Restoring Gun Rights to the Mentally Ill

[mikeb302000]

http://www.care2.com/causes/mentally-ill-people-petition-to-regain-gun-rights.html">Care 2 published a very thoughtful article on this complicated situation.

The horror stories are truly horrifying. What gun rights advocates seem to be forgetting is that having a gun carries a significant amount of responsibility. Access to firearms is not an inalienable right, it’s a serious social liability. There are some people who are proven to have mental illness and may not misuse guns. But authorities need to be more than completely sure that people who have access to guns can use them responsibly before they give them to anyone – much less people who have been legally denied their gun rights. This Fourth of July, with all of our talk about rights and freedoms, let’s remember that being an American also involves an obligation to preserve the safety of our country and communities. And that means erring on the side of caution when it comes to dispensing gun rights.

I love this line:

Access to firearms is not an inalienable right, it’s a serious social liability.

And I love the idea about "erring on the side of caution." In fact, I go much further. I say http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">one strike you're out, and I consider any misuse of a firearm or any type of disqualification as a "strike." And by "out," I mean forfeiture of gun rights for life.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[Lasher]

1. Is that how it works in Italy?

It's different here in the USA. We have a Constitution.

[Abq_Sarah]

2. The author is fortunate

She has the first amendment to protect her ability to speak out about our antiquated little rights.

[Poll_Blind]

3. How come they never question it when the local police are driving APC's though.

Funny how that works.

PB

[bluerum]

4. I would advocate for a full and comphrehensive mental health care policy and program.

This may include some kind of competency assessment for firearm ownership after certain types of treatments or diagnoses.

[mikeb302000]

8. I agree

Why do you think all these pro-rights guys don't accept that?

[eqfan592]

10. Excuse me?

Let us look at what the poster you were replying to said.

"This may include some kind of competency assessment for firearm ownership after certain types of treatments or diagnoses."

I fully support those who have received certain types of treatments or diagnoses having a means to regaining their rights through an assessment by a trained (or series of trained) experts. I also feel what systems are in place currently are sorely lacking for a variety of reasons (such as relying on judges alone to determine if a person is treated or not, in spite of a judge not likely being a mental health expert).

There are, however, some around here who would have no such system in place but rather would have such people denied their rights for the rest of their lives.

[lawodevolution]

13. Why didn't you get a mental evaluation before you started posting here

given that you want to harass people who want to enjoy the civil liberty of gun ownership? I bet that for your interests, hobbies and cultural practices you don't want to be forced to be harassed by the government and ask permission, but for the cultural practices of "those" people who you don't understand (or care to understand) you are willing to censor, harass, and intimidate them from enjoying a part of their heritage (gun ownership).

First off you failed to show us there is a good reason to worry about the mentally ill getting guns. I'll be waiting for a link that shows us per 100,000 how many people are killed with guns by mental patients.

Next, your car is a more dangerous object than a gun. If you are going off faith that something may happen in the future what if some nuts start running cars into crowds? Please link me to a forum or blog wherein you have been advocating taking away the privilege of driving from mental patients if you want to be taken seriously. Surely you aren't just an individual who hates the gun culture and you want to make society better in it's entirety and this is not just an isolated attack against firearms owners.

Next, if you are worth taking seriously, explain to me why someone with insomnia should have no right to own a gun.


Owning a gun is a civil right and a basic human right also described by the US constitution and supreme court as such. If you want comprehensive mental exams for someone buying a gun I am sure you are also willing to have mental exams for posting on the Internet and voting in order to avoid being a hypocrite who simply despises the gun culture and its members; however, I do not support such authoritarianism--there does not seem to be a need to screen people for mental problems before buying a firearm and if there were it would be best to allocate funds to provide mental health care and to keep such dangerous people off the streets in the first place. There is always a better way to deal with a true problem than to attack the rights of normal law abiding citizens.

[pipoman]

5. First,

I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who would start with a sentence like, "The horror stories are truly horrifying.". Then as I read on into the article I found someone who is lobbying for denial of civil liberties without due process, and arguing that those who have lost their rights through existing laws shouldn't have the ability to petition and receive a hearing to determine if their rights should be restored. We are not talking about criminals here, we are talking about people who have been involuntarily committed at some point in their life maybe for depression, suicidal thoughts, or ptsd. The assertion that these often easily treatable and temporary disorders should vacate one's civil liberties for life with no recourse is NOT a liberal or a progressive position. Not to mention using a stock photo of a bunch of class 3 weapons to help with the shock factor,

Unrec for above reasons...

Edit.. Then there is this jewel, "But authorities need to be more than completely sure that people who have access to guns can use them responsibly before they give them to anyone –"

What does "more than completely" mean? It is an idiots standard. When do authorities "give" anyone guns? Answer, never. Complete fail in too many ways to count..

[jeepnstein]

6. Just another authoritarian...

in Progressive clothing. It matters not if it's the left or right jack boot that is administered to one's butt.

The OP is basically wanting to stigmatize all forms of mental illness to the point where nobody will come forward for treatment until they're stripped naked dripping in the blood of their victims while reciting from an Anne Rice novel. Maybe we should open up institutions for "those people" just to be "more than completely sure" they are not a threat? What other rights are they to be denied? Give me a break.

The law clearly states what is considered a bar to owning a firearm. Problem is nobody wants to enforce that law. Many states don't even report relevant data to NICS as it is now. Instead the antis want some new draconian set of laws that will stomp on the rights of citizens who never harmed anyone.

