Family Blames Gun-Seller for Murderous Rampage

[The Straight Story]

Family Blames Gun-Seller for Murderous Rampage

PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) - A pawn shop sold a handgun to a schizophrenic man who used it 2 weeks later to shoot to death a Peruvian exchange student, the girl's family says.

Erik Ayala, 24, killed 17-year-old Martha Paz de Noboa Delgado and another person outside The Zone nightclub, wounded seven - mostly exchange students - then shot himself in the head in January 2009.

Ayala bought the 9mm pistol on Jan. 9, 2009, and went on his shooting rampage on Jan. 24, according to the complaint in Multnomah County Court.

Noboa's family says 99 Pawn & Guns, which sold Ayala the gun, should have known that he had a history of mental illness and was a danger to himself and others.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/10/42908.htm

Here is the filing, they are saying the gun shop should have trained their people to recognize depression...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/10/PawnShop.pdf

[ileus]

1. well duh...there's a law suit lottery to be won here.

Everyone I know can diagnose depression donja' know....no skill required.

[SteveW]

98. Yeah, crappy psych analysis is done in this Group all the time. nt

[X_Digger]

2. Did you know that having to stand in line is grounds for negligence?

According to the complaint it is, anyway..



Oh, and it's the Rotary's fault for not training host parents to be ninjas. (Okay, I exaggerated on that one.)

[Spoonman]

3. A perfect example of why every state should pass

a "looser pays" provision for civil actions!

[Remmah2]

15. It would make people think twice about the shotgun approach to frivelous law suits.

Pun intended.

[pipoman]

79. in theory it sounds good

in reality it would unduly hinder the poor (or at least the poorer) in getting civil justice, The pawn owner has insurance to pay his legal.

[DWC]

95. Amen to that !!!

It would absolutely level the playing field.

Semper Fi,

[pipoman]

127. How would it level the playing field?

Most civil cases are not locks from the very beginning, even when they are obviously justified consumer protection issues. The merchant, manufacturer, distributor, etc. almost always has more and better resources than the injured party. Anyone who believes civil suits are easy or fun have never gone through one...they suck..bad. Not the least of the suckage are the interrogatories and depositions. The insurance companies, who invariably are defending these businesses, will send 6 lawyers to your deposition whose job is to break you down and 'encourage' you to settle for pennies on the dollar of what your claim is worth. You are stuck with only as good of legal team as you can afford...if you are like me, your legal team is a single medium quality lawyer and his/her paralegal.

The 1% would win and the 99% would have to like it. That would be the actual effect of imposing the legal fees on the loser who often loses because of an inability to compete legally. There are mechanisms already built into the legal system for denial and dismissal of frivolous claims.

[slackmaster]

4. That's just ambulance-chasing. The suit has no merit whatsoever.

In the state of Oregon, pawn shops that deal in guns have to follow the same laws and procedures as do sporting goods stores and dedicated gun stores. If a prospective buyer's background check comes up clean, the dealer can legally sell the gun.

[ellisonz]

24. Just shows how the system is ineffective...

Doubtful the guy would have passed a simple police interview on his qualification to RKBA, much less a professional medical examination and a Court hearing.

[slackmaster]

30. What would you propose to prevent someone who isn't legally disqualified from buying a gun...

...from buying a gun?

We can't have gun dealers playing "Amateur Psychiatrist" and making arbitrary decisions about who is or is not a danger to himself or herself or to others.

[ellisonz]

32. The Justice system already plays that role...

...what's wrong with giving it greater purview including an interview and not just paperwork. I would not that this forum is under the Justice and Public Safety topic header - it's a sign.

[gejohnston]

43. in most states

playing shrink without a license is a crime. In Wyoming, you have to have a PhD and a license to interpret such tests. Your state may vary.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. What wrong with it?

Other than the fact that it is well beyond their scope of authority or ability and blatantly violates about half of the constitution....nothing i guess....

[SteveW]

100. Yes, it is called "due process," as in the 5th Amendment.

I don't know what more "purview" you would want if a court finds someone is mentally defective, and cannot legally possess or purchase a firearm. Would an "interview" then be used to circumvent a court, or to neutralize it?

I don't know what your last sentence means.

[Atypical Liberal]

85. Should we have to be interviewed to exercise other Constitutional rights?

Should I have to demonstrate some level of competency in English before I can exercise my right to free speech?

Should I have to demonstrate some level of understanding of politics before I can exercise my right to vote?

Of course not.

[Wistful Vista]

113. It almost sounds like you're proposing police interviews and psych evaluations for someone to own a

gun. But that can't be right because you are obviously not insane so I simply misread the post.
Still trying to figure out what it really meant, though.

[MicaelS]

5. Was he adjudicated mentally ill?

Seems like he should have been.

If not, why not? His family admitted he was mentally ill.

If so, did the state report this to the Federal NICS?

If not, why not?

[Remmah2]

16. Why didn't his family or doctor report it?

Damn those privacy laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. I too, accurately diagnose people's mental health at a glance.

Biggest crock of crap. Was he reported to nics or not? Did the pawn shop conduct the proper NICS check or not?

If so, end of story, the government failed, not the seller.

[Wistful Vista]

115. Hey, what's the problem? Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo without ever even SEEING her!

[Starboard Tack]

7. I find the title somewhat inflammatory.

Hardly a "Murderous Rampage", but rather a psychotic young man killing the girl and himself with a handgun, which he should never have had. Sounds like the plaintiffs have a decent case. Will be interesting to see how it turns out. Might teach sellers of guns to be more responsible. But obviously the system failed, as per usual.

[Glassunion]

8. "Might teach sellers of guns to be more responsible."

Responsible how, exactly?

I am assuming the NICS check was done, as it was not mentioned at all in the lawsuit.

How would an individual supposed to know the mental state of the individual buying any product?

[X_Digger]

9. Well, ST has no problem diagnosing mental illness based on internet posts..

So it's no surprise he'd endorse it for shopkeepers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11723715#post147

[Starboard Tack]

10. Apparently it was pretty obvious with this guy

according to those who knew him. Paranoid schizophrenics are not that hard to spot and basic training of gun sellers might eliminate such problems. For example, a verbal questionnaire, designed to filter out the mentally disturbed, backed up with a CYA video of each gun sale, would reveal such traits, rather than a quick transaction and "the next one step right up please" kind of attitude.

If I were a gun peddler, I would be asking all kinds of questions and recording it. We live in the land of lawsuits and there are a lot of loonies running around and more guns in circulation every day. The more you fill the tub, the more water will end up on the floor.

[ileus]

11. What if you were a legal seller?

[Starboard Tack]

12. I'm not following you?

I think I said if I were selling guns I would cover my ass as I described. Selling illegally would be plain stupid, because there would be no CYA.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. And if you refused to sell a gun to someone legally qualified you could be sued for that.

Paranoid schizophrenics are extremely hard to spot in a casual encounter. And the typical gun sale is much like most other sales. Customer steps up, asks to see a particular gun, looks at it, decides he wants it, shows ID and fills out 4473, dealer makes NICS check, pays for gun, leaves with gun. And you expect a competent medical diagnosis on that basis of such a limited incounter?

If you started asking me a bunch of questions I would likely say, "That's private." All I am required to do is show ID, fill out the 4473, and pay. Legally you can not demand any other information.

So now you are using another pejorative term, "peddler".

[Starboard Tack]

21. Jeez GSC, now peddler is a pejorative.

How much more do we have to limit the English language to accommodate your sensibilities? Do you differentiate between a drug dealer and a drug peddler?

Anyway, to the subject at hand. As you say, "Paranoid schizophrenics are extremely hard to spot in a casual encounter. And the typical gun sale is much like most other sales. Customer steps up, asks to see a particular gun, looks at it, decides he wants it, shows ID and fills out 4473, dealer makes NICS check, pays for gun, leaves with gun. And you expect a competent medical diagnosis on that basis of such a limited encounter?"

