This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm amused at how gun possession is supposedly a right, and yet with all the caveats laid out here, it seems more like a privilege in practice. Meanwhile, driving is supposedly a privilege, but I'd bet a million dollars I could get a NJ driver's license and own any car I wanted in NJ sooner than I could own any gun I wanted in NJ. Driving seems to be more of a right than guns are.
Driving isn't technically a right, but it's even better than that; you can get a driver's license anywhere in the world, as long as it is in English or you have what's called an International Drivers Permit (which is just a translation of your license) and legally drive in New Jersey. For cars you're limited to what's street legal in the US.
For guns, unless you're a US citizen who lives in NJ, have at least two other unrelated adult NJ citizens willing to literally vouch for you, have never seen any sort of mental health doctor, are comfortable dealing with police, are willing to be fingerprinted and sign away your rights for them to examine your medical records, no guns (including pellet guns, and also all ammo) for you. If you do get all of that, you might be able eventually to purchase one of the ever-dwindling set of NJ-legal guns. Actually, as many NJ-legal rifles as you want, but only one handgun... for a second handgun you have to do the whole permit process again.
Yeah, it's a ridiculous joke, but the Supreme Court and all so-called gun rights organizations are fine with it.
Hold on isn't this just "involuntary or voluntary admission?" Per google found a law firm saying that's the case. Including voluntary is a bit sketchy in my mind but the steel man is pretty reasonable - "did someone in the community and a panel of experts on safety agree that you were an acute danger to yourself or others" is not that unreasonable. The reality of the situation means that sometimes admissions are soft but on paper "a bunch of people though you were going to kill yourself or someone else" is not that unreasonable of a disqualified for owning a firearm.
If for some reason this involves mundane outpatient interaction with a psychiatrist then people in the state have the easiest lawsuit in the world - just find someone who saw a psychiatrist one time as a kid because they were annoying, was going through grief or adjustment disorder or something like that and take it to the Supreme Court.
No.
Yes.
Previous discussion: 1 2
Text of law
Filling out the form falsely is a strict-liability felony.
So, if you were "attended, treated, or observed" "for any mental or psychiatric condition", but you can't give the name, location, and date because you don't have the records, then you can't get a gun.
Great, easy lawsuit then! "I went a few times as a kid to rule out ADHD and my parents and I don't have any records." Should be slam dunk 2A case.
I'm noting that your highlighted text does not note that seeing a psychiatrist outpatient is exclusionary.
There are no slam dunk 2A cases. First of all, if you don't put a name and hospital affiliation of the doctor, they deny the permit on the grounds that it is incomplete. Don't know those things? No gun for you. No appeal from that. Second, if you do, they may just deny the permit. You can try to appeal that but the state courts will be against you at every turn, and you have to exhaust all of that before you can even ask the Supreme Court to take a look, and in the end they won't. Sometimes, apparently, they'll require you to see a psychiatrist who will swear on his license that you're OK to own a gun (this seems to be with ex-military people who have seen a VA-associated mental health doctor, so it's probably a courtesy to them not to just deny it). Good luck with that.
I don't understand how the NRA can't get anywhere with "this person can't complete the form because they were six years old and their parents are dead."
You can not understand all you want; it is true nonetheless. My personal belief is the conservative gun rights people are fine with the restriction; they're fine with no one having guns unless they've had conservative beliefs all their lives and thus have both people willing to vouch for them and no mental health record at all. But the alternate possibility -- that they know fighting it is futile -- is not ruled out.
I sympathize greatly with your situation. It's really quite a robbery that this court win doesn't help you.
If you could buy a gun, which one would you buy first? Would it be a handgun or a rifle first?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link