[mikeb302000]

9. you're so concerned about rights

why don't you consider the rights of the non-gun people who have to worry which one of you guys is going to flip out next? The point of the article I quoted, which you found so beneath your standards, was simple. Guns should be withheld from people who are not capable of responsibly handling them. But, I suppose that's too much "infringement" for you, eh?

[eqfan592]

11. You didn't even bother to read the post, did you?

Your response would seem to ignore the fact that the poster implied he/she thought a system of due process should be in place. You, on the other hand, appear to fall into the "once mentally ill, always mentally ill" camp of bigots that have appeared around here as of late.

As for the first part of your post, the cost of living in a free society is dealing with those who abuse their freedoms from time to time. You do not have a right to remove the rights of others simply to placate your own irrational fears.

[jeepnstein]

12. I'm very concerned about rights, all of them.

I'm confused about this right to not "have to worry", though. Where do we find that one?

I deal with any number of people every day whose gun ownership rights have been suspended, with due process. Most of them abide by that decision and do not own guns. The bar for regaining that right is set very high but there is a legal avenue that can be pursued.

The original article mentioned two people with mental illnesses, which if handled properly would have resulted in the individuals being listed on the NICS database. In both cases the wishful thinking of the families and agencies involved brought about a very tragic result. Everyone just stuck their heads in the sand and hoped the problem would fix itself. Why would a new law do anything to fix that?

Appeals to emotion, fake statistics, and ginned up moral outrage don't make good policy.

[pipoman]

15. For the very same reason

I don't worry about the non-politically outspoken worrying about my activism...or anyone else's activism. As for the rest of your post, drivel not worthy of response. Everyone who has spent any time in these parts knows my basic position on civil liberties/rights....something I wouldn't really expect someone from across the pond to be able to grasp.

[rrneck]

23. Your post got deleted

before I could finish my reply. See post #21.

[DWC]

26. This is America

And in America you are free to choose to arm yourself or not. The opinion of others has no bearing on your right to bear arms or not and your personal responsibility for that Personal choice.

The first part of your OP defines a legitimate point of concern. The last part of your OP defines why you will face hard opposition in seeking a solution.

Semper Fi,

[gejohnston]

7. That is not how it works in Canada

Felons can own guns after five years.

[Lasher]

22. Good for them.

Every transgression does not warrant a life sentence. Do you know if Canadian felons can vote?

[rrneck]

14. What gives you the right

to advocate for this? You live in Rome. Why don't you go to Mamertine prison and have a look at how non conformists were treated by the emperor. Then walk down the street and have a look at the most famous venue in the world devoted to the culturally acceptable celebration of human cruelty. After that proceed to the Campo de Fiori and learn what happens when civil authority is not held to the objective standard of due process.

Psychology is a soft science. It deals as much or more with feelings as with facts. It helps people every day. It can also be useful tool for repressive governments to manipulate people into compliance. There is no such thing is a truly objective psychological standard. Due process establishes objective standard that allows people to defend their rights against tyranny of the majority. And you would go even further by advocating for a subjective standard that errs on the side of your bigotry.

Go to this link and learn something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation_camp

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marengo]

19. The Same Can Be Said About You...

"why don't you consider the rights of the non-gun people who have to worry which one of you guys is going to flip out next?"

Only gun owners "flip out"? No person has ever been harmed by another who "flipped out" and used a weapon other than a firearm?

[eqfan592]

20. "The accessibility of guns in the States is too high." Based on what?

Do you have some hidden evidence that nobody else has been able to come across that actually manages to solidly establish a causal link between firearm ownership and crime?

Also, thank you for continuing you underscore your bigotry against the mentally ill. Your implication that they should have no recourse for the restoration of their civil liberties is completely disgusting, IMHO.

[rrneck]

21. Paranoid nut?

I'm not whining about mentally ill people with guns. I haven't fled to Rome.

Explain how you would establish an objective psychological standard and preserve civil rights without due process. Here's a hint: Research the term "supervision" as it pertains to the mental health profession. While you're at it research countertransference.

People's civil rights should not depend on the feelings of others who have power over them. Why don't you produce a list of all the emotionally stable tyrants throughout history? While you're at it, research the role of the divine right of kings and the framing of the constitution.

Actually, why don't you produce something more than your feelings of moral superiority and bourgeois umbrage to make a point.

Edit to add a few links. You need help (with your research).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=JhsXTvCTCYGKNtnDrU4&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry&ved=0CBYQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGHWGOkOwM1vX5dcXxEJYWtt-w4gA

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=whoXTvjmJIzaNpHw3lE&q=http://www.lucifereffect.com/&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFvdJKi-s-OSY2bOvCKhMOugQp9Zw

[LAGC]

16. Some people definitely shouldn't own guns...

But the government isn't very good at figuring out who those people are, and I don't think it ever will be.

[Hoyt]

18. Restoring? They're trying to keep the rights they think they have to carry a gun or two in public.

[DWC]

24. Ever wonder why

opposition to any gun control legislation is so adamant?

Just read the OP. Starts off rather reasonably, and then:

"And I love the idea about "erring on the side of caution." In fact, I go much further. I say one strike you're out, and I consider any misuse of a firearm or any type of disqualification as a "strike." And by "out," I mean forfeiture of gun rights for life"

If antis are given an inch, they will try to take a mile.

Semper Fi,

[rrneck]

25. Ignorance and fear

can bring out the worst in anyone. Doubly so for authoritarians.