Dems want Colorado Red Flag Law

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What would a law that keep guns out of the hands of people like Cruz and Holmes look like? I think the major thing would be that we decide who is just crazy dangerous and irrespective of guns have a way to commit them. The focus is not on gun ownership, but the threat to the community. I’m not talking ‘Pre-crime’ here since it isn’t the threat or the crazy, it the threat and the crazy together. There has to be the right thing between throwing your hands in the air and saying nothing works and screaming that something has to be done.

If this plays out again after the fall elections, I doubt we can depend on a committee kill to stop the ‘something’ and then there will be ‘nothing’ we can do.

[D_F]

I've already seen $20 an hour, signature collector jobs advertised that allude to a gun referendum of some sort. Long way from over.

[Great-Kazoo]

I've already seen $20 an hour, signature collector jobs advertised that allude to a gun referendum of some sort. Long way from over.

Be interesting to see if any of them not CO residents get their petition signature forms tossed, like Lamborn did.

[Gman]

What would a law that keep guns out of the hands of people like Cruz and Holmes look like?

If Cruz had been on record for his many acts requiring a police presence, he wouldn't have been able to buy the guns he used. Everything was in place to be effective, yet the local sheriff had an arrangement with the school district to prevent Cruz from having a record. The FBI also dropped the ball.

With Holmes, it was primarily his shrink that had information about his intent, yet I recall there was an issue with doctor/patient privilege that prevented any reporting prior to the act.

If someone breaks and hours off the deep end, it could very well be their first and last act, and there's no effective way to make that determination.

Instead of trying to solve the unknowable, I'd rather see focus on what we know. We know these acts usually take place in gun free/kill zones. Let's fix that first. Let's get rid of arrangements between school districts and law enforcement that hides criminal behavior.

There are probably other issues to address, but the left's Pavlovian response is to blame the tool, and that's the fight we're in.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

[CS1983]

If Cruz had been on record for his many acts requiring a police presence, he wouldn't have been able to buy the guns he used. Everything was in place to be effective, yet the local sheriff had an arrangement with the school district to prevent Cruz from having a record. The FBI also dropped the ball.

With Holmes, it was primarily his shrink that had information about his intent, yet I recall there was an issue with doctor/patient privilege that prevented any reporting prior to the act.

If someone breaks and hours off the deep end, it could very well be their first and last act, and there's no effective way to make that determination.

Instead of trying to solve the unknowable, I'd rather see focus on what we know. We know these acts usually take place in gun free/kill zones. Let's fix that first. Let's get rid of arrangements between school districts and law enforcement that hides criminal behavior.

There are probably other issues to address, but the left's Pavlovian response is to blame the tool, and that's the fight we're in.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

Re: Holmes, I was under the impression that if someone says they are going to harm themselves or others, there is no doc/patient priv?

[Great-Kazoo]

Re: Holmes, I was under the impression that if someone says they are going to harm themselves or others, there is no doc/patient priv?

Only if you're a light skinned Veteran, known gun owner AND have a political opinion different than the Dr, medical provider, LE.

[Martinjmpr]

Re: Holmes, I was under the impression that if someone says they are going to harm themselves or others, there is no doc/patient priv?

Not quite. In some jurisdictions, a doctor is ALLOWED to break privilege if the doctor reasonably believes the patient is likely to harm someone. But the only circumstance where a doctor is REQUIRED to break the privilege and notify someone is if the patient expresses an intent to harm a SPECIFIC PERSON and in that case the duty is only to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. Tarasoff v. Regents of California. 551 P.2d 334 (1976.)

Note the word "allowed" in the above example though. Except for a very narrow exception in Tarasoff, there is no duty or legal requirement to notify. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any criminal or civil penalty that can be levied against a doctor who knows a patient is about to commit a crime and CHOOSES not to notify the authorities if the victim is not specifically identified.

Put more simply, if I tell my shrink "I'm going to murder Joe Schmoe who lives at 123 Fake Street in Springfield", Tarasoff requires that, at minimum, the shrink warn Joe Schmoe that I made threats against him.

But if I tell my shrink "I'm going to get a gun and kill as many random people as I can" there is, to my knowledge, no specific legal requirement that the shrink notify anyone.

Now, that may be wrong because I've been out of school for a long time, and it may be that there have since been some laws passed that require doctors, under some circumstances, to notify the authorities, I don't know. Doctors, like lawyers, have their own ethics boards that write Rules of Professional Conduct that govern what they may or may not disclose to the authorities and under what circumstances.

As I said, I think there are a lot of places where doctors are ALLOWED to break privilege, but there are very few (that I am aware of) where they are REQUIRED to do so.

[Great-Kazoo]

Not quite. In some jurisdictions, a doctor is ALLOWED to break privilege if the doctor reasonably believes the patient is likely to harm someone. But the only circumstance where a doctor is REQUIRED to break the privilege and notify someone is if the patient expresses an intent to harm a SPECIFIC PERSON and in that case the duty is only to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. Tarasoff v. Regents of California. 551 P.2d 334 (1976.)

Note the word "allowed" in the above example though. Except for a very narrow exception in Tarasoff, there is no duty or legal requirement to notify. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any criminal or civil penalty that can be levied against a doctor who knows a patient is about to commit a crime and CHOOSES not to notify the authorities if the victim is not specifically identified.

Put more simply, if I tell my shrink "I'm going to murder Joe Schmoe who lives at 123 Fake Street in Springfield", Tarasoff requires that, at minimum, the shrink warn Joe Schmoe that I made threats against him.

But if I tell my shrink "I'm going to get a gun and kill as many random people as I can" there is, to my knowledge, no specific legal requirement that the shrink notify anyone.

Now, that may be wrong because I've been out of school for a long time, and it may be that there have since been some laws passed that require doctors, under some circumstances, to notify the authorities, I don't know. Doctors, like lawyers, have their own ethics boards that write Rules of Professional Conduct that govern what they may or may not disclose to the authorities and under what circumstances.

As I said, I think there are a lot of places where doctors are ALLOWED to break privilege, but there are very few (that I am aware of) where they are REQUIRED to do so.

Holmes shrink did say she contacted local LE, or was going to but.............something more important distracted her. There was a lot of discussion on line and the media (the DP) questioning why she attempted to but never followed up based on her "concerns"