I think we can all agree that guns are potentially dangerous, especially in the wrong hands. We can say the same thing about prescription drugs. Pharmacists are highly trained in pharmacology, which includes knowing the side effects of drug combinations, pre-existing conditions etc.. Much more important is the fact that pharmacist do not sell these products without a prescription from a medical professional.
Why would we not apply the same, or similar criteria to vendors, purveyors, sellers, dealers, peddlers of firearms? I do not expect the vendor to perform a medical diagnosis, but if guns were only available by a realistic prescription, we would all be much safer.

[Glassunion]

36. Peddler

Google: ped·dler

noun?/ˈpedlər/ ?/ˈpedl-ər/?
peddlers, plural;?pedlars, plural

A person who goes from place to place selling small goods(this does not apply to the shop owner)

A person who sells illegal drugs or stolen goods(this does not apply to the shop owner)
- a drug peddler

A person who promotes an idea or view persistently or widely(this does not apply to the shop owner)

Wikipedia: Peddler
A peddler, in British English pedlar, also known as a canvasser, cheapjack, monger, or solicitor (with negative connotations since the 16th century), is a travelling vendor of goods. In England, the term was mostly used for travellers hawking goods in the countryside to small towns and villages; they might also be called tinkers or gypsies. In London more specific terms were used, such as costermonger. There has long been a suspicion of dishonest or petty criminal activity associated with pedlars and travellers. (this does not apply to the shop owner)

Dictionary.com: ped·dler
? ?[ped-ler] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who sells from door to door or in the street.(this does not apply to the shop owner)
2. a person who tries to promote some cause, candidate, viewpoint, etc. (this does not apply to the shop owner)

Answers.com(pĕd'lər) pronunciation
n.
One who travels about selling wares for a living. (this does not apply to the shop owner)

Princeton.edu: Noun

S: (n) peddler, pedlar, packman, hawker, pitchman (someone who travels about selling his wares (as on the streets or at carnivals))(this does not apply to the shop owner)
S: (n) pusher, drug peddler, peddler, drug dealer, drug trafficker (an unlicensed dealer in illegal drugs)(this does not apply to the shop owner)

I'm sorry, who's definition are you using?

[Starboard Tack]

37. Hey, you are absolutely right. My mistake. Shopkeepers.

I was confusing shopkeepers who sell guns to psychos with those who advocate the indiscriminate carrying of guns bought from those shopkeepers.

As in: a person who tries to promote some cause, candidate, viewpoint, etc. Lots of those around here.

[Starboard Tack]

27. A merchant has the right to refuse service to anyone at his discretion

Good luck with trying to sue someone for not selling you a gun.

[PavePusher]

17. You miss the point.

No such training is required, nor is it provided, that I am aware of.

Since it is not a legal requirement, they can't be held responsible for a standard that does not exist.

[Glassunion]

20. I don't think so.

"Apparently it was pretty obvious with this guy according to those who knew him."

#1. These are people who knew him, who worked with him and who were related to him. So yes it may have been apparent to them, however to the casual observer or even an hour long transaction it may not have been so apparent.
#2. Nowhere in the article or court document is the word "paranoid" used. Just schizophrenia. How do you know that he was a "paranoid schizophrenic" as opposed to any of the other possible diagnosis there could be?
#3. What exactly would be on your verbal questionnaire that a gun store owner would use to test for schizophrenia? How long would that questionnaire be?

[Starboard Tack]

22. My questionnaire would be a follow-up

to some kind of prescription issued by a competent professional, or professionals licensed to write such prescriptions, based on a thorough psychological evaluation.

[X_Digger]

28. Lol, what about other 'potentially dangerous, especially in the wrong hands' substances / items, eh?

Should pharmacists conduct a mental health check-up before dispensing sleeping pills? Insulin?

How about gas station attendants? Car dealers? Should the Best Buy dork make sure you're not depressed when you purchase a toaster? After all, you might be contemplating suicide..

LOL. What a moronic concept.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Those things have already been prescribed by a doctor

We're talking about items known to be potentially legal and accountability. Ask Michael Jackson's doctor the same question. As usual, you just want to fight and are not interested in finding solutions to obvious problems. I know, they're all statistically insignificant to you.

[X_Digger]

46. But each item is 'potentially dangerous, especially in the wrong hands'- your criteria, not mine.

Should a pharmacist place sleeping pills in a person's hand without a 'questionnaire' assessing the person't mental health?

If you're predicating your criteria on lethality, I don't see why you don't apply it to other things that meet the same criteria.

And no special pleading, either. If you can't defend your own idea with your own criteria, what does that say about it?

[Starboard Tack]

49. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

A pharmacist sells you sleeping pills on instructions (a prescription) from a physician. The onus is on the physician to prescribe the correct medicine and the onus is on the pharmacist to make sure you know what you are getting.
That's called accountability.

I don't think it would be so hard to come up with a similar system of accountability for gun purchases. I don't claim to have thought of all the details in the 5 minutes I've had to consider it. I have good ideas all the time and sometimes I have not so good ideas. Feel free to shoot it down, but try to do it honestly, not just because you don't like me.

We're trying to solve a problem here. Innocent people getting killed by loonies with guns. Nobody wants that to happen.

[X_Digger]

55. So the seller of the 'dangerous item' has no onus to perform an assessment, yes?

Glad to hear that you've changed your mind.

[Starboard Tack]

59. My mind is a work in progress

Let's work together on a solution.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

88. Perhaps you should wait until you've moved past the design stage....

...and are at least somewhat into implementation before you attempt to use it again...

[Starboard Tack]

90. Such a charmer aren't you WHAP?

I may not be on your elevated intellectual level, but at least I'm out of the cave and trying to find solutions. Ideas need to be built on and discussed, not just thoughtlessly dismissed.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

91. Your ideas are not being thoughtlessy dismissed

Quite the opposite - they are being dismissed after consideration.

Virtually everything you have suggested is not a new idea - heck, most aren't even a new flavor of an old idea. Other than the ones which are technologically impossible, they have all been tried in the past in one form or another, in one country or another, and not one has ever done a damn thing productive.

Come up with something that doesn't violate natural, physical or human laws on its face and could actually accomplish something, and we can discuss it. All you've thrown out so far has been one form of state control after another.

I am sorry it offends you to have your hopes dashed so bluntly and casually, but the people you're discussing this with are not nearly as uninformed as you on the topic. In many ways, you're like a little kid with only the most rudimentary understanding of physics condescendingly discussing space flight with the old hands at JPL.

[jeepnstein]

96. So I need a doctor's approval to exercise a right?

I sure hope they get it right in subsequent volumes of the DSM then. We could make a few changes in the definition of mental illness and disenfranchise all sorts of citizens. Of course that wouldn't help any of the number of folks too poor to be able to afford a trip to the doctor for the proper papers so they can vote, publish an article, or arm themselves. Your solution would be quite popular with people who have enough money to be able to jump through the hoops while denying everyone else the opportunity. Well done.

[Starboard Tack]

97. "So I need a doctor's approval to exercise a right?"

No. Not to exercise a right, but to purchase a gun. Something like a MMPI test specifically designed to filter out the mentally unstable. The expense would be no greater than a trip to the DMV. Has nothing to do with voting or publish articles. You can throw red herrings all day, but I'm the only one here trying to come up with creative solutions.

[jeepnstein]

130. So the 2nd Amendment isn't really the law of the land?

You mean to tell me they put that in there as some kind of joke? Hmm.. And all this time I thought that my right to keep and bear arms was a right on par with my freedom of speech, religious liberty, and all the various guarantees of due process. Wow, I had no idea. So you're telling me I need a note from my doctor to buy a gun? I think you need one from your doctor before you can vote. Seems fair to me.

[Glassunion]

34. I'm afraid that you are quite ignorant on the subject of psychology.

In Post 7 : You make a statement that the gun shop owner was not responsible enough for your liking. Because the owner did ask enough questions. As you stated in post 10 that if you were the shop the owner("gun peddler&quot you would be asking all kinds of questions and recording it.

