Should firearm seekers have their heads examined?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Even NRA-approved legislators are talking about the need for mental health reforms to reduce daily massacres in the US.

Some jurisdictions, including California, allow for psychological testing of applicants for concealed handgun carrying licenses. Given the prevalence in the US of mental health issues that could erupt in violence, it seems to me that such testing might be required of (a) all applicants for CCW and also (b) all weapons seekers subject to firearm-purchase background tests.

How much time elapses between a gun nut’s most recent firearm purchase and his perpetrating a massacre? How often are massacre weapons purchased locally? Are psychological tests capable of diagnosing reliably risks of gun violence? Could such risks be diminished by at least making local law enforcement aware of apparent homicidal hotheads, such as the Oregonian who wiped out many of his literature classmates?

What are your thoughts and on requiring psychological tests for (a) all applicants for CCW and also for (b) all customers for whom firearm dealers seek background checks?

Here is an excerpt from the California CCW license application regarding possible local requirements for (a).

From https://www.sjpd.org/PDF_Forms/BOF_4012_CCWapplication_112012.pdf

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BOF 4012 (Rev. 11/2012), PAGE 1 of 13
BUREAU OF FIREARMS STANDARD INITIAL AND RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON

Authority: California Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155 provide that a sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county may issue a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person (CCW license). Penal Code section 26175 requires the Attorney General to prescribe a statewide standard application form for a CCW license.

Who May be Issued a License: The licensing authority specified in Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155 (a sheriff or the chief or other head of a municipal police department) may issue a license to persons who are of good moral character, who have completed a course of training, and where good cause exists for issuance of the CCW license. All applicants for a CCW license will be fingerprinted and state and federal records will be checked to determine if they are eligible to possess firearms. The attachment to this application list all categories that would prohibit a person from possessing firearms and being granted a CCW license. These attachments are updated annually to reflect new legislation and other changes in the law.

Psychological Testing: In addition to licensing requirements as specified by the licensing authority, jurisdictions may require psychological testing on the initial application. If required, the applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees. Any fees charged will be the responsibility of the applicant and such fees shall not exceed $150.00 for an initial test.

[saturnsring]

1. yes yearly and they should have to have insurance for if they kill someone and should have

to submit to police inspection of weapons at any time.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. You would have to move if you wanted to live somewhere

that has anything close to that.

[TeddyR]

46. So you want an insurance company to ensure against a criminal act?

You should contact every insurance company you are aware of and see what they say (the answer will be no). And you also want to give the police an unfettered right to engage in a search without reasonable cause? That sounds very much like an authoritarian state to me.

[saturnsring]

52. the amount of your premium will be hard for an insurance company to turn down

and you will give the police the right to do visual verification so you will in effect have given them pre-authorization to enter and you would not be able to say no. these would be the terms under which you can own a gun. oh year and yearly psych-evals too

you call it authoritarian I call it an agreement

[branford]

62. You cannot legally require the waiver of a constitutional right (4th Amendment)

as a condition to the exercise of another constitutional right (2nd Amendment).

You also don't understand the the nature of actual insurance, the reasons why intentional criminal acts will not be covered, or how premiums are determined.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

2. As to

part b I would then require a civics test for all who want to vote.

What you are suggesting amounts to a kind of poll tax on a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. The psychologist's fee could be picked up by the State, county,

or ATF, if you insist.

[yeoman6987]

5. I actually wouldn't mind a mental test

Watch how the tune will change when the same ones demanding this get turned down and yell discrimination. I look forward to that day.

[sub.theory]

20. It's a clear violation of equal protection

You can't deny some 60 million people (estimated US population with some mental illness) their Constitutionally guaranteed rights based on a relative handful of mass murderers. It's a blatant violation of equal protection. The blame it all on mental illness angle is the worst scapegoating I've seen in recent memory. 60 million people aren't potential mass murderers.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. Aren't you assuming the failure rate on

a psychological test designed to predict violent use of firearms would be 100 percent?

I should think the failure rate would be well under one percent. And, if the psychological test were investigated and found "reasonably related" to reducing the incidence of massacres, it would survive legal scrutiny.

