Jump to content


Photo

6th Circuit questions whether mental health ban violates 2A


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Chief Illiniwek

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Joined: 22-March 13

Posted 16 September 2016 - 06:46 AM

Saw this on another forum:

 

http://www.foxnews.c...-amendment.html

 

Here's the text:

 

Second Amendment Appeals court rules mental-health ban on gun ownership might violate Second Amendment
Published September 16, 2016

A divided federal appeals court ruled that a decades-old federal law indefinitely banning people committed to mental health treatment from owning a gun could violate the Second Amendment.

 

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday revived a lawsuit filed by a Michigan man who failed a background check while attempting to buy a gun in 2011. Clifford C. Tyler had been committed to a mental institution 25 years earlier but since has received a clean bill of health.

Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, writing for the Sixth Circuit majority, said government lawyers offered compelling evidence for prohibiting people currently or recently suffering from mental illness from possessing a gun. That evidence included the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, committed by a student whom a court had ordered into outpatient treatment.

But, she wrote, “none of the government’s evidence squarely answers the key question at the heart of this case: Is it reasonably necessary to forever bar all previously institutionalized persons from owning a firearm?”​

Mr. Tyler sued the U.S. attorney general and his local sheriff in Hillsdale County, Mich., in 2012, alleging that the Gun Control Act of 1968 effectively created a permanent ban on his Second Amendment rights. A federal trial court dismissed his lawsuit, and Mr. Tyler appealed to the Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit.

The 1968 law bans convicted felons, habitual drug users and others from possessing a firearm, including anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” involuntarily.

The director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is empowered to restore the rights of those who can demonstrate that they aren’t a danger to public safety and whose possession of a firearm wouldn’t be “contrary to the public interest.”

But Congress defunded the review program in the 1990s. Thirty-one states have created mechanisms to review applications by people seeking to have their rights restored, but Michigan, where Mr. Tyler lives, isn't one of them.

A probate court committed Mr. Tyler to as many as 30 days of inpatient treatment in 1986, after his wife of 23 years ran away with another man and depleted his finances, according to Thursday’s ruling. His daughters, fearing that he was a danger to himself, had contacted police.

After the episode, he returned to work and remarried.

Mr. Tyler’s 2012 psychological and substance-abuse evaluations showed no evidence of mental illness or issues with alcohol or drugs, according to the ruling. Mr. Tyler, now 74, tried to purchase a gun in 2011 but failed the FBI background check.


Liberals:  If the shoe doesn't fit, make everyone wear it.  -  Ann Coulter

 

IllinoisCarry Supporting Member

NRA Life Member

ISRA Member


#2 cgs

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 7,837 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 16 September 2016 - 07:04 AM

It's an interesting topic because it certainly does violate the #2a. However this is a subject that even pro gun advocates kinda try to avoid.  When someone says they are against gun bans but don't want lunatics to have guns, you can't have it both ways.  Preventing lunatics from having guns is a gun ban. 

 

When I was conversing here years back about felons having access to guns, I stated that I didn't think it was a good idea for violent felons to have guns. Someone here, and I sadly forgot who, opened my eyes.  They stated, "The violent felon has paid their debt to society and should have their rights restored. Furthermore if they are still violent, why were they on the streets?"  Further I will add to that that violent people will commit violence even in the absence of guns.

 

I'm hoping someone can make a similar argument about mental health.


-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#3 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,092 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 16 September 2016 - 07:29 AM

Furthermore if they are still violent, why were they on the streets?

 

 

 
 

Because they vote leftocrat.   


Edited by BobPistol, 16 September 2016 - 07:29 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#4 Cerus

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 16

Posted 16 September 2016 - 09:49 AM

It's an interesting topic because it certainly does violate the #2a. However this is a subject that even pro gun advocates kinda try to avoid.  When someone says they are against gun bans but don't want lunatics to have guns, you can't have it both ways.  Preventing lunatics from having guns is a gun ban. 
 
