Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
State News & Gun News => Delaware News => Topic started by: Bullpup on December 19, 2013, 03:11:51 AM
-
Saw this on the deloc.org Facebook page:
http://www.nagr.org/state/sign-petition/DE.aspx?pid=FL01a
-
This petition addresses several five bills that were considered last year. While I agree that HB 58 and HB 67 are dangerous to gun owner/carriers, we need to carefully consider HB 88, the mental health bill which is mentioned in the body of the petition. In the wake of the Aaron Alexis and apparently other mentally ill shooters, we shouldn't knee-jerk reject a bill without knowing what is in it. NRA-ILA was in agreement with HB 88 as amended by three amendments. You can find the text of the 2013 bill here. http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis147.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+88?Opendocument (http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis147.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+88?Opendocument). To fully understand the bill, you need to incorporate the amendments.
The bill still needs an amendment to tighten up who is allowed to submit mental health alert and better procedures to get removed from prohibition when the problem is resolved. In 2013, HB 88 passed the House 40-1 but failed in the Senate 6-13 in a last minute vote. It is highly likely to come up again. I would like to see the bona fide mentally ill prohibited without sweeping up legitimate gun owners by vindictive hoplophobics.
If you disagree with me, please present a cogent argument backed up with facts.
-
If you disagree with me, please present a cogent argument backed up with facts.
Wow! All I did was post a link. And I'm new here. Thanks for the warm welcome.
-
If you disagree with me, please present a cogent argument backed up with facts.
Wow! All I did was post a link. And I'm new here. Thanks for the warm welcome.
@bullpup, my comments weren 't direct at you or your posting. This discussion on HB 88 has been ongoing for some time. The quoted sentence was an open invitation to the forum. I fully agree with NAGR's opposition to HB 58 and HB 67. My apologies for engendering an inferred offense; I should have been more careful with my wording. Please continue to participate.
-
If you disagree with me, please present a cogent argument backed up with facts.
Wow! All I did was post a link. And I'm new here. Thanks for the warm welcome.
Fear not: they even put up with me, and I'm a Communist. We need you here, Bullpup.
-
Thank you, Cbmarine. My default response to ANY new firearms legislation is to oppose it, but I will research HB88 further.
-
On-line petitions may express peoples opinions of a subject, but are not a legally or officially acceptible, as the signers real names, addresses and residency, can't be offically verified . For example how can you verify a signer truly lives in Delaware? I see a lot of this on the Internet, and at best it is a "feel good" exercise. If this was submitted to the Legislature in Delaware it would be just another "File 13".
-
Politics is a game with constant give & take. For us to appear as reasonable gun owners as opposed to "gun nuts" I believe that we need to work with legislation that can be drafted so that it does not affect law abiding gun owners. HB88 MAY be one that we can support providing the following issues are considered:
1). As revised the bill does require that only mental health professionals make notifications regarding dangerous individuals. My opinion is that it should state "only by or under the direct supervision of a physician (MD) or PhD. level licensed psychologist" Restricting someone's rights should not be within the powers of anyone that does not have the highest level of training.
2). Reports need to require "directly observed actions or behaviour" that indicate a person is potentially violent and a threat.
Language must be included that does not allow the reporting of an individual just because they take a certain medication or seek
help for a particular condition.
3). The opinion of a professional (MD or PhD.) should be all that is needed to have a person's rights restored without ongoing repercussions.
If your psychiatrist says that he/she does not believe you to be be a threat, that should be sufficient to vacate any court order and have your rights restored. Pro 2A groups could maintain a referral database of gun friendly professionals to assist with this.
Here is an example of what the law CANNOT allow to happen:
Someone starts taking a new medication for a medical condition (e.g. high blood pressure), a few days later they totally flip out in public and are taken to a treatment facility. Someone at that facility reports them to the State. When the drug is out of their system they are just fine. This is not a mental illness, just an unfortunate reaction to a new medication. Once cleared by their physician all actions against this person should cease with no permanent repercussions.