[sub.theory]

28. Based on your logic that a handful of dangerous people

Justifies the violation of the rights of a much larger, innocent population why not allow for testing of all gun purchasers for being a suspicious black male? Young black men are statistically the most incarcerated population after all. It will make scared white people feel better and that's what really matters, right? Or maybe we should do the same thing about Muslims? After all, they might be a terrorist. Yes, what these people need is a good inquisition to find out what's in their hearts. Can you see how dangerous what are are proposing is? I realize your intentions, but you are attempting to violate the rights of potentially millions of innocent people based upon nothing but some vague suspicion. There is no evidence people with mental illness are more violent than the general population. You can't just deny people their Constitutional rights without justification. Sorry, but gun control will have to be uniform. Scapegoating the mentally ill isn't going to work anymore than singling out black men or Muslims.

[RKP5637]

37. I agree, well said! There are likely a number of factors at work and all variables IMO

can't just be hung on mental illness.

What I do think is needed is closing the loopholes for private sales and stringent gun registration. I also like the idea of smart weapons that only the owner can use. I don't have statistics on the latter, but at a first approximation the approach seems plausible.

What to do with all of the guns already in circulation, perhaps there could be a rebate/turn-in program for those that no longer want them. Of course, apparently, guns can be made with 3D printers, no ideas on that one. Going back to the topic, it would seem some type of profile analysis could be done as part of the registration.

I have no difficulty with responsible gun owners, but IMO there are others that belong nowhere near a gun.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

41. Mental illness is quite prevalent among mass murderers,

the vast majority of whom tend to be white males.

If it is possible to identify high-violence-risk gun seekers through psychological testing, and the tests are reasonble related to the prediction of firearms violence, I don't see your point.

[sub.theory]

43. Most terrorists are Muslims

So it then I suppose it follows that we need to test for Islamic beliefs when issuing gun licenses. Afterall statistics back that most terrorist attacks are by Muslims. So, what's the problem? Let's prevent devout Muslim men from owing guns. Chances are it will catch terrorists and if millions of innocents are wrongly denied, so what? It's the exact same reasoning you are using.

So, please explain how your psychological test will avoid this very same fallacy. You are attempting to quantify the unquantifiable and predict the unpredictable. Criminal activity is the only solid basis - just as is the case with terrorism.

[treestar]

87. Why do you assume they would all be denied?

Only the Muslim men with mental illnesses would be denied.

[TeddyR]

47. Maybe we should deny white males

Their right to keep and bear arms, since they represent the vast majority of mass murderers.

[FrodosPet]

76. And maybe we should deny black males

Their right to keep and bear arms, since they represent the vast majority of street murders?

Something tells me we are going to need a lot more prisons to lock up all these people. Which, on the "bright" side, will help create jobs for guards, builders, administrators, etc.

[treestar]

86. It would not have to deny all of them

A diagnosis might be required. Diagnosis of depression - risk of suicide. Diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia - risk of homicide. Then there could be an argument that the state interests outweighs the individual interest. It might pass the reasonableness test.

[Marr]

98. It's gun rights activists who've blamed mental illness for years-- sorry.

They've been insisting for ages that these rampage shooters were just isolated loonies. Well, ok-- here we are.

[Marr]

97. Yeah, that would be impossible-- like requiring ID to vote.

Sarcasm.

[underpants]

3. That is one of the best DU subject lines I have ever seen

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. Thank you. That's high praise

coming from you, whose thread titles have caught my eye many times over the years.

[underpants]

19. :-)

[ileus]

7. How about applying the same idea to all other rights...

[sarisataka]

9. Especially

those who want to run for any office.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. What other "rights" lead to daily massacres?

Even the First Amendment is subject to limitation, but only for hypothetical reasons, such as "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater". For so-called, recently granted by a discredited USSC, "Second Amendment rights", the danger is not hypothetical--it's all too real.

[Bonx]

27. The right to purchase and consume alcohol definitely kills a bunch of folks

We should have a test for that too, yes ?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

31. We do--they're called breathalyzers and

driver license tests. Anybody who drives is subject to those tests, to make sure that those who cannot sober up for the test, drive safely, or remember rules of the road never get licenses, and to check up on those who drive erratically or suspiciously.

Why shouldn't gun owners be licensed and subject to investigation when they try to amass big caches of weapons and ammo?

[Bonx]

33. No. I said a test to purchase and consume.

Nothing to do with driving.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

39. Is consuming alcohol a menace to society

when it doesn't entail impaired driving? Seems to me driving is quite intimately connected to the public health dangers of alcohol

[Bonx]

40. Seriously? People do all kinds of terrible things drunk

that have nothing to do with driving.
Spousal abuse, assault, rape, robbery, murder, etc.
Btw, I'm a gun owner, so you may have to stop talking to me.