It would be impossible for you to come up with a questionnaire to determine if someone suffers from schizophrenia, let alone the plethora of other mental disorders. Just in the arena of "behavioral disorders" you have in the neighborhood of 140 unique disorders. This number does not include any of the sub-types of these diseases.

But let's just look at schizophrenia. A determination that an individual suffers from schizophrenia is diagnosed solely by qualified psychologists. There is no objective test for schizophrenia. Meaning that there is not a checklist that exists that a psychologist uses to determine if an individual suffers from the disease. Each and every case is quite unique and requires meeting specific criteria including more than a month of experiences, noted behavior and a clinical assessment. Basically an individual cannot walk into the doctor's office one day and walk out with a schizophrenia diagnosis. That process takes months. I'll say it again... Months. The APA, WHO or any other major medical psychological society has never been able to come with one single set of testing that could determine if an individual suffers from schizophrenia.

There are seven subtypes of schizophrenia. Which one did this individual suffer from? What if he was diagnosed and his apparent behaviors were a lack of emotional response, a lack of motivation, occupational dysfunctions? How would your magical questionnaire determine the prognosis of schizophrenia with only these outward behaviors? Does everyone who exhibits a lack of emotional response, poor motivation and has an issue dealing with workload a schizophrenic? No they are not. How had his disease progressed in the 9 years from when he was first diagnosed?

But as far as a questionnaire is concerned, it will never exist. You cannot take centuries of study, medicine and applied sciences and roll them all up into a game of 20 questions and expect any kind of result what so ever.

[Starboard Tack]

38. My knowledge or "ignorance" of psychology is irrelevant.

Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder, which falls in the realm of psychiatry and is treated primarily by psychiatrists, with perhaps an adjunct clinical psychologist involved.
So, I guess you don't know much about psychiatry or psychology, but this isn't a pissing contest to see who is the most ignorant and any credentials I may have are irrelevant.

You missed my point and I probably missed it too, as it is still in the formulation process. I'm not in this thread to fight, but to search for a solution to a tragically flawed system of vetting those who purchase firearms.

I think a psychological screening of applicants makes the most sense. Not by the shopkeeper, but by qualified professionals; psychologists and, if necessary psychiatrists. Drivers have to take written and practical tests to operate a car. Those who wish to operate a gun should be held to a higher standard. The questionnaire by the vendor would be part of a process that ensures the buyer has been properly evaluated psychologically.

[Glassunion]

92. Personally, I would force NICS compliance by the states.

Currently there are a lot of individuals who can answer yes to the question: "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective(which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" on the form 4473, but enter a no. Form 4473 is required of all FFLs to have the customer fill out. Which they then query the NICS system to validate the information in the form. If the data in NICS is incomplete because the sate has failed to submit the records to the database then an individual could continue with the purchase.

There are two parties at fault in this scenario. The individual who lied on the form(a felony) and the state for failing to submit the records. This is exactly how Cho circumvented the system.

I do not feel that a psychiatric screening would be at all feasible. What would one screen for? Again, some conditions could take months to diagnose.

[Starboard Tack]

104. Thanks for a constructive post.

You make excellent points about how the system is broken in terms of checking the veracity of the applicant. You mention Cho. How did Loughner slip through the cracks?

I'm advocating some kind of psychological screening/evaluation similar to a MMPI test, which would flag potential problems. When a flag is raised, then a second, interview style screening may be necessary. I don't see this as being any more intrusive or inconveniencing than obtaining a driver's license. A small fee by the purchaser would take care of the expense.

[Glassunion]

108. Loughner slipped through many cracks.

The military, his schools and his family all ignored his behavior.

I'm going to still disagree with you on the psych eval because I have 2 particular issues with the idea.

First issue. Anything similar to an MMPI should be administered, scored, and interpreted by a clinical professional trained in its use, preferably a psychologist or psychiatrist. This could not be covered by a small fee.

Second issue is that there are many factors that these professionals take into account when reviewing a scoring one of these tests. You see the MMPI is but one small tool that psychiatrists use and it's not a starting point. A detailed history of the subject and an in-depth review of psychological, medical, educational, or other relevant records are required to lay the groundwork for interpreting the results of any psychological measurement. So basically taking the test on its own would not be sufficient to raise a flag as a groundwork already needs to be in place in order to conclude the results of such a test.

Lastly, I cannot agree with a government implemented psych evaluation on its citizens. Perhaps it does not bother you, but just the very thought of my government implementing psychiatric evaluations is rather scary. I see far more harm than good coming from that.

Think about it. This would in reality have a direct impact on over 80 million citizens. Can you name me one government program that impacts that many people and is safe, effective, properly managed and free from internal and corporate corruption?

[Starboard Tack]

111. Regarding the MMPI test

It actually takes a few seconds to score. Ask anyone who has ever done that. So the cost would be minimal.
Secondly, what is wrong with a government implemented psych evaluation in the context of buying a firearm? I think it is far more valuable than restricting former felons and illegal aliens and visiting Canadians. I would imagine the military implement these tests or something similar before sending guys out with weapons. I would hope that all police departments do the same. It isn't much to ask in the name of public safety.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

94. Actually its pretty damned relevant.

In fact, that's kinda the whole point. You don't seem to have an understanding of what would be involved.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Actually I do.

Point is, do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just about engaging in your usual personal attacks.

[rl6214]

29. The law requires a form 4473 be filled out by the purchaser

Question F

f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?


What sort of questions would YOU suggest be asked of each seller?

[Starboard Tack]

39. Well, isn't that brilliant?

A form get's filled out by whom? The buyer. What a joke.
I propose a system involving a psych. evaluation and sign off by a mental health professional.
The seller's questions would ensure that had occurred.
That's how we achieve some realistic accountability.

[rl6214]

47. I asked a simple question, why the snark?

"A form get's filled out by whom? The buyer. What a joke. "

Failure to fill out the form truthfully IS a felony.



Would you also propose a system involving a psych. evaluation and sign off by a mental heath professional before being allowed to vote because I think voting can be much more dangerous than gun ownership as shown by the 2000 election.

[Starboard Tack]

52. No snark intended. I'm pointing out the flaw in the system.

Ok it's a felony to lie on the form. Now what? He lied, killed a girl and killed himself. Well, it was a felony and he shouldn't have done it. That sure is a great system. What's the point of have a system if it doesn't work? To shuffle some paper around at the taxpayers' expense?

Ask your other question in a different forum. I'm sure you'll get lots of action and many who may agree with you. Right now it is diversionary, but you knew that.

[Straw Man]

56. If he lies on the form, the subsequent check will pick it up.

The form is not the end of the process. A call to the NICS center is mandatory. If any felonies, mental health adjudications, etc. exist and been reported, the NICS center will deny the purchase, and the prospective buyer will now have committed a felony. Unfortunately, these felonies are never pursued for prosecution. And of course, if they haven't been reported to the feds, we should start asking why not and providing real penalties for such failures. It's not the law that's inadequate; it's the implementation.

If you want to talk about a broken system, let's start there before we talk about "simple police interviews" and psychological screening by pawnshop owners.

[Starboard Tack]

58. How about psychological screening by mental health professionals.

And have those facts verified by gun vendors. The issue is about accountability and public safety.

[Straw Man]

170. Are you asking for a positive verification of mental health...

...before one is allowed to purchase a firearm? A negative verification -- i.e. person has never been found to be unhealthy -- is already in place via NICS. Even the Illinois FOID (Firearm Owners Identification) that allows the bearer to purchase firearms requires only the negative verification that NICS does.

You appear to be calling for a "Certified Not Mentally Ill" card to be carried by firearms buyers and checked by sellers at points of sale. Would this be authorized at the state level or at the federal level? What do you envision as the lifespan of such a card, i.e. how often should the bearer be re-certified? What type of mental health professionals would be empowered to make this certification? Would there be a standard battery of tests? What sanctioning body would determine the validity of said tests? Would there be an appeal process?

