Senator Roy Blunt Says No To Gun Control, Blames Fed Health Programs

This is a discussion on Senator Roy Blunt Says No To Gun Control, Blames Fed Health Programs within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The following is a link to statements made by Missouri Senator Roy Blunt today when asked about the Connecticut school shooting. Blunt Says No To ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By Dangerfield
  • 2 Post By Hopyard
  • 1 Post By Bark'n

Thread: Senator Roy Blunt Says No To Gun Control, Blames Fed Health Programs

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Dangerfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,392

    Senator Roy Blunt Says No To Gun Control, Blames Fed Health Programs

    The following is a link to statements made by Missouri Senator Roy Blunt today when asked about the Connecticut school shooting.


    Blunt Says No To Gun Control, Blames Fed Health Programs | KCUR


    I am a 2nd amendment supporter and appreciate his frank response to the questions. What is your opinion of his statements?
    shadowwalker and Eagleks like this.
    ALWAYS CARRY - NEVER TELL

    NRA MEMBER
    GOA MEMBER

    Friend of Bill

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangerfield View Post
    The following is a link to statements made by Missouri Senator Roy Blunt today when asked about the Connecticut school shooting.


    Blunt Says No To Gun Control, Blames Fed Health Programs | KCUR


    I am a 2nd amendment supporter and appreciate his frank response to the questions. What is your opinion of his statements?
    There are no specifics in his claims to determine if he is off a spot or spot on. I have no clue what "Federal Mental Health Programs" he might be speaking of other than those within the VA or military.

    We have had many discussions here about the problems with involuntary mental holds and involuntary treatment. The usual reaction is that they threaten and entrap ordinary people and are therefore concerning.

    Our problem needs a multi-faceted approach, and nothing will improve until people start getting their heels out from the
    tar sand.
    blitzburgh and Sig 210 like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #3
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    My response to Roy Blunt's statement? That's why I friggon voted for him!

    His son Matt was also an excellent Governor for Missouri. I wish he would have run for more terms, but as the founding fathers envisioned, do your time in public service and them move on. He did that. Moved on to other endeavors.

    I'm glad we have Roy in the Senate. He was in the House of Representative for several terms and is now in the Senate. A good replacement for when Kit Bond retired.
    Dangerfield likes this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    Roy Blunt is right and I am very proud to have voted for him.

    If someone's actions call into question their sanity and ability to live among us....a 96 hour hold is not too much to ask to evaluate them. In our state (Missouri) a 96 hour hold does NOT mean that they will be held the entire 96 hours. They are held until they are evaluated by mental professionals, which is usually less than 96 hours. If someone's actions are concerning to medical (ER or other doctor) or law enforcement (Judge) they review the evidence (which is given under oath) then a person can be held. I see NOTHING wrong with this in order to keep those mental "loose cannons" among us in check.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit51 View Post
    Roy Blunt is right and I am very proud to have voted for him.

    If someone's actions call into question their sanity and ability to live among us....a 96 hour hold is not too much to ask to evaluate them. In our state (Missouri) a 96 hour hold does NOT mean that they will be held the entire 96 hours. They are held until they are evaluated by mental professionals, which is usually less than 96 hours. If someone's actions are concerning to medical (ER or other doctor) or law enforcement (Judge) they review the evidence (which is given under oath) then a person can be held. I see NOTHING wrong with this in order to keep those mental "loose cannons" among us in check.
    Nice, but that person will never pass a NICS no matter what the result of the evaluation. No one will ever say "oops" we misunderstood the situation, you are free to go, sorry we bothered you and good luck.

    In any case, it does not appear that this young crazy man Lanza was ever involuntarily held for evaluation or treatment. When he turned 21 (had he not acted out now) he would likely have been quite free to purchase whatever he wanted with no impediment Same of course occurred with Lochner. Similar with Cho. So our choice is to either figure out how to make
    the background checks more meaningful ( what Farronwolf talked about elsewhere here today) or make it more difficult for
    everyone to obtain the most destructive of the available weapons.

    This is not an easy problem to solve or to wrestle with. Some problems are just tough.


    from NICS.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #6
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    There are no specifics in his claims to determine if he is off a spot or spot on. I have no clue what "Federal Mental Health Programs" he might be speaking of other than those within the VA or military.

    We have had many discussions here about the problems with involuntary mental holds and involuntary treatment. The usual reaction is that they threaten and entrap ordinary people and are therefore concerning.

