Resource Document on Risk-Based Gun Removal Laws

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
sodbuster95
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 6954
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:14 pm
Location: Maumee
Contact:

Resource Document on Risk-Based Gun Removal Laws

Post by sodbuster95 »

For those interested in such things, here's a link to a document released by the "Ad Hoc Workgroup of the Council on Psychiatry and Law" (in other words, a group of people with academic pedigrees to document just how much smarter they are than the rest of us plebs forming the unwashed masses).

Executive (very brief summary - This is presented as something of a FAQ on "Risk-Based Gun Removal Laws" including how they are put in place but, more importantly, how they are enacted in practice. A few key takeaways that stood out to me:

1) "Connecticut and Indiana implemented their risk-based gun removal laws in 1999 and 2006, respectively, after tragedies involving mass shootings. To date, they are the only two states with published data about the laws’ outcomes." (Emphasis added) - In other words, we really have no idea how well, or if at all, these types of confiscatory policies have any real, substantive impact on "gun violence". (Though, I could certainly offer my own speculation.)

2) "Although concerns from gun owners have been raised that these laws may lead to widespread reporting and unwarranted gun removal, data from Connecticut and Indiana indicate that risk-based gun removal laws are used infrequently." (Tell that to the guy in Connecticut that was killed the other day.)

3) "In Connecticut, about half of the reports to police were made by an acquaintance of the person of concern – 41% from family members and 8% from employers or clinicians. 3 The remaining 51% of reports were made by people who did not know the person of concern or did not disclose their relationship to the police." (OVER HALF - What number constitutes the "infrequent" reference in item 2 above?)

4) "Most of the subjects (88%) were not known to Connecticut’s public behavioral health system at the time the risk warrants were served, indicating that they had not received treatment for a serious mental illness in the prior year. Likewise, the majority of subjects were not involved with the criminal justice system; 88% had no criminal conviction in the year before or after the gun removal." (I read this as meaning that the vast majority of reports were made regarding people with absolutely zero history of, well...anything. But, hey...if we can save just one life, right?)

5) "In 99% of the Connecticut cases, police search led to removal of firearms. In most cases, the outcome of the mandatory court hearing following gun removal was not known. However, among the known outcomes, the seized firearms were held by police (60%), ordered destroyed or forfeited (14%), returned directly to the subject (10%), or transferred to another individual known to the subject and legally eligible to possess them (8%). (So, first, this doesn't add up to 100%. Nevertheless, am I to understand that, in 82% of cases, a person with zero documented mental-health or criminal history was found to be such a danger that their constitutionally protected right was found to be revocable by some judge?)

6) "[In] contrast to a registry (e.g., NICS), which primarily limits the ability to purchase firearms, risk-based gun removal laws provide a legal framework for removing firearms from individuals at a time that is closely linked to the risk of a dangerous act." (A close link such as someone who doesn't even know the person calling the police?)

7) "It is important to understand that risk-based gun removal laws are designed primarily to enable concerned citizens to intervene when they perceive a danger related to firearms; the laws are not typically written with mental health professionals in mind." (Problem number one.)

8 ) "If the police decide to intervene and restrict an individual’s access to firearms, the clinician may be asked to testify in a subsequent hearing about whether the guns should be returned." (Oh, good...so now the government gets to utterly ignore patient/therapist privilege or force the patient to waive privilege so he can retrieve his personal property.)
NRA Benefactor Life Member

Information posted in these forums is my personal opinion only. It is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
Post Reply