Gun Ban for Mentally Ill Struck Down as Too Broad

Post Reply New Topic

It appears that the federal demonization of mental illness just experienced its first push back.

Given many republican and tea party supporters are nutcases perhaps this ban should be broader

Voluntarily committed or not?

Even with the latter, it can be argued that it's too harsh depending on why they were there (sometimes, saying you're thinking about suicide can get you committed against your will -- you shouldn't be punished for that).

Bigoted much?

You know me! I'm a bleeding heart leftie

In this specific case, it appears that the individual was involuntarily committed in 1986 for '...a brief reactive depressive episode in response to his wife divorcing him[.]'" But, there are various laws for each state. The Washington Post published a survey of those laws http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov ... ntally-ill in 2013 which showed that Michigan law "[r]equires a court order or an involuntary commitment to a mental health facility" to restrict an individual's right to own and possess firearms. But, the current state laws might have changed since 1986 and 2013.

Anything gun ban related should immediately be looked upon with suspicion. In this case the mentally ill will still get guns if the want them same as the get illicit drugs and "mentally ill" can be broadly interpreted and abused.

The mentally ill are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a perpetrator.
http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php
The mentally ill are more likely to be a victim of police violence than the general public.If you are of color and mentally ill you are goosed.
http://www.centerforpublicrep.org/litig ... sabilities

The mentally ill have a right to defend themselves,no one else will protect them.

Absent other criminal behavior to warrant a restriction of an individual's Second Amendment rights, I suspect that, if the case were considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, a majority of justices would determine that the Second Amendment is paramount especially if the evidence shows no other violation of laws which would categorically earn such a restriction. After all, Justice Anthony Kennedy, long considered the Court's "swing vote," voted with the majorities in both opinions about District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), which determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, and that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. Given Kennedy's supporting votes in these landmark cases, I suspect that he would find it difficult to consider restricting the Second Amendment to a whole category (mental illness) of U.S. citizens without additional criminal convictions being involved.

Very good. It's always good to be unbiased.

wow. I'm european and can't understand the American relationship to guns at all and think it's all nuts, BUT actually even I find this problematic.
Really, the fact that someone has been declared 'ill' at some point by someone should not have an effect on his constitunional rights, if he's not 'ill' at the time. Even if I find the right to bear arms utterly insane, coming from my culture.

It is kind of nuts; this whole country is nuts. On the other hand, people know that it's possible that the U.S. government will someday become more violent/controlling (kind of a legacy of the American Revolution, I think), and they want the ability to defend themselves. They want the ability to defend themselves from crime, as well. We have a lot of different groups of people in this country, and there is not a lot of unity amongst them, so there's a kind of social tension that motivates some people to be ready for armed self-defense. I think citizens of most European countries don't have to worry about those things much, at least, not the western ones.

Of course, the people who are into guns know their reasons better than I do.

Shock horror:

attacking people for things they like due to actions of such a small percentage gets people riled up

Think of something you like, which can be part of a bad person's actions, and people want to take it from you. You'd feel the same.

Gun control in general, in the USA, is futile. You might as well ban sand in Saudi Arabia.

Hehe.

Would be good for me. When I spent 6 months in a mental institution at age 14 and my parents attempted to discharge me AMA, the doctors went to court and got the court to order me to be committed to the mental institution for 2 more weeks due to "mental illness." After those 2 weeks, my parents were finally able to discharge me AMA.

So, that would end the gun ban for me.