[saturnsring]

56. there is, you can and are cut off by bartenders and store owners

[TeddyR]

48. So

Despite the Second Amendment, amassing "big caches of weapons and ammo" subjects you to a licensing requirement? How big does the cache have to be? Two guns, ten? And how much ammo - 34 rounds (or two magazines), 100 rounds, 500? I'm not a huge fan of random requirements, especially when they impede on a constitutionally protected right.

[treestar]

101. You have to be of a certain age

So it is restricted too.

[treestar]

88. why? Freedom of speech for instance has no chance of harming anyone

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. Ever heard of "Mein Kampf"?

[treestar]

100. Yes. Why does it mean restrictions on the 2nd

amendment automatically lead to restrictions on others?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

106. Is that a rhetorical question or are you really that naive?

1A, 2A, 4A -- Any-A, the world is full of people who wield power and will abuse the rights of others and the look for any pretext to do so. We shouldn't be providing them with pretexts for doing so. That's why the Bill of Rights defines limits for them, not the people.

[treestar]

107. It's naive to think there are no limits on any rights

See numerous Supreme Court cases.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. Which precedents provide wholesale restrictions without being based on individual misdeeds?

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. Would you support a posthumous pardon for *this* guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

Julius Streicher was not a member of the military and did not take part in planning the Holocaust, or the invasion of other nations. Yet his pivotal role in inciting the extermination of Jews was significant enough, in the prosecutors' judgment, to include him in the indictment of Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal – which sat in Nuremberg, where Streicher had once been an unchallenged authority. Most of the evidence against Streicher came from his numerous speeches and articles over the years. In essence, prosecutors contended that Streicher's articles and speeches were so incendiary that he was an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews (such as Hans Frank and Ernst Kaltenbrunner). They further argued that he kept them up when he was well aware Jews were being slaughtered.

He was acquitted of crimes against peace, but found guilty of crimes against humanity, and sentenced to death on 1 October 1946. The judgment against him read, in part:

"... For his 25 years of speaking, writing and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as 'Jew-Baiter Number One.' In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution. ... Streicher's incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity.”[15]

During his trial, Streicher displayed for the last time the flair for courtroom theatrics that had made him famous in the 1920s. He answered questions from his own defence attorney with diatribes against Jews, the Allies, and the court itself, and was frequently silenced by the court officers. Streicher was largely shunned by all of the other Nuremberg defendants. He also peppered his testimony with references to passages of Jewish texts he had so often carefully selected and inserted into the pages of Der Stürmer.

[jberryhill]

8. Heck, they can be BLIND too

One the whiny "If I have X, should my Constitutional blah blah blah..." threads, I'm surprised no blind folks have shown up to go on about their Second Amendment rights.

[flamin lib]

10. Would not have to go that far to reduce gun violence drastically.

Since the '70s the NRA has systematically removed as many safety checks as possible. Chief among these was the local constabulary. Getting "shall issue" laws passed in almost every state they took human intervention out of the equation. If someone passes a (flawed) background check they get a gun, period. Most local police know who the trouble makers are, who the abusers of alcohol are, who makes neighborhood disturbances and who just might not be sharpest knife in the drawer.

If there were a universal "permit to purchase" a firearm, requiring an interview with the local LEO and including interviews with family, employer and close acquaintances a LOT of people would get weeded out. The killer of Allison Parker (live on TV) could not have gotten past such a system. Dylan Roof couldn't have gotten a gun. The Oregon shooter, the Aurora shooter, Gabby Gifford's shooter, and how many others?

That's where I'd start.

Then rescind all the Stand your Ground laws and institute a national electronic registry.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. Good ideas. But would gun seekers

submit to interviews by detectives, and interviews of their family, friends, and employers, before they'd submit to testing by a psychologist?

[flamin lib]

17. Gun seekers never submit to anything. But they're all law abiding . . . nt

[Lurks Often]

36. This from a person who has stated he has (or had) guns himself

and has also stated he has (or had) a Curio & Relic license which allows a person to buy a gun WITHOUT going through a NICS check when buying a gun from a FFL in both a person's home state and across state borders.

[flamin lib]

61. I submitted to a background check from every LEO between the DOJ and the Chief of Police in my city.

I had to contact the Chief of Police in writing informing him I was applying for a CCR. It took 3 months to be approved by the BATF&E. Ya' wanna do the same? Yeah, I think you should. As minimum for owning ANY gun. You up for that scrutiny?

Didn't think so. Rather pass a flawed NICS and huddle in the basement with your cuddly AR15.