I'm sure you realize that this scenario would be ripe for abuse by mental health professionals who may have an ideological bias against firearms ownership. How would you protect the rights of applicants against such potential abuse?

[Starboard Tack]

171. You bring up excellent points.

The NICS obviously doesn't work. So how could my suggestion be implemented with minimal intrusion on individual rights, minimal cost, minimal abuse etc.?
Here are some ideas that come to mind.

1. Standardized MMPI type test. Easily scored by computer algorithm, as it currently is. If candidate red flags, then review by trained professional.

2. Re-certification sounds like maybe a good idea, maybe every 5-10 years. Not absolutely necessary though. De-certification, or suspension, would automatically happen, should the holder be diagnosed mentally unstable, or unsuitable. Adult onset of epilepsy, for example, until deemed stable.

3. Sanctioning body could be ATF, similar to DEA with drugs.

4. There would definitely be an appeal process, which should minimize, if not eliminate abuse.

Remember, this idea/proposal is not intended to deprive anyone of their rights, but to protect the public from senseless tragedies like Loughner, Cho and this guy.

[Straw Man]

180. One more question.

If this were implemented, would it, in your estimation, satisfactorily close the "private sale loophole"? In other words, could private sellers accept this card (which could also serve to identify the carrier as a non-felon) as proof of the buyer's suitability?

[Marengo]

82. Who would pay for this evaluation? Would it be necessary for each purchase, or...

valid for a period of time?

[slackmaster]

31. It takes years of training in addition to medical school to qualify a person to identify a paranoid

...schizophrenic, and even then they can't reliably do it on a cold reading.

...If I were a gun peddler, I would be asking all kinds of questions and recording it. We live in the land of lawsuits...

You'd be setting yourself up for a discrimination suit every time you refused to sell a gun to someone who is legally and financially qualified to buy it.

[Atypical Liberal]

86. This is not the responsibility of gun dealers.

Paranoid schizophrenics are not that hard to spot and basic training of gun sellers might eliminate such problems. For example, a verbal questionnaire, designed to filter out the mentally disturbed, backed up with a CYA video of each gun sale, would reveal such traits, rather than a quick transaction and "the next one step right up please" kind of attitude.

This is not the responsibility of gun dealers.

This is why we have the NICS system.

If you aren't in NICS, and you don't disqualify yourself when filling out the Form 4473, then the gun dealer can sell you a firearm. That is the extent of their lawful responsibility.

If you want more people put into the NICS database, that's fine with me, as long as it complies with the due process of law.

[SteveW]

101. A complete circumvention of the 5th...

Not an unusual position for gun-controllers/prohibitionists. It might pump up all those "freeway professor" incomes when they are called upon to teach a 3-hour course on "How you, too, can spot a schizophrenic or any other malady." It would certainly empower all those psych-slingers which populate this thread.

[ObamaFTW2012]

18. How could they be more responsible within the laws?

Should they adopt new psychic skills, or maybe order one crystal ball per shop? The gun was sold in 2009, and then used a few YEARS later. A LOT can happen in a few years.

[Starboard Tack]

42. New laws/rules. Read my other posts.

[The Straight Story]

19. I didn't write the headline, hell I don't even read what I post

[Starboard Tack]

23. I never suggested that you wrote the headline.

I read the entire article and the filed claim. You should read what you post.

[ellisonz]

25. The system as is undoubtedly invades our rights. She should have had a gun too...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. More nonsense from you

The plaintiffs have no case since the seller followed the law. Their attorney should be brought before the Washington Bar Disciplinary Committee for abuse of process. Its that bad.

The system may well have failed, but they cannot legally or morally blame the pawn shop.

[Starboard Tack]

50. OK more nonsense from me

Now I've got your attention, how about the real problem. A failed system. I've presented some preliminary thoughts on the subject. What are yours?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. Fairly straight forward

1) Nail the lawyer who filed this specious suit
2) Uniform reporting laws for all states
3) Open NCIS checks for private trans actions or equivalent

If you want to mandate psych checks for firearms are you willing to do so for other rights such as voting, free press, or assembly? They are on the same level.

I could support a Firearms Owners ID card that would essentially be a pre-check. Show that, have it instantly verified, and then its cash and carry. Usable by professional and private sellers.

[oneshooter]

62. My CHL in Texas covers that.

"I could support a Firearms Owners ID card that would essentially be a pre-check"

Just show the card, write down the number, pay, and leave.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. What prevents a forgery from being used?

[oneshooter]

65. Don't know. They are just like a Texas DL

complete with a magnetic strip.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. Works for me

It is something I have always wondered about

[Starboard Tack]

67. "voting, free press, or assembly? They are on the same level"

No they are not and you know better than to say that.
That said, "Firearms Owners ID card" might work if it is based on a sound psych. pre-evaluation and subject to renewal every so often, like a pilot's license. Don't want us old codgers to get cranky and start shooting the neighbors dogs and then the neighbors, do we?

[beevul]

68. Yes, they are.

"No they are not and you know better than to say that."

Yes, they ARE on the same level.

Government is equally restricted from interfering in one versus the others, by the bill of rights. Which, incidentally, was the purpose of the document, in the first place.

That, I believe, was the point of the poster you replied to.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. Serious bad analogy...

Pilots are not licensed, they hold a Airman Certificate which has different levels, aircraft categories/types, and ratings. They are good for life.

Psych checks to exercise rights is never going to pass legal muster in this country. Find a live horse to flog, because that one is quite dead.

And yes, the right to keep and bear arms is at the same level as voting, peaceable assemble etc. Its called the Bill of Rights for a reason.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Oh sorry. My mistake again. Meant airline pilots.

Reminder. Carrying a handgun is not a right. So it can be used for that to start with. If we don't want nutters buying them in pawnshops, we might think of something sensible for that situation. Looking at how the rest of the BoR is working out of late, it's probably due for a serious update too.
What's your answer to senseless slaughter? More guns?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Actually you are still wrong there

It is the same for all pilots, Sport Pilot to Airlines...one certificate, good for life. Ask someone who has one.

Nutters are supposed to be in the system and denied the purchase of firearms. This guy should have been in the system and wasn't (presuming the pawn shop acted legally). Pawn shops that carry firearms are gun stores and behave accordingly. The failure was not the sellers, but that it was not reported. Bad on the State, not the seller, the club owner, the property owners, or Rotary Intl.

If you want to call for a constitutional convention, be my guest, but the BoR is still hanging in there as I see it. Technology is the big player in much of this, and some of us are well equipped to fight back. For example, it is possible to have unreadable and untraceable email if you know how.

My answer to the problem is to first enforce and standardize the laws we have. After that, we can rationally examine what needs to change, in both directions. Even without that, its clear that the classist and racially inspired gun restrictions in places like NYC need to be rescinded and the ability to do NCIS checks for private transactions needs to be allowed.

[Starboard Tack]

134. " My answer to the problem is to first enforce and standardize the laws we have"

How?

Why don't you ask New Yorkers if they want more guns on the streets. The very idea of it is total insanity. And we don't want them in LA either, thank you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

137. The general answer to violations of the law is punishment

for those not adhering to it. However, much of this is between parts and level of government. It is hard to put them in jail but financial penalties are effective. Perhaps we should allow those damaged by those perps who should have been on the disqualified list but were not, to sue those agencies that failed in their obligations to the public.

There are also people in NY and LA who don't want $OTHERS in their neighborhood too. They don't get to choose which rights are allowed in their cities. In other words, too bad.

I teach firearms classes and many of my students are from LA. Have one this weekend. Most are new to firearms. They often buy handguns after the class through licensed dealers in the area. It helps the economy and public safety. Brings a warm feeling to my heart.

[Starboard Tack]

144. "Brings a warm feeling to my heart."

We're all happy for you and so glad you're encouraging more folk to carry guns in our cities. Just what we need. Fortunately the people who seek you out to teach them how to responsibly carry killing tools around town are a tiny minority. I wish them luck.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

148. More specious comments

As a purported CA resident, surely you know how hard it is to get a CCW in CA. A capricious system that is facing yet another court challenge.