Conversely, this is what I hope we can all agree should happen:
Someone hears voices and becomes deeply paranoid. He/she begins to hoard firearms. A family member sees this behavior and reports it to the police. The police find him living in his basement with numerous pictures of people he believes to be stalking him. He is taken to a facility and diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia. He will not allow his family to take his guns for safe keeping & refuses to seek ongoing care. Clearly this is a case that requires intervention.
Most importantly, any support for HB88 should only be given if we get something in return.
My suggestion is that we support HB88 on the condition that all other anti 2A bills are stricken from the agenda.
Simply put, if you pass a background check and are not seriously mentally ill, why should you be restricted from having certain guns or a certain number of bullets?
-
Thank you, Cbmarine. My default response to ANY new firearms legislation is to oppose it, but I will research HB88 further.
Welcome and I think we are all entitled to our opinions. I will say with gun control as most progressive issues you give an inch they will push for a mile. We have checks in place. I am fully against hb88 unless they want to pay armed police to accompany people who lose their rights to self defense. Anyone can go through a depression, especially today.
With many issues on the left I can see something staring out that people that are psychopaths or something of that nature not having guns, but if that is the case they also should work on stripping voting rights from them as both are key freedoms.
I see it as a Trojan horse to disarm people and sadly I have a tendency to see through things. I was one of the ones saying Obama was after our guns when people on other gun boards in the state were saying he "has done nothing but give more freedom to gun owners"
A life lesson is give a progressive an inch and they will push for a mile. Countless examples can be offered if need be, but they often involve "inconvenient truths"
-
groundgrid.. how about correcting things also.. like the fact the legislature passed full control over firearms in the state parks to the head honcho of Fish and Wildlife (or whatever the department was). When I'm hiking or camping alone or with my little guy this is exactly where I want my firearm as danger doesn't stop at the park entrance. There is no state law that tells us we can't enter a state park but there is a rule from an individual. Thats not right. There should be a provision or amendment allowing CCDW permit holders the right to carry in the parks.
I see lots of new laws and bills for gun control but very little in the way of reversing things like the above. Hopefully changes will happen but why is it always us who wind up giving instead of taking back.
-
I agree.
IMO, the willingness to discuss HB88 with the legislature opens up the opportunity to bring up these
other issues.
If we all try to meet with our respective reps and senators (given that it is an election year) it is highly possible that
some action can be taken. Again, this is politics, horsetrading is how things get done.
-
Adrenolin:
Check out the oral arguments in the Doe vs Wilm Housing authority case.
One of the issues is whether the Housing Authority has the ability to make gun rules.
Being that they are an arm of the government & state law forbids local gun laws, the argument is that they are forbidden to do so.
This same approach may work against the Divison of Fish & Wildlife. They are the de facto government with regard to the parks & have full
law enforcement authority in those areas. Therefore, should they not come under the preemption rule that forbids local government from
enacting gun laws?
I suggest sending an e-mail to Francis Pileggi thanking him for his work on the case & ask him about this issue.
I'm very curious as to what he might say.
-
I agree.
IMO, the willingness to discuss HB88 with the legislature opens up the opportunity to bring up these
other issues.
If we all try to meet with our respective reps and senators (given that it is an election year) it is highly possible that
some action can be taken. Again, this is politics, horsetrading is how things get done.
We need to be willing to discuss. Not discussing is like keeping the Forest Service from trimming the brush around your cabin. Later, a forest fire burns your cabin down. Who do you blame? If a tragedy like Sandy Hook or the Washington Navy Yard occurs in DE, we will be facing a legislative forest fire containing all the bills we should oppose.
Here's an extract from my engrossed version of HB 88: yes, there is something I don't like. What is it?
(b) The Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is dangerous to others or self as defined in Section 5122 of Title 16. Any proceedings pursuant to this section shall be in a closed and confidential hearing. The respondent shall have the right to present evidence and be heard in any such proceedings. In the event that the Court makes such a finding, the Court shall issue an order to relinquish respondent’s firearms or ammunition...
...
(d) Any person subject to an order of the Court pursuant to this Subchapter may petition the Court for an order to return firearms or ammunition by procedures established by § 1448A of this Title.
(e) If the basis for relinquishment in 1448B(b) is removed by the Court, any firearms and ammunition taken from the person shall be restored in a timely fashion without the requirement of § 1448A.
(f) Any party in interest aggrieved by a decision of the Courts under this Subchapter may appeal such decision to Supreme Court.
-
All should be opposed..this is their "Feel Good Legislation" again.
I have heard from C4L that this bill is gonna come up within the first two days of the session.
-
Here is what First State Liberty has to say....
Patriot,
The term “Mental Illness” is an easy excuse for government to do a lot of damage.
In Arlington Heights, Illinois, a man went to a therapist to get a few things off his chest.
What he got in return was a far cry from simple consolation.
At 11:00 PM -- the same night after coming home from the therapist -- there was a knock at his door.
It was the police.
He was arrested and hauled off for a mental health screening.
His firearms were confiscated and held for months.
All in one night.
Don't think this could happen in Delaware?
Think again.
If HB-88 passes in the next few weeks the flood gates for gun confiscation will open in Delaware.
It is unlawful and unjust to detain someone, invade their property, confiscate their belongings, and force them to undergo treatment based on hearsay.
Yet that's exactly what Markell and Biden want to do.
You can see how the powers of HB-88 can easily be abused.
And this bill will certainly cause people – especially veterans with PTSD - to avoid seeking treatment.
Our sources have confirmed that Delaware Senators are planning to bring back House Bill 88 in the first two days of session – the “Mental Illness” involuntary detainment and gun confiscation bill we defeated in June.
So the future of gun ownership in Delaware comes down to TWO DAYS – January 14th and 15th.
They can do this through a process called “reconsideration.”
Even if a bill is soundly defeated, any Senator from the winning side of the vote (a vote of NO in this case) can bring a bill back to the floor for another vote.
In other words:
When the gun grabbers are being defeated fair and square, one of them votes the right way so they can have a second try.
We’ve assembled a plan to defeat them again, but we can’t do it without help from all of you.
There are three easy things you can do from home to protect our freedom in this fight: •Donate Money
•Call Weak Senators
•Call Bill Sponsor
Please donate whatever you can -- $25, $50, or $100 – so we can knock these politicians down in Round 2.
Our goal is to raise $10,000 by January 10th.
And we’re going to need every penny.
Senate leadership has a lot of tools in their war chest that they will use to threaten Senators into switching sides.
And Attorney General, Beau Biden, is likely to bribe a few with political promises to reverse the stinging defeat.
Below is a list of the politicians that are most vulnerable to being strong-armed into changing their vote.
Please call them as often as possible over the next 4 weeks and DEMAND that they Vote NO on House Bill 88 when it is brought back for a second chance.
Brian Bushweller (D-17th)
302-674-5442
Robert Marshall (D-3rd)
302-577-8519
David McBride (D-13th)
302-577-8744
Feel free to report back any results.
And finally, call Representative Michael Barbieri (D-18th) at 302-420-6564.
DEMAND that he have House Bill 88 STRICKEN from the record immediately.
Thanks for all that you do.
In Liberty,
Eric Boye
Chairman, First State Liberty PAC
P.S. The fight over the future of gun ownership in Delaware has come down to two days – January 14th and 15th. Please do the Three Things for Freedom listed above.
We need to raise $10,000 by January 10th. Help us meet the “10 by 10” goal by donating TODAY!
Please click here right now to chip in online.
- - - - - -
FIRST STATE LIBERTY PAC
PO Box 7885
Newark, DE 19714
302-729-2178
FirstStateLiberty@gmail.com
www.FirstStateLiberty.org
Like Our Facebook Page
AUTHORITY: Hollie Gorman, Treasurer
--
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters, this link
To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit this link
Forward a Message to Someone this link
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Wine
Patriot,
The term “Mental Illness” is an easy excuse for government to do a lot of damage.
In Arlington Heights, Illinois, a man went to a therapist to get a few things off his chest.
What he got in return was a far cry from simple consolation.
At 11:00 PM -- the same night after coming home from the therapist -- there was a knock at his door.
It was the police.
He was arrested and hauled off for a mental health screening.
His firearms were confiscated and held for months.
All in one night.
Don't think this could happen in Delaware?
Think again.
If HB-88 passes in the next few weeks the flood gates for gun confiscation will open in Delaware.
