It has now come to light that the college psychiatrist who had been treating the (alleged) shooter in the Aurora, Colorado theater showing the latest Batman movie had alerted law enforcement that James Holmes presented a danger to others weeks before the shooting.
Under 'may issue' practice, law enforcement can be more responsive to known dangers presented by the mentally ill acquiring firearms, and deny them permits. Under 'may issue' regulation, denial of permits can be challenged, and law enforcement then has to demonstrate that they had a reasonable and justifiable basis for the denial.
There has not been a problem with may issue regulation abuse of authority in denying permits to individuals who are stalkers, domestic abusers, criminals, drug users, or who have known patterns of behavior that are violent as part of mental illness.
Under shall issue, law enforcement cannot prevent dangerous mentally ill individuals or other known violent individuals who have made threats to others from acquiring weapons. Under 'shall issue' the requirement is a court proceeding, which is far less common and which can take a very long time to occur, and where the level of danger required for a decision is much more demanding and difficult to prove.
There has not been a problem with may issue regulation abuse of authority in denying permits to individuals who are stalkers, domestic abusers, criminals, drug users, or who have known patterns of behavior that are violent as part of mental illness.
Under shall issue, law enforcement cannot prevent dangerous mentally ill individuals or other known violent individuals who have made threats to others from acquiring weapons. Under 'shall issue' the requirement is a court proceeding, which is far less common and which can take a very long time to occur, and where the level of danger required for a decision is much more demanding and difficult to prove.
In the case of Jared Loughner for example, his college required him to withdraw, and not return unless he had obtained a psychiatric clearance that he was not a threat to himself or others. Loughner withdrew rather than submit to a psychiatric examination. Law enforcement had been made aware of the threat presented by Loughner, including sending not one, but two law enforcement officers to deliver the letter from the college to Loughner and his parents. However, law enforcement could not prohibit Loughner from firearm ownership despite their knowledge of his presenting a danger to himself and others.
And of course, the NRA has made it a priority that the large capacity magazines favored by most mass shooters cannot be prohibited either.
And of course, the NRA has made it a priority that the large capacity magazines favored by most mass shooters cannot be prohibited either.
Between January 8, 2011 when Jared Loughner shot and killed 6 unarmed, innocent people, and wounded another 13 in Tucson, Arizona and the shooting in Aurora, Colorado (allegedly) by James Holmes in July 2012, there were 60 mass shootings.
Many of those involved assault style weapons, expanded capacity magazines, accumulations of arsenals of weapons, body armor, and large quantities of ammunition, and individuals known to law enforcement to present a danger to others who law enforcement was unable to prevent legal acquisition of the weapons used in the mass shootings.
Many of those involved assault style weapons, expanded capacity magazines, accumulations of arsenals of weapons, body armor, and large quantities of ammunition, and individuals known to law enforcement to present a danger to others who law enforcement was unable to prevent legal acquisition of the weapons used in the mass shootings.
Both ordinary citizens and law enforcement are often the victims in those mass shootings by the dangerously mentally ill, as in the case of the shootings on New Years day 2012 where Benjamin Colton Barnes in Washington state shot multiple people at a party, and then subsequently shot and killed a park ranger and injured three others. Barnes had been the subject of a restraining order, which included notifying the court that he was dangerously violent and had shown signs of PTSD. Barnes had a personal arsenal of weapons, including multiple military assault-style weapons, large quantities of hand guns, ballistic protection.
Law enforcement under shall issue permitting is unable to prevent that acquisition.
Law enforcement under shall issue permitting is unable to prevent that acquisition.
In May 2012, Ian Stawicki, who had a long history of mental illness, and who was known to law enforcement to be dangerously violent, shot and killed five people in Seattle, Washington, and shot but only injured another, before committing suicide. Stawicki had accumulated, legally, six hand guns prior to the shooting, including a high ammunition capacity pistol he used in the shootings.