When I was conversing here years back about felons having access to guns, I stated that I didn't think it was a good idea for violent felons to have guns. Someone here, and I sadly forgot who, opened my eyes.  They stated, "The violent felon has paid their debt to society and should have their rights restored. Furthermore if they are still violent, why were they on the streets?"  Further I will add to that that violent people will commit violence even in the absence of guns.
 
I'm hoping someone can make a similar argument about mental health.


Except we have no way to determine which felon is truly a changed person and which isn't. Statistics show most violent offenders offend again. But honestly - that doesn't really matter to me. I'm going on 37 and have found it incredibly easy to not commit felonies. If someone makes the choice to commit a crime then they should accept the consequences. It's not like it's a hidden surprise that felony=no guns. It's been on the books for decades. Don't want your right to own firearms taken away? Don't break the law.

And it's not like it's silly laws like too much window tint or not walking in between the white lines while crossing a street. It's also an insult to everyone who isn't a criminal and has kept their nose clean. As far as them still being violent and on the streets....well we don't jail people for things they haven't done. Serving your time doesn't mean you're no longer a violent person.

#5 GWBH

    Ripcord... This is Alabama - Fire For Effect, Over...

  • Members
  • 6,029 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 08

Posted 16 September 2016 - 09:54 AM

It's an interesting topic because it certainly does violate the #2a. However this is a subject that even pro gun advocates kinda try to avoid.  When someone says they are against gun bans but don't want lunatics to have guns, you can't have it both ways.  Preventing lunatics from having guns is a gun ban. 

 

When I was conversing here years back about felons having access to guns, I stated that I didn't think it was a good idea for violent felons to have guns. Someone here, and I sadly forgot who, opened my eyes.  They stated, "The violent felon has paid their debt to society and should have their rights restored. Furthermore if they are still violent, why were they on the streets?"  Further I will add to that that violent people will commit violence even in the absence of guns.

 

I'm hoping someone can make a similar argument about mental health.

That's an interesting argument.

What other rights would felons lose once they pay their debt to society?

Certainly not free speech, freedom of religion or trial by jury... only their Second Amendment Right??

Is a prison term the "debt" - or does the "debt" go on until they are deceased?

And don't we see some folks released from prison after they've served years for a crime they didn't commit? DNA evidence proves them innocent?

A bit of a dilemma...


Edited by GWBH, 16 September 2016 - 09:56 AM.

Fire Support Base Ripcord Association - the heroes of the Vietnam War have their names on a wall in Washington, DC
http://www.ripcordassociation.com/

Phil Compton "ishmo", "L" Company 75th Infantry (RANGER) 101st Airborne Division (VietNam 1968 - 1969 / 1970 - 1971 )
A good man, a good soldier, a patriot and a true friend.

PFC Patrick J. Bohan, 101 Pathfinder Detachment, 101st Airborne Division, KIA, July 10, 1970, on FSB Ripcord
 


#6 BShawn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,582 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 08

Posted 16 September 2016 - 10:41 AM

This is exactly why I personally have the stance

WHAT THE F**K DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

It really IS that simple!

 

Yes, even prior felons, yes even prior VIOLENT felons. Mentally ill / retarded - doesn't matter to me, NOBODY on this earth as a human being is ANY more or less deserving of the RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE THAN ANOTHER!

 

---

 

So you're telling me that someone could be good enough to share our public spaces with, yet they "cannot be trusted with a firearm"!? I call Bulls***! If you're trustworthy enough to be in free society, then I trust you're trustworthy enough to carry a sidearm! If you're not trustworthy enough to carry a sidearm you should NOT be in society! Why on god's green earth would we allow people who should NOT be in free society, TO BE IN FREE SOCIETY. It really IS that simple, if you're trustworthy enough to be "free", then you're trustworthy enough to have a sidearm; if you're NOT trustworthy enough to carry a sidearm, then you should NOT be "free". Those NOT trustworthy enough to be free can be institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed!