I teach people to defend themselves effectively and within the law. My classes are not traditionally structured, include group discussions and awesome pot luck lunches. I teach mostly women and GLBTs. Not everyone buys a gun afterwards. Some decide that they could not use one effectively. I applaud such integrity. However, when it over they all pretty much realize that the guns are evil meme is pure baloney at the end.

Why do you continue to advocate keeping those who need protection most defenseless against predators?

[Starboard Tack]

162. Hardly a capricious system, but rather a smart one.

I'm sure your pot luck lunches are wonderful and I also applaud the integrity of those who don't buy into the foolishness of carrying a gun. Guns are not evil. Using guns to shoot and kill people is evil. Expecting the weak and vulnerable to shoot people is foolhardy, at best and setting them up to get seriously hurt at worst.
I don't doubt your personal sincerity. But I think you are selling a really bad solution.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

165. Using guns to shoot and kill people is not evil in and of itself.

Sometimes it is the right thing to do.

Expecting the physically weak and vulnerable to not have any method to defend themselves is disgusting at best. They're the ones who need it most.

[Starboard Tack]

166. Of course they need to be able to defend themselves.

Guns are not the answer. Might as well give them clubs. I'm not saying a gun might not work for a minuscule percentage of folk if they were incredibly lucky, but the highest probability that they would be victimized by their own gun.

Their best defense against the marauding "thugs" is awareness training and behavior modification. The biggest problem is the growing culture of victimization, which is fed by the politics and marketing of fear.

From a very young age we are taught not to trust strangers, not to take candy from them or follow them to their cars. Milk cartons and grocery bags carry pictures of missing children who have been abducted. The mass media saturates us with stories of innocent victims who have been raped, robbed, and murdered by people unknown. More and more Americans arm themselves, barricade their homes, and avoid going places for fear of violent crime. The commonly held belief is that the victim and victimizers are strangers to each other, yet it can be argued otherwise.

While the media, our teachers, and the milk cartons tell us the danger is 'out there,' in fact, the home and one's own neighborhood are the places where one is most likely to get hurt. Murder statistics shed further light on the relationship between victimizers and victims. It shows that at least 88% of murder victims in the U.S. had an ongoing active relationship with their murderers. The relationship ranged from intimate or close friends (28%), to relatives (24%), and acquaintances and paramours (36%). Only 12% of the cases involved complete strangers (Jain, 1990; Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967). The F.B.I. reports that 1.5 million children are abducted each year. The agency also claims that most of these children (80-90%) are abducted by a parent in a custody dispute and not by strangers (Gelles & Straus, 1988).

http://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html

[We_Have_A_Problem]

167. Who the fuck are YOU to decide what the answer is?

If someone decides a gun is their best choice, that's their call.

Your choice may be different, but how dare you state what is not the best choice for another person?

[Starboard Tack]

169. Did I ever suggest that it wasn't their call?

My opinion is just as valid as yours, thank you. You might want to watch your attitude. You're becoming very hostile.

[Glassunion]

168. I have slight issue with the data presented

The percentages used does not take into account all homicides. 2 Reasons.
1. These percentages are determined only by the crimes where the offender / victim relationship was known. All others are discarded.
2. The Wolfgang & Ferracuti thesis was based solely on Black crime in one city with a focus on interpersonal crime. IIRC it consisted of data from the late 50's of about 950 homicides in Philly.

So the author saying that only 12% of the cases involved complete strangers is not an accurate reflection of true crime. It is however all that is available for homicide data as you cannot ask a victim of homicide if they knew the offender.

If you look at all violent crime you get different numbers.
Strangers were offenders in about 39%(more than 3x the known homicide data your link provided) of all violent victimizations during 2010. Women are more likely to be a victim of violent crime committed by a non-stranger.

Male victims of violent crime:
Non-Stranger
Intimate 5%
Other relative 6%
Friend/acquaintance 29%

Stranger 48%

Unknown 12%

Female victims of violent crime:
Non-Stranger
Intimate 22%
Other relative 9%
Friend/acquaintance 33%

Stranger 30%

Unknown 6%

Also the statement that the home and one's own neighborhood are the places where one is most likely to get hurt is also not true.
Only 18% of violent crime occurs in the home.
Another 15.7% occurs near one's home.

The other 2/3 of violent crime occurs away from one's home and neighborhood. The stats are quite dated.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=3

[Starboard Tack]

173. I always have slight issues with data too

But the gist is there.

[Simo 1939_1940]

150. "I wish them luck."

Y'know ST - they really don't need anything from you, as they have been proven to be an extremely responsible group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x422366#422581

[We_Have_A_Problem]

154. And if you asked a lot of people back in the 50s and 60s....

...if they wanted more blacks on the streets, they wouldn't have wanted that.

They were wrong. So are those who object to guns in the hands of the law abiding in public. Frankly both groups have the same root cause ...ignorance.

[Starboard Tack]

157. I'm sure that mindset still exists in Texas and much of the south.

I'm sure those founding father slave owners who wrote your gun ticket wanted exactly the same. Sorry, you're not fooling anyone with the faux liberalism.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

158. WOW!

Gotta love that broad brush utterly baseless attack on an entire section of the country!

"Founding father slave owners"? "gun ticket"? Are these new memes?

[Starboard Tack]

161. Are you suggesting it doesn't still exist?

I didn't say it prevails, but it definitely exists. You brought up "not wanting more blacks on the street". Where do you come up with that shit? Another attempt to hide behind a racist past to justify carrying guns.
Reminds me of a relative from the south, who visited us in NYC in the mid '80s and he got lost after crossing the GW Bridge, ending up having to navigate Harlem. He was in quite a state by the time he got to the Village, cussing that he'd forgotten to bring his gun, which would have made him feel much safer.
I have cousins in the south who still won't let their kids in a swimming pool used by "coloreds".
Lip service comes cheap.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

163. I think you missed the point

No - i take that back, you DID miss the point.

Just as comments such as not wanting blacks in their neighborhood were acceptable but wrong back in the 50s and 60s, your comments about gun owners are just as wrong, and sadly, just as acceptable.

I predict sometime in the very near future though, your comments will be viewed the same way as the racism of that time was viewed - nothing but ignorance and foolishness.

[Starboard Tack]

174. I didn't miss a thing WHAP

Your attempt to draw a parallel between southern racism in the 50's and 60's and gun owners is completely in line with your standard M.O..
Your sig line kinda says it all.
"Never be upset when you see your ex with someone else. After all, you should always share your used toys with those less fortunate..."

[rl6214]

129. Most every state that has concealed carry requires a license

"Carrying a handgun is not a right. So it can be used for that to start with."

Already being done. I have a Texas Concealed Carry license to carry a gun, otherwise I would follow the law and NOT carry one.

" If we don't want nutters buying them in pawnshops, we might think of something sensible for that situation."

Pawn shops have to follow the same laws as any gun shop. They both must have a FFL to do business in firearms.

"Looking at how the rest of the BoR is working out of late, it's probably due for a serious update too. "

OK, so what do you propose and what are you doing to get it done?

[Starboard Tack]

133. What am I doing to get it done?

Talking to folk like you. If I can get one person to start using common sense and think about what they are really doing, then it will all have been worth it.

[rl6214]

191. Your "common sense" is not the same as my common sense

and vice versa...


Stalemate

[Starboard Tack]

192. Fortunately, I wasn't counting on you or any other individual

I have been talking to many people since coming here and continue to do so. I talk about this issue with most people I meet and find that the majority don't have a clue as to what is happening. They just don't think about guns. Well, there's a whole bunch that do now, thanks to my involvement here in the gungeon. So far, I've found one friend who supports concealed carry and he doesn't own a gun or have any desire to.

So, it's far from a stalemate for me.

[rl6214]

195. Ain't that the truth...

"I talk about this issue with most people I meet and find that the majority don't have a clue as to what is happening."


