John's children perceive that John has become reclusive and withdrawn following his wife's death. Sounds like a normal reaction due to grief. Not a reason to deny the permit.

Bill has fallen on hard times. But, unless he's committed some crimes, there's no reason to deny the permit. The policy on his wife is irrelevant.

because I do not have the right to deny someone a civil right based on hunches. Or personal prejudice. Or outright bigotry.

Shall issue should be universal - might rights should not depend how the personal feelings of a government agent.

in the course of your investigation you discover that he has friends and relatives in prison for gang related crimes even though he has no criminal record. Do you issue the permit to carry or not?

How do you think most southern police would answer that question?

I'm all for background checks and such, but your OP makes me question how easily it would be for someone to use race, economic class, gender, and other types of prejudice to corrupt the system.

This is the most stupid OP on this topic that I've seen in months.

I notice that you haven't responded to anyone who responded 'yes and yes'. That pretty much says it all.

John shows signs of clinical depression but everybody is willing to offer him the preferred method of male suicide.

Bill not only has indications of intended suicide but also has an estranged wife who took the kids with her so he also has a motive for domestic violence yet every gungeon dweller responding would gladly offer him the method to go along with his motive.

Great work guys.

Last edited Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:07 PM - Edit history (2)

to justify denying permits.

Guess that depends on what pretend state this takes place in, and that we can pretend there exists a preponderance of evidence John and Bill exhibited or engaged in behavior to suggest they create a risk to public safety.

"You have been found unsuitable because your wife died and there is evidence you are sad."
"You have been found unsuitable because you are divorced, in debt and have a big insurance policy."

Interesting. But let's not royally fuck up their chances to buy a gun just yet...

Let's pretend in the permit interview, John says yes of course he is sad - he misses his wife! So now he wants to get back into shooting because he knows returning to a good hobby, one in which he will share with his kids, is a great way to fill the void in his life. Golf is tough what with his hip. Fishing is fun too, but he remembers his military days, and wants to purchase a nice M1 and maybe a .45. A few of the guys in his senior development go to a local range once a week, and he wants to join them.

I guess we can pretend Bill says yeah the wife and he are separated and yes, sharing visitation with the kids is tough. He plans to sell off a few of the properties he is tied up in, and with the economy slowly picking up so is his business. Anyway, what is also cool is that his new girlfriend and her kid are real outdoors types. He can use a break so for vacation they are planning a few excursions, maybe 1 or 2 with his kids too - hiking, shooting range, pheasant hunting, plinking etc. Figures to not spend too much on guns just yet - maybe start with a Henry .22 lever-action, a Ruger .22 Mark III, and a Mossberg .20 gauge shotgun.

He does? Are you a mental health professional? Is your hypothetical official a mental health professional? Is everyone who is somewhat withdrawn given a diagnosis of clinical depression in your little world?


What indications are those? You are advocating the denial of a fundamental right to everyone who is experiencing setbacks in life. There is no -- repeat, NO -- overt indication that either of these men is suicidal or homicidal. Your entire premise is absolute bullshit.

If either of these hypothetical applicants already owned firearms, what would you suggest as a course of action? Confiscation? "Somebody thinks you might be dangerous" -- not exactly due process, is it?


Thanks. Glad we could clear that up for you. The next time you want to craft a cockamamie "gotcha" scenario, I suggest that you construct it a bit more carefully.

A woman is shot by a significant other every 16 hours.

Deflect all ya' want.

I'll let others decide if the gungeon is full of heartless bastards that only care about increasing the number of guns at the cost of human grief.

You guys are just like the open carry bunch here in Texas. You are your own worst enemy.

Your vague description of a set of behaviors doesn't meet any clinical standard that I know of. Perhaps you could enlighten me.


That's one big fat honkin' straw man you've got going there, and it's not one that I recognize. You have proven nothing.

Nice try at classic gun nut deflection tho. Pick up any entry level psychology text.

Rhetorical Tip: The other side is not expected to support your points for you. That's your job.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

And minus 10 points for gratuitous ad hominem.

When has a pro-restriction supporter ever felt obligated to back up his/her assertions? Never.

You're your own worst enemy.

SCIENCE!

I'm sure they want to know that instead of getting out and going shooting with their friends, they are better off to stay shut-in and be grief-stricken instead.

you get all huffy and defensive. That doesn't count the outright insults by claiming people are mass murderers and "gun nuts" that you lob along the way.

What, exactly, is the loss of having you no longer interact with us?

That's all it is.

Because YOU have an imaginative theory that those who responded "yes" are ALL about just selling another gun.

Got it.