---end of line---


upload3.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ Licensed to carry since 2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ IL CCL 75 days from application to in hand!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ I'm not the "bad guy" here, I just want to be able to defend myself and my family. Anywhere I should be permitted to carry a pencil (1st amendment), I should also be able to carry a firearm (2nd amendment) !!!!!!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why do I carry a handgun? Well, look at it this way -- I keep a fire extinguisher in my house. I don't expect to have a fire; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of fire, not having the means to stop the fire could result in serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. Neither do I expect to be a victim of violent crime; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of a violent crime, not having the means to stop the criminal could lead to serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. It is simply a matter of common-sense prudence."
GarandFan, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drawing any line only restricts law abiding people from crossing such a line. The "line" doesn't exist for criminals so we have to support the second amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good man with a gun"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


#7 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,397 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 16 September 2016 - 11:14 AM

It is much simpler than one would think.

 

If you are deemed a danger to others and are committed, the mere act of your release is all the proof needed that you are no longer a danger. If you are still deemed a danger the releasing authority should take your place. Not even the Pope can be determined to never be a threat in the future, so society must accept the risk of the occasional mistake, either way, but side with liberty.


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#8 Terry 9595

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 13

Posted 16 September 2016 - 11:19 AM

"Yes, even prior felons, yes even prior VIOLENT felons. Mentally ill / retarded - doesn't matter to me, NOBODY on this earth as a human being is ANY more or less deserving of the RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE THAN ANOTHER!:

I believe you need to reconsider your statement. Do you really want some one who is Mentally Ill or "retarded" to have a
gun??????????

Terry K. Bell

 

Member of NRA

Member of ISRA

State of Illinois Licensed Firearm Instructor - 263.000152

State Police Certified Instructor for FCCL

Utah Firearm Instructor  I111295

NRA Law Enforcement Instructor- Handgun, Shotgun and Patrol Rifle

NRA Instructor for

        Certified Home Safety

        Certified Pistol

         Personal Protection In The Home

         Certified Shotgun

         Refuse To Be A Victim

 

NRA Range Safety Officer

Licensed Private Detective

License Security Contractor

 

 

 

 


#9 BShawn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,582 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 08

Posted 16 September 2016 - 11:22 AM

Yes, yes I do, no revision necessary.

 

If a person is good enough to be in free society, then they're good enough to carry a sidearm. If they're NOT trustworthy enough to carry a sidearm then they should NOT be in free society (read: they should be institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed)...

So I stand firm in what I said...

 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ...


upload3.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ Licensed to carry since 2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ IL CCL 75 days from application to in hand!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ I'm not the "bad guy" here, I just want to be able to defend myself and my family. Anywhere I should be permitted to carry a pencil (1st amendment), I should also be able to carry a firearm (2nd amendment) !!!!!!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why do I carry a handgun? Well, look at it this way -- I keep a fire extinguisher in my house. I don't expect to have a fire; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of fire, not having the means to stop the fire could result in serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. Neither do I expect to be a victim of violent crime; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of a violent crime, not having the means to stop the criminal could lead to serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. It is simply a matter of common-sense prudence."
GarandFan, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drawing any line only restricts law abiding people from crossing such a line. The "line" doesn't exist for criminals so we have to support the second amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good man with a gun"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


#10 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,749 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 16 September 2016 - 12:53 PM

Yes, yes I do, no revision necessary.
 
If a person is good enough to be in free society, then they're good enough to carry a sidearm. If they're NOT trustworthy enough to carry a sidearm then they should NOT be in free society (read: they should be institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed)...
So I stand firm in what I said...
 
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ...

What about a four-year-old? Would you let a four-year-old carry a gun in public?

Would you let an adult with the mental capacity of a four-year-old carry a gun in public?

How about someone who hears "voices" if they forget to take their medication? Voices telling them to do terrible things?

Edited by stm, 16 September 2016 - 12:55 PM.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#11 BShawn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,582 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 08

Posted 16 September 2016 - 01:03 PM

All these arguments are null because:

 

- the age of legal majority is 18, and that wouldn't change...

 

- some of these problems you're attempting to bring up would be covered by - if a person isn't to be trusted in society, they'd be either institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed. IE: if a person is a threat to themselves or others they wouldn't be "free" to be able to carry a firearm anyway. So if you think a person who "hears voices" may be a threat to people, they'd be a threat to people with or without a firearm, they shouldn't be "free". If you think they should, then there's no reason not to trust them with a firearm.

 

That is my main point. We talk about it all the time, how, an evil person truly bent on doing evil things will do them whether it's with a firearm, or a brick, or a bat, or a knife, or a bomb! So, again, I stress, why should people that could be a "threat" be allowed to live among those that aren't!? Why would and do we say "well you're good enough to be in society, and walk down the same sidewalk as I, but you can't own a firearm"; that's asinine! If a person isn't good enough to be in free society, then they should be institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed... If a person IS allowed to be in free society then they should be lawfully allowed to carry a sidearm.

 

Again, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...


upload3.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ Licensed to carry since 2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ IL CCL 75 days from application to in hand!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ I'm not the "bad guy" here, I just want to be able to defend myself and my family. Anywhere I should be permitted to carry a pencil (1st amendment), I should also be able to carry a firearm (2nd amendment) !!!!!!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why do I carry a handgun? Well, look at it this way -- I keep a fire extinguisher in my house. I don't expect to have a fire; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of fire, not having the means to stop the fire could result in serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. Neither do I expect to be a victim of violent crime; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of a violent crime, not having the means to stop the criminal could lead to serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. It is simply a matter of common-sense prudence."
GarandFan, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drawing any line only restricts law abiding people from crossing such a line. The "line" doesn't exist for criminals so we have to support the second amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good man with a gun"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


#12 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,362 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 16 September 2016 - 01:23 PM

All these arguments are null because:
 
- the age of legal majority is 18, and that wouldn't change...
 
- some of these problems you're attempting to bring up would be covered by - if a person isn't to be trusted in society, they'd be either institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed. IE: if a person is a threat to themselves or others they wouldn't be "free" to be able to carry a firearm anyway. So if you think a person who "hears voices" may be a threat to people, they'd be a threat to people with or without a firearm, they shouldn't be "free". If you think they should, then there's no reason not to trust them with a firearm.
 
That is my main point. We talk about it all the time, how, an evil person truly bent on doing evil things will do them whether it's with a firearm, or a brick, or a bat, or a knife, or a bomb! So, again, I stress, why should people that could be a "threat" be allowed to live among those that aren't!? Why would and do we say "well you're good enough to be in society, and walk down the same sidewalk as I, but you can't own a firearm"; that's asinine! If a person isn't good enough to be in free society, then they should be institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed... If a person IS allowed to be in free society then they should be lawfully allowed to carry a sidearm.
 
Again, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...

There's not really a black or white distinction when it comes to mental health, though.

For example, my wife works in a group home for those with intellectual disabilities and mental illnesses. To be clear, these people are not institutionalized... they are free to come and go as they please, they are just provided assistance with many of their daily tasks.

They have jobs, they make money, they go on group outings to dinner, MLB games, water parks, etc.

One lady in particular becomes spontaneously violent when she gets too stressed out, and will attack (punch, kick, slap, etc) others in the house. She has a low IQ and has an impulse control disorder. She's also non-verbal (think a toddler who points and grunts, but can't speak).

There are ups and downs, but she is a part of society, but by your definition there is no middle ground.

So should she have a gun, or should she be locked away in an institution?

Personally, I agree with the notion that there can be reasonable restrictions (actually reasonable, not anti-gun politician reasonable) placed upon the 2nd Amendment.