"So, it's far from a stalemate for me."

I don't think anyone that comes to the gungeon has really changed their minds as far as gun issues, they come here pro guns they leave here pro guns, they come here anti guns they leave here anti guns.

I too talk to everyone I can about the gun issues and have convinced many to go out and get their Texas concealed carry permits. They realize the world is not a safe world out there but that THEY can do something to ensure their safety.

[PavePusher]

84. With a gun one might be able to kill a few dozen people.

With a vote, you can kill millions, and not even need to wash your hands afterwards.

Psych eval indeed.

[SteveW]

102. Improve system by funding (if you can afford it) the bureaucracy to pass-on mental cases.

Of course, this would have to be done through general revenues as placing a tax upon gun-purchasers may be interpreted as a violation of the Constitution (akin to the poll tax).

Go through the judicial procedure. The 5th Amendment requires that.

[Starboard Tack]

106. Nonsense

You pay sales tax. The constitution says nothing about not paying for your arms. There are lots of ways to fund testing. If you don't want to tax the buyer, then tax the seller or manufacturer. It all boils down to the buyer paying.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

109. BIG difference between....

...a sales tax (which is charged on everything) and a specific tax/fee/whateverthefuckyouwannacallit designed to restrict access.

The cost of the mental health screening would add enough on top of the expense of a firearm that you would very easily price the exercise of a right completely out of the scope of many lower income individuals, and make it something one would have to think about even at the middle income ranges.

This is blatantly illegal. Yes, it is exactly the same as a poll tax.

[Starboard Tack]

119. Now you are being silly

It would be a fee, not a poll tax. Have the seller pay it or the manufacturer. Poor people can't afford guns anyway. Too busy putting food on the table and no valuables to protect. Dropping a few hundred bucks on a gun is not for low income individuals. The only thing a buyer would need to do is spend the time filling out the test, which would then be scored by computer and if flags come up, maybe reviewed by a professional.
Quite simple. Very legal. Very much in the cause of public safety.

[X_Digger]

120. "Poor people can't afford guns... Too busy putting food on the table and no valuables to protect"

How about their lives?!?

Are you sure you're on the right website?!?

[Starboard Tack]

123. How about their lives?

Are you handing out free guns to the poor so they can protect their lives? Do you realize how asinine and insulting it is to suggest that the poor are buying guns to protect their lives. They may be poor, but it doesn't mean they are stupid and would prioritize guns over food. Get real. I'm sure you see lots of poor welfare recipients at the range all the time, target shooting before a game of golf. The only poor folk with guns are probably hunting their own food and I doubt they are using semi-auto handguns.
Keep reaching.

[X_Digger]

126. The poor are more likely to be in neighborhoods with high crime and little opportunity to leave..

What, you're under the impression that a handgun is out of the price range for poor people? I know you'd have it so, if your little 'scheme' were implemented, but fuck that noise. Having been poor, I can tell you that protecting what little you have is damned important. It's a hell of a lot harder to replace a wallet and ID or the contents of your house when you're poor.

My father had a colt 32 semi-auto that he kept in a drawer of his nightstand or in a zippered case under his seat when he was working nights as a coal miner. Even after I moved to 'the big city' (Norfolk), at the sand pit everyone used to use for a range, you'd see all kinds of folks. My apartment complex was section 8 approved, and many of us on housing vouchers had at least one firearm.

Your ignorance of the less fortunate and the challenges they face is only exceeded by your arrogance. Now sail away on your boat and let the rest of us speak who know what it's like to worry about having the electricity cut off, whether or not the landlord will wait another week before kicking your ass out, or if you can take the bus to work and not have to replace that bald tire.

How asinine.

And yes, where I originally grew up, we hunted for food, or for hides. These foxes paid for a couple of days of groceries for my great grandfather.

[Starboard Tack]

132. You need to chill, especially if you carry a gun.

I guess poor is a relative term. I wasn't thinking about people with houses and jobs and wallets and guns. You know nothing about me and my experience with poverty and hunger.
I'm coming up with suggestions to help save people's lives. Innocent lives. You want to engage in insults, find another playmate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

138. Your suggestions are specious and not possible under our current legal structure

The changes you suggest would require a wholesale change in the Constitution and many legal precedents. They are at best bad fiction and will change nothing let alone save lives.

I have know people on disability/food stamps/rent support. A firearm kept them alive and safe in bad times and places. The poor need weapons more so than the rich family living in a guarded golf course community.

[Starboard Tack]

142. I expected better from you.

"I have know people on disability/food stamps/rent support. A firearm kept them alive and safe in bad times and places."
Really? What country and which planet was that? The planet of food stamp robbers? We're not talking about hunting guns here and you know that. You are all about handguns and spreading them far and wide. You know it and I for one am not buying it. Do you think anybody gives a shit about people hunting for their dinner? More power to them. The homeless and poor in NYC don't want or need to be carrying guns and neither does anyone else in NYC or any other metropolitan area.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

146. I am clearly discussing gun onwership in a self defense and urban context

And I am indeed talking in places like DC, LA, and NYC. Places where the poor are the most often victims and have the worst police protection. Why you are so willing to abandon them to the predators is beyond me.

I am about providing training in effective means of self defense to those who need it most. My students are mostly women and GLBTs, non traditional gun owners. They come from SoCal metropolitan areas. Its not about hunting for me, never has been. Its about the rights of people to effectively defend themselves. Trained responsible gun owners are not the problem, thugs who do not believe their victims can put up an effective defense are. The Pink Pistols have it right...armed gays don't get bashed.

[Starboard Tack]

147. Brilliant! Just fucking brilliant!

Your students are mostly gays and GLBTs and your answer to their problems is pack a Pink Pistol. That's really progressive professor. Unfuckingbelievably sad.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

149. Empowering individuals is indeed quite progressive

The Pinks are a gay shooting group www.pinkpistols.org

If you are going to hold forth on a topic the way you are doing, you should learn something about it first..

[Starboard Tack]

185. Sorry, but encouraging people to carry guns is not empowering them

In fact, IMHO, it is the complete opposite. Teaching them not to be driven by fear is empowering. Showing them how to avoid violent confrontation is empowering. Showing them how to be assertive and take charge of situations is empowering. Helping them to explore options is empowering. Raising their self esteem is empowering.
Telling them the best solution is to carry a gun serves to reinforce their lack of self esteem. It is demeaning and defeatist and potentially deadly. IMO you are playing with fire by imposing your views on vulnerable people. I know they don't all buy it. So you are obviously a reasonable man, and I'm sure they respect you, as you are very earnest and I'm sure, a true believer.
May you all be safe and stay safe, with or without your guns.

[gejohnston]

187. sorry

not all violent confrontations can be avoided. You are assuming that everything is a nail theory holds. That is absurd.
Any time one learns to be more self reliant or take care of any situation is empowering.

The rest of the stuff is pop psych BS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

194. Providing people with options and knowledge is indeed progressie

Choices are theirs to make. That is true empowerment. As I have said repeatedly before, I do not teach concealed carry.

Those limiting the options and rights of others are those playing with fire.

[PavePusher]

140. And now you insinuate mental instability. Speaking of "engage in insults"... n/t

[Starboard Tack]

141. WTF are you insinuating? What mental instability?

Your words. Not mine.

[PavePusher]

151. Your words: "You need to chill, especially if you carry a gun." n/t

[Starboard Tack]

160. You equate anger with mental instability?

Damn. Hope none of you gun carrying guys ever feel that old emotion "anger", because according to PavePusher, that would be demonstrating "mental instability".

[PavePusher]

181. Hahahahah! It was you that made the insinuation....

but nice try at deflection (reflection?).

As I've said before, you do not seem to be here for honest debate.

Good night.

