Folks Found NOT Guilty Banned From Owning Guns??????

[fdegree]

This morning on WBOC-TV there was a very brief "story"...since I was doing other things, I'm not sure I followed it correctly.

The impression I got was state senator Pettyjohn, from Georgetown, is introducing a bill that will ban gun ownership for anyone found NOT guilty of a violent crime.  No, that is not a typo...NOT, I'll repeat that, NOT guilty.

I truly hope my preoccupation with other things caused me to misinterpret this.  I checked the WBOC web site, and so far there is nothing I can find about this.  But, they usually wait a little while before posting the most current stories.

[Adrenolin]

lol You heard it wrong. I've not read the entire thing but highlighted the parts regarding your worry. From his Facebook account...

I apologize for the long post today, however I wanted to speak to you, my constituents and others in the State of Delaware regarding House Bill 88.

House Bill 88 did not come back for reconsideration this week when the Senate came back in to session. This bill was touted as a mental health bill by the Atty. Gen.’s office. In my opinion, and upon close review of the bill HB 88 had little to do with mental health. This bill is a new way for the state of Delaware to confiscate firearms. Here are a few of my thoughts on the bill, and in no way constitute all the concerns I had with the bill.

The only parts of this bill that I could support were adding persons who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty but mentally ill, as well as adding persons who have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial for a crime of violence to persons who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. All other parts of the bill deal with adding a new class of persons who may have their firearms seized by the state of Delaware, or who may be forced to relinquish their firearms to another person.

The civil procedure that was outlined to relinquish firearms or ammunition directs a mental health professional to report to local law enforcement, or the Delaware State police, any person that they feel may be a danger to themselves or others. The appropriate police agency is then required to investigate that claim, and if substantiated forward the complaint to the Atty. Gen.’s office. The Atty. Gen.’s office will then review the claim, and if they feel it is substantiated, they bring the complaint to a Superior Court judge. Only then is the party who is being investigated notified that there is an active investigation in process, and at that time are able to mount a defense to these charges. This person, as in any action brought before the court, has the right to an attorney, has the right to call witnesses, and has the right to cross examine their accuser. I had a couple of issues with this process.
1. Local Law Enforcement is overworked as-is. To add this new duty to them, and to have them make a determination of mental health state is a burden that I would not want to place on our towns’ and cities’ police departments. Moreover, if the firearms are seized, the local agency would have custody of these firearms and ammunition for an indefinite period of time. This raises the question of care for expensive or antique firearms, storage and security space in small police departments, and liability for any damages to firearms while in the custody of the police department.
2. The Attorney General’s office is also overworked for the workload that they are faced. Will these cases receive the proper attention and review?

One of the most disturbing aspects of this legislation was that the burden of proof that the state must obtain is less than is required to prove guilt in a traffic court. Let me say that again. The state has a higher burden of proof in proving that a person was speeding, ran a stop sign, did not use the turn signal properly, etc. than was required in this bill to separate a person from their constitutionally protected right to possess a firearm.

Additionally, the amount of time that may be taken mount this case against a person and bring it to a court is alarming. Again, with police departments that are overburdened, and attorney general’s office that is overworked, and a court system that is also overworked, these people who may be a danger to themselves or others would still possess their firearms for days or weeks until their case is adjudicated.

We currently have a procedure for separating a person from their firearms. It is currently in Delaware code, and is currently being utilized. This process calls for an individual to be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution if they are a danger to themselves or others. Under current Delaware code, that person would then be considered a person prohibited from owning a firearm in our state. If a medical practitioner is concerned to the point that they feel a person should be separated from their firearms, this should be the vehicle in which the state ensures that a person is not able to have access to a firearm. House Bill 88 did not guarantee physical separation between a mentally ill person and a firearm. As we know from seeing news reports of other crimes involving firearms, persons prohibited, if left on the street, can and do obtain firearms regardless of any law prohibiting them from doing so.

I plan on introducing a bill later this week to add the aspect of HB88 that I and many others fully support; adding persons who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty but mentally ill, as well as adding persons who have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial for a crime of violence to persons who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. This is an alarming Loophole in our current Delaware Code, and one that I hope to see fixed very quickly.

Thank you for letting me explain my stance on this bill, and thank you for the opportunity to serve the people of the 19th District!

[Adrenolin]

Off Topic but I didn't post this at 07:47:54 AM.. but at 9:47 AM.. Server clock off a bit?  

Edit:  You can't report your own post to the moderator, that doesn't make sense!

Actually it does make sense since I wanted to notify and point this out to a moderator

[fdegree]

THANK YOU!!!!!  That makes me feel better.  I don't remember the news mentioning the part "found not guilty by reason of insanity".  But, again, I could have missed it since I was preoccupied.

[Radnor]

Off Topic but I didn't post this at 07:47:54 AM.. but at 9:47 AM.. Server clock off a bit?  

Edit:  You can't report your own post to the moderator, that doesn't make sense!

Actually it does make sense since I wanted to notify and point this out to a moderator

The time you are referring to upper right corner?  Go to your profile.  Look & layout.
There you will see an offset for the time.  Change it to a 2 (or auto detect) and save changes.
Refresh screen and the time should be ok. 

The time on your post is correct.