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#13 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,703 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 September 2016 - 03:22 PM

This is the en banc ruling? Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#14 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,703 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 September 2016 - 03:45 PM

Nevermind that. It is the en banc ruling. I hardly consider 10-6 to be a "divided" court unless one considers anything less than a unanimous ruling to be "divided" when it comes to rehearing en banc. Here's the full opinion. Majority split in two directions. The "this still fails intermediate scrutiny" crowd and "this is unconstitutional, unconstitutional, and unconstitutional."

http://cloud.tapatal...16a0234p-06.pdf


Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#15 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 18 September 2016 - 08:21 PM

 

Personally, I agree with the notion that there can be reasonable restrictions (actually reasonable, not anti-gun politician reasonable) placed upon the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

Which is one of the problems with the anti-gun politicians. It's difficult to have a discussion about reasonable restrictions when the goal of the people on the other side of the discussion is to end civilian ownership of firearms, and any negotiation is about how much closer to that goal they'll get in this round.


Ad utrumque paratus


#16 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,397 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 19 September 2016 - 06:16 AM

All these arguments are null because:
 
- the age of legal majority is 18, and that wouldn't change...
 
- some of these problems you're attempting to bring up would be covered by - if a person isn't to be trusted in society, they'd be either institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed. IE: if a person is a threat to themselves or others they wouldn't be "free" to be able to carry a firearm anyway. So if you think a person who "hears voices" may be a threat to people, they'd be a threat to people with or without a firearm, they shouldn't be "free". If you think they should, then there's no reason not to trust them with a firearm.
 
That is my main point. We talk about it all the time, how, an evil person truly bent on doing evil things will do them whether it's with a firearm, or a brick, or a bat, or a knife, or a bomb! So, again, I stress, why should people that could be a "threat" be allowed to live among those that aren't!? Why would and do we say "well you're good enough to be in society, and walk down the same sidewalk as I, but you can't own a firearm"; that's asinine! If a person isn't good enough to be in free society, then they should be institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed... If a person IS allowed to be in free society then they should be lawfully allowed to carry a sidearm.
 
Again, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...

There's not really a black or white distinction when it comes to mental health, though.

For example, my wife works in a group home for those with intellectual disabilities and mental illnesses. To be clear, these people are not institutionalized... they are free to come and go as they please, they are just provided assistance with many of their daily tasks.

They have jobs, they make money, they go on group outings to dinner, MLB games, water parks, etc.

One lady in particular becomes spontaneously violent when she gets too stressed out, and will attack (punch, kick, slap, etc) others in the house. She has a low IQ and has an impulse control disorder. She's also non-verbal (think a toddler who points and grunts, but can't speak).

There are ups and downs, but she is a part of society, but by your definition there is no middle ground.

So should she have a gun, or should she be locked away in an institution?

Personally, I agree with the notion that there can be reasonable restrictions (actually reasonable, not anti-gun politician reasonable) placed upon the 2nd Amendment.


But your example shows that the low IQ impulse control individual has and continues to commit battery against others. She should be classified a prohibited person.

Can these diminished people you describe make legal decisions without the consent of a guardian? If not they should be prohibited persons.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#17 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,362 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 19 September 2016 - 11:37 AM

 

 

All these arguments are null because:
 
- the age of legal majority is 18, and that wouldn't change...
 
- some of these problems you're attempting to bring up would be covered by - if a person isn't to be trusted in society, they'd be either institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed. IE: if a person is a threat to themselves or others they wouldn't be "free" to be able to carry a firearm anyway. So if you think a person who "hears voices" may be a threat to people, they'd be a threat to people with or without a firearm, they shouldn't be "free". If you think they should, then there's no reason not to trust them with a firearm.
 
That is my main point. We talk about it all the time, how, an evil person truly bent on doing evil things will do them whether it's with a firearm, or a brick, or a bat, or a knife, or a bomb! So, again, I stress, why should people that could be a "threat" be allowed to live among those that aren't!? Why would and do we say "well you're good enough to be in society, and walk down the same sidewalk as I, but you can't own a firearm"; that's asinine! If a person isn't good enough to be in free society, then they should be institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed... If a person IS allowed to be in free society then they should be lawfully allowed to carry a sidearm.
 