An article below describes the frustration of those who know dangerously mentally ill people, but are unable to get them treatment when they resist that treatment as part of their illness. It also describes how law enforcement is often aware weeks, months or even years in advance of mass shootings of the deterioration of the mental states of these people.
It is ridiculous that law enforcement has their hands tied by NRA-pushed laws from preventing these obviously dangerous people from acquiring firearms legally - often the most lethal possible firearms, like assault rifles or high powered semi-automatic handguns with large capacity magazines that allow them to shoot a lot of people before stopping to reload.
It is ridiculous that law enforcement has their hands tied by NRA-pushed laws from preventing these obviously dangerous people from acquiring firearms legally - often the most lethal possible firearms, like assault rifles or high powered semi-automatic handguns with large capacity magazines that allow them to shoot a lot of people before stopping to reload.
from MyNorthwest.com (97.3 FM) on Stawicki and other dangerously mentally ill people; the title is as true of law enforcement as it is of the families of the mentally ill.:
Families of mentally ill forced to deal with 'ticking time bombs'For Ian Stawicki, years of mental illness ended when he took his own life on a quiet sidewalk in West Seattle. He had just carried out a shooting rampage that left five dead and one in critical condition.
Over the years he had become increasingly violent and prone to fits of rage, according to family members who saw the warning signs but felt there was nothing they could do. A police report from 2008 seems to signal the start of his deteriorating mental state.According to the documents, Stawicki had given his girlfriend a bloody nose and destroyed most of her personal possessions.
"The victim thought that sometime in December the suspect suddenly changed his personality," the police report states. "Although the suspect always 'had a temper,' he began breaking the victim's belonging when he flew into his rages. This behavior frightened the victim and she resolved to call 911 if it continued."But while those closest to Stawicki knew he was in desperate need of help, he refused to accept it."I know it can feel for people as if there is no help out there, and they have tried things and they haven't worked," said Karin Rogers with Sound Mental Health in Seattle. "And that is very frustrating and very scary."Rogers said families often struggle for years to get through to loved ones, often to no avail.Julia, who wished to have her last name withheld, has a sister who has struggled with mental illness since the two were children. She understands all too well what the family of Ian Stawicki must have gone through."I wonder how many of us thought, 'Yeah. Yeah, that would be my loved one,'" she said of Wednesday's massacre at the hands of Stawicki. "I can't even imagine how difficult it must be for them [...] They're not the only family."Julia's sister has lived with bipolar disorder for years, she said. While the family was hesitant to accept that she had a mental illness, it became clear when she threatened to kill strangers."As much as I knew she had problems, I didn't realize they were that extreme," Julia said of her sister.While the family convinced her to agree to a 72-hour psychiatric hold, the stay did nothing to improve her mental state. Julia's sister refused further help and refused to take medication."We can't make her do anything," she said. "Our resources are exhausted. We don't know what else to do."It is all Julia can do now to protect herself and her family. She does not allow her sister to keep guns in her home, out of fear that she is capable of murder."If she was armed, we would all be gone," Julia said. She called her sister a "ticking time bomb."It is the same way the family of Ian Stawicki must have felt. His younger brother, Andrew Stawicki, told The Seattle Times he could see the bloodshed coming."It's no surprise to me this happened," he told the newspaper. "We could see this coming. Nothing good is going to come with that much anger inside of you."His father, Walter Stawicki, told The Times on Thursday he regrets the family didn't do more to intervene, even if it meant lying to get him committed.
These mass shootings don't come as 'a surprise', although the pro-gun crowd likes to feign both alarm and astonishment. People know there are problems with dangerously mentally ill people in advance, often including law enforcement. However there is usually nothing they are able to do legally about that knowledge. That includes law enforcement being unable to prevent the dangerously mentally ill from legally acquiring firearms, under shall issue - people like Stawicki, Barnes, Loughner, and Holmes.
Shall issue is deficient and badly defective; pro-gun advocates look at these mass shootings, have it called to their attention the purchases of weapons and other gear were legal, and they try to blame everyone but the legislation they push through for shall issue. They try to blame the mental health care system, which their right wing politics hamstring with inadequate funding. They try to blame law enforcement, as they attack their public unions, and whom they hamstring with shall issue, putting law enforcement in direct danger when they have to confront these armed people as a result of these mass shootings. They blame everyone else, but the real blame falls on the pro-2nd Amendment gun advocates for the shall issue rather than the may issue regulation. They make it possible for the legal acquisition of these firearms by the dangerously mentally ill and others.
Blame the NRA and blame ALEC, and blame the right wing politicians they buy and conservatives who blindly support them and vote for them. Follow the money when looking to assign blame and responsibility; every time shootings like this occur, gun sales and ammo sales go up. That profits the gun manufacturers, and gun retailers like WalMart. They broke a system that worked, 'may issue', and replaced it with one that was more dangerous, but more profitable for them as a special interest.
Now it turns out that the psychiatrist at the college in Colorado had also alerted law enforcement that there was a very real danger to others and himself from James Holmes, prior to the period of time during which he legally purchased the ballistic protection, assault style rifle, expanded capacity magazine, Glock hand guns, thousands of rounds of ammunition, gas mask and other equipment used in the attack and in rigging his apartment to explode.
Lynne Fenton, James Holmes' Psychiatrist, Contacted Police Allegedly Before Aurora Shooting
James Holmes' psychiatrist contacted police before the Aurora shooting, according to ABC News report
read the rest of the article hereThe psychiatrist treating James Holmes told a University of Colorado police officer that she was worried about her patient weeks before he allegedly killed 12 people in an Aurora movie theater.The allegation that Dr. Lynne Fenton warned authorities about Holmes' potential to harm others -- reported by ABC News -- is the second time she told others he was possibly dangerous.Fenton, a member of the university's threat assessment team, reportedly told other committee members that Holmes, a Ph.D neuroscience student potentially jeopardized campus safety.Though ABC's anonymous sources said Fenton took her concerns to the university officer "several weeks before" the July 20 rampage that wounded 58 others, it's unknown how the cop handled the tip.Fenton talked with several members of the Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team, too, but the full committee never launched an investigation into Holmes because the 24-year-old dropped out of the doctoral program about six weeks before the attack.Doctors in Colorado can break confidentiality rules with patients if they become aware of imminent risks to others, Reuters reported.
When events follow a pattern, over and over, and when one group or one special interest area of business benefits over and over after these mass shootings, and when they make it possible for these events to happen the way they do, it cannot be considered a coincidence or accidental that we have these mass shootings occurring so often. It happens for a reason, and that reason is profit. That ignorant and easily manipulated conservative voters are deluded into helping this happen is the shame and failure of their political ideology. This is not a bi-partisan phenomenon. It is a conservative-authored problem.
You keep talking about Shall Issue laws. I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
ReplyDeleteShall Issue refers to Permits to Carry a Concealed Weapon. In a Shall Issue state, the Sheriff shall issue a permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon UNLESS the Sheriff believes the applicant would be a danger, in which case the Sheriff may deny the Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon.
None of the mass murderers you cite had Permits to Carry a Concealed Weapon so your analysis has no application to the facts, and your remedy would not solve the problem.
We do have shall issue problems where people who have histories of domestic threats and violence are buying guns and carrying firearms as well.
ReplyDeleteWe are allowing too many people to BUY guns that should be denied those weapons, and the fact that they are buying them legally under guise of 2nd Amendment rights is wrong, and shows how badly wrong we are, how badly we have been victimized by the pro-gunners without any counterbalancing benefit.
Under the guise of the same laws that made lenient changes, which included the returning of gun rights to former felons who then have committed crimes - including where family members protested mental illness - there were shall issue carry permits that went with those rights. Some of those felons have committed multiple victim murders. The question becomes how many you want to use as 'mass shootings'. Some use four, others five or six as their guideline. Look at the New York Times article on felon voting right restoration; it provides MN examples of that.