[groundgrid]

From the story on the WDEL website:

"Senator Brian Pettyjohn's bill expands the crime of possession and purchase of a deadly weapon to include the guilty but mentally ill, those found not guilty by insanity, and those who are mentally incompetent to stand trial."

1). If a person is "mentally incompetent to stand trial" is that due to a permanent disability or to a treatable condition?
     Just because someone HAD a debilitating mental illness, it does not mean that the condition cannot be
     controlled. Imagine if a diabetic was denied a right due to his/her inability to make decisions when having a blood sugar crisis.

2). Same applies to "not guilty by reason of insanity."

After studying the situation & discussing it with several knowledgeable professionals we came up with the following language as an alternative to HB-88:

1).   Action to order the relinquishment of firearms shall only be initiated if:

   The subject is expressing behavior that is grossly irrational, (actions that the individual is unable to control), behavior that is grossly inappropriate to the situation, or other evidence of severely impaired insight and judgment, that creates an inference that the individual is unable to properly handle a firearm.
   or
   The subject has recently (within the past seven days) attempted suicide, or threatened suicide and there is a reasonable probability of suicide.
   or
   The subject has, during the past seven days, expressed dangerously aggressive behavior, has threatened to kill or seriously injure another person, has a current homicide plan, has specific homicidal intent, or has recurrent homicidal ideation.

It is well known that most mentally ill individuals are not violent. The language above will limit the proposed law to cases that have a clear increased potential for violence.

2).   An order issued by the court pursuant to this section shall be immediately vacated
   upon filing of an affidavit signed by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist with whom
   the patient has an ongoing relationship stating that he/she does not pose a
   foreseeable threat of violence. Furthermore, such orders will expire, unless otherwise
   renewed by the court, 12 months after their date of issuance.

This language makes it clear that an order for the relinquishment of firearms is intended to be temporary and that the opinion of a mental health professional who is familiar with the subject overrides an accusation made by someone else.

[Adrenolin]

Radnor.. thanks. Hadn't noticed the time being off before but that fixed it.

groundgrid.. has any of that been sent to Pettyjohn, other senators or just online discussions?

[groundgrid]

It has been sent to Senator Lavelle.
However, I have not heard back from him yet.

IMO, this or similar language solves most of the problems with HB-88. The issue is not about mental illness but about a person's actions indicating that they may be on the verge of committing a violent act. Additionally, it makes it very clear that, if a person is acting this way due to a mental (or physical) illness, any order will be vacated upon certification from their doctor.

An interesting point to bring up is that even police officers often need mental health care due to the stress of their jobs, being exposed to situations that are incredibly horrific & many other factors. In no way should having to go through something like this affect ANY of a person's rights. What matters is a person's actions and ability to think rationally. If a medical condition is keeping them from functioning normally, it needs to be addressed accordingly and not by treating them as a criminal.

[JOET]

no matter what, it is all still about control. What is wrong with the current laws that we have today on the books???
again all about control..

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

I was nervous for a minute until I looked it up and found reason of insanity. 

If we don't have this law now and there have not been mass shootings it is feel good legislation. My issue with it is like any other gun law that will somehow appease the left is that you give an inch they push for a mile. If that were not the case it is a no brainer that this should be law.

[Moosie]

Senator Pettyjohn is VERY PRO 2A.  He's a friend of mine and I can assure you, he's all for keeping firearms in the hands of the people.

  Back from the dead,

Moosie

[SturmRugerSR9]

A lot of good intentions go bad by just changing a word or two in a law. That is the fear I have with anynew legislation concerning gun control. His intentions are good, but you let this bill stand and some Liberal Gun-banner submits a amendment, and Wellah!, We're screwed. How do we know someone with bad intent will not change who gets to decide who is mentally competent enough to own a gun. Will it be someone with a medical/pshyc. back ground? Or, will it later be amended to give the power to police, politicians, mayors, or local town councils.
I believe we have fairly good(not great) gun laws now. The problem is in the courts, and plea-bargain-bent lawyers. To many charges are dropped when they get to court. This means the existing law has no teeth.
Does anybody else see what I'm getting at? Or, am I just paranoid?

[Moosie]

SturmRuger,

I know what you mean and I'm with you. Any new legislation is bad legislation in my opinion as well. We have decent gun laws compared to some states, so I'm ok with them.  On top of it, like you said when people are arrested on a gun violation, it's thrown out. This is the case across the country though.  New legislation doesn't fix the violence... it just hurts law abiding citizens.

Moosie

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

The thing about this is it would seem to be common sense, but here is devils advocate.

You have a daughter and some sick sob rapes her like that baby molester from down state. You find him and in a fit of range break all 412 bones in his body and beat him within a inch of his life.

Now under current law you might be not guilty of "reason of temporary insanity" and thus could own a gun. THe way the new law is looking that might change.

I do not think in this case any decent person would think that father should not have a gun again.

[oldgraygeek]

The thing about this is it would seem to be common sense, but here is devils advocate.

You have a daughter and some sick sob rapes her like that baby molester from down state. You find him and in a fit of range break all 412 bones in his body and beat him within a inch of his life.

Now under current law you might be not guilty of "reason of temporary insanity" and thus could own a gun. THe way the new law is looking that might change.

I do not think in this case any decent person would think that father should not have a gun again.

Not even Joe Hurley would be able to keep me out of jail on that one... but I wouldn't mind, except for the part where the guy survived...