Again, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...

There's not really a black or white distinction when it comes to mental health, though.

For example, my wife works in a group home for those with intellectual disabilities and mental illnesses. To be clear, these people are not institutionalized... they are free to come and go as they please, they are just provided assistance with many of their daily tasks.

They have jobs, they make money, they go on group outings to dinner, MLB games, water parks, etc.

One lady in particular becomes spontaneously violent when she gets too stressed out, and will attack (punch, kick, slap, etc) others in the house. She has a low IQ and has an impulse control disorder. She's also non-verbal (think a toddler who points and grunts, but can't speak).

There are ups and downs, but she is a part of society, but by your definition there is no middle ground.

So should she have a gun, or should she be locked away in an institution?

Personally, I agree with the notion that there can be reasonable restrictions (actually reasonable, not anti-gun politician reasonable) placed upon the 2nd Amendment.

 


But your example shows that the low IQ impulse control individual has and continues to commit battery against others. She should be classified a prohibited person.

 

 

I agree 100%.  My response was tailored towards BShawn's notion that the only people not allowed to have guns should be "institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed."  The woman in my example deserves none of those three things, yet she also doesn't need to be able to carry a gun.


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#18 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 19 September 2016 - 11:54 AM

I think the key issue is that, to deprive someone of any of their rights, there should be some sort of due process involved, including the right to challenge the determination in court. It shouldn't be on the say-so of some Mom who feels that anyone who wants to own a firearm is, by virtue of that fact alone, mentally deficient.


Ad utrumque paratus


#19 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 20 September 2016 - 10:36 PM

Let's skip the discussion about felons and guns and focus instead on the following Breitbart article:

"Supreme Court Second Amendment Case Could Overrule Heller Decision in 2017"
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#20 Elderberry

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,928 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 20 September 2016 - 11:26 PM

And that link is precisely why this election is so freigthening....

I'll put something clever and witty here when I think of something.........

NRA, ISRA, SAF... Vet.. Former LEO... Current Illinois Concealed Carry Permit Holder....


#21 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,498 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 21 September 2016 - 05:51 AM

With regard to the "if they are free then they are trustworthy" notion....while on its face I agree to a point. Over the last 50 years, mental institutions have been disappearing. The official story is that we're much better at diagnosing and our medications are much better. Where this fails is that we're relying on nutjobs to actually take their medicine. What if they forget to take them? As we've seen time and time again with these spree killers, almost every one had gone off their meds at some point. We really need to reopen mental institutions because the whole take your mess route doesn't seem to work in all cases. My childhood friend spent a few weeks in one because he had some sort of breakdown. He was subsequently diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and he regularly forgets to take his meds. He doesn't do it on purpose, he just honestly forgets. God help you if you're around him when he hasn't taken his meds. He's a whackadoodle. On his meds he's okay. He should never own a gun IMHO. He actually doesn't even know I own any.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#22 yyyz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 13

Posted 21 September 2016 - 08:22 AM

If you are thinking about not supporting Trump, there is an interesting article on  Breitbart titled... Supreme Court Second Amendment Case Could Overrule Heller Decision in 2017  http://www.breitbart...le-heller-2017/

 

Last paragraph....  "So declarations from Donald Trump and Mike Pence that gun rights are in danger is no longer hypothetical. It is now certain. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, the Second Amendment can be effectively erased from the U.S. Constitution."


Edited by yyyz, 21 September 2016 - 10:16 AM.

Gfw

 

The Constitution is the Constitution. Our rights are not granted through it, they are protected by it.


#23 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,397 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 21 September 2016 - 11:27 AM

 I agree 100%.  My response was tailored towards BShawn's notion that the only people not allowed to have guns should be "institutionalized, incarcerated, or executed."  The woman in my example deserves none of those three things, yet she also doesn't need to be able to carry a gun.

 

 

We can restrict the rights of dead people to vote? Cook County are you listening?


