Question of the Day: Where Do You Draw the Line on Mental Illness and Gun Ownership?

“District Attorney Joe DeCecco called on gun organizations to use their considerable political power to support legislation banning anyone with a diagnosed mental health condition from possessing a firearm,” Wisconsin’s mysheboygan.com reports. “Every constitutional right has exceptions, and this should be one of the more reasonable and sensible ones to the Second Amendment.” According to nytimes.com, one in 10 Americans is on antidepressants. And there are plenty of former mental health patients who’ve made a full recovery and don’t pop pills. When it comes to making someone a prohibited person based on a mental health condition, where do you draw the line?

comments

  1. avatar DrewN says:

    Have they committed a violent crime? No? Then fuck off. That’s my position.

    1. avatar Paul M says:

      Amen, bro. I’ve been depressed my whole life. I’ve also been a Paramedic and Emergency RN for over 3 decades. I’ve harmed or killed nobody. Easily pass FBI background check. I’ve saved, or helped save, thousands, and cared for many more thousands of sick or injured people, including those with all degrees of mental illness. The docs I receive care from were among my shooting buddies until cancer side lined me.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Easy to give flippant answers like that from the comfort of your couch, untouched by the grave and gathering, obvious menace that some psychos out there pose.

      Many of the spree shooters out there (Tuscon, Aurora, Virginia Tech) were wild eyed, flagrant crazies whose attacks were virtually imminent. These people should never have been allowed anywhere near a firearm.

      And, yes, because I know what your next knee jerk response is going to be, yes, they shouldn’t have been allowed to walk the streets, either. On the basis of their egregious psychoses that every layman they ran across could diagnosis, they should have been scooped up and deposited into an institution for evaluation. When they failed that evaluation, and they would have, they should have been stuck there. Let them get a lawyer and let them have their day in court.

      And, yes, I know your next objection, too: “But….bbbuttt, there will be abuses!”
      No duh. That’s the system and abuses are already possible in any encounter with the State. Work to improve the system. Work to provide resources to people unjustly committed. DO something constructive and solution-oriented. Sitting on your rear, doing nothing helpful, and saying “F off!” until some street rat crazy psychopath blows people’s heads off is just flat out insane. Come to think of it, it’s so insane, that maybe YOU should be evaluated.

      1. avatar Katy says:

        While the reaction was a little stern, I think you touch on salient points.

        First, I do think that those who are being treated, and show a commitment to that treatment, or are otherwise not demonstrated to be a risk to themselves or others should not be restricted (see the guy in PA who cut himself as a teenager when his parents got divorced). Instituting a life ban for any treatment is excessive and only emphasizes that they are being unfairly stigmatized.

        Second, the reality is that there are those who can be identified as threats to themselves or others, but can function under treatment and supervision. Those folks are more difficult – they deserve the chance to function on their own, but they clearly show a strong likelihood of causing harm if equipped to do so. I’ve seen what happens because someone who was managed simply got distracted and couldn’t remember if he had taken his medication. It’s awful. You don’t want to deny them their right to self-defense, but he already had been denied his capacity to exercise simpler rights.

      2. avatar Desert Dave says:

        If you take a look at the “Mental Disorders & Conditions”, you will find that everyone is certifiably nuts. Especially everyone that is reading TAG! Tucson? I almost went to that little fiasco! Gabby didn’t have one single Sheriff Deputy there. If she had, well I am sure Jared Lee Loughner (a Democrat btw) would have been spotted prior to any shooting. All she had to do was call and request a deputy or two. She was very controversial around here and should have had some slight security. Factually, under the law, unless somebody actually does something illegal, they cannot lose their rights. It is the next method to remove all of out rights and yet another slippery slope steeped in “Common Sense Gun Control”.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Once had the opportunity to lunch with four psychiatrists (charity benefit). Just to keep the conversation going, I asked if they were ever “off”, or did they constantly evaluate everyone and everything they said. The answer was that they couldn’t turn it off. One commented, and the others agreed, “Everyone has mental health problems. That’s what makes us do much money; no one is ‘normal’ “. Asked to elaborate, she said, “Here, watch this: if you have an appointment with me, I can judged immediately which type of mental problem you have: if you are early, you are paranoid; if you are late you defy authority; if you are on-time you are compulsive/obsessive.”

  2. avatar Vhyrus says:

    While this should be a simple bi partisan issue, once again we see how the actions of the left have come back to bite them. Years of politicians using every possible gun law as a weapon against gun owners has poisoned our attitudes against them. I speak for many gun owners when I say that we no longer trust any gun control legislation, regardless of its original intent.

