Second amendment rights and those with mental health issues (crime, government, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We all could have benefitted so much from Jared Lee Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter having their 2A rights stepped on. Gabby Giffords is alive but she'll never be the same.
I would draw a broad line at the afflicted individual no longer able to control their actions or be held legaly responsible for what the do. I have no idea of how this would be determined. I also have no idea of how such an individual could be prevented from obtaining a firearm legaly or not.
I assert that it's a violation of second amendment rights to discriminate against those diagnosed with mental health issues to bear arms. I can understand how a general lay person does not understand this, however, one can be diagnosed with a DSM IV Dx and pose no threat to others. Should their rights to defend themselves be stripped away considering several courts have handed down rulings that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens? I think not.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and I fully agree that line should be based on the best science available.
The government can, however, draw such lines. No right is absolute. The state can regulate free speech under certain circumstances and in the presence of a compelling state interest - like public safety, for example.
It follows then that the government can put reasonable restrictions on firearms for public safety reasons. Given that we are dealing with an express constitutional right, those reasons have to be very good indeed and the restrictions have to be the minimum necessary to accomplish the compelling interest.
The government does collect much of that information in a database. Has for many years now. It's the same database they use to restrict some supposedly "mentally ill" people (see specific comment below for what the requirement is) in the United States from purchasing a firearm, or convicting them for possession if they already own one.
Anyone who was ever involuntarily committed, however seemingly trivial it might have been (e.g. a person who was committed involuntarily for a drinking problem, a bulimia or anorexia problem, a person who had a suicide incident, etc...), that gets people in a nationwise database that each state is obligated to report to the feds in a timely manner for the specific purpose of firearms denial for life.
When one gets a NICS check at a gun store for most gun related purchases, that's the national government database the store clerk consults to deny people. It denies people with certain criminal records, but also the above mental records are entered into that database. And then they deny people their gun for stupid reasons like having been institutionalized for bulimia, anorexia, a drinking problem, suicide, and other issues which generally have no rigid connection to being a threat to anyone else whatsoever.
Or at least, that's my understanding of how the database works. In any case, regardless of the exact specifics of the whole process which is somewhat beside the point, the ATF form is clear enough on who is a 'prohibited person.' And it includes some of the really dumb things listed above which ensnares innocent people who are most likely threats to nobody.
Do you have any support for your statement about any involuntary committment resulting in being banned from owning a firearm? I have never heard of that. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm not familiar with such a law.
I tried looking this up. Different states have different laws. It seems to be WHAT is the mental illness, can it be cured, and the biggest, is it a danger to society at large. Some probably could be adjudicated like the eating disorders because by their nature do not pose a threat to society at large. Think about this. How far do you draw the line? Suppose you go see a marriage counselor? How about a grief counselor after a death? Does that mean you have a mental illness too? No, it isn't that broad.
I have a family member who is BiPolar. She is fully functioning on her meds, but what if she DOESN'T take them? Can society chance that? No. Honestly, she herself would agree with that.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
We should look at WashingtonD.C. v. Heller US Supreme court. 2008. It endorsed the “standard model” view of the Second Amendment. It reinforced the rights of law-abiding and responsible adults.
The question of mental health comes into play, mainly the issue of responsible adults. If there is a mental illness, the ability to make responsible decisions comes into question. If there is a need for protection, that protection should be offered to the patient by oversight, out patient care, or in patient care. The level of supervision and protection is dictated by level of health. If someone in a diminished mental state has a firearm and acts in a reckless manner that is not protected by the Second Amendment.
This about this way, using the example of 1st amendment rights, free speech clause. Yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire, causing panic and perhaps undue injury is not protected by free speech. Slander or libel are not protected by the 1st amendment.
My dad, born on a Kansas farm in 1913, was raised with a gun in his hand. He hunted and trapped for food on the table and money in his pocket. He taught my brother and me to hunt. He collected guns his whole life -- not a lot but a few. One of his most prized was an 1861 muzzle loader that his Uncle Pete had used in the Civil War.
At age 65 he was in an accident and burned over 60% of his body, in places to the bone. He wasn't expected to ever walk again, but with help and determination he did. It took about six months. While he was eligible for (and had enrolled in) Medicare, it only paid part of his medical expenses, and he had to dip deeply into his retirement funds to pay the $100K or so balance.
It depressed him -- so much that he mentioned it to a doctor.
He had to give up all his guns, even his muzzle loader.
Kinda makes one wonder if they should ever ask for help. I know it did me. When my late wife died I was a basket case. My doc would ask how I was doing. "Fine! And you?"
I assert that it's a violation of second amendment rights to discriminate against those diagnosed with mental health issues to bear arms. I can understand how a general lay person does not understand this, however, one can be diagnosed with a DSM IV Dx and pose no threat to others. Should their rights to defend themselves be stripped away considering several courts have handed down rulings that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens? I think not.
Mental illness is such a broad term. Put it this way, if the person is susceptible to extreme hallucinations, delusions, and diconnects to reality, then no, they should not have the right to own a firearm. Even that though, is a difficult criteria to go on. My uncle has schizophrenia, a disorder that uis notorious for the things I mentioned, and yet, he poses no harm to anyone, and is of sound mind when taking his meds. He is a a gun owner. It's a hard question to answer.
However, I DO NOT think, that decdisions such as these, should be made in haste in the wake of a tragedy such as the one that occured in Tuscon.
I assert that it's a violation of second amendment rights to discriminate against those diagnosed with mental health issues to bear arms. I can understand how a general lay person does not understand this, however, one can be diagnosed with a DSM IV Dx and pose no threat to others. Should their rights to defend themselves be stripped away considering several courts have handed down rulings that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens? I think not.
The reality is that the second amendment is treated different from every other. Nobody ever loses the right to free speech or religion, they never lose their fourth Amendment rights nor their fifth. Mass murderers have every right reinstated upon release, except the RKBA & most of them while incarcerated. Its my opinion that if a person is free to walk the streets of the USA in 99.9% of them should have every right the rest of us do. Unfortunately we dole them out acording to how important we feel they are. I mean, we cant violate the rights of a violent rapist by refusing to hire him or allow him in places open to the public, but we can arbitrarilly deny a persons RKBA based solely on unproven accusations of a spouse or other person. If a person cannot be trusted with the rights afforded us by the US Constitution they shouldnt be walking among us and nobodies rights should EVER be rescinded without a conviction & incarceration or a court order deeming them incapable of careing for themselves.
We all could have benefitted so much from Jared Lee Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter having their 2A rights stepped on. Gabby Giffords is alive but she'll never be the same.
Um, I dissagree. VT would not have hapenned if law abiding people were carrying guns. That particular tragedy is all the more disgusting because there were definately people on that campus that wanted to carry & the school admin was celebrateing their sucess at making sure they could not when the tragedy struck. One has to wonder if that decision helped the VT shooter decide to go thru with it. At any rate gun control killed those people.
Gabby Giffords is a different story but the reality is if you want to be in the public eye like that someone might just want to kill you. Such is life, its a job hazzard & I lose much less sleep over things like that than VT or Columbine.
If EVERYBODY who could carry did it would go much further towards making us safe than if nobody were allowed to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