LEO have very specific guidelines when reviewing permit applications, and your pretend descriptions do not offer typical justification for denying someone their constitutional rights. We can pretend all sorts of things.

It is not hard to understand that everyone who wishes to buy a firearm is really not planning to kill themselves or someone else. Sorry - A LOT of people do not automatically think 'gloom and doom' at the mention of someone acquiring a firearm.

...and gets a bit shirty when we fail to genuflect in the manner that he deems fit


*a reference to Aaron Mc Gruder's The Boondocks.

From the thread "How to recognize the tactics used by anti gun activists..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#368402

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Which is why we've been delivered so many stunning defeats at the hands of the righteous pro-restriction cabal!

Clinical depression: Depressed mood that meets the DSM-IV criteria for a depressive disorder. The term clinical depression is commonly used to describe depression that is a type of mental illness' not a normal, temporary mood caused by life events or grieving.

From another description - In addition, 3 or more of the following must be present: gain or loss of weight, increased or decreased sleep, increased or decreased level of psychomotor activity, fatigue, feelings of guilt or worthlessness, diminished ability to concentrate, and recurring thoughts of death or suicide.


I missed the part where the guys walking mentioned they had lost weight, weren't sleeping, and had recurring thoughts of suicide.

Own worst enemy? You're the guy making a habit of coming to a 2nd Amendment group and insulting the very people you need to change their votes to advance your agenda.

If you were to voluntarily surrender them for destruction.

"I'll let others decide if the gungeon is full of heartless bastards that only care about increasing the number of guns at the cost of human grief"

And you can guarantee your multiple firearms won't bring anyone to grief? Ever? What if they are stolen? What if you have mental health crises?

"A woman is shot by a significant other every 16 hours."

By a male significant other in most cases? A male gun owner, just like you?

and without a trial.

I'd hate for you to act like a "heartless bastard".

Aw shucks........you sweet talker you!

Comparing the win/loss record of the pro-rights vs. pro-restriction teams, the pro-rights supporters are most certainly doing great work!

who happens to be the local sheriff's best friend from high school, is stalking her. Do you issue the permit?

To purchase a firearm. She has recently taken out a restraining order against an ex- boyfriend who has a history of violence. Would you issue her a permit? Would you do it in a timely manner?

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/04/woman-fatally-stabbed-berlin-twp/28461361/

Paging The Minority Report.

Well, let's play. Assuming this hypothetical LEO is assuming John Doe might be suicidal, let's take away his driver's license too, shall we? After all, we don't want him driving off a cliff. While we're at it, we could call the gas company to shut off his service. Then let's send a deputy to his house to confiscate any razor blades or dangerous medications. Then we can rest easy.

As for Bill Smith, uh-oh: big debt and a life insurance policy? Surely there's murder a-brewing. Either that or you're watching to many episodes of Justice Files.

No justification in either example for legally denying a valid permit application.

Denying a valid permit application is typically a severe handicap in an applicant's subsequent application processes, and in some jurisdictions the applicant may not even be notified to the reason(s). This is extremely important to consider when your opinionated actions will have long-term affects on interfering with someone's constitutional rights.

Valid reasons do exist for denial of an application, but the applicant being sad, or having a big insurance policy, are not.

may issue jurisdictions vs shall issue jurisdictions.

IMO, all jurisdictions should be shall issue. What I mean by this is unless the applicant has failed one of the objective requirements spelled out in the law, the keeper of such permits is absolutely required to issue such a permit within a clearly defined period of time.

This prevents (or at least limits) the potential for abuse on things like:

sex
race
religion
etc

and opens the door for the citizen file for redress in case their rights are violated.

With the good ole boy club.

Reasonable and objective criteria for BGCs need to be in place along with a shall-issue system.
The assent of an official's capricious judgement for the exercise of a right is the antithesis of liberty.

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 06:58 PM - Edit history (3)

"John Doe applies for a permit to purchase. In the course of the background check you find that John's wife of 47 years has recently died and according to his children John has become reclusive and withdrawn.

Would you issue the permit to purchase? Why or why not? "

Yes. Because it is more likely that the purchase of a firearm is an attempt to distract from the grief of losing a spouse, and to attempt to return to normalcy, than to commit suicide (run the numbers yourself). And making someone a "nonperson" by taking away their autonomy and revoking a cherished civil liberty is more likely to add to his grief and pain than to help ameliorate it in a healthy fashion. (And I take it that you oppose a right to suicide?)