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#24 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,362 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 21 September 2016 - 03:11 PM

Last paragraph....  "So declarations from Donald Trump and Mike Pence that gun rights are in danger is no longer hypothetical. It is now certain. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, the Second Amendment can be effectively erased from the U.S. Constitution."

 

The 2nd Amendment is just words on paper... the right is inherent.

 

IF Heller was overturned and the government was able to repeal the 2nd Amendment, all that would accomplish is removing the words that tell them they cannot infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

 

If they then attempt actual infringement of that right (all-out bans, confiscation, etc), they'll realize my first point very quickly, as they'll then get to see that inherent right put into action.


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#25 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,703 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 September 2016 - 02:34 PM

The Heller (or was it McDonald? Eh, same Justices) Court made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that pre-existed the Second Amendment. Affirmed the holding of the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 22 September 2016 - 02:35 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#26 yyyz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 13

Posted 22 September 2016 - 02:53 PM

The Heller (or was it McDonald? Eh, same Justices) Court made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that pre-existed the Second Amendment. Affirmed the holding of the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

SCOTUS did, but the next SCOTUS could change their mind... that is why we need to keep Hillary out of the oval office. 


Gfw

 

The Constitution is the Constitution. Our rights are not granted through it, they are protected by it.


#27 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,703 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 September 2016 - 03:20 PM

Longer the decision stays, the more difficult it is to find the rationale to overturn it. But hey, look at what Justice Thomas did in Utah v. Strieff. Now, cops don't need any RS to effect a seizure of a person under the doctrine of attenuation. It's now "Oh, you just randomly walked up to someone who was (visibly) law-abiding, admittedly had no reasonable suspicion to do so, and subsequently arrested him. OK, no problem. We'll fix that by saying you don't need RS to stop and frisk and the doctrine of attenuation covers the search incident to arrest so yeah you're good." SCOTUS essentially stating "You're OK as long as there's no warrant out for an unpaid parking ticket. The person was already breaking the law (without the knowledge of the officer) so who cares." Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#28 67vtx1800

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 14

Posted 01 October 2016 - 08:40 AM

Are we not too accepting of "possesion" crimes? If a felon and or "crazy" are not using the weapon in a threatening manner, why would we care? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No Print 1/5er 98 Days to Active


#29 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 298 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 02 October 2016 - 10:26 AM

There are many problems with the way that we view mental health in this country, and this illustrates one of them very clearly.

 

This case involves a guy that was hospitalized for a mental condition that was by these accounts temporary, conditional, and situational. Due to that hospitalization, he has gotten a very important right taken away from him. We should never have to choose between taking care of our mental health, and keeping our rights. Our rights should and must be protected by law.

 

Now, I do think that there are some common sense applications, where people should probably not own a gun due to ongoing mental health conditions, however, from what I'm reading on this case, this guy is clearly not one of those people. When the constitution was written, we as a people did not have a very advanced understanding of mental health... we had people we locked up for things they shouldn't have been; people who can function on a basic level in society, but who might lack advanced ability to reason and show empathy for example.

 

Now, the issue there, is the choice of the gatekeepers: who gets to decide who is "mentally competent" and who is not?

 

It's my opinion that people shouldn't be afraid to go to their doctor for treatment of any condition, and that includes those surrounding mental health.

 

What this case might actually illustrate, is that based on this law, there might be a lot of people who might benefit from mental health who aren't receiving it because of fear of one or more of their rights being stripped away. I think that's the conundrum of that part of the NCIS check.



#30 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,703 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 05 October 2016 - 08:01 AM

I know a lot of people who will not go to a doctor for any reason that may implicate that they aren't "all there." Such as anxiety, situational depression (losing a loved one suddenly), and what have you, only because they are scared to death of losing their gun rights forever. Since when did we punish for asking for help? That's not America. The gatekeepers, in this instance, SHOULD be mental health professionals. I stress "should" because we're all aware of the pervasive bias within the medical community. So it appears courts must hold the keys. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users