[sarisataka]

63. Do you conduct similar checks

on those you sell to?

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. Your question is being studiously ignored

Once again, controllers seek to serve dishes that they wouldn't eat themselves...

[Lurks Often]

69. Every time I buy a gun I pass my state's NICS check*

I'd easily pass the screening process for a C&R

And nothing I've said disproved my statement. As long as your C&R license is active, you DO NOT have to pass a NICS when you buy a gun.


*https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map

[flamin lib]

74. Yeah but I gave my home address, social security number and permission for the ATF to

visit my home on a moment's notice. You? Didn't think so. Keep cuddling your "shooting sports rifle" in the dark.

Oh, and as we've seen recently the NICS is flawed to the point of silliness.

[Lurks Often]

75. The basic fact remains is that every time you buy a gun, YOU don't have to pass a background check.

I pass a state background check EVERY single time I buy a gun, you, not so much.

One has to wonder exactly what guns you have sitting in your safe or safes or for that matter how many you guns do you own?

I'll bet some of those here so strongly favor of gun control won't like the answers to those two questions.

[flamin lib]

85. As I said, the ATF can walk into my home on a minute's notice and inspect my collection and the

bound book with all purchases and dispositions.

So, no, I'm not the least bit secretive about my collection. You up for having law enforcement come into YOUR house and have a look around? Didn't think so.

The point of all this is that reasonable gun owners can favor gun control. It's only the foam-at-the-mouth, from-my-cold-dead-hands necroguniacs that oppose any and every policy change.

Oh, and as for EVERY single time you buy a gun? That's just bullshit and you know it. Private sales, internet sales and yer uncle giving you a gun are completely unregulated. You can buy a gun on Craig's List, I, on the other hand have to very careful to know the history of everything I own.

Project much?

[Lee-Lee]

89. No, the BATF cannot come into your home at a moments notice and inspect

You need to pull out yor C&R book and red it again.

They can only do an unannounced, in home inspection of a C&R if they have reason to believe that you have violated the law- just like the standard of any warrant or search.

For a compliance inspection, they must contact you to schedule it since a C&R does not have business hours, and the C&R holder has the right to have the inspection conducted at the nearest BATF and transport anything they want to see there. Here is the relevant law:

(c) Any ATF officer, without having reasonable cause to believe a violation of the Act has occurred or that evidence of the violation may be found and without demonstrating such cause before a Federal magistrate or obtaining from the magistrate a warrant authorizing entry, may enter during hours of operation the premises, including places of storage, of any licensed collector for the purpose of inspecting or examining the records, documents, firearms, and ammunition referred to in paragraph (a) of this section (1) for ensuring compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of this part not more than once during any 12-month period or (2) when such inspection or examination may be required for determining the disposition of one or more particular firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. At the election of the licensed collector, the annual inspection permitted by this paragraph shall be performed at the ATF office responsible for conducting such inspection in the closest proximity to the collector's premises.

See te last sentence. A C&R holder has the right to refuse entry and do the inspection at the BATF office for a regular compliance inspection.

Please re-read your C&R book and quit misrepresenting what the law allows for.

[flamin lib]

90. And if the ATF wants a warrant they can get one. With the easy availability

of guns on-line and in private sales from people not "in the business" (which is not defined) they can simply suggest to a judge that they suspect I'm operating out of my house. After all, I have demonstrated an interest is acquiring guns in some quantity. The point being that the ATF KNOWS I'm buying guns and MAY be selling them. Fortunately for people like me they are too understaffed.

I went round and round with the ATF about buying and selling from my collection. What constitutes exceeding the "selling to improve the collection", is it based on some quantity, frequency or % of collection? At this point there are no answers to these questions so any inquiry for a warrant will be simple suspicion. It's like pornography, they know it when they see it or think they see it.

Hopefully Obama will fix the definition by executive order by assigning a number to the quantity of sales that qualify as being "in the business". The number being rumored is 50 a year.

[Lee-Lee]

92. No, warrants are not that easy-

I've written lots of them and the judges and magistrates I went in front of wanted more than that.

And for a warrant the standard is the same- C&R or no C&R. So once we are talking warrant your C&R has zero to do with it.

Bottom line- despite your claims, the BATF has no more legal authority to enter your home and search at any moment than they do for any other citizen of this country. They can and should do compliance inspections, but you have the right to do that at the ATF office.

