Jump to content

Rep. Allen Fletcher Pushing Anti-2nd Amendment Bill


mrfootball

Recommended Posts

Allen Fletcher, who poses as a "Tea Party" Republican, is teaming up with Democrat, HPD chief Charles McClelland to push for new Anti-2nd Amendment legislation.

 

Now that politicians and the establishment media have intertwined mental health and proposed gun laws, the top cop in Houston and Rep. Allen Fletcher (ex-cop) wants to change Texas law to make it legal for police to seize guns from citizens they determine are mentally ill.

 

Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland wants the Legislature to require a judge to decide if citizens referred for mental health treatment are qualified to exercise the Second Amendment.

 

A proposed law will amend the mental health code of Texas and allow police to confiscate a weapon taken from a person they determine is “experiencing a mental health crisis and has been found to be a danger to himself or others and is being transported by police for an emergency mental health evaluation,” according to the Associated Press.

 

One can envision a scenario where 'authorities' could abuse such power by making subjective decisions on who and who isn't "qualified" to exercise their Constitutional rights.

 

Rep. Fletcher needs to be called on this anti-2nd Amendment proposal. Fletcher pretends to be a pro-constitution, limited government Republican...yet here he is introducing anti-2nd amendment legislation that grants open-ended power to the State to disarm citizens for any reason they can dream up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good!  Why would anyone be in favor of the mentally-ill owning a gun? Most people who keep themselves armed to the teeth for no reason have already got one foot in the door of the mad house anyway. What? 20 kindergarteners were not enough trophies for the NRA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen Fletcher, who poses as a "Tea Party" Republican, is teaming up with Democrat, HPD chief Charles McClelland to push for new Anti-2nd Amendment legislation.

 

Now that politicians and the establishment media have intertwined mental health and proposed gun laws, the top cop in Houston and Rep. Allen Fletcher (ex-cop) wants to change Texas law to make it legal for police to seize guns from citizens they determine are mentally ill.

 

Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland wants the Legislature to require a judge to decide if citizens referred for mental health treatment are qualified to exercise the Second Amendment.

 

A proposed law will amend the mental health code of Texas and allow police to confiscate a weapon taken from a person they determine is “experiencing a mental health crisis and has been found to be a danger to himself or others and is being transported by police for an emergency mental health evaluation,” according to the Associated Press.

 

One can envision a scenario where 'authorities' could abuse such power by making subjective decisions on who and who isn't "qualified" to exercise their Constitutional rights.

 

Rep. Fletcher needs to be called on this anti-2nd Amendment proposal. Fletcher pretends to be a pro-constitution, limited government Republican...yet here he is introducing anti-2nd amendment legislation that grants open-ended power to the State to disarm citizens for any reason they can dream up.

 

The problem of mentally ill people having access to guns is very serious. Many of the active shooters in recent history have a history of mental illness. The Virginia Tech shooter and the one who shot Congresswoman Gifford were known by many to be crazy. Campus police had actually banned that latter from a campus because of his crazy behavior.

 

Something must be done about insane people getting guns, and I think it's perfectly sensible to suspend someone's gun rights if they've been transported to a mental health facility during a paranoid schizophrenic break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A proposed law will amend the mental health code of Texas and allow police to confiscate a weapon taken from a person they determine is “experiencing a mental health crisis and has been found to be a danger to himself or others and is being transported by police for an emergency mental health evaluation,” according to the Associated Press.

 

Do the police not already confiscate weapons from those they are transporting? I can't imagine they put a person, who is probably not happy at being transported to begin with, in the back of a squad car and leave them armed.

This does bring up some good issues, though. For instance, how will the officer be qualified to determine if there is a "mental health crisis". You'd have to lay down some very specific rules. Leaving it too nebulous would invite abuse. On the other hand, someone suffering delusions and/or angry at the world can do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders with a weapon.

And no, I'm not talking about Fox News viewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, if someone is exhibiting signs of having a mental break, they're taken to a mental health institution where it can be determined if they're safe to be released. There are not enough resources, though, so often known ill people have to be released back on to the streets. The legislation proposed by the Police Chief say that if that happens, a judge should then determine if the person is sane and can own guns again. This is one gun regulation that I think should be fairly uncontroversial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the judge determines that someone who already owns one or more guns is insane does this allow the police to search his or her house and confiscate any guns found? On another level, can a state pass a law that abridges a Federal constitutional right and not have it thrown out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judges never even come into the picture unless someone has been transported to a mental health facility to be held. I hope that none of us think that people who have severe paranoid schizophrenia or delusions have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, because that makes for a very dangerous society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the judge determines that someone who already owns one or more guns is insane does this allow the police to search his or her house and confiscate any guns found? On another level, can a state pass a law that abridges a Federal constitutional right and not have it thrown out?

