By Tom Henderson • Staff Writer • 

Friendly fire

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Rotwang

Boquist has drunk the gun-grabbers' kool-aid. Republicans used to be, at least, reliable for protecting the basic right to self-defense. Not any more, I'm afraid. It's one more reason to look at the Libertarians next time you vote.

Seabiscuit

"(C) An offense committed against a family or household member;
(Note that this doesn't say "conviction", it only says "committed". "Daddy didn't make me wear my seat belt when we went to the grocery store yesterday!)

(D) An offense involving cruelty or abuse of animals;
(d) Evidence of controlled substance or alcohol abuse
(g) Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a firearm, ammunition or another deadly weapon"

Ever allow your dog to run at large? Ever smoke a joint, drink a beer in your front yard or have a DUII / Diversion Order, and heaven forbid, gone down to Bi-Mart and bought a box of .22 LR so you can take your son out target shooting on Saturday?

Guess I'm in real trouble. Not only did I treat myself to a new rifle, but I also bought 3 boxes of ammo for it just prior to our elk hunt.

How many hunters out there bought a box of bullets last fall? Maybe that box of shotgun shells last fall or in January for duck or goose hunting?

Why isn't rope, Rx Medication, Revocation of driving privileges - access to motor vehicles included?
The kitchen knife is included!



kona

Rotwang, are you kidding? "Boquist has introduced a bill that would authorize blocking firearms access to people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others."

What is problematic about denying mentally troubled individuals from having access to weapons?

Rotwang

Kona, reversing the burden of proof to the accused turns the American system of justice on its head. That's what's wrong with it. Removing basic human rights without benefit of trial is a dangerous precedent to introduce.

kona

Do you consider arming a mentally ill person a "basic human right"?

Rotwang

Don't twist my words. We are talking about a core Constitutional right in danger on the whim of a police officer (the government).

kona

So is that a "no"?

Seabiscuit

kona,
Do you consider a person who bought a box of shotgun shells to be "people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others"?

Do you consider a person who bought a rifle or a shotgun "people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others"?

Do you consider a person who can't balance a check book or properly manage some or all of their finances to be " people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others".

Do you consider it sufficient that a son, mad at dad because he got grounded, raises his right hand and swears that dad is a danger to him and has threatened him with bodily harm AND he bought a box of shotgun shells last month?

Then dad can spend thousands and thousands of dollars on Mental Health Professionals, Attorney's and Court Costs, just to prove that he is mentally sound and the son was just acting out against parental rules and controls and get his guns back at some undetermined point down the road?

Just asking because that is exactly what this bill would do and gives other people the ability to do that to you.

Don't you think "people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others" would not or could not be placed in the hospital under a family commit or a Peace Officer Mental hold and then the Doctor could make a definitive decision?

A diagnosis based on a sound medical decision. Not just a family member who is mad because they didn't get to "hang out" or play "Doom" on the X box, then decide if a person should loose his guns until the doctor says this person is no longer "deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others".

kona

Seabisquit, You asked, "Do you consider a person who bought a box of shotgun shells to be "people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others"? Yes, in some instances. No, in other instances. It depends on the person.

You asked, "Do you consider a person who bought a rifle or a shotgun "people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others"? Yes, in some instances. No, in other instances. It depends on the person.

You asked, "Do you consider a person who can't balance a check book or properly manage some or all of their finances to be " people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others". Yes, in some instances. No, in other instances. It depends on the person.

You asked, "Do you consider it sufficient that a son, mad at dad because he got grounded, raises his right hand and swears that dad is a danger to him and has threatened him with bodily harm AND he bought a box of shotgun shells last month?" Yes, in some instances. No, in other instances. It depends on the person.

You said, "Then dad can spend thousands and thousands of dollars on Mental Health Professionals, Attorney's and Court Costs, just to prove that he is mentally sound and the son was just acting out against parental rules and controls and get his guns back at some undetermined point down the road?" Where is the question?

You asked, "Don't you think "people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others" would not or could not be placed in the hospital under a family commit or a Peace Officer Mental hold and then the Doctor could make a definitive decision?" I don't understand the question, but I'll try. If a person is mentally ill and has been "deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others" I don't believe that person should have access to a gun or ammunition.


kona

You said, "Not just a family member who is mad because they didn't get to "hang out" or play "Doom" on the X box, then decide if a person should loose his guns until the doctor says this person is no longer "deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others". I don't understand that statement.

kona

"Senate Bill 868 would authorize law enforcement officers or members of a person’s immediate household to seek a court order restricting the subject’s access to firearms and ammunition. It would also create a process for the person to request a hearing on such an application, ensuring due process."

