Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Mon Jun 03, 2024 10:49 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7 posts ] 
 A sample of what's coming to Minnesota 
Author Message
 Post subject: A sample of what's coming to Minnesota
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:23 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Copied from the Virginia Citizens Defense League report:
Quote:
VCDL will STRONGLY OPPOSE ***any*** bill that takes away gun rights from someone who is involuntarily committed to OUTPATIENT treatment. If a person is a real danger to themselves or others it is absolutely ludicrous and a dereliction of duty for the courts to assign them to outpatient treatment! Would mass-murderer Charles Manson have been
assigned outpatient treatment? Of course not! He was a true danger
to society and was segregated from society as he should be.

If a person has been assigned outpatient treatment, our view is that
he cannot be considered a legitimate danger to himself or others,
unless government has screwed up again, like they did with Cho.

Here's how it really works: If a judge thinks a person is not a
danger, but wants to force him to get some treatment, the judge will
rule the person is a "danger" so that the judge can legally commit the
person to get outpatient treatment. Thus, games are being play with
the term "dangerous" solely to get a legal ability to force someone to
get treatment.

You should not lose your rights if you are not adjudicated to be truly
dangerous to yourself or others.

Here are the bills that came in today. Out of 18 bills we oppose all
but one, and that one we are neutral on.


HB 657, Delegate Griffith, makes a person who is found incompetent to
stand trial unable to possess a firearm. We would support this bill,
BUT it also says a person who is "involuntarily committed to an
outpatient facility" is also banned from possessing a gun. That makes
it a non-starter. VCDL STRONGLY OPPOSES this bill.

HB 709, Delegate Janis, bans someone who has been involuntarily
committed to inpatient or **outpatient** mental health facilities to
be banned from getting a gun. Again, we could support this bill but
for the outpatient wording. VCDL STRONGLY OPPOSES this bill.

HB 741, Delegate Caputo, bans someone who has been involuntarily
committed to inpatient or **outpatient** mental health facilities to
be banned from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a gun FOREVER.
VCDL STRONGLY OPPOSES this bill.

HB 815, Delegate Albo, makes a person who has been temporarily
detained, but subsequently agrees to voluntarily admit themselves for
mental help to be denied their gun rights. Who would want to
voluntarily seek help if they have their rights taken away from
them? VCDL STRONGLY OPPOSES this bill.

HB 835, Delegate Moran, takes away the right to have a gun for anyone
held to be incompetent to stand trial. VCDL could support this bill,
but it slips in wording about "involuntary treatment" (outpatient)
being a disqualifier for gun ownership. A non-starter. VCDL STRONGLY
OPPOSES this bill.

SB 226, Senator McDougle, bans someone who has been involuntarily
committed to inpatient or **outpatient** mental health facilities to
be banned from getting a gun. Again, we could support this bill but
for the outpatient wording. VCDL STRONGLY OPPOSES this bill.

SB 231, Senator McDougle, bans someone who has been involuntarily
committed to inpatient or **outpatient** mental health facilities to
be banned from purchasing, transporting, or possessing a gun FOREVER.
VCDL STRONGLY OPPOSES this bill.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:09 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
My experience in court was that the real question was really NOT "is he actually a danger to himself and others?..."

But instead "Do we want this guy to go to treatment?"....because then we can get a report from the treatment center about what he says in treatment about himself and his family and everything that is happening in his life. If so, simply make the necessary Findings.

(You can't get along in treatment if you won't talk about matters that will hurt you in court, but, our cooperative subject won't learn that until it's too late.) If you agree to treatment, have a lawyer establish the ground rules.

We can send him to treatment if we simply make the necessary finding at a preliminary hearing. The treatment center will tend to support the court's finding with an Evaluation.

As always, if a person has counsel from the start, unfair results are much less likely. These hearings may seem harmless and even friendly, so people don't get lawyers, thinking it'll be over more quickly if they don't.
They're wrong.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:01 am 
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
7 bills dealing with the same subject... Sounds like people are padding the ol' resume.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:00 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
Dick Unger wrote:
As always, if a person has counsel from the start, unfair results are much less likely. These hearings may seem harmless and even friendly, so people don't get lawyers, thinking it'll be over more quickly if they don't.
They're wrong.


Thanks so much Dick. The more I here this the deeper (I PRAY) it sinks in. :!:

_________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -


WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:43 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
It's moving in Virginia and Minnesota DFLers are watching it closely.

Virginia May Alter Mental-Health System: A package of bills to reform the state's mental health system in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy passed unanimously out of a Senate committee yesterday, while others made their way through the House. The Senate omnibus bill would loosen Virginia's tough standards for involuntary commitment, require better monitoring of those receiving outpatient treatment to make sure they get the treatment that is ordered and allow better sharing of mental health records. The legislation and others in the Senate and House are attempts to reform a mental health system that has come under increased scrutiny since a mentally disturbed student killed 32 students and faculty members and then himself at Virginia Tech in April.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/ ... 88184/1004


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:15 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
The out patient 'treatment" recommended (and ordered by the court) is always just a laundry list of whatever local programs exist, and is whatever the current reimbusement system will pay for. One size (or reimbursement code) fits all.

Sort of like our current physical health care, it'll be driven by the reimbursement system, not the patient.

The courts will rubber stamp the recommendations, and 99% of the cases will go right through as a formality. Hire 3rd year law students, just to put on a show.

Back to the Cuckoo's Nest days......


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:56 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Dick Unger wrote:
Back to the Cuckoo's Nest days......

No, they can't afford that. Try court mandated pharmaceuticals.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 7 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group