A state can pass any law that it wants at any time regardless of rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution. The question of whether it gets thrown out is entirely dependent on the court system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sane person thinks that a truly mentally ill person should be in possession of a weapon. However, thinking that doesn't remove (nor should it) everyone's right to due process under the law. That means you can't just take away someone's 2nd amendment rights, even if you want to and it might make society safer.

More that one government throughout history has labeled people "insane" and used that as an excuse to lock them away. Unfortunately, the price of a free society is danger and the price of a safe society is tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A state can pass any law that it wants at any time regardless of rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution. The question of whether it gets thrown out is entirely dependent on the court system.

Exactly. States can regulate firearms within reason but I can't think of an instance where they have been able to successfully remove 2nd amendment rights. Now, the federal government can and has by prohibiting federal felons from possessing firearms. Does state law also allow for that? If so, then a case can be made for a similar abridgement for the mentally insane. If not, and any abridgements of the 2nd amendment are the solely the domain of the federal government, then it would most likely be struck down. At any rate, you'd have to have some sort of due process in order to remove 2nd amendment rights and that would be outside the purview of local law enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sane person thinks that a truly mentally ill person should be in possession of a weapon. However, thinking that doesn't remove (nor should it) everyone's right to due process under the law. That means you can't just take away someone's 2nd amendment rights, even if you want to and it might make society safer.More that one government throughout history has labeled people "insane" and used that as an excuse to lock them away. Unfortunately, the price of a free society is danger and the price of a safe society is tyranny.

That's one of the classic questions of the role of government. That's the beauty of our system of government is that it leaves that balance flexible.

The motivation for a union is safety, being aware though that no matter how great the nation's commitment to liberty freedoms are compromised in order to achieve protection. The physical damage of armed conflict compels nations to implement a military deterrent and in doing so an overly militaristic culture diminishes the civil and political rights of the people. "To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free."

- Alexander Hamilton

- Federalist #8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that the OP has not read carefully the article that he posted. The police already confiscate weapons from those being taken for an emergency mental health evaluation. The problem arises after that person is released. HIPPA regulations do not allow police to know if that person is allowed to possess a weapon or not. The new bill proposes that a judge make that decision, so that both police and the citizen are protected.

 

If I am missing something here, the OP is free to point that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. States can regulate firearms within reason but I can't think of an instance where they have been able to successfully remove 2nd amendment rights. Now, the federal government can and has by prohibiting federal felons from possessing firearms. Does state law also allow for that? If so, then a case can be made for a similar abridgement for the mentally insane. If not, and any abridgements of the 2nd amendment are the solely the domain of the federal government, then it would most likely be struck down. At any rate, you'd have to have some sort of due process in order to remove 2nd amendment rights and that would be outside the purview of local law enforcement.

 

Convicted felons are not allowed to posses firearms under Texas law. Persons convicted of crimes involving family violence are not allowed to possess firearms under both Texas and federal law. These statutes pretty successfully remove 2nd Amendment rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the classic questions of the role of government. That's the beauty of our system of government is that it leaves that balance flexible.

That is the beauty of our system, but is also the reason we have to remain diligent even in the face one tragedy or crisis after another. I was recently re-reading William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and am always captivated by the story of how Hitler used crises, manufactured and real, to gather support to undermine the democratic process in Germany from within and to "legally" achieve dictatorship after he had tried and failed via armed revolt a decade earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Convicted felons are not allowed to posses firearms under Texas law. Persons convicted of crimes involving family violence are not allowed to possess firearms under both Texas and federal law. These statutes pretty successfully remove 2nd Amendment rights.

Well, then, there you have it. The state can pass this into law. My guess, and hope, is that it will require due process and that someone qualified will make the determination. Another interesting piece would be whether or not, once a person has had their 2nd amendment rights removed, if they can petition the court to reinstate them. I'm thinking in particular where a person is deemed "cured" of the mental illness. That would differ from the treatment of convicted felons in that they can never get their 2nd amendment rights back except, perhaps, in the case of a pardon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sane person thinks that a truly mentally ill person should be in possession of a weapon. However, thinking that doesn't remove (nor should it) everyone's right to due process under the law. That means you can't just take away someone's 2nd amendment rights, even if you want to and it might make society safer. More that one government throughout history has labeled people "insane" and used that as an excuse to lock them away. Unfortunately, the price of a free society is danger and the price of a safe society is tyranny.

 

Creating a due process is exactly what's proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a Republican making a smart proposal unless I am missing something. Quite refreshing to read a Republican coming out with a proposal that seems logical on the surface rather than something like forcing trans-vaginal probes on women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...