It is unlawful and unjust to detain someone, invade their property, confiscate their belongings, and force them to undergo treatment based on hearsay.
Yet that's exactly what Markell and Biden want to do.
You can see how the powers of HB-88 can easily be abused.
And this bill will certainly cause people – especially veterans with PTSD - to avoid seeking treatment.
Our sources have confirmed that Delaware Senators are planning to bring back House Bill 88 in the first two days of session – the “Mental Illness” involuntary detainment and gun confiscation bill we defeated in June.
So the future of gun ownership in Delaware comes down to TWO DAYS – January 14th and 15th.
They can do this through a process called “reconsideration.”
Even if a bill is soundly defeated, any Senator from the winning side of the vote (a vote of NO in this case) can bring a bill back to the floor for another vote.
In other words:
When the gun grabbers are being defeated fair and square, one of them votes the right way so they can have a second try.
We’ve assembled a plan to defeat them again, but we can’t do it without help from all of you.
There are three easy things you can do from home to protect our freedom in this fight: •Donate Money
•Call Weak Senators
•Call Bill Sponsor
Please donate whatever you can -- $25, $50, or $100 – so we can knock these politicians down in Round 2.
Our goal is to raise $10,000 by January 10th.
And we’re going to need every penny.
Senate leadership has a lot of tools in their war chest that they will use to threaten Senators into switching sides.
And Attorney General, Beau Biden, is likely to bribe a few with political promises to reverse the stinging defeat.
Below is a list of the politicians that are most vulnerable to being strong-armed into changing their vote.
Please call them as often as possible over the next 4 weeks and DEMAND that they Vote NO on House Bill 88 when it is brought back for a second chance.
Brian Bushweller (D-17th)
302-674-5442
Robert Marshall (D-3rd)
302-577-8519
David McBride (D-13th)
302-577-8744
Feel free to report back any results.
And finally, call Representative Michael Barbieri (D-18th) at 302-420-6564.
DEMAND that he have House Bill 88 STRICKEN from the record immediately.
Thanks for all that you do.
In Liberty,
Eric Boye
Chairman, First State Liberty PAC
P.S. The fight over the future of gun ownership in Delaware has come down to two days – January 14th and 15th. Please do the Three Things for Freedom listed above.
We need to raise $10,000 by January 10th. Help us meet the “10 by 10” goal by donating TODAY!
Please click here right now to chip in online.
- - - - - -
FIRST STATE LIBERTY PAC
PO Box 7885
Newark, DE 19714
302-729-2178
FirstStateLiberty@gmail.com
www.FirstStateLiberty.org
Like Our Facebook Page
AUTHORITY: Hollie Gorman, Treasurer
--
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters, this link
To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit this link
Forward a Message to Someone this link
Reply, Reply All or Forward | More
Wine
-
Between FSL's Illinois anecdote and their appeal for funds, there appears to be their principal operative argument.
"It is unlawful and unjust to detain someone, invade their property, confiscate their belongings, and force them to undergo treatment based on hearsay."
How does this line up with the proposed HB 88 before we suggest three changes?
Here's the scenario.
A credentialed mental health professional reports a person who is dangerous to others or self to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
The law enforcement agency investigates and makes a recommendation to Department of Justice.
The DOJ requests that the Superior Court issue an "order order prohibiting the purchase, ownership and possession of a deadly weapon".
At the hearing "The Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is dangerous to others or self as defined in Section 5122 of Title 16."
"Any proceedings pursuant to this section shall be in a closed and confidential hearing."
"The respondent shall have the right to present evidence and be heard in any such proceedings."
"In the event that the Court makes such a finding, the Court shall issue an order to relinquish respondent’s firearms or ammunition under this section."
And according to the FSL, all this could take place in one night. And the firearms were kept for months.
Here again is the proposed HB 88
Any person subject to an order of the Court pursuant to this Subchapter may petition the Court for an order to return firearms or ammunition by procedures established by § 1448A of this Title.
(e) If the basis for relinquishment in 1448B(b) is removed by the Court, any firearms and ammunition taken from the person shall be restored in a timely fashion without the requirement of § 1448A.
(f) Any party in interest aggrieved by a decision of the Courts under this Subchapter may appeal such decision to Supreme Court.
