Tuesday, June 10, 2014

N.J. Bill Would Allow Temporary Confiscation of Guns from Those with Mental Problems

Families worried about mentally unstable loved ones hurting themselves or others would be able to seek a court order to temporarily take firearms away under a bill introduced Thursday in the New Jersey Senate.
"Families or a close friend are those who know best if someone has reached that point where they are mentally ill and violently prone," said Sen. Richard Codey (D., Essex), who introduced the bill.
The proposal for a "gun violence restraining order" comes after six people were killed last month in California by Elliot Rodger, 22, who then fatally shot himself. Authorities reportedly alerted to potential danger by Rodger's mother and therapist had visited him within a month before the shootings but found no cause to act, according to news reports.
"You can look at our ongoing history over the last 10 years - Aurora, Columbine, more recently in California," Codey said. "Clearly, these people were severely mentally ill, needed help, and should not have had guns in their possession."
The restraining order would temporarily ban the person it's directed at from obtaining or possessing firearms. Once notified of a potential danger, authorities would be required to petition a judge for the restraining order, which would be reevaluated after a designated amount of time.

9 comments:

  1. Good - that is a sensible start.

    We should extend that to people who make violent threats, but are just angry, not mentally ill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree.
      We know there are unfair abuses in the domestic restraining order process. I would hope at least the evidence of these threats are sworn to under oath as having been said, or on video. A worry should be based on threats, not just a mental problem, which can be temporary and non violent. To exclude threats from angry people, not just mentally ill people leaves out some of the most dangerous people.

      Delete
  2. Under California's current law, it's easier to disarm someone for mental illness than this proposal. A police officer only needs probable cause (the lowest standard) to bring someone in for an involuntary evaluation. If the clinic admits the person under the same probable cause standard, it triggers a five year ban on purchase or possession. No judge required. The laws were there. At some point people need to act instead of writing laws on paper and bitching about the NRA on TV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I know you oppose the policy in California by which mass shootings can be prevented. And you love to point out the ones that slipped through everyone's fingers as proof that they don't work anyway. But I think you know that's bullshit. The mass shootings that never happen don't make the news. The disarming of dangerous people doesn't make the news either. So, for you, that conveniently means they never happen. Right?

      Delete
    2. Would you ever admit that something is a failure in process instead of a failure in laws? That's what this case was. Even with your "proper gun control" there is still a process that must be followed. So when that doesn't happen would you call for even harsher laws?

      Delete
    3. Oh, is that what you're always trying to get at. It's a failure of the process rather than a failure of the laws? Is that your argument?

      Well, that might make sense if we had proper gun control laws. But, since we don't, your argument is just another attempt at diversion and obfuscation.

      Half-a-million guns are stolen each year, many of which would have stayed where they belong if we had safe storage laws. Many of those stolen guns are used in crimes. In some cases the criminal walks because of a failure in the process, but you see where it all started, right.

      That's just one example. The point is we don't have proper gun control laws and that's the problem.

      Delete
  3. The first question I would have is does this restraining order have an ex parte version, as in it takes effect before the person named in the order gets a hearing in front of a judge? During separations and divorces, it isn't unusual to use these orders as a tool to gain either real or perceived advantage.
    The other concern is that while these orders are put in force as a result of a signed affidavit, there is rarely any consequence for submitting a false one. You get served, you have your hearing and even if a statement is proven to be false, there is rarely any consequences for filing the false statement.
    TS's statement above is quite true. If law enforcement couldn't detain Rodger due to probable cause issues, how would applying for this court order with a higher burden of proof work out differently. Unless they are planning to require a lesser burden of proof....

    ReplyDelete
  4. In most of these cases there were signs and enough evidence to act. The couple who killed the cops in Vegas is a good example. There's blame for the citizens who knew what that couple had said they were going to do, but did not inform the authorities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's even more blame than that to go around.

      Delete