    1. avatar Old law prof says:

      That is the only position for you to take. After all, as every gun restriction passed over the years, the Left predicted that IT WOULD END THE SCOURGE OF “GUN VIOLENCE”. THE NEXT YEAR THEY WERE BACK FOR “JUST ONE MORE” CONTROL. Criminology st have repeatedly demonstrated that no gun control has more than an insignificant effect on crime reduction. The only effect has been harassment of good gun owners. Criminals and nuts do not care. Since violence in here’s in the human, not the gun, there is only “VIOLENCE” not violence committed by lumps of machined metal or polymer.

      1. avatar HandyDan says:

        Hell, these days after every gun restriction they manage to pass they always say that it is a “good first step” as if the thousands of other restrictions they have passed don’t count.

      2. avatar Mort says:

        What “Old law prof” says… ^^^ This. Not usually a “this” guy, but he sums it up. Health problems are myriad and a normal part of life, and can be treated and coped with. Just about all of us have existed under the umbrella scope of “mental illness” (whether ourselves or occupants of our households…). Tools are tools. There is no correlation between guns and any violence for any reason, involving mental illness or otherwise, other than guns are one of many tools available for a human to use when acting ot violence. Education and safety and personal responsibility (including recognizing your own mental state and those in your household/work environments, and acting appropriately to protect people) is enough, with all tools. Antigun people are using this mental illness as an excuse, a lazy and contemptible excuse to traffic in hypotheticals and paranoia with the aim of advancing a controlling agenda… fully knowing how ubiquitous the umbrella of mental illness is. It’s stupid and transparent; everyone is mentally ill so nobody should ever have guns. Nonsense. Lazy stupidity under the paradoxical lie of “common sense.” It is anything but common sense. It’s despicable.

      3. avatar DaveW says:

        The National Firearms Act 1934 was claimed to be for “public safety” and “to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. The same was true of Prohibition. Neither has fulfilled the claims. Prohibition was repealed, of course. At least with Prohibition, the Constitution was followed in both institution and repeal… the amendment process was used as intended by the Founders. Those opposed to gun ownership in accordance with the 2nd Amendment (and the words of it’s authors which led to ratification) seek to “back door” a change to the Constitution.

        With mental disorders, there are few clear cut answers since practically all mental disorders vary in degree of impairment, and in the degree to which they can be controlled. Even in those whose illness is controlled by medication, the patients sometimes consider themselves well and cease to take the very medication(s) which allow them to be well.

        Mental illness is far too complicated to simply decide that no one with a mental illness should be allowed firearms. That is as bad as Sen Feinstein’s comment that “no veteran should be allowed to own a firearm because they all are mentally ill due to PTSD”. She has also stated that veterans should expect to be denied 2nd Amendment rights just by their service. Her comments fail to take into account the great numbers of service members who are never exposed to combat. They are stationed at military bases here and abroad far away from the combat zone. They serve in jobs which are not directly related in any way to combat. In the case of mental illness, such things as familial support, degree of impairment, degree of treatment necessary, and many more need to be considered before a person’s Constitutional Right is denied.

    2. avatar Reggie Browning says:

      Yeah. Unfortunately this is primed to be a slippery slope because “mental health issues.” and “being on medication.” cover a VAST spectrum. Such as things like Autism. It can range from being a little quirky, to being completely unresponsive to most of the world. A lot of major mental disorders have just as much range, and then there is misdiagnosis…. The anti gun people can twist it in all kinds of directions. We really don’t want to go down that rabbit hole… You need to be proven mentally incompetent by actions….

  3. avatar Mike Betts says:

    Is the individual diagnosed as being “a danger to himself or others”? If he is, he should be institutionalized. If not, leave him the hell alone.

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      If I can’t trust someone with a gun, I can’t trust him without one.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      ^This. Is it so bad that it requires padded cell? No guns in mental institution sound like a good idea. If a man is not dangerous to his surroundings he is good to go in my book.

    3. avatar Felix says:

      So true and simple. In jail? No guns. Out of jail? All the guns you want.

      If a violent felon has served his time and has been released from jail, then either he gets a gun (if he wants) or he belongs back in jail. There is no middle ground.

  4. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    I think the most important thing the Devil can do is self-sacrifice and coordinate the Kmart walk so pleasure can be evened out. 😉

  5. avatar Red in CO says:

    Absolutely not. Mental health is impossible to quantify. And more importantly, it plays into the argument that “some people” shouldn’t have guns. Not to mention that the left has a long and global history of declaring its opponents to be mentally ill (because clearly the leftists are right, and the only way to not see that is if you are insane /sarc), and then using that to strip them of their rights.

