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.
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.
Considering that past suicide incidents can cause one to become forever prohibited from owning a firearm, I think it's pretty clear that the overly-broad categorical restriction imposed by federal law should be almost unanimously considered bunk at face value by every person in this country (regardless of whether they are anti-gun, even.... since these kinds of categorical restrictions actually permeate state and federal law at large, broadly restricting all manner of liberties. It's just 'bad law' for everyone all around).
That reason alone should be enough for the Supreme Court to one day consider take up the issue and necessitate that any such restriction should be much more narrowly tailored so there exists a tighter nexus between past incidents and current ownership and use restrictions.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 12-10-2011 at 12:53 AM..
Considering that past suicide incidents can cause one to become forever prohibited from owning a firearm, I think it's pretty clear that the overly-broad categorical restriction imposed by federal law should be almost unanimously considered bunk at face value by every person in this country (regardless of whether they are anti-gun, even.... since these kinds of categorical restrictions actually permeate state and federal law at large, broadly restricting all manner of liberties. It's just 'bad law' for everyone all around).
That reason alone should be enough for the Supreme Court to one day consider take up the issue and necessitate that any such restriction should be much more narrowly tailored so there exists a tighter nexus between past incidents and current ownership and use restrictions.
You sort of lost me on your second paragraph, but I think I follow. The problem is that it would be near impossible to collect that kind of information in a database (of the psych kind) so a lot of people would be missed.
I say it should be based on past behavior. If you have never done anything criminal of a certain nature, even if you currently have a Dx of X, Y, or Z and you've shown no reason or exhibited behavior that you'll do something to endanger others, people should have the same rights as anyone else. This becomes especially all the more important when one realizes that police are under no obligation to respond to a 911 call. Sure, in my experience they have, but apparently there are enough instances where they have not to justify the means of self-defense (our Constitutional right) for everyone unless someone has proven themselves to be unworthy of being trusted with that.
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.
Just like the right to free speech doesn't extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre....
the right to bear arms does not extend to anyone who is at -high risk- of jeopardizing public safety by possessing a firearm.
If a person is mentally impaired such that their perception of reality is warped, then it would be irresponsible to allow that person to carry a firearm. Not all "disabled" people are prevented from carrying one. Someone who suffers from diagnosed anxiety, would have a mental health issue. And a person who suffers from diagnosed anxiety certainly can be granted a permit to carry.
Diagnosis of mental illness doesn't preclude C&C. The -specifics- regarding that person's diagnosis does, however. Someone with a phobia of snakes wouldn't be forbidden to C&C. But they have a diagnosed mental illness. There are people with diagnosed Asperger Syndrome who have rifles and permits to carry and use them.
The question, is "does the right of this specific person to carry a firearm, present a high risk of threat to public safety?" If the answer is yes, then they shouldn't get the permit. It's all about risk assessment, and it's best to err on the side of caution, favoring public safety over a single individual.
You sort of lost me on your second paragraph, but I think I follow.
The problem is that it would be near impossible to collect that kind of information in a database (of the psych kind) so a lot of people would be missed.
You kind of lost me in return.
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.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 12-10-2011 at 02:22 PM..
Well with mental health issues the area is so unpredictable... If a person does not present a danger then why mess with their 2nd Amendment rights? The problem is who knows if a condition is stable, how long it will be stable and if there is a trigger that makes a condition worse? I guess I think it should be decided on a case by case basis.
I suggest the criteria the BATF uses to deny should be adjusted to reflect the actual danger someone might present to the public. There are also many people with non diagnosed or treated mental problems that may present acute dangers to the public or themselves are not in any databases.
It's a tough issue because on one hand, no one wants guns in the hands of the mentally afflicted, but on the other hand there is so much junk science associated with the field of mental health.
My favorite example is that when I was a child, the DSM (psychiatrist's diagnostic guide) included homosexuality as a disorder. Now, 35 years later, homophobia is a disorder. I don't think there will be a clear resolution to the problem until the science advances. And as long as the science is intertwined with politics, that's not going to happen. We have to figure out a pragmatic solution in the meantime. When it comes to gun control, a little pragmatism goes a long way. No nukes in the hands of your next-door-neighbor, but no grand scale disarming either. No sane critter would be dumb enough to give up its teeth and claws.
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.