I have a friend and mentor in exactly this situation right now, whose wife of nearly 50 years just died suddenly a few weeks ago. He owns guns. And shooting/reloading is right now one of the healthiest outlets he has; it keeps him from sitting in the rocking chair in the living room staring at the wall. And I expect he's probably bought new guns since she passed away (as well as a new vehicle). Do you really think that taking away his hobby, never mind his civil rights, just as he's trying to return to normalcy would be helpful?

I haven't just lost someone close to me, but I have been through a couple of dark times over the course of my 45 years, and I can guarantee you that what you propose would have made my situation less healthy, not more. Maybe you should consider the unintended consequences of taking autonomy and personal responsibility away from people who value autonomy and personal responsibility above almost all material possessions, before suggesting rash actions like imposing felony-class criminal penalties (which is exactly what you are proposing) for simply losing a loved one.

Would you take away somebody's house if they lost a spouse, because most suicides occur at home? Would you take away their car, or their Internet access, or their right to travel to places with bridges and high places? Would you put them in protective custody, absent other factors that would warrant an involuntary commitment? If not, why not?

"Second scenario: Bill Smith applies. In the course of the background check you discover that Bill, a self employed contractor, is deeply in debt, on the verge of bankruptcy, separated from his wife and children and according to his wife has a large life insurance policy.

Would you issue the permit to purchase? Why or why not. "

Absent any threats of violence and a due-process revocation of rights, yes.

You do realize that *I've* been close to that situation myself, right? Tens of thousands in medical debt from my special-needs son, and went through a painful separation several years ago (though not from the kids; my wife and I weren't hostile). Both my wife and I owned several guns each, and both my wife and I had large insurance policies with the other as the beneficiary. Neither one of us even thought about violence, and we worked through it.

A few seconds' thought would also reveal that your implied "plan" (murder the spouse and collect the money) is so ridiculous on its face that it could have come from a CSI: Miami episode. I don't think anyone smart enough to fill out a BATFE Form 4473 would actually think that you can collect on a life insurance policy by murdering the policy holder with a gun.

"Suppose you are in a Permit to Purchase jurisdiction and you are the LEO entrusted to issue permits to purchase. The program requires a background check to include at least telephone interviews with immediate relatives, employer (if any) and any references offered by the applicant."

So you are imagining making buying a gun as onerous and expensive as getting a high government security clearance. Do you think applying such draconian preconditions to, say, getting an abortion, would be even remotely constitutional? I don't.

Head out to the range alone or with some friends and have a blast. Nothing cures the blues quicker...




Where to hell do these poor dopes live that requires LEO's to approve their use of a civil right?

John is offered free marijuana and guitar lessons instead... in six weeks he can reapply.

speaking from experience, using drugs and or alcohol to deal with grief is a bad idea. it helps in the beginning, but it soon becomes habit forming. before you know it your using every day.

at my worst i was drinking a 30 pack a day. id start as soon as i woke up, drink at work and then drink as much as i could before i passed out after work.

in recovery at the moment.

Hope you are getting your life back together... I am no fan of excessive overuse of anything, including humor. Thanks for the reminder.

against any and all forms of gun control. I'd like to see the Brady Act weakened if not repealed all together.

To answer your question, I would NEVER serve in a role denying people of constitutionally protected rights without due process.

Outside of NJ, Hawaii (doctor's permission for handgun purchase), and NYC; gun purchases aren't denied outside of due process protection.

I am going to donate an extra $25.00 this month to the NRA because of your post. Congrats.

$25 extra in the NRA coffers.

make "being depressed" a felony, as you are advocating---not in name, but in impact.

Your "diagnosis" doesn't meet the DSM criteria for depression, as was pointed out upthread. But if you want people who *are* depressed to seek treatment, revocation of civil rights for seeking advice/treatment is as counterproductive as revoking their job or their relationships for seeking advice/treatment.

Move to another county if you don't want your 'right' to own murder weapons to be infringed.

Shall issue laws in all states. Thankfully there are only a handful of states that really attempt to oppress an individual's constitutionally protected civil right to keep and bear arms, and those states tend to have the most dangerous cities.

Is so 19th century.

So if a woman who has filed a restraining order against an ex husband with a long history of violent crime and abuse, would you if you her a permit to protect herself?

How about you move to another country where infringing is A-OK, instead.

You belong in New Jersey.

No, not the Gilda Radner Roseanne Rosanadanna sketch, really in New Jersey.

Police do not issue licenses to carry for any reason in most (all?) jurisdictions.

Well......unless your last name is 'Soprano' or you're employed by Tony.

(Sorry --- couldn't resist. Sometimes you just have to lighten things up a bit, eh? )

It's a right whether you like it or not.