“The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler,” foxnews.com reports. [Click here for the ruling.] “Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.” Does the length of his treatment matter? In fact . . .
The only question should be: is the gun buyer a danger to themselves or others at the time of purchase? No. Wait. That’s not right. The only question should be no question. There should be no laws infringing upon all Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Short of that, this is good news for gun rights. It’s a torpedo aimed directly at the antis’ efforts to make gun ownership a “public health issue.” A subterfuge that’s been gaining ground recently, what with anti-gunner Vivek Murthy’s appointment as the Surgeon General and $700m in the federal budget to encourage states to submit citizens’ mental health records to the FBI’s background check system.
“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,” wrote Judge Danny Boggs, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, for the panel.
Note to people concerned about crazy people getting guns: if someone is too crazy to own a gun they should not be walking around in society. As the Brits put it, p*ss or get off the pot. [h/t TP]