I agree that the number of sales to be considered "in business" is too gray and needs to be clarified- and 50 is a good number. It would let a collector that falls on hard times liquidate a collection without the hurdles of an FFL, but from what I have seen of the profit margin on guns nobody is going to make a living selling less than one gun a week.

[Lurks Often]

91. More lies and insults from you, how typical

There is nothing in my house that would get me arrested, so insinuating that there is both a lie and insult and since you don't know what state I live in and what laws apply, you are the one full of bullshit.

As you well know ANY internet sale of a firearm that either crosses a state line or comes from an out of state FFL is REQUIRED to go through an FFL in the state the buyer resides in. Any in state private sale is regulated by the state laws.

Despite all your insults and dodging, it remains the truth that you can buy any gun on the ATF C&R list, which now includes the earliest Colt made (1963) AR-15's, without going through a Federal background check.

[petronius]

11. I would say no, and definitely not

But for the sake of discussion I would be curious to hear what psychiatric/psychological professionals have to say about it; to wit, is it possible and how long would it take to conclude, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that an unknown person walking in off the street did not pose a public danger? Is there a standard test that would apply here?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. Great questions. Every test results in

false positives and false negatives as well as true positives and true negatives. I have no idea what specific psychological testing rubrics are used where weapons enthusiasts are subject to them.

[branford]

13. What jurisdictions in CA actually choose to require psychological testing,

and if any do, what are the standards and has it been challenged in court?

I see a multitude of potential constitutional problems, even without a denial of an application.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. Great questions. I don't know the answers

[branford]

21. Although the policy is permitted under the law, the potential constitutional problems

(and financial liability) appear significant. I'm sincerely curious if any jurisdictions have made it a requirement, and if so, how they implement it. For instance, has anyone ever been rejected based on the psychological review and then sued.

I can envision a scenario with a quick and easy procedure that would apply to everyone who wants a license, with extremely low standards and multiple levels of appeal, that might pass constitutional muster. However, it would similarly fail to catch any marginal cases of dangerous mental illness, particularly if the psychologist or psychiatrist wasn't the applicants treating doctor, and thus have limited utility.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

24. I should think that anyone who failed such a test

would be quite reluctant to have that failure announced to the world by a lawsuit. Being branded publicly as a violent psycho could have many life-changing repercussions much more serious than the inability to carry a handgun legally.

[branford]

26. I'm not certain that would be the case,

but a lot would depend on the procedures in place for psychological testing. You would be surprised at who's eager to go to court, and I would imagine the "marginal" cases for denial might be the most eager to see the inside of a courtroom.

For instance, what standard of review was the designed professional using? There would be a big difference between conclusive evidence of being a danger to yourself or others (basically the equivalent of what's needed for commitment) versus a determination of "anger issues," or worse, "lack of need for a firearm."

Similarly, the identity of the referred psychologist and basis for diagnosis would be very pertinent. For instance, was there any political pressure on the professional to deny applicants, did they meet with the individual long enough to ascertain sufficient information to deny a right, if the person was a danger, why hadn't they been referred to police or the courts for commitment and treatment, and what if the diagnosis differed from the applicant's treating physician.

[Brickbat]

14. Just...wow.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

25. Thank you. I was trying for "wow".

Ever since I was in fourth grade or so, I've always avoided everyone who ever revealed to me that that they owned a firearm. I thought, "What is WRONG with you?

[Brickbat]

29. That's an interesting reaction, and one I don't understand.

Do you tell them why you stop interacting with them?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

32. It's been many many years since I've ever been aware I was talking to

a gun owner, too many years for me to remember.

[Brickbat]

34. So it's only if they disclose it?

If they have one, and don't disclose it, you're OK with it?

[Eleanors38]

49. Damn, where is epistemology when you need it?

[Brickbat]

65. Hello, hello? Is this thing on?

[branford]

30. You've just identified one of the problems with the discretionary psychological review provision.

If a desire to own a firearm is generally offered as justification to disqualify someone from owning a gun, the jurisdiction will be cutting big checks for damages and legal fees after losing the constitutional challenges.

As a policy matter, such an attitude is the reason what many gun rights proponents will not even consider such proposals.

When more than 1 out of every 3 American adults own at least one legal firearm, and a statistically minuscule percentage of them will ever engage in criminality, suggesting that 80-100+ million of your fellow Americans may be psychologically defective, even if done in (sort of) jest, is really bad politics.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

35. I wasn't suggesting "Catch 22" legislation, but

maybe more law enforcement officers and other government officials ought to be more skeptical of those who want guns, rather than emulating that Rpseburg Oregon sheriff who opposes gun control even in the face of daily massacres.

