On 5/29/2014 5:17 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 16:20:00 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/29/2014 12:48 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/28/14 PDT, 7:24 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

A problem with any "fix" is that it has to pass Supreme Court muster,
and the Court has been taking a dim view of any deprivation of rights
that does not involve at least a judge and usually a jury. If you are
going to disarm someone because he is crazy you are going to have to
define "crazy" in a way that the courts will accept and put a procedure
in place for making the determination that the courts will accept.

A very good point, and critical.
Anyone with a solution— or a reasoned rebuttal?


What some courts will accept may depend on who you are. Nobody can say,
with certainty, what definition any court will accept, on any given day.
Having said that, we need not use the term "crazy." Just a person, who
is more likely than not, constitute a danger to himself, or others, as a
starting point.
It is easy to write a definition. The problem is writing one that the
NRA won't oppose. As an industry lobbying group the NRA places money
above human lives.

Florida has the Florida Mental Health Act of 1971, commonly known as
the Baker Act, that allows involuntary confinement for mental health
screening. A person can be held up to 72 hours if suspected to have a
mental illness that would result in a danger to that person or others.

So far, Marion Hammer has not been taken into custody by way of the
Baker Act although she presents a clear and present danger to
Floridians.

http://www.meetthenra.org/nra-member/Marion-P-Hammer


Most States have a similar act. That's where I got the language from

--
PeterN