treefarmer

I can empathize with Mr. Boquist, my own brother was a Veteran who used a legal weapon to kill himself. A tragedy of that nature alters one’s perspectives. As someone who values and vigorously defends the right to bear arms, as an extremely responsible gun owner myself, as a believer in common sense, I take exception to some of the “strawman” arguments posited above. I agree with Kona when he points out the importance of CIRCUMSTANCES – coupled with due process - in determining who might be justifiable denied the purchase/possession of a firearm. I once lived next door a convicted wife-beater who threatened to shoot me and my family after we helped his wife and children escape the violence in their home. In a sane system, that crazed vindictive man should have had NO LEGAL RIGHT to possess a gun, and yet our DA at the time advised that nothing could be done. Neither his criminal record, (fourth degree assault) nor the documented threats, nor his alcoholic rages were enough to override the right for that violent dangerous neighbor to keep his guns. Two gun owners, and a flawed law that protected only one – the wrong one – of us.

There simply has to be a balance between the second amendment and common sense regulations. I support vigorous pursuit of a solution to that end.

Rotwang

And, one more time, it's the government, not you, who gets to define "common sense."

Rotwang

The ultimate solution is to stop making more veterans until someone actually attacks us. That's done by not voting for those who support illegal wars.

kona

Rotwang said, "And, one more time, it's the government, not you, who gets to define "common sense."

Yes, that (letting the government decide in this case) shouldn't be a problem. Letting individuals decide for themselves what is right or wrong in our American society would be disastrous in many situations especially when it involves weapons or the chance of infringing on another's life.

kona

Rotwang said, "The ultimate solution is to stop making more veterans until someone actually attacks us. That's done by not voting for those who support illegal wars."

No one likes war. But, it is better to be proactive than reactive. It is too late if we wait until "someone actually attacks us". I do agree that we should limit our engagements as much as possible.

macgreg

Right what right.I to have seen the devastating effects of weapons in the hands of other wise normal people.Until you can prove that you have a compelling and useful need for a gun ,maybe its time to take them away forever.Iam sick of all the carnage people do to each other.

Rumpelstilzchen

Mr. Starrett knows he has to tread carefully, since the usual denunciations won't work and could easily backfire. But it is obvious from his arguments just how appalled he is that there is actually a Republican who is open to reason and reality. Most have drunk the Second Amendment Kool Aid and simply vote no on anything that doesn't put more guns in the hands of people.
Gun rights in this country and this state are not under any threat and have in fact been expanding steadily over the last few decades. This bill doesn't limit them either, especially if concerned folks work constructively to make its applicability as restrictive as possible, instead of just throwing the usual hissy fit.
The task is to ensure that any theoretical abuses are safeguarded against, even the ridiculous worst-case scenarios opponents have to resort to to make their opposition appear justified.

Rotwang

Kona: "No one likes war. But, it is better to be proactive than reactive. "

It appears that you are advocating a violation of international law, and I'm 180 degrees out with you for that. But, it isn't a big leap from advocating violation of true due process (trial by jury).

kona

rotwang, so you would propose that we should wait until North Korea hits Portland, Seattle or Los Angeles (as an example) with intercontinental missiles before we do anything to prevent that occurrence? We should wait for due process after the attack to decide what to do? I guess your assessment is correct that we differ by 180 degrees.

Rotwang

Argumentum ad absurdum.

kona

Rotwang, good luck with that response. Obviously you don't take conflicts seriously. Can you explain why you think the posturing by North Korea should not be taken seriously? Or, the posturing of Russia? You seem eager to just let things happen and not be proactive to prevent war or conflicts.

You are conflicted in your reasoning. You appear to be supportive of proactive behaviors of protecting one's self with guns rather than wait until a person is shot/attacked. If you are getting physically harmed do you wait for "due process" or should a person be proactive to prevent the harm?

Rotwang

Not at all. You are the one who is confusing having tools to protect oneself, like a personal firearm or a fire extinguisher, with striking out like a bully for no reason. Being a Libertarian, I support a military force strong enough to stop attacks, but not to maintain an empire. Do you want people to shoot back? Because, advocating as you do, that's how you get people to shoot back.

How this has anything more than a hair to connect to my original premise that this bill would start a dangerous precedent to compromise basic human rights on a whim, I don't know.

kona

Rotwang, so from your perspective it is proper/appropriate for people who are mentally ill to have guns and ammunition? That is what you seem to be suggesting. Do you also think felons should have guns and ammunition since you consider it a "basic human right". Are you also against registering firearms? Are you opposed to gang members to have guns and ammunition? I am just wondering if you have any limits to behavior that our government and society have deemed a problem?

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS