Unfit to Stand Trial, Yet Fit to Have a Gun

[damntexdem]

Not just the issue of being able to buy a gun despite known mental problems, there is also the issue that Arizona's lack of a requirement to have a permit means that someone like Loughner could not be stopped by police even if they knew him to be carrying a gun at a political event.

The article:
By Rep. Louise Slaughter, Reader Supported News

26 May 11

arlier today, Jared Loughner, a troubled young man who is accused of shooting 20 innocent people, including my colleague, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was found unfit to stand trial for his actions.

Mr. Loughner's mental and emotional troubles have been well documented and were well known among classmates, professors and acquaintances well before Mr. Loughner opened fire on that fateful January day. Yet, despite the belief that Mr. Loughner could be a danger to himself and others, our federal laws, and our mental health system, were unable to live up to the commonsense belief that those who are mentally ill should not be able to purchase and own a gun.

Unfortunately, our nation's gun lobby and their allies in Congress refuse to have an open and honest conversation about how to protect the rights of responsible gun owners, while being equally vigilant in protecting the rights of all Americans to assemble in peace.

[Vanje]

1. Crazy shit nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

3. So, do they just let him back on the street?????

Does the right wing need this pawn again?????

Does he get placed in a mental institution?????

Maybe a job with faux news?

I heard this on Democracy Now this morning on the radio, but am still wondering what will happen to the guy.

[obxhead]

4. Really?

You seriously don't have any idea of the process ahead of Loughner?

(No, he won't be parading in the street with weapons in his hands)

[Blue-Jay]

9. "Does he get placed in a mental institution?" (extra question marks redacted)

Yes.

If he is found incapable of standing trial, he'll be institutionalized.

[hifiguy]

10. Yep, and in a place

that is just as hard to get out of as a maximum security prison. He won't be seeing the light of day for a loooooooong time.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kctim]

6. You think wrong

and the majority of posts on this site prove that.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Viking 1]

8. But ain't that America/For you and me

:sarcasm:

[rustydog]

11. Man, you want to start a war, don't you?

[AlinPA]

12. My opinion is that it is bullshit to keep him from a trial. He bought a gun, he went to the event,

he shot people.

[Missy Vixen]

13. He was sane enough to insert earplugs before his little shooting spree

Just remember, boys and girls - the Second Amendment trumps your right to a life free of gun violence.

:eyes:

[Lex1775]

14. Unfortunately Rep. Slaughter isn't correct

Loughner actually received two background checks. One in 2009 when he bought a shotgun from Sportsmans Warehouse and then another one in November, 2010 when he bought the Glcok 19 from the same store. Nothing in his record would have marked him as being mentally unstable. He was never treated for any mental illness that would've precluded him from buying a firearm. His rejection from the Army was also never reported due to a policy put in place by Janet Reno that stopped the military from reporting to the FBI any possible recruits that failed the drug test, because it is voluntary.

Rep. Slaughter's statement about Arizona's lack of permit is also incorrect. The only "permit" one can get for a firearm in AZ is a concealed carry permit. The permit is optional. Loughner could've carried the gun concealed without a permit, or he could've worn it openly on his hip. Neither of which is illegal in Arizona. So even with a "permit" the police would've had no grounds to stop him for simply carrying a firearm, and that is assuming they would've even known he had one to begin with.