So I included it in what I wrote. There are no legal ways to deny the people I listed carry rights (and I believe Barnes, the Mt. Rainier park ranger shooter DID have a carry permit btw, if I'm recalling correctly - it's late and I'm sleepy) because they weren't any court decisions that rendered them ineligable, ditto Jared Loughner, because "Concealed carry over the age of 21 in most places no longer requires a permit as of July 29, 2010. Although not required, a concealed carry permit may still be obtained and has certain advantages."
Even knowing he was dangerously ill, cops couldn't have walked up to Jared Loughner on the street to stop him five minutes before he shot Gabby Giffords because his weapon would have been legally carried. THAT is not issueing a permit, in the sense of a separate document from anyone but I lumped it in under legally allowed carry that couldn't be prevented despite known dangerous mental illness.
That is NOT what was intended by the 2nd Amendment, nor was it ever the intent of the Constitution to let people like Loughner or the other HAVE firearms. You know it, I know it, yet you still raise inappropriate 2nd Amendment claims to keep these lenient laws in place that should not have ever been made law.
These are clearly the people who should be denied weapons, no just carrying them. We should return to requiring permits to buy firearms in the first place. Those were issued at the discretion of law enforcement; if they didn't complete the approval or disapproval within 21 days, it became an automatic approval, and if the applicant disagreed with the basis for a disapproval, there was an appeal process where the law enforcement officer who denied approval had to go in front of a judge and provide good reasons why the disapproval should stand.
When proposing more stringent laws that would address the problem of mass shooters and other abuses of firearms, you have instead of blaming those who made this current problem with firerms the mess that it is - conservatives at the direction of firearms manufacturers and retailers (learn about ALEC and similar entities) who spent a lot of money to get that accomplished. In other words CORRUPTION.
And yet you compare wanting to correct that problem where people die and are wounded DAILY to debasing the intent of the Constitution. Do you REALLY think it is appropriate to compare denying Jared Loughner a firearm purchase or legal carry (open OR concealed in AZ) to this:Perhaps the bar is set too high right now. Instead of convictions for violent felonies (and certain domestic violence issues) and adjudicated mental illness, perhaps we should expand the list of factors that would disqualify a person from civil rights. It would be a break from centuries of legal precedent, but that was then, this is now, right?
ReplyDeleteIt is nothing like that as a fair comparison to other civil rights. It is bogus right wing bullshit, that someone as discerning as I believe you to be should yourself recognize, yet you wrote it anyway.
You have tried to blame the mental health profession for the problem; they did everything in their power, but were hamstrung from preventing these people from EASILY and LEGALLY obtaining these weapons to kill people. THAT is wrong, horribly wrong. You've tried to throw in the kitchen sink, including public defenders and the ACLU.
It is much more simple and straightforward than that. There are people making obscene profits from mass shootings. EVERY damn time there is a very public mass shooting, like Holmes, like Loughner, gun sales go up, especially of the weapons used by the shooter.
We have a mass shooting every week and a half, we have a domestic murder suicide at the rate of 3 or more a week, because there is MONEY IN IT.
Some of that money, that BLOODY money, got spread around conservative legislators to make this possible. And other conservatives LIKE YOU fall in line to support it, including ignoring or being ignorant of how much was known BEFORE these shootings about these people's illnesses -- but you still oppose any effective intervention to prevent these kinds of mass killings.
Instead you go all Tim-the-Toolman-Taylor about your guns instead of power tools. That you invested SO much in the fantasy of shooting Holmes with your own gun when that would have been a disaster is part of the PROBLEM with preventing these events. It puts the argument into a fantasy that is strongly emotional - the desire to stop someone like Holmes and to protect others - but it PREVENTS what is less romantic and emotional but logical and practical action.
You have the same access to verifiable information I do. The difference in our conclusions is really simple; I didn't get all hot and sexually aroused (or Tim Toolmanish, gun version) over the specific weapons used. I looked at the same information less emotionally, and without the knee-jerk conservative stupid parroting bullshit that proposes the illogical solution of more guns.
ReplyDeleteI looked at what was known, what could and could not be done ethically and legally to PREVENT mass shootings, and to stop these guns getting into the hands of people who were KNOWN to be mentally ill.
I looked at who knew what, when.
The same information you could have looked at, but didn't. It was easy to find; I didn't have to look hard.
Why didn't you? Why don't you? Sheriff's should have the legal authority to stop people who are as dangerous as Holmes and Loughner from having guns or getting guns, not just carry permits (although that's a start, and they have too little authority NOW to do that).
You brought up the Holmes psychiatrist's discipline record as some sort of criticism of her failure to stop Holmes. That 'discipline' was for prescribing a couple of claritan to her husband and to her staffer for allergies, not long before the same stuff, same strength, became available over the counter.
Do you REALLY think that was pertinent to Holmes getting or not getting firearms, that it made her in any way incompetent or negligent in the matter? If not - why bring it up, why try to spin defense lawyer redactions? That is meaningless distraction.
I see it continually from the Mitchketeers and from Mitch and from pro-gun bloggers and commenters. I don't like it.
It is part of why I no longer consider myself a conservative, but an independent.
You are correct not to consider yourself a conservative. Good decision.
ReplyDeleteAs for Shall Issue,let me point out that using a technical term incorrectly undermines your credibility.
May I suggest you stop talking about that in situations where Carry Permits were not involved, and instead focus on your real complaint, which is Ease of Purchase?
So many conservatives I know have LEFT the Republican party. Not because they no longer hold conservative values, but because the GOP has embraced crazies and extremists like the John Birchers, and worse.
ReplyDeleteThey are no longer realistic on economic issues, and they are not genuine fiscal conservatives either.
Ease of purchase is NOT my only complaint. Ease of carry is as much a part of it as ease of purchase. None of the mass shootings I mentioned could have been prevented because those individuals ALSO could not be prevented from open carry in those states.
UP to the last second before they started shooting, even if a law enforcement officer who knew who they were and that they were dangerous was standing at their elbow, they could not have arrested those people or taken their weapon away from them. In Arizona for example, anyone can carry at any time. It is EFFECTIVELY impossible for law enforcement to prevent it or to identify someone carrying illegally or with bad intentions --- and deaths and injuries and crimes with guns have gone up in those places with lax gun laws. More law enforcement officers are being shot, not less, as they predicted when they have consistently objected to carry laws.
Republican legislatures or Republican governors, often both together, have courtesy of the NRA, ALEC and other special interest groups had a long pattern of not funding and not allowing the submission of the NICS names to the data base. So they have effectively made doing background checks meaningless.
My complaint incluedes but goes beyond carry. I used the term correctly to refer to the problems of shall issue, but I also made it clear that the current option for anyone who is dangerous to legally buy guns is the background and larger problem which makes shall issue such a nightmare.
Mass shootings are a preventable problem, and NO, there is not an infringement of the constitutional gun rights of Americans in doing so. There was no constitutional infringement when you needed a permit to buy a firearm, there is no constitutional violation in banning assault rifles and large capacity magazines either. And there is no constitutional infringement in requiring gun show checks or private sales checks; a number of states already have closed the gun show loophole.
We can reduce our homicide rate, from domestic violence, from stalkers, from crazy people, from felons and former felons, from drug users, both from legal and illegal purchase. We can virtually eliminate our mass shootings.
Republicans funded by those who profit from gun sales obstruct that. They have blood on their hands. There is NO upside, none whatsoever, in crime reduction from all those firearm sales.
There are lots of dead kids though - more than ALL THE OTHER most similar 25 developed countries combined, from kids being killed by guns in the home.
We can do more than we do to prevent these tragedies, and you haven't presented one good argument against doing those things.