Who’s Against Taking Guns From the Mentally Ill? That Answers Itself
You might have heard of a fella name of Earl Lofland, Earl R. Lofland, Earl R. Lofland of Clayton, Del. This fella seems to harbor a grudge of long standing against some of America’s institutions, which he thinks aren’t operating under the principles of the Constitution as the Founders intended that Constitution to be interpreted. He’s tried to run for office with the Constitution Party, actually has run with the Independent Party of Delaware, and he’s plenty het up about this here Beau Biden bill, and as is his wont he’s written to the Delaware State News about it.
Mr. Lofland avers that “nearly everyone saying they support this legislation have very little understanding how legal terms and concepts are applied in courts and state board hearings.”
I’ll let the man speak for himself:
They don’t realize that “some of the legal concepts include “in the snake pit,” “shock the conscience,” “state-created danger “probable cause,” “intent,” “the average/ordinary person” and “deprivation of rights.” All these are legal concepts (terms) that are applied in the courts as well as in state board hearings — just as guilty beyond a shadow reasonable doubt, and guilt by a preponderance of evidence….
This will not only impact the mentally ill. This will also impact individuals who have a child who has been diagnosed with a mental illness to be able to purchase or even own firearms even if they are not kept at the residence where the person with mental illness resides. And the two concepts of guilt [criminal and civil] are very different in the determination process to reinstate a person’s rights to even be around firearms.
I checked the Delaware Code, and most of those terms don’t appear. He appears to be talking about the rules in effect for restoring a driver’s license, which take place in civil court, which judges guilt by a preponderance of evidence rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
From his letter, I totally understand why he does not want the “preponderance of evidence” standard used.
Nested inside all the nonsense, every single gun nut argument becomes the same argument.
Blah, blah, blah…Slippery slope.
My biggest concern with this is who decides on mental illness and what it constitutes. We’ve gone from a system where doctors diagnose and treat an ailment to a corporation with lawyers now saying what procedure you can and cant have.
Blah, blah, blah…Slippery slope.
If it’s too complicated to sort people out who can’t have guns, why don’t we more tightly regulate who can have them? Lots of countries do this quite efficiently with no higher incidence of home invasion, rape or murder-by-stranger than we have. That way, instead of taking guns away from iffy people, the iffy people have to make a positive case why they should have them.
Of course, that would mean registering guns, and so…all together now … SLIPPERY SLOPE!