[branford]

38. I know you weren't really suggesting "catch 22" legislation.

I was, however, noting that the obvious disdain for such a large number law-abiding, gun-owing Americans by many in the gun control movement explains the lack of trust, and therefore the lack of any compromises, that might actually address gun safety.

The Roseburg Sheriff also had nothing to do with the shooting. The shooter properly passed his NICS background checks, and I've seen no national legislation, particularly that could pass constitutional scrutiny, that would have actually stopped the tragedy.

[Eleanors38]

55. "Skeptical." The custodians of Jim (large, raucous black bird) laws in the South called it...

Disqualification. But they didn't use the "science " of psychology, rather the "science" of politics to deny the right to vote. Or to exercise the RKBA.

Sly Stallone, a Californian, has called for confiscation of firearms, and is a big contributor to the Brady Campaign. He, of course, has his own CCW. Hog-slopping hypocrisy aside, you think he got that due to passing a psych test?

[olddots]

42. get ready 54321

No examine their asses thats where their heads are .okay Sorry .......

[Daemonaquila]

44. Totally barking up the wrong tree.

The idea that the majority of shooters are mentally ill is a myth. The reality is that they're about 5% of the people who shoot others.

The following 2-part article explains the abnormal psychology of shooters, but very specifically differentiates that from mental illness. That's a much more difficult issue to detect in a mental status exam. Also, psychological testing isn't easy to defeat if the person is relatively smart.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/1/87.long
http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/263.long

(A pretty good sum-up of how to beat the tests was written by a DU-er years ago. Here it is, for those who are interested. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2748618)

[Octafish]

45. Great idea. Drown 'em in paperwork, too.

Must save the federal and state governments billions each year, people giving up on getting everything from VA benefits to SS disability due to red tape and indecipherable instructions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. It's amazing how suddenly you became an advocate for government power.

[Eleanors38]

50. This OP is where DU comes to field-dress the Fifth Amendment.

[deathrind]

51. There is a lot of comparing driving cars to firearms...

by firearm enthusiasts. So I see no reason not to require a test before owning a firearm just like one does before getting a license to drive.

[branford]

53. If the test objectively ascertains basic competency,

and passage mandates issuance of a license (i.e., "shall issue" vs. "may issue&quot , such a policy would be supported by a great many gun rights advocates.

However, particularly if the standards were national, then just like a driver's license, a firearm license should be good throughout the country. This is essentially the policy of national concealed carry reciprocity, it would preempt state and local gun laws, could easily pass Congress (it previously received more votes than UBC's), and is highly desired by gun rights proponents.

[hack89]

66. Sure - if my firearms license is good in all 50 states like my drivers license

That's what you meant - right?

[beevul]

71. What test do you have to take before you can own a car? N/T

[WillowTree]

54. One more time.

You cannot punish someone or deny her or him one of their Constitutional rights based on what they might do in the future.

[saturnsring]

57. your 2a rights come from scotus and not the constitution

your constitutional 2a rights went away with the well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state. no militia, no 2a

[WillowTree]

58. Try getting that one to hold up in a court of law.

[saturnsring]

59. whether it holds up or not it's still the truth- hopefully the left can replace the rightwing judges

and bring some sensibility to gun ownership

[sarisataka]

64. Didn't do well in Civics

did ya?

[saturnsring]

103. yes i did but you dont need civics to be able to read what the 2a says. it's an if -then statement

if part {A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State} ,the then part {the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.}

any right to bear arms went away with the well regulated militia

all insults aside

[sarisataka]

104. If those words were there

Then you would be correct. But they are not.

I could easily say Whereas{A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State} ,therefore {the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.}

Thus arguing all gun control laws are unconstitutional. I do not believe that is accurate however as I do not consider the Amendment absolute.

Reasonable restrictions may be placed but the RKBA is not dependent on militia membership.

[saturnsring]

105. they dont need to be there,it is an if-then statement. whereas would only make that statement false

whereas cant be used here because we no longer need a militia for the security of a free state.


even in your example there is still no militia. cause the security of a free state is no longer dependant on a militia well -regulated or not - the militia is gone
therefore the right is gone- that's how it reads I know gun people will twist it into what ever pretzel logic they feel it takes to preserve something that's no longer there.

any "rights" to guns are a gift from scotus

RKBA is not dependent on militia membership. the 1st part of the amendment says exactly that - you HAD the right to keep and bare arms BECAUSE a militia was necessary for the security of a free state. it isn't anymore and with it went the rkba not because the left says so but because the security of a free state no longer rests with a militia.

[treestar]

102. Better argument is that there can be some restrictions

on any of the rights in the Constitution, there are various tests the courts use - if there is no racial classification, for example, a rational basis for a restriction is enough to keep it.

[Lee-Lee]

60. Lets examine the logistics of that idea

In 2014 there were 20,968,547 background checks run through the NICS system.

That number does not represent all background checks done nor all purchases done at dealers. 13 states run their own background check centers and do not use the FBI system at all so are not included in that total, and those 13 states account for almost 1/3 of the US population. 7 states only partially use it- for example here in NC all long guns go through NICS, so to buy a hand gun you must to to the local sheriff and get a handgun purchase permit (a Jim Crow law still on the books) so they do the check and the dealer accepts the permit as equivalent to the NICS check- so only long guns sold in NC are in those figures.

On top of that, CCW holders in many states are exempt because the requirement to get and keep a CCW is higher than what a NICS check covers.

So, lots of sales don't get counted in that total- but at the same time some of those are people making more than one purchase a year.

Lets say we only test buyers every year- so a purchase gets a check and then subsequent purchases don't get a check until the next year.

It is a rough estimation, but I would say if we allow for the the background checks not included in NICS totals, all the exempt buyers, and then subtract all the multiple sales we are probably right back to the NICS numbers. Most of your buyers who buy multiple guns a year already have CCW's so I would bet that they don't show in those numbers at all. Lets round down a little and just say 20,000,000 gun buyers will need psych exams for exercising their rights each year.

I expect you want this test to be thorough and complete and not some quick, half-assed little test, so we will assume it will be like the one I had to take before getting hired as a deputy. That test was a little over 2 hours, including over 500 questions of true/false or multiple choice followed by an interview.

If the examiner spent a little over 2 hours with me, when we allow time for prep, compiling the results of the scantron test and writing a report its safe to say that it takes a psychologist 3 hours per exam to do a proper and professional exam- and if we are using this exam to deny a Constitutional right it has to be done properly.

That means in a 40 hour work week a psychologist can do around 13 exams.

Allow for vacation and sick time and lets assume a 46 week work year for the pyschologists. That means each examiner can do roughly 600 exams a year.

That would mean that if you had a perfect distribution of psychologists so that they could stay perfectly engaged in a perfect workload with no wasted time, all the time, it would require 33,333 psychologists working full time to handle it. But a perfect distribution isn't possible because you must have them available in pretty much every county no matter how remote or else you will get the whole thing tossed by the courts as being too restrictive and burdensome, plus factors will always arise that mean they won't handle a perfect workload every week or even most weeks. Better figure on at least 40,000 psychologists to make that work.

That is only the psychologists, it doesn't account for the support staff that will manage scheduling and run the offices, the leadership and admin above them, or the required facilities maintenance, policy makers, HR, IT staff etc. You are getting close to 55,000-60,000 employees now.

To put that in perspective, the Department of Education only has 4,400 employees nationwide. The entire Department of Labor is around 18,000. The entire FBI to include agents and all support staff is around 36,000 people. This would be a very big new Federal Agency just to do this work.

What would that cost? Psychologists don't come cheap. Plus admin, facilities, infrastructure.

Where do we get the 40,000 trained psychologists? You can't just run done to the unemployment office and grab a few dozen who are sitting around looking for work. One of the biggest problems in the mental health field today is lack of practitioners- do we strip some away to do these checks?

That is just the pure logistical hurdles- and just some of them. Others have covered the legal hurdles and barriers.

There are far better ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and all that manpower- like crime prevention measures that have proven effective through early intervention, poverty reduction programs, and putting mental health practitioners to work with those who really need the services instead of having them do background checks all day in an attempt to catch what would be less than 1% of the people that pass through that new system.

[Waldorf]

67. Wow, never even considered all the logistics involved.

Another thing I'd like to add, what happens if a Psychologist gives the ok on a person and they go on a mass murder spree? Do they find themselves in court defending their evaluation because they were sued by the deceased families?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

68. Please check your math--

and your assumptions. If 40,000 dedicated psychologists were required, and each were paid $100,000 per year, the bill would be $4 billion, not hundreds of billions.

But the basic psychological test could be multiple choice and computer-assisted. Algorithms applied to the test results might be efficient enough so that only 4,000 psychologists might be needed to meet
the ten percent with the worst profile scores. How many lives would have to be saved to make such a program cost-effective? Mere hundreds out of the tens of thousands of lives cut short by firearm violence
each year.

