeled Vets that should,and can not own them. So whats up with chuck,in a few years he won't remmember having any guns! Bob [50]
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 7:33:05 PM EST
The state also denies gun ownership to those suffering from any kind of grave illness.
View Quote
So if you have cancer you can't own firearms?
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 7:43:27 PM EST
That means Heston would be prevented from [red]legally[/red] purchasing another firearm.
View Quote
While somehow implying he would buy a gun illegally?
Link Posted: 8/10/2002 10:44:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By bunghole:
The state also denies gun ownership to those suffering from any kind of grave illness.
View Quote
So if you have cancer you can't own firearms?
View Quote
Statists tend to worry about people who have nothing to lose.
Top Top