Michael Wrote:BWaites,
Agree with what you are saying. Having been a 'commander' a couple of times, I have had youngsters that I was worried about. How did I deal with it? I had them escorted to a qualified healthcare provider. I did not make the call…even though I consider myself a pretty fair judge of men. Of course, I was also a young troop long before I was a commander, and I remember being informed that the CO was going to inspect all of the off base personnel’s homes for ‘health and comfort’ reasons. Thought it was a crock then, think it’s a crock now. There is a fine line between good leadership and caring for your troops and what I call ‘invasive leadership’.

The problem I have with bill/law/order this is not all 'commanders' are created equal. There are those with an agenda that will use this to, as you say, confiscate firearms because of a hot tempered youngster (something I have been accused of being a time or two) or just to attract attention to what a ‘great’ commander they are. Don’t believe it? Look at the scandals over the last several months and the number of Commanding Officers that have been relieved.

We, in the military, forgo a lot of our civil rights based on our chosen profession. Many of us choose to live off base to avoid the additional jackassery that is often associated with overzealous commanders on base. This, to me, seems to be a further erosion of the few liberties that we have, and could lead the civilians to say ‘ well, the military does it, so maybe our police should forgo the 4th amendment for the civilian populous’.
Slippery slope…

Nukes Wrote:As a "reformed" ER doc, most of my 30 years experience in CA (but have been licensed and worked in 6 states), I heartily disagree with the "mental health" tangent that some hope will avert gun bans. This is just more incrementalism, more "back door" gun bans.

The "5150" (danger to self, others, or unable to care for self) process is seriously abused already. I have provided expert witness assistance to patients who have been 5150'd by ER docs vengeful against patients who were appropriately assertive or sometimes minimally annoying. Of the states where I have experience, in my opinion only Idaho has meaningful procedural impediments to that kind of abuse, abuse that can permanently revoke gun rights or otherwise destroy a patient's life.

Be very careful of the "if it only saves one life" rationale lest we all be hoisted on that petard.

The main thrust of the Kenyan's "executive orders" today were directed towards further abuse of the patient-physician relationship. What he intends are clearly ethical "boundary violations." The banksters' puppet-in-chief also ordered the resumption of the prostitution of medical research in the service of the victim disarmament agenda. In the mid 90's I was active in the successful effort to expose and unfund the Centers for Disease Control gun ban prostitutes. They have remained unfunded until today's order #14 (at least by CNN's numbering).

Time to dust off my "testify to Congress" suit.

Let me add this. Recall that our now-rescinded social contract barred ex post facto laws. Recall how the stroke of a pen made prior misdemeanor "domestic violence" problems justification for permanent revocation of gun rights. Consider then how many soldiers (or civilians) have gone to the doctor during brief and normal periods of grief and may have been prescribed, appropriately or not, one or more psychotropic drugs (SSRIs, benzos, barbs, etc.). Consider how those old but permanent medical records can now be abused ex post facto. You are all aware, of course, that the HIPAA "privacy" law actually allows insurance companies and government agencies shared access to the "private" medical records that your doctor sends to get his bill paid by your insurance (or welfare) carrier. Anyone notice how preppers and gun owners are being set up to be defined prima facie as mentally ill? Can anyone recall who perfected the use of psychiatric hospitals against political enemies?

Shall we really allow the mental illness witch hunt begin? 'nuff said.

hm2 clark Wrote:A solution that would make people stop and think. Make it a law that if a person is so dangerous that they can not own a firearm, then they are also too dangerous to VOTE. Both guns and votes are dangerous things and should be used by the mentally healthy. If such a law were to even be discussed people would understand that BOTH are RIGHTS, and neither one is more important than the other.