    1. avatar Shirly says:

      But but but doctors in the mental health field are so knowledgeable and helpful, they gave my child 4 meds for his Oppositional Defiant Disorder and now he is perfect in every way!

      “Most Doctors are truly useless” -Said by my friend, a Doctor

    2. avatar SouthAl says:

      “Mental health is impossible to quantify”. This hits the nail on the head. There is so much disagreement and variability in the field, and changes in diagnostic criteria over time. Should there be a distinction between Axis I and Axis II diagnoses? The inner workings of assessing and establishing diagnostic criteria should preclude such restrictions. The question is not a good question when you look at these inner workings. Although adjudication of incompetence partially relies on the same problematic process, there is (or should be) more reliance on overt behavior. But, even such adjudication has other issues.

    3. avatar Paul M says:

      A mental health diagnosis eventually just comes down to somebody’s opinion. Pointed out to me by a therapist in the ER where I worked.

  6. avatar 2Asux says:

    Why should violent crime be disqualifying? Why not stand with the claim that natural, human and civil rights are inviolable atall? A person commits one violent crime, and now it is permissible to deny inalienable rights because….? That person “might”, “maybe”, “possibly” do so again? Pre-crime police much? If one state of “pre-crime” should allow suspension of inalienable rights, why not another? Is it because you like one dis-qualifier, and not another? Aren’t you reduced to opinion, and not much more? Why is your opinion that a person who commits a violent crime should be denied 2A rights, but a person who we must rely on to properly take their medicine to remain in self-control does not represent a “pre-crime” condition that should be restricted regards gun possession?

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Because one has deliberately and violently abridged the rights of others without due process, and one has not.

      All those words and one sentence dissolves them. How sad.

      1. avatar HandyDan says:

        Unfortunately, the wordier someone’s comment, the less likely they are to come back and see their ignorance debunked.

        1. avatar Charlie Dwyer says:

          Excellent observation. Excess verbiage is useful for stunning the mind in to agreement.

          I always bear in mind the old adage, “The guilty dog barks first.”

      2. avatar brian says:

        I disagree. If we are to continue with the conceit that someone who has completed their sentence has “paid their debt to society” then nothing short of a complete restoration of all rights will do.

        If they cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they cannot be trusted in public without a chaperone.

      3. avatar Cliff H says:

        Your counter hardly dissolves his point.

        There are NO QUALIFIERS in the Second Amendment. It is and was intended to be an ABSOLUTE protection against the government having any decision making capability as to who may or may not keep and bear arms. There were mentally ill, even insane people when the Bill of Rights was written and ratified. Some of them were dangerous. None of them were mentioned in the Second Amendment as being exempted from protection against the State infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.

        The scary part of it is that the point of the 2A is that the individual can protect himself from criminals, the insane, wild Indians, and governments run amok with tyranny. The entire concept of a government agency that could even remotely be expected to protect any individual from violence by other individuals was an impossibility in the majority of the thirteen states and all of the unknown territories westward at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and for some considerable time after that.

        You are responsible for your own defense. If you are lucky or proficient you may survive long enough for some government agent or a neighbor to come along and assist, but…

        If you concede that the same government the Second Amendment was written to protect you from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce lists of persons who may not, in the opinion of that same government, exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of those lists?

        As many times as I have written that paragraph in these comments I have yet to have a single response that refutes the logic.

        1. avatar mk10108 says:

          I yield my time to the right honorable Cliff H.

          To add…when the population reaches 50% CCW, and a mentally disturbed citizen starts murdering people, the “public” in turn would make a cost effective kill, preserving the peace in a way no law enforcement or legislator can imagine.

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          So by applying Cliff’s questionable logic, all prisoners would also have the absolute right to possess firearms in prison to protect themselves, would they not? After all, prison is a dangerous place, and they still have an absolute right under the 2nd to defend themselves, correct?

          See how silly that sounds when applied to the real world?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Wouldn’t it be logical that if the Supreme Court ruled government has no duty to protect, then prison guards have no duty to protect prisoners, only to control them. Given that, I think a good case can be made that since prisoners are human, they have a basic right to self-defense with whatever weapon.

        4. avatar Cliff H says:

          Nineshooter, if you actually follow my logic you will see that I make the point that because the government does not GIVE you the RKBA they cannot take away your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA. The most they can do, under certain conditions, as in arrested, in custody, convicted, and incarcerated, is make a valiant attempt to severely restrict your exercise of that natural right. My point as to improvised weapons was that even under those conditions the efforts of the government are not entirely successful and never will be.

