Gun Ban for Mentally Ill Struck Down as Too Broad

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,935
Location: Millcreek, Utah

20 Dec 2014, 7:07 pm

Courthouse News Service wrote:
A federal law prohibiting anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution from owning a firearm is unconstitutional, the 6th Circuit rule.

"The government's interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights," U.S. Circuit Judge Danny Boggs said, writing for the three-judge panel....

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/12/1 ... -broad.htm

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


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact me on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,451

20 Dec 2014, 7:53 pm

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



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,807

20 Dec 2014, 9:48 pm

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).


_________________
Trust no one

The old gods are still here; be wary


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,807

20 Dec 2014, 9:57 pm

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


Bigoted much?


_________________
Trust no one

The old gods are still here; be wary


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,451

21 Dec 2014, 6:33 am

Dillogic wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Given many republican and tea party supporters are nutcases perhaps this ban should be broader


Bigoted much?


You know me! I'm a bleeding heart leftie :wink:



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,935
Location: Millcreek, Utah

21 Dec 2014, 10:22 am

Dillogic wrote:
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).

Courthouse News Service wrote:
...A psychologist recently determined that Tyler's prior involuntary commitment 'appeared to be a brief reactive depressive episode in response to his wife divorcing him,' and that he now has no sign of mental illness....

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.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact me on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,854
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Dec 2014, 11:36 am

Quote:
Gun Ban For Mentally Ill Struck Down As Too Broad


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.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,908
Location: Aux Arcs

21 Dec 2014, 11:38 am

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.


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,935
Location: Millcreek, Utah

21 Dec 2014, 1:08 pm

Misslizard wrote:
...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.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact me on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,807

21 Dec 2014, 3:31 pm

cyberdad wrote:
You know me! I'm a bleeding heart leftie :wink:


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


_________________
Trust no one

The old gods are still here; be wary


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 562

21 Dec 2014, 4:47 pm

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.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


starkid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,561
Location: California

21 Dec 2014, 10:55 pm

shlaifu wrote:
wow. I'm european and can't understand the American relationship to guns at all and think it's all nuts


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.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,807

21 Dec 2014, 11:39 pm

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.


_________________
Trust no one

The old gods are still here; be wary


Toy_Soldier
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,642

21 Dec 2014, 11:47 pm

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



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,935
Location: Millcreek, Utah

22 Dec 2014, 9:31 am

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

Hehe. :lol:


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact me on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)