Lawmakers hear debate on proposed bill to take guns away from people in crisis situation
BY Herschel Smith
11 months ago
FRANKFORT, Ky. (WKYT) -A proposal to remove guns from people in certain high-risk or crisis situations was heard in a state legislative committee Friday.
The CARR (Crisis Aversion and Rights Retention) Act is similar to many red flag laws that allow for the confiscation or temporary removal of firearms from a person who is in crisis mode or is determined to be at risk.
People flocked to Frankfort to hear about the proposal, and it was so crowded in the legislative committee room they spilled out into the hallways and filled up two “overflow” rooms to watch on video screens.
“On that day, I faced something that I can only describe as hell on earth,” said Whitney Austin, who survived being shot 12 times while being trapped in a revolving door during a shooting in Cincinnati. She supports the CARR Act, which backers say protects the Second Amendment while temporarily transferring guns from those determined to be at risk.
“In researching mass shooters over the last three decades, we know 80% of the time they signal their intentions,” said Austin.
The debate drew an emotional response from Senator Karen Berg of Louisville. She said her son killed himself a year ago Friday.
“And if we could do one thing in this state to prevent one parent from having to go through that, it is worth it,” said Berg.
The debate drew a lot of emotion and opinions on both sides of the political aisle. Republican Whitney Westerfield supports the CARR Act, but others in the GOP have a lot of questions.
“I am still trying to figure out how we can stop someone from hurting themself or others in real-time,” said Rep. Patrick Flannery, R-Olive Hill.
“To me, our common ground is the constitution. We have all sworn to uphold it,” said Rep. Savannah Maddox, R-Dry Ridge.
Maddox has long stood her ground in support of firearms issues and vehemently opposes any laws that restrict them. She also said, “94% of mass casualties occur in so-called “gun-free zones,” and places where people are stripped of their constitutional rights.
That isn’t what this law would be used for – threats are already illegal. The law will be used by angry wives, pissed off neighbors, anti-gun nuts and all manner of others for the purposes of disarmament.
It’s all the rage now, apparently even in Kentucky. Stop it before it grows into a cancer. Excise it.
On December 17, 2023 at 10:05 pm, luke2236 said:
““And if we could do one thing in this state to prevent one parent from having to go through that, it is worth it,” said (((Berg))).
How about teaching the children some good Christian morals and turning off the TV and video games?
On December 18, 2023 at 7:57 am, Chief Acid Rain said:
And don’t forget, the victim of this “concerned” forceful disarmament will NEVER get their guns back.
On December 18, 2023 at 6:44 pm, Randolph Scott said:
Explain to me how Whitney Austin survived being shot 12 times while being trapped in a revolving door. The BS meter is running wild on this crap.
On December 19, 2023 at 3:05 pm, Mike said:
“People in crisis” – anybody who voted for Donald Trump, anybody who speaks out against gun control, anybody who opposes electric vehicles, anybody who opposes the abolition of coal/gasoline/diesel. Don’t think that the commies haven’t already started ruminating on how to play that game.
On December 20, 2023 at 1:49 am, James said:
how about ‘NO’
On December 20, 2023 at 7:05 am, Latigo Morgan said:
Government: “Let’s take the guns away from people when they might need them the most!”
The People: “NO!”
Remember, they will change the definitions of just who a “person in crisis” is, in order to further their agenda. They’ve already made a pilot run with the VA by trying to confiscate the firearms of Veterans who might need help managing their finances.
On December 20, 2023 at 7:21 am, CT Ginger said:
“And if we could do one thing in this state to prevent one parent from having to go through that, it is worth it,” said Berg.“
Okay, so let’s lower the interstate speed limit to 25mph, raise the drinking age to 35 and outlaw any animal products that contain cholesterol.
On December 20, 2023 at 5:48 pm, Archer said:
Senator Karen Berg has my sympathy; nobody should go through that.
That said, she’s conflating two issues — suicides and mass shooters — and treating them like their “warning signals” are the same. Yes, the vast majority of mass shooters signal their intentions, and if anyone in a position to do anything (FBI, call your office) would respond appropriately, there’d be much fewer mass shootings. (Make of that what you will.)
Suicides, though, are entirely different. If someone is serious about ending their life, they usually DON’T signal their intentions. Why would they, when the response would be to try and prevent them from achieving their goal? There are still warning signs — for example, if a chronically-depressed person suddenly becomes content or even happy without any kind of intervention, it could mean they’ve made “the decision” and are feeling peace about it, and the next few days are critical — but not at all the same signs as a potential mass shooter.
TL;DR version: The CARR Act that Senator Berg is trying to push on the rest of the Commonwealth would not have done anything to “save” her son. It’s looking for the wrong signals. (And as an aside, because deaths by suicide are FAR more common than mass shooting deaths, and because suicidal people have many options besides firearms for completing the act, the CARR Act cannot and will not save as many lives as she believes.)
She has my sympathy, but she needs to go home and mourn her son, not try and restrict the rights of everyone else. I ask her, how would her son feel about her “waving his bloody shirt” for political gain?