          No one, least of all me, is suggesting that inmates have free access to firearms, although it might cut down the number of inmates who make it to their parole hearings. (/sarc)

        5. avatar NineShooter says:

          You may not be suggesting exactly that, but you certainly DO seem to be suggesting that if the subject somehow survives until they are let loose (which may have NOTHING to do with rehabilitation, or even serving their full sentence in these days of jail/prison “overcrowding”), that they are now somehow Born Again and we should put them back into the exact same position vis-à-vis gun rights that they were occupying when they last decided to violently victimize their fellow citizens.

          And I think that is nuts.

          How about this compromise: if they get released and can keep their nose clean for 10-20 years (to be determined later), then they get released from the temporary limitation on their rights imposed by a court based on their previous actions. They once proved they couldn’t be trusted in society; now they get to prove that can be trusted once again.

          And keeping their nose clean will also include not violating their prohibition on possessing firearms.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          Perhaps you don’t receive anything opposed is because principled consistency is not the majority position on this blog (or even among gun owners). From reading several gun blogs, the only consistency I find is, “I got my rights, STFU.” Someone on this blog posted that if the government against which you are armed has the right to dictate how you will be armed, you have no right to be armed…only permission.

          As it should be.

      4. avatar 2Asux says:

        “Because one has deliberately and violently abridged the rights of others without due process, and one has not.”

        That’s it? That’s the only opinion you can offer?

        Using that logic, which natural, human and civil rights cannot be abridged because one has offended society? Why should all persons who individually deny the rights of another be permanently gaoled? What happened to all those “second amendment rights are absolute, and any law of any kind that restricts rights is void”, fellows? Should anyone convicted of “wrongful death” be permanently denied their inalienable rights? Why? Why not?

        You people “want it every which way”, so long as it is convenient to you.

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          So you are another advocate of arming prisoners while still in prison? After all, prison is a demonstrably dangerous place, and if everyone has the right to defend themselves with firearms, even convicted violent felons, then disarming them while in prison should be considered unreasonable as well, right?

          Why or why not?

    2. avatar Geoff PR: says:

      “Why should violent crime be disqualifying?”

      In my opinion, if someone voluntarily commits felony violence (that wasn’t self-defense ) on another person they should lose their RKBA.

      I cannot be a ‘2A absolutist’ on that issue. If you did it before, you’re far more likely to do it again.

      You should have thought about the consequences of your actions before splitting someone’s head open…

      1. avatar brian says:

        If recidivism is your concern, then we ought not to be letting them out of prison, no?

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          “We” aren’t; others are.

      2. avatar 2Asux says:

        I think you are onto something, here. Yes, whatever the violent crime (or just any crime?), “lock them up!”, no possibility of parole. If they did it once, they are likely to do it again. Since criminals ignore laws anyway, how can we justify releasing criminals into society so they can “do it again”? A person who “goes off ‘er rocker shouldn’t be allowed liberty to “do it again.”

        Point is, sand is an unstable material, easily moved about as the wind (opinion) blows. One is either an absolutist here, or simply opinionated and blown about by the changing winds.

        At least we of the common sense about guns are consistent that not everyone should willy nilly be allowed to obtain and carry weapons of war, or even pistols of preference.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          “At least we of the common sense about guns are consistent that not everyone should willy nilly be allowed to obtain and carry weapons of war, or even pistols of preference.”

          Being consistent is not the same as being correct.

          The actual question being discussed is: Who decides? And on what criteria? The pro-2A group, that’s us at TTAG, happen to believe, for the most part, that allowing your potential enemies to decide the rules of the game, as in who can or cannot own weapons of self defense, and what kinds, and when and where they can keep and bear them, is ridiculous in the extreme. That’s the equivalent of letting burglars decide what locks and/or alarms the average household may deploy. Or letting car thieves forbid the locking of car doors under any circumstances. Or demanding, under penalty of law, that all quick-marts and gas stations be absolute gun-free zones.

          We don’t trust you!

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          “The actual question being discussed is: Who decides? And on what criteria? ”

          Yes, indeed. Point being that the “who?” is made-up of votes and laws. Whichever group is allowed, or has the requisite power, to decide can use whatever criteria they like. Thus, the scope and reach of “rights” are not determined by cosmic justice, but by people. Once any of the people begin to equivocate on whether rights are absolute, then any group has the same moral “right” to decide the “rights” go too far, or not far enough. Once you move beyond the absolute, you are merely discussing price of the entertainment. (Say na more; say na more).