Please make your own decisions.
-
Also with HB88
I could see examples like this.
Someone has a spouse or relative die and they end up taking an anti-depressant next thing you know they want to take their guns away. That would be bull.
They really need to clarify dangerous. We are supposed to not be able to punish until an action has occurred. It is a bad thing that a massacre can happen, but fairly as well we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
If guns are taken away because someone "MIGHT" be dangerous is as ridiculous as saying they are going to start sterilizing children based on the likelihood they will become a criminal based on demographic trends of crime. Libs would never go for that, Yet I hate to say it would probably result in less crime than hb88 over a 20 year period.
-
Also with HB88
I could see examples like this.
Someone has a spouse or relative die and they end up taking an anti-depressant next thing you know they want to take their guns away. That would be bull.
They really need to clarify dangerous. We are supposed to not be able to punish until an action has occurred. It is a bad thing that a massacre can happen, but fairly as well we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
...
The Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is dangerous to others or self as defined in Section 5122 of Title 16.
Where 5122 defines:
(2) "Dangerous to others" means that by reason of mental condition there is a substantial likelihood that the person will inflict serious bodily harm upon another person within the immediate future. This determination shall take into account a person's history, recent behavior and any recent act or threat.
(3) "Dangerous to self" means that by reason of mental condition the person is likely to cause injury to oneself and to require immediate care, treatment, or detention.
Since it is very important that these definitions be specific enough so as not to be used against innocent citizens, a colleague has provided the following substitute wording.
Danger to Others (DTO)
The judgment of a person who has a mental disorder is so impaired that he is unable to understand his need for treatment and as a result of his mental disorder his continued behavior can reasonably be expected, on the basis of competent medical opinion, to result in serious physical harm to others.
Danger to Self (DTS)
Behavior which, as a result of a mental disorder, constitutes a danger of inflicting serious physical harm upon oneself, including attempted suicide or the serious threat thereof, if the threat is such that, when considered in the light of its context and in light of the individual's previous acts, it is substantially supportive of an expectation that the threat will be carried out.
Behavior which, as a result of a mental disorder, will, without hospitalization, result in serious physical harm or serious illness to the person, except that this definition shall not include behavior which establishes only the condition of gravely disabled.
-
The original version of HB88 was not good. As currently amended, it is much better. Most importantly, with a little more work
HB88 can be turned into a law that actually protects the rights of gun owners.
As it stands now, what happened in Arlington Heights can happen here. If HB88 is further amended & becomes law we would be protected by
law against the arbitrary confiscation of our firearms. HB88 makes due process a requirement. The bill also stipulates that any seized guns be returned
once the subject's condition improves.
I rarely disagree with FSL. However, in this case, I believe that they are grossly misguided.
With the addition of the amendments that I have previously outlined and with better definitions of Danger to Self & Others we become protected against the arbitrary actions of those who do not believe in the fundamental right to self-defense.
For example:
The subject of the Arlington Heights incident was evaluated at a local hospital and, having been deemed to not be in danger released.
As I have proposed, this release by a medical professional would immediately end all actions and require the return of his guns in a timely fashion
To say that FSL is not representing this bill accurately is very generous. I encourage everyone to read the original bill and the already passed amendments very carefully. You will soon realize that it is completely different than how it is being represented by FSL.
A good example is House amendment #1 to HB88 which includes the following:
The Court may also include in its order a provision that allows such person to relinquish firearms or ammunition owned, possessed or controlled by said person to a designee of said person, provided that the designee does not reside with said person and is not a person prohibited pursuant to Section 1448 of this Title.
This amendment opens the option of an affected individual being able to designate who is to hold on to their guns until the situation is resolved.
The subject of the Arlington Heights incident did not have this option.
House amendment #2 increases the burden of proof:
(b) The Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
Neither the police nor the so-called therapist in Arlington Heights could have met this burden of proof.
This again shows how HB88 protects us from a similar situation happening here.
I firmly believe that this debate stages the opportunity for us to have a law enacted that will protect our rights.
It has been a very long time since this happened. Let's all take advantage of the situation and encourage our senators to
further amend the bill accordingly.