[Lee-Lee]

77. Costs are more than just the psychologists pay

You need their pay, their retirement/pensions, the pay of all the administrative/support/IT/maintenance that serve the buildings they are in, the cost of their office space, furnishings, computers, plus you need the admin staff over them making policy, handling HR, etc.

If we look at the budgets of agencies of similar size we can get an idea of what it would cost.

As for computer based tests- like I said, you don't want a half assed test do you? Any examiner will tell you te in-person interview is critical because many people can pass the written/computer test but the issues become apparent in the interview. If your not doing it in-person your going about it half assed and will miss people- remember this is about catching and diagnosing mental illness to the level required by the law to deny someone a Constitutional right- you have to do it right.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

109. Let's say we double the $4 billion

to account for those additional factors. The plan still would be cost-effective if it saved a few thousand annual homicides and suicides.

Don't sell multiple-choice tests short. Psychologists use them even on diagnosed schizophrenics to measure symptoms in standardized ways.

And multiple-choice tests have been shown to diagnose clinical depression reliably many many times. IMO many thousands of suicides could be prevented each year with such screening.

[Phentex]

72. Maybe they should wait as long as people seeking legal status in this country...

you know, what with the back log and shortage of help, they just have to be patient and wait.

We don't have to hire more or spend more, we just have to make people wait longer. Like years maybe?

[Lee-Lee]

78. It would be thrown out in court

The difference is there is no legal right to immigration- it would be like your Board of Elections declaring that they need months or years to register you to vote.

[Phentex]

80. No one is required to own a gun...

you have the right to it but nobody said you have a speedy right to it. You were the one talking about the logistics nightmare.

How long did women and blacks wait for the "right" to vote? Oh, the law had to be changed you say?

Well, then change the laws. Even the laws about owning a gun. How hard would the logistics be then?

These arguments always end with how difficult the logistics would be...just like if we allowed same sex couples to marry. Etc.

[Lee-Lee]

81. Sorry, but the law isn't on your side

Unless you can get the Heller decision overturned the courts must treat gun ownership as a right- and that means you can't put things in place that would be as prohibative as what you propose.

Heck, it would be a fine line requiring mental health exams even is they were done in a way that isn't burdensome.

If you get Heller overturned, then you might have a shot. Otherwise, no way:

[Phentex]

82. I know...

laws can be changed. Then people will have to come up with other excuses.

[Lee-Lee]

83. It's more than just a law

It's precendt set by the Supreme Court.

So the only way you change it is either make sure we control the White House and get enough justices that not only would vote to overturn, but would be willing to do so going against the long established tradition of Stare Decisis and not overturned previous courts decisions.


Or you get 3/4 of the states to agree to amend the Constitution.

Good luck!

[Phentex]

84. This is why we are discussing mental health screenings...

and I am sure you have heard the phrase about the definition of insanity and all.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

110. "Stare decisis"? Please

The 2010 5-4 McDonald v Chicago decision overturned an 8-0 decision that had stood for seven decades, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). (See http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf )

The five right-wing Republican political hacks who invented a spurious “individual right” to firearm ownership overturned the work of some of the finest USSC Justices in history, including Felix Frankfurter, Harlan F. Stone, Hugo Black, and Charles Evans Hughes.

[Lee-Lee]

112. Miller was more ripe for overturn than most because

Miller and his attorney never showed up to court to argue the case.

Hard to believe that such precedent stood for so long based on a case where only one side made arguements before the court, but it did.

[Iggo]

70. Yes.

[Kang Colby]

73. Good idea.

Since rampage killers don't limit themselves to guns(1), why don't we apply your ideas to other areas of our lives that aren't protected by the Bill of Rights. This way we can minimize risk. Want to attend public schools or colleges? Psych screening. Want a job? Psych screening. Driver's license? Psych screening.

Why don't we perform psych screenings routinely at the elementary school level, if a student appears to be predisposed to violence based on the results of the screening...why take the chance? Send them to an academic institution with specialized treatment and security protocols

.



(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

[B Calm]

79. It would definitely be a determent.

[former9thward]

99. Should people who want to take away Constitutional rights have their heads examined?

[workinclasszero]

111. Anyone person who wants to buy assault weapons

have already demonstrated that they think at some point they will need to kill mass quantities of human beings and/or have small-man penis syndrome which should disqualify them from owning the afore mention weapons of mass human death!