    Our problem needs a multi-faceted approach, and nothing will improve until people start getting their heels out from the
    tar sand.
    The whole purpose of involuntary mental health holds and involuntary treatment is to address serious issues to those people who pose a physical danger to themselves or others in the community, who either refuses to accept voluntary treatment or are incapable of recognizing they are a threat to themselves or other people in the community.

    In the state of Missouri it's called a 96 hour mental health evaluation, or most commonly referred to within the healthcare/law enforcement community a "96 Hour Hold." In order to initiate a 96 hour hold on anyone in the state of Missouri, an "affidavit" (written sworn statement) for a 96 hour hold is filled out by a member law enforcement, healthcare provider, or any member of the general public (usually a family member of the individual in question). It contains the reasons that the person filling out the affidavit believes that an involuntary hold is necessary. It includes statements made by the patient, actions or deeds done by the patient and any other evidence which may pertain to the cause of action. Witness statements are also included if appropriate. It is a legal document which is sworn to under penalty of purjury, by the person initiating the affidavit. It is then reviewed and signed by a judge (often times at 2 am at the judges residence, just like LEO's filling out an affidavit for a search warrant). The only difference is, the person filling out the affidavit does not have to present before the judge before the judge signs off on it, which is why it must first be notorized and it states in the affidavit you are swearing to tell the truth in completion of the document under penalty of purjury (which is a felony).

    This does not guarantee the person will be held against their will for 96 hours. It merely states a person can be held up to 96 hours. Once they go to a mental health facility under a 96 hour hold, they are evaluated by a licensed Psychiatrist. If the Psychiatrist deems they are not a true threat, they can be, and often are released prior to the 96 hour time frame. Often times, patients under a 96 hour hold are released after as little as 4-6 hours, however, that is the determination of the Psychiatrist. If a Psychiatrist feels the person needs continued "involuntary" treatment or committment beyond the 96 hours, then a whole other legal process is embarked upon by the mental health providers at the facility.

    Now to be honest, while members of the general public may initiate an affidavit, it is most often done by law enforcement officers, or healthcare providers including EMS personnel simply because the general public does not know of it's existence or their ability to initiate one. The way it usually works, a patient is in the Emergency Room of a hospital. The ER staff will fill out the affidavit, which would include supporting statements from the family members who broght the patient to the ER along with whatever evidence/observations the ER staff includes in the document.

    Is there a remote possibility the affidavit and 96 hour hold can be abused? Of course there is. Nothing is absolutely foolproof. However, there are consequences for the person filling out a false affidavit which includes a felony for purjury. I've been involved in probably close to 50 of these 96 hour holds, and while it is something which is done with some regularity, it is taken quite seriously. Especially if you are waking a judge up at 2 am and having him sign off on it while in his jammies.

    Now Hopyard, I ask you, what is your solution to addressing those people who are a legitimate threat to themselves or others, but refuse to seek treatment on a voluntary basis, or are so mentally ill that they are incapable of understanding their threat to themselves or others?
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  8. #7
    Member Array jrizzleP95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    175
    luv that guy! he makes me feel 1% better
    EDC=Ruger LCP
    Florida CWFL
    NRA Member

  9. #8
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Nice, but that person will never pass a NICS no matter what the result of the evaluation. No one will ever say "oops" we misunderstood the situation, you are free to go, sorry we bothered you and good luck.
    If that's the case, maybe the person shouldn't have been so out of control, to indicate to others he was a threat to himself or others.

    There are consequences for our actions, and if a person is just being a jerk and acting like an ass, they do so at their own risk of losing gun rights. No one else is responisble for the actions they took which got them committed in the first place.

    I hate to say it, but that's a big problem with liberals. They don't want people to be responsible for their actions. It's either God's will, or somebody else's fault.

    And for the record, I don't know if a 96 hour hold against a person in Missouri is enough to rise to the level of losing their gun rights. I've never had to worry about that concerning myself because I don't exhibit outrageous behavior, however, I will look into that and ask around to see if it does.

    Again, it begs the question, what is YOUR solution for imposing involuntary treatment for those who need treatment but refuse to do it voluntarily, or are incapable of understanding they are a threat to themselves or others?
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

96 hour hold mental health west virginia

,

blunt's statement on gun law

,

gun control statements senator

,

missouri 96 hour hold

,

missouri says no to gun control

,

missouri senate reactions to gun control

,

missouri senator's response to gun control

,

missouri senators on gun control

,

roy blunt call to action on mental health

,

roy blunt connecticut

,

roy blunt gun control

,

roy blunt senator second amendment right

,

senet says no new gun control

,

wacky opinions on gun control

Click on a term to search for related topics.