Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Since Texas law does not give police the authority to keep a weapon seized from someone they are transporting for psychiatric evaluation, authorities are often powerless to keep those weapons from getting back into the hands of people with mental health issues. Police Chief Charles McClelland wants the Legislature to require a judge to decide if those who have been referred for mental health treatment are qualified to possess a gun. State Rep. Allen Fletcher (R-Tomball) is drafting a bill to keep those firearms in a police property room until a judge decides it should be returned. McClelland said, "There should be an additional judicial review." State law only allows police to keep weapons used in the commission of a crime.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Zatoichi

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

"If they pass this law, I'm leaving Texas."

Charles Whitman

#1 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-04 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Texas cops often can't keep guns from mentally ill"

They could give up their own guns and solve the problem.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-04 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here is the problem the FBI background checks that are in place are so underfunded most states average 100,000 felons that are not put on the list to a court has banned them from owning a firearm. So before some liberal claims we need tougher background checks, how about we fully fund our current background check program first.

#3 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-04 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

So before some liberal claims we need tougher background checks, how about we fully fund our current background check program first.

#3 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-04

I'm game. Now, go talk to the Tea Party.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-04 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

ZACK991 may have a good point.

Taxes would have to go up in Texas but lives are at stake.

#5 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-04 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Taxes would have to go up in Texas but lives are at stake.

#5 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03

Taxes never go up in Texas. Perry would merely make ZACK pay an additional $400 "fee" for having a gun.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-04 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also the funds that pay for NIJ is a FBI ran program that federaly funded. We have the money to send jets to Egypt and fund illegal side wars but we can't seem to find the money to fully fun this program. More funds are cut from this every year yet our reps give themselves a pay raise, also the GOA and NRA has been begging for more funds to fund this program but those wishing to pass further gun laws ignore this.

#7 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-04 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry it should be the NCIS not NIJ, who wants a iPhone with a bullet in it.

#8 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-04 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

A really good read on the problem
www.policymic.com

#9 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-04 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

sorry again NICS, I so hate the fen phone

#10 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-04 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

We have the money to send jets to Egypt and fund illegal side wars but we can't seem to find the money to fully fun this program.

Why do you have the military?

'Murica!

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-04 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

So Texas says scru the Second Amendment? btw Zack, the NRA is pushing to re-arm crazies. A market is a market....

#12 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-05 06:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Texans Can't Keep Guns from Texans"

...there, fixed.

...LOL...

#13 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2013-03-05 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12 |

Cite please.

#14 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-05 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Noone wants to touch the MI/gun problem -- it's not only Texas.. The liberal ACLU side protects the MI from any gun ownership scrutiny.

#15 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2013-03-05 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maryland faces a liberal's dilemma on mental health and gun control
Virginia, home to the National Rifle Association's headquarters, the Nation's Gun Show and a conservative legislature, is by many measures a more gun-friendly state than Maryland.
But in one aspect of gun control, Virginia is more restrictive than its neighbor across the Potomac. Residents of the commonwealth are almost three times as likely to be banned from owning a firearm for mental health reasons as residents of Maryland, which has been reluctant to restrict the rights of the mentally ill.

articles.washingtonpost.com

The People's Republic of Maryland

#16 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-05 07:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Texas Can't Keep Guns from Mentally Ill

As a libertarian I strongly support the right of registered Democrats to possess a firearm (well as a rule)

#17 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2013-03-05 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

So before some liberal claims we need tougher background checks, how about we fully fund our current background check program first.

#3 | Posted by zack991

Howbout you talk to the RNA-owned republicans who intentionally underfund background checks?

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-03-05 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

They can't keep them from voting either.

#19 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-05 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too busy gimme-ing scotch to see that joke was already told...and told better.

...try to keep up here....

...LOL...

#20 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2013-03-05 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly
Might want to get your facts straight before you open your mouth. The NRA has backed a number of major bills that has increased funds for the programs as well as making it much more effective in catching people who are not supposed to own a firearm. The NRA and GOA have been asking for more funds to be given to the FBI NICS program to help update their systems to make processing the files of adjudicated people into the system faster. As well as hiring more people to help run and maintain the program. The system is so old and outdated it has crashed countless times running background checks on buyers and the average wait time has gone from a few hours to several days. As of right now on average a state has we;; over 100,000 people who need to be put on that ban list but they can't because of the massive backlog they are fighting with. The proposal for the budget often begins as the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1.

However, Congress is the body required by law to pass a budget annually and to submit the budget passed by both houses to the President for signature. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs. Obama has not signed a single budget since he has been in office.

During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for NICS. Despite Congress passing the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2007, many states have made little or no progress reporting felony and mental illness data to NICS. This is largely because Congress has not fully funded NICS or provided correct incentives for states to do so. Congress actually appropriated just 5.3% of the total authorized amount in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011.

I will even post a very left leaning report on it so its fair. Look at page 3
www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.o
rg

#21 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-05 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also guess who supported the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2007, o that pesky gun lobby the NRA and its members to increase funding as well as a number of other major protections for the American public but they cant since the funding is not there.

www.nraila.org

#22 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-05 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

As the 1,000th day nears, here are some facts about America's budget and why the Senate must take action to be stewards of the people's money as the Constitution requires:

As of today 1,033 days and no passed budget from the senate. The house has passed a budget in 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013

The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009. Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt. As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409. Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year. President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize -- according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.) The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation). Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security.

Total spending on federal health care programs will triple. By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product.Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.

#23 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-05 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zack - azstarnet.com

"In January 2011, after a wildly psychotic Jared Loughner shot 19 people in Tucson, the National Rifle Association still wanted to make it easier for people judged mentally ill to rearm themselves.

The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, populated by police chiefs and prosecutors, wanted a high standard for the person to show he deserved to have his gun rights restored: clear and convincing evidence.

The NRA wanted a lower standard: preponderance of the evidence. In fact, the NRA had demanded this in a variety of states where the issue arose, and at least one, Idaho, adopted it as law.

Initially, the NRA's insistence on making it easier for those committed by a judge to get their guns back scuttled the Arizona bill.

Keep that in mind as you listen to NRA officials' insistence these days that our gun-violence problem is largely a mental-illness issue. As opposed as they say they are to gun possession by mentally ill people, they wanted those forced into mental-health treatment to have an easier time getting their guns back.

That is, Arizona needed the new law to get money to put more people judged mentally incompetent on the list of those prohibited from buying or possessing firearms.

That's how much the NRA cared about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill after Loughner's rampage in Tucson. Makes you wonder why they care so much now."

#24 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-05 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That is, Arizona needed the new law to get money to put more people judged mentally incompetent on the list of those prohibited from buying or possessing firearms."

The Federal law has been passed to pay the states to have these records put problem is Obama has not signed a budget that has paid for the FBI NICS program and has had barely 5.3 % of what funds there were supposed to have to fully fund this program which the NRA supported and helped right with anti gun activists. The NRA has zero control over what funds are appropriated in a budget. Also it makes zero sense for them to back a law that was signed by bush in 2008 to increase the list of people on the ban list by several million then trying and claim they are the reason this has not happened. The funds are not there to do this because Obama has not signed a flipping budget in over 1,033 days, not because the NRA did anything to stop those funds from getting to the program. I explained this in more detail above that your author of that link for sure does not even come close to comprehending how this works.

From the very same link you gave supports this, what the NRA has always supported is when a person has been adjudicated of a crime(guilty) that they have their rights to own a firearm stripped. The NRA has never supported giving arms back to mentally defective people ever that DUE PROCESS has proven they are guilty.

Also ANY JUDGE CAN PUT what is called a firearm restriction in the temporary order(Injunctions), and the judge will order all guns the police will take from their home and other property of the suspect. This is not something that has to wait for trial to be done, a simple affidavit to a judge is done similar to a warrant that can be done in less than a hour if the paperwork supports the claim.

Tucsonan Todd Rathner, an NRA board member, said the group has been consistent and strong on the issue.

"We've been saying for 20 years that, once you've been adjudicated mentally defective, you should be entered into the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database," he said.

"Mentally defective," by the way, is the phrase used in federal law, not Rathner's word choice.

"Whether a judge uses 'clear and convincing evidence' or 'preponderance of the evidence' is really an ancillary issue to whether the records are entered in the first place," he said.

That's true only to an extent. It turns out, the reason for the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to pursue the law in the first place, back in 2011, was to qualify for grants from the Justice Department to increase Arizona's submissions to the NICS database.

That is, Arizona needed the new law to get money to put more people judged mentally incompetent on the list of those prohibited from buying or possessing firearms.

In stupid terms for some people here and that idiot author.

AGAIN THE NRA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT FUNDS THEIR STATE AND OTHERS ARE NOT GETTING. THE NRA HAS WORKED WITH GUN CONTROL SUPPORTERS TO ADD MILLIONS OF FELONS AND MENTAL ILL PEOPLE TO THAT VERY LIST THAT the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2007 WAS SIGNED IN 2008, YET THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN ADDED NOT BECAUSE OF THE NRA OR OTHER GROUPS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS CUT THE MONEY ALLOCATED TO THE PROGRAM AND HAS ONLY GIVE 5.3% OF WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING. You all need to get your damn facts straight.

#25 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-05 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for NICS. Despite Congress passing the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2007, which the NRA fully supported. Many states have made little or no progress reporting felony and mental illness data to NICS. This is largely because Congress has not fully funded NICS or provided correct incentives for states to do so. Congress actually appropriated just 5.3% of the total authorized amount in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The NRA and GOA have been asking for more funds to be given to the FBI NICS program to help update their systems to make processing the files of adjudicated people into the system faster. As well as hiring more people to help run and maintain the program.

#26 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-05 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

sort of redundant...i thought texans are mentally ill

#27 | Posted by yougothurt at 2013-03-06 05:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Felon lists for gun ownership underfunded. Not so with creative felon lists used to maintain Rethuglican control of some voting districts. There's plenty of money for that BS.

#28 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-06 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

They can't keep them from voting either.

#19 | Posted by Federalist

Or running for Governor or even President.

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

or paint brushes...

#30 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2013-03-07 07:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement