I'm sure you're aware that free speech does not include direct threats to individuals and institutions. Police were warned on 18 separate occasions by five different individuals of Cruz and his access to weapons, some of them people he lived with. The family who took Cruz in notified police that he threatened people with firearms (which is a crime). Cruz stated in several videos and online posting that he wanted to be a "professional school shooter" and the FBI was notified of this and videos he posted about the subject. Deputies had been receiving calls about Cruz and his violent behavior since the age of 10. Apparently Cruz had been diagnosed with depression, ADHD, OCD and autism, and had a violent history of outbursts. The Florida Department of Children and Families launched an investigation into the reported self-cutting and allegations of neglect that same day, according to a DCF report on the incident. Authorities chose not to commit Cruz at the time under the Baker Act, a law in Florida that allows authorities to hospitalize people for mental evaluation. The decision came under the advisement of clinicians at Henderson Behavioral Health, which school counselors worried may have been "premature" in their advice, according to the DCF notes. Once he turned 18, Cruz was allowed to pull himself out of mental counseling, which he did. Still, the very public fact that he had firearms and weapons while all of this was going on was not acted upon. This is quite a bit more than arresting someone because they brag about something as you suggest. All the laws in the world don't work if you don't follow them.
FLASHBACK: One year ago Trump signed the executive order that made it easier for those with mental illness to have guns In February 2017, President Donald Trump repealed a regulation from former President Barack Obama that made it more difficult for those with mental illness to have a gun. In wake of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Trump has attacked the mentally ill, implying they are the vast majority of those responsible for mass shootings. “So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed,” Trump tweeted one day after the Parkland massacre. “Even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!” It’s similar to the claims Trump has made in the past. “Mental health is your problem here,” Trump said in wake of an October in wake of a shooting at a First Baptist Church in Texas. “This was a very … deranged individual.” He went on to say shooter Devin Patrick Kelley, had “a lot of problems over a long period of time. But this isn’t a guns situation.” The “mental health problem” has become a talking point for pro-gun activists. Yet, when given the opportunity to do something about it, Trump went the opposite direction. The decision from Trump made good on his Jan. 2016 campaign promise to stop Obama’s gun regulations. “There’s an assault on the Second Amendment,” Trump said to a crowd in Biloxi, Mississippi. “You know Obama’s going to do an executive order and really knock the hell out of it. You know, the system’s supposed to be you get the Democrats, you get the Republicans, and you make deals. He can’t do that. He can’t do that. So he’s going to sign another executive order having to do with the Second Amendment, having to do with guns. I will veto. I will unsign that so fast.” Obama’s rule would have given the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the system used for gun sales, access to Social Security Administration date, including names of those earning mental health benefits. It was his intent to strengthen the federal background check system after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012. After Obama signed the order, the Republican-led Congress stepped in and used the Congressional Review Act to rescind the order. The rarely-used procedure allows all regulations passed by the White House to be stopped if they’re done in the final 60 days of a new administration. The White House recieved the repeal on February 15, 2017 and Trump signed it Feb. 28. Many have argued the order was an invasion of privacy and the order was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Yet, when given the opportunity to take action against those Trump and gun-activists blames for mass shootings, the president went another direction. The order would have prevented approximately 75,000 people with mental disorders from having access to weapons, Snopes said. Psychologists have also opposed the Obama order, saying that it stigmatizes those with mental illness. According to mental health experts, those with mental illness are more likely to harm themselves than others. “The concept that mental illness is a precursor to violent behavior is nonsense,” Dr. Louis Kraus of Chicago’s Rush University Medical College told PBS. “The vast majority of gun violence is not attributable to mental illness.” “We are not talking about Second Amendment rights or restricting your ability to own a firearm. We are talking about a public health crisis that our Congress has failed to address. This must end,” American Medical Association President David Barbe wrote about the U.S. ignoring it’s mental health problem. Watch Trump blame mental illness for mass shootings below: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/fl...cutive-order-made-easier-mental-illness-guns/
Unfortunately, that article doesn't tell the whole story, it just pushes the usual narrative. While I agree with making it harder for those with verified mental health issues - particularly those who have violent tendencies - to obtain and possess a firearm, the Obama regulation took away due process for anyone collecting mental health benefits from social security disability. No trial, no assessment, just blanket removal of a right granted in the Constitution. This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns. As I noted when the regulation was repealed last March, this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, because it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands. https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment The problem with the government having the unilateral ability to remove someone's Constitutional right without due process means they don't have to stop at someone's right to own a firearm. They can move right along to other Constitutional rights as well, based solely on their own discretion and eventually use such a law to disarm or silence their opponents (whoever is in power at the time). That's why the regulation was opposed not just by National Rifle Association (NRA) but by several mental health and disability groups and by the American Civil Liberties Union. Pundits largely ignored the latter groups' opposition to the rule, preferring to play up the power of the NRA and their influence on Republicans to turn the issue into a partisan fight. (shocker! - TT) It was hackery then, and it is still hackery today. It's shameful to ignore the serious constitutional problems of this poorly conceived rule just to sow panic and implicate one's political opponents. Trump's action in this regard was to protect the rights of the individual, even if it meant a slightly backwards step in safety for the moment. There is a right way to do this, and it was not how Obama did it. And Trump's actions certainly did not cause Cruz to shoot up the school, nor would this rule from Obama have caught someone like Cruz who was not collecting disability.
Washington Post article from 2012 - addresses many of the different aspects of the assault weapons ban in the U.S. from 1993 to 2004. Gives factual information. Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.868f6c933591
Now I'm against ANY legislation that restricts or bans ANY type of firearm that's now on the market from being owned by sane, law abiding citizens. We've already seen how leftists are focusing on "gun control" and the NRA, while virtually ignoring colossal law enforcement failures and anything else that conflicts with their gun grabbing agenda. And now this: Surprise: Democrats’ New Gun Control Bill Virtually Imposes A Firearm Ban House Democrats have introduced a bill banning semi-automatic firearms in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said. The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/27/house-introduces-gun-ban-legislation-n2454670 This will go nowhere but the agenda is clear. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
Has absolutely no chance of passing whatsoever. And even if it somehow, miraculously did, states would rebel against it, no cops would enforce it and it would have zero effect - just like the SAFE law in NY State.
That is a very balanced review of the ban. Interesting paragraph here for those who continually try to say "do what Australia did"... Still, an Australia-style ban would face much more difficult hurdles in this country. For starters, there are more than 200 million guns in circulation in the United States, making a buyback much more costly. And a full ban would likely face heavier resistance here, both from the courts and the public. Even Feinstein has promised that her new version of the assault weapons ban would still "exempt over 900 specific weapons." Gun-control advocates aren't quite ready to propose overly sweeping measures.
Exactly. Due process is the key issue when it comes to factoring in mental illness but that won't stop leftists from demagoguing and misrepresenting it in order to achieve their objectives. Nor do they care about rights that stand in the way of any cause they believe in.
Of course they won't propose the full confiscation agenda immediately. They'll do it gradually, just like they did with the whole gay agenda. In the space of Obama's two terms, we went from Obama himself not endorsing gay marriage to the courts insisting that there was a constitutional obligation to let transgender people serve in the military. And don't think for a second the police won't enforce a ban. Maybe in Buttcrack, Utah they won't, but there are thousands of Sheriff Israel's out there, ready to go after guns the same way they trampelled our rights in the War on Drugs.
Here's more info on the 1994 assault weapons ban: Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/