[Starboard Tack]

184. No my friend, you connected those little dots all on your own

I sensed anger coming from x-digger and suggested he chill. I know he carries a gun and I don't think it's a good idea to carry a gun when you are really angry. I don't really know the guy, but based on stuff he's told me in the past, I would not want to be around when he is angry.
You decided to chime in and interpret my advice, gratuitous as it may have been, as inferring mental instability. That's on you. Own it or change it.

[X_Digger]

189. You don't have the power to make me angry.

Irritated? Sure. Tickled? Frequently. Disgusted? On occasion.

Your telepsychology? More chuckling.

[Starboard Tack]

190. Very glad to hear that.

And I want you to know that my comment was misinterpreted.

[X_Digger]

188. "I guess poor is a relative term." -- fucking duh.

That tells me all I need to know about your experience with poverty and hunger.

[SteveW]

117. No, sir.

There are indeed lots of ways to fund testing, but putting the burden on those exercising their Second Amendment RKBA, will be scrutinized closely by the courts as an infringement, just as poll taxes were made unconstitutional by the 24th Amendment (1964). And the courts will no doubt pay particular attention to the intent of such taxes:

"It all boils down to the buyer paying."

It all boils down to the voter paying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Taxation of the press

State governments retain the right to tax newspapers, just as they may tax other commercial products. Generally, however, taxes that focus exclusively on newspapers have been found unconstitutional. In Grosjean v. American Press Co. 297 U.S. 233 (1936), the Court invalidated a state tax on newspaper advertising revenues. Similarly, some taxes that give preferential treatment to the press have been struck down. In Arkansas Writers' Project v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987), for instance, the Court invalidated an Arkansas law exempting "religious, professional, trade and sports journals" from taxation since the law amounted to the regulation of newspaper content.

In Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439 (1991), the Supreme Court found that states may treat different types of the media differently, such as by taxing cable television, but not newspapers. The Court found that "differential taxation of speakers, even members of the press, does not implicate the First Amendment unless the tax is directed at, or presents the danger of suppressing, particular ideas."[91]

[Starboard Tack]

145. What is more important to you?

More constitutional or more intelligent? You are so wrapped up in defending what you know to be an incredibly flawed system, you'll defend it to the death with your constitutional blather. Don't be a patsy for the NRA and extreme RW of the GOP.

[SteveW]

193. You can try to be more respectful than "patsy for the NRA and extreme RW..."

But that seems to be stock-in-trade for some of you guys.

Further, please don't tell me "...what you know to be an incredibly flawed system..." Especially when you suffuse it with "constitutional blather."

A: I choose "More constitutional..."

I tire of the assumed superiority of anyone's notion of intelligence. The "best and the brightest" have gotten us into too much trouble to earn expect some unquestioned moral position, most esp. when juxtaposed in the choice you propose. That should be readily evident

[PavePusher]

139. No. If you want it, you get to help pay for it. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

143. If and when I buy a gun I'll be happy to pay my share. Why not?

[PavePusher]

153. Nice dodge.

Going with that logic, there should be no public financing of medical care. It should be paid for only by the people immediately using it.

[Starboard Tack]

159. Your analogies get funnier by the day

The crazy thing is that RKBA is a constitutional right and getting medical care is not. Guess the authors had their own doctors and money to pay them.
Public financing of medical care What country do you live in?

[friendly_iconoclast]

155. Let's finance the Coast Guard by taxing boat and ship owners. Why not?

Why should the onus of financing them be put on those that do not use their services?

[Starboard Tack]

156. Boats and ships are taxed and do help fund the Coast Guard.

Vehicle registration and drivers license fees help maintain the highways and highway safety. I'm sure you pay a fee for a CCW permit.
If the government allows people to own and carry, why not do it all in one stop?

[friendly_iconoclast]

164. Most of their funding comes via the DHS appropriation.

Just like any other regulatory or law enforcement agency. They could get more by charging the sorts of fees you'd
like gun owners to pay.

Sauce for goose, meet gander...

[Starboard Tack]

172. The USCG performs many functions, as does the fire department

I see no similarity between boating and gun ownership. Boaters pay their dues, like car owners. Sauce for a wild goose or a wild gander.

[friendly_iconoclast]

177. Gun owners *already* pay the taxes you call for

A 10-11% excise tax, depending on what's being sold:

http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference_guide.shtml

[oneshooter]

175. "They help to fund"

They need to fund the CG entirely by the increased fees on small craft, port fees, docking fees, lift fees, porta potty fees and anything needed to stay in port, or on the water. YOU use it, YOU pay for it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

176. Why?

The CG do not own the high seas or the marinas or the waste disposal facilities. They do not rescue boats either. They rescue people (not boats) in distress and guard our coasts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

178. Why not? A 10-11% excise tax on marine related items would be a start.

You know, like the ones gun owners already pay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman-Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference_guide.shtml

You'll note that most of this goes to conservation, but most gun owners do not hunt. Why shouldn't boat owners be held to
the same standard?

[Starboard Tack]

179. We have plenty of those taxes/fees and they are justified.

Some fund state agencies. Some fund federal agencies. Those who fish pay additional taxes/fees.
Why shouldn't gun owners pay their share?

[friendly_iconoclast]

182. You misunderstand, I have no problem with Pittman-Robertson taxes.

I objected to the assumption that gun owners weren't already paying taxes over and above sales taxes.

[Starboard Tack]

183. No assumption on my part. I had no idea.

Not something I've ever thought about. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I have no idea who Pittman-Robertson are.

[gejohnston]

186. The Robertson was

Pat's dad. Yeah that Pat Roberson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman-Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2007/09/23/pittman-robertson-act-70-years-of-conservation-dollars/

[GreenStormCloud]

14. 2005 PLCAA will take care of that suit. N/T

[rl6214]

26. what a crock of shit

THEY should have recognized the schizophrenia and taken steps to get him treatment.

Pawn shop employees trained to recognize depression

[TPaine7]

33. This whole thing is obviously the fault of the negligent seller and the manufacturer.

These negligent sellers and manufacturers should be held accountable. For example, if the gun was originally sold to a police department or officer (as in other lawsuit cases) what manufacturer doesn't know that guns sold to police can end up like this one? Manufacturers should provide an employee to stay with each gun throughout its operational life--to ensure that nothing bad happens.

The plain fact is that even if you don't agree that pawn-shop owners are responsible to diagnose mental illness during the course of a transaction or that manufacturers are negligent if they don't provide a gun chaperone, it's only fair to let the courts decide.

That's right. Anyone should be able to sue for anything. No instant mental diagnosis? Sue! No gun chaperone? Sue! Don't like the way that guy looked at you? Sue! That woman won't date you? Sue! That guy doesn't know you exist? Sue! Let the courts sort it out, I say.

One great advantage of this (before that silly law to protect the death merchants) was that mayors who hate guns--Bloomberg and MAIG--could have spent unlimited amounts of taxpayer money to go after gun manufacturers, importers and the rich and powerful mom and pop gun dealers.

Just think, Bloomberg would have simply needed to find a few sympathetic juries--out of thousands of tries--to defeat manufacturers and importers. Then he could have bent the entire industry to his will. Perhaps he and his fellow mayors could have taken control of the manufacturers (though many of his mayors would be disqualified from touching the guns their offices would have controlled, having personally been caught and convicted of felonies).

You gun militants would still have had a right to keep and bear arms--provided you built them in your personal machine shop! A gun scarce utopia AND a robust Second and Fourteenth Amendment! Win-win!

It would have been beautiful, but the right wing, misogynistic, racist, NRA controlled Congress stopped the dream.

[BiggJawn]

35. So we now need a MSW to sell guns?

The guy either lied on the 4473 or he had never been adjudicated mentally defective nor confined. And some guy who works in a pawn shop is supposed to play Psychiatrist.
That's the bailiwick of Barbers, Taxi drivers, and Bartenders, not Gun sellers.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Now why would a mentally ill person lie?

How could such a thing ever happen?

[BiggJawn]

44. I dunno, let's ask my first ex-wife...

She did a pretty good job of hiding it while we were married.

[Starboard Tack]

45. So would you believe her if you were selling her a gun?

It's ludicrous to think that nutjobs and criminals wouldn't lie as to their eligibility.

[rl6214]

51. "She did a pretty good job of hiding it while we were married."

I think if she did a pretty good job of hiding it from him, and he was married to her then she could probably get it over on anyone she was trying to buy a gun from.

Edit to clarify and correct typo

[Starboard Tack]

53. On our second martini are we?

I think I'll join you

[rl6214]

54. No, I don't drink

I'm Type one diabetic and it's not good for my blood sugar.

So you don't think someone can get psych problems over on their spouses? As quickly as people get married now a days it wouldn't surprise me. Maybe that's why she is the ex. My wife and I dated 5 years before we were married (29 years now) so there were no surprises to be had with us.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Congrats on your marriage. Sorry about the Type 1 diabetes.

I'm sure all kinds can get one over on their spouse for all kinds of reasons. Not so much on a mental health professional. What do you think of my idea?

[oneshooter]

64. I really think that it is unworkable.

To expensive, and probably ilegal.

But I am just a simple Marine that don't know no better.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

66. It may be expensive.

I don't see how it could be illegal. Main thing is, would it save innocent lives. I'm thinking Tucson and many other senseless massacres that could possibly have been avoided. It would also avoid so much flak that you guys get through guilt by association. It seems to work reasonably well for dangerous drugs and that is expensive. Bottom line, how much do we cherish life and how much are we prepared to protect it.
Worth thinking about.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. "I don't see how it could be illegal"

A mandatory government approved psych check before allowing someone to exercise a constitutional right and you cannot see how it could be illegal??? Look at the general case and see if that is a road you want to go down. The cost of that alone would make a poll tax seem minor.

What is worth thinking about is mandatory reporting standards and other approaches that do not intrude on basic rights and freedoms. In this case the guy was disqualified based on prior a mental health commitment. What needs to be looked into was why it was not reported to Feds

The lawyer who filed this needs to be seriously sanctioned and the family assessed the defendant's attorneys fees.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Wrong again. The system needs to be fixed, if you want a system.

Apparently, felons, non-citizens and the insane don't enjoy those precious "rights" as you call them. So how do you filter them out? You can't have it both ways.

And who cares about the lawyer? People get killed by unstable gun owners every day. Probably not statistically significant for some. Wouldn't want to spend money on it would we. The money would come from the buyer. That simple. The BoR and your precious 2A does not guarantee free guns or tax free guns or license free guns. It only guarantees the right to keep and bear.

Think of the revenue a simple psych evaluation would generate plus maybe a nice tax to fund the innocent victims of gun violence. Time for gun owners to pay their fair share of the costs the rest of us have to pick up. You wanna play, you should pay.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. The system needs to execute under the existing framework

And under it, the disqualified get filtered out. Why wasn't this guy disqualified is the key question here. No one seems inclined to find out why. Sort of surprised since the State has the deepest pockets of all and this suit is clearly gold digging.

I care about the lawyer, since tripe like this suit clogs the courts and it needs to be stopped. Slapping the lawyers around is a good place to start.

You refuse to acknowledge where this would lead to. Should we tax the right to vote and require current psych exams before your can enter the voting booth? Your refusal to address the general case show just how weak your position is.

I have no responsibility to cover the costs of the misdeeds of others just because you want to lump us all together. People get illegally killed with knives more than long guns. Would you tax all knife owners to address those deaths? People get run over by cars, yet you do not require a psych exam for drivers or a fund for those victims.

You solution will not work under the current legal structure and fails in the general case. The horse is dead, quit flogging it.

[Marengo]

83. And what of purchasers of other potential lethal implements?

More folk were murdered with knives or other cutting instruments (1825), blunt objects (611), and hands, fists, feet etc. (801) than rifles (348) in 2009.

Using your metric, shouldn't someone who buys a kitchen knife also be subject to a pysch eval?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

89. You're not talking about fixing a system

You're talking about radically altering our system.

Psych evals to exercise a right at the expense of the person wishing to exercise it? Yeah - don't see that happening.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, here in the United States, this lawsuit is pure junk and I agree, the attorney bringing it should be severely chastised.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

93. Maybe...

...there should be one of those outside each voting booth?

[Starboard Tack]

107. Why?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

110. Why not?

After all, many people are obviously not making an informed or rational choice about the candidate for whom they are voting. A proper psychological evaluation of all potential voters, at the voters expense of course, would prevent that.

If that sounds like it would be onerous and offensive, you're right. No different than literacy tests and poll taxes.

[Starboard Tack]

112. Apples and oranges.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

114. How do you figure?

Really. Lets hear it. How do you figure that a literacy test or psych eval (at individual voter's expense) to vote is an apples to orange comparison to a psych eval (at individual firearms owner's expense) to own a firearm?

Technically there is one difference - ownership of weapons is a protected right, whereas voting is a privilege and responsibility.

Perhaps you'd prefer having to pay a special tax on printer's ink and printing presses to cover potential environmental impact (both chemical and noise) if one wishes to publish a newspaper? After all, there's no restriction on the right just on the tools of the right...


You are advocating an means/competency test and expense which can be used to subjectively bar the exercise of a right. Nothing more.

[X_Digger]

116. Actually, a printer's ink / paper tax was already ruled unconstitutional..

See MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO. v. MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. I know it was

Thats why I raised the specific issue of printers ink...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

121. If you can be...

...denied a right based on that maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

[Starboard Tack]

122. No right would be denied anymore than at present.

That's a bogus argument. The mentally ill and former felons are already denied the "right".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

124. True enough!

The same is true of firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

135. I'm talking about firearms

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

136. Wait a minute.

Who's on first?

[BiggJawn]

81. There's the key word: Mental Health PROFESSIONAL.

Most gun dealers do not have mental health training.
Now if I couldn't figure out that my ex was nuts in the 5 years we were married, what hope does a guy who sells guns have to accurately diagnose mental illness in somebody he/she just met 15 minutes ago when they walked into his shop?

This is starting to turn into one of those "I'm Rubber, You're Glue" exercises so popular around here.

[Straw Man]

57. That's what the phone call is for.

See my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=7973

The buyer doesn't just fill out a form and walk away with a gun, for the obvious reasons. With all due respect, you should familiarize yourself with these processes before passing judgment on them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. Do not confuse the bubba with facts and logic

It might destroy his fantasy and hurt his self esteem

[SteveW]

103. No need. Use the volunteer psychs right in this thread. nt

[aikoaiko]

75. family is even suing the rotary club sponsor who dropped off the victim at the club.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. More than just them

They are suing:
The gun dealer (pawn shop)
The club owners
The property owners
The local Rotary Chapter
Rotary International

They should be suing the state for not reporting to the Feds the commitment so the guy would have been reported as disqualified to purchase a firearm.

[ileus]

80. Somewhere in there the right numbers for this lottery...

[SteveW]

105. Sue! Sue! A Boy named Sue! The whole Sioux Nation! nt

[Wistful Vista]

118. I see J. Randolph Pickett recovered from his injuries when that ambulance backed over him.

I wonder how his lawsuit against Sherwin Williams for supplying defective paint on that ambulance (made it hard to see) turned out.


Okay, I made up that last part. And the first part too...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

125. re: "...gun shop should have trained their people to recognize depression..."

...andthenwhat??????????? The employees can recognize depression.

I'm terribly sorry for Ms. Noboa's family.

The fact is California, next door to Oregon, has submitted 279,589 mental health notices to the NICS. Oregon has submitted 3. That's not for a year, that's 3 ever. On the other hand Oregon is a "shall issue" state. If I lived in Oregon, I'd be looking to move. They are still ahead of my home state of PA which has reported only 1.

What really looks a bit off is Alaska which hasn't reported anyone. That has to be wrong cause the Palins live there.

[E6-B]

128. Plantiff is crazy.

The lawyer and his clients are crazy if they think they can win.

[Tejas]

152. I predict treble damages awarded to the pawn shop.