        3. avatar Desert Dave says:

          Who decides? The 2A is a natural right. Depending on your viewpoint, it is God, your creator, whatever but NOT the government. That is the point. Shall not be “infringed” is a pretty straight forward statement and there is no more common sense item than that. It is a tough universe out there and no governmental agency or regulation is going to change that. Our rights are not doled out by any human entity “Because”. They are ours by birth right to make our way in this dangerous environment, hopefully never having to use them to defend our selves from whom ever might attempt to harm us or enslave us. If you have any favor of “Common Sense Gun Control” then you have no common sense.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          My particular comment here was directed at the idea that once a person completes a prison sentence, said person should permanently denied one of those “not government-created” rights, based solely on the idea that once a person commits a criminal act, that person is so likely to repeat that perpetual suspension/forfeiture of a natural, civil, human right is appropriate. If that is so, why not simply lock people up for life without parole for any felony crime?

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Simple solution. Make the punishment so harsh that no body would commit the crime. Commit a violent felony? Get a bullet to the back of the head. Simple. Cost effective. Secondary benefit includes helping control the commie population. Yes, preaching communism or Islam is a violent felony.

    4. avatar ad says:

      “Why should violent crime be disqualifying? Why not stand with the claim that natural, human and civil rights are inviolable atall? A person commits one violent crime, and now it is permissible to deny inalienable rights because….? That person “might”, “maybe”, “possibly” do so again?”

      Yes, exactly.

      The recidivism rate of violent offenders within 5 years is 72%. “Once a violent criminal, always a violent criminal” is more likely to be true than not. As a member of society, I prefer to not arm those that show a propensity to violent acts. Or at the very least limit them to cap and ball weapons.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Ah yes, constitutionalists declaring that sometimes (determined by them) pre-crime punishment is permissible. Depending on the circumstances, and all, the warp and woof of crimes may result in what was once acceptable, no longer to be so. Sometimes you make exceptions to the exceptions, eh?

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          It’s not “pre-crime” if it’s punishment for something you already did. Keep trying though trollo.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          It is pre-crime if the penalty is based on “might do it again”? Or are you arguing that permanent penalties are justifiable under the vaunted constitution? Do you find the founders ever considering such a thing in their own states?

          But you mistake my argument. It is because people are generally unreliable, unaware, undisciplined, lacking in self-control that “reasonable restrictions” (pre-crime) are permissible when it comes to guns (Heller, and all that).

          Both sides of the gun debate agree some restrictions are necessary prior to a crime or accident, we just differ on which restrictions we like.

          If differing observations and opinions offend you (calling-out troll), it is indicative of a lack of interest in serious debate, and an affinity for being a member of the chorus of self-validating opinion. Your loss.

        3. avatar ad says:

          Yes, exactly. Or: no, you are a fucking retard. Whichever pisses you off more. My sense is that you are a first year law student and are being provocative for the sake of being provocative after your first semester of constitutional law.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          You are quite wrong about law school, but based in your limited vocabulary, likely to have dodged the nuisance of actually completing secondary school.

          If provocative ideas are offensive, “turn the channel”, eh?

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Are permanent punishments constitutional? Pretty sure the death penalty and life imprisonment are still things.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          Been reading much, lately? Life sentences are being reduced in large numbers. Death sentences are being overturned across the nation. But what I am talking about are those situations where the wrong-headed believe that after a person fulfills their ordered prison time, society can still deny constitutional rights because “might do the same thing”. Interesting how so many pro-gun people are anti-person in the end.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m “anti-person” in that I think we let far too many criminals keep breathing… The reality is that no court has ever held that life sentences or the death penalty are inherently unconstitutional. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

        8. avatar 2Asux says:

          Where did I posit that either (or both) penalties were/are unconstitutional. My comment was in response to another who claimed they were. The penalties are allowable/permitted/constitutional, but they are not fixed. Both life and death sentences are modified, reduced, overturned fairly routinely. The context was a question I asked about where in the constitution penalties were were endorsed for life, as regards to loss of rights for a crime after the sentence was completed. Obviously, a sentence of life or death might never end. A sentence for a felony has a term. Once that term is served, where is the moral or constitutional grounds for continuing the effect of that sentence throughout the rest of the convicted person’s life? The authority is made-up by people for whom a crime can never be punished enough. Such “jurisprudence” is simply a matter of opinions backed by votes.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          There is a process for having the firearm ban overturned as well. You aren’t really making an argument. Run back to your safe space little troll.

        10. avatar 2Asux says:

          My theme is not banning firearms (though I did take that position with some, for sake of argument). My general thread was about the inconsistency of gun owners when it comes to “gun rights”. An “enumerated” right is absolute, or it isn’t. If a “right” is absolute, there can be no, zero, not any exception, ever. Doesn’t matter about so-called “due process”. All that phrase does is make opinion a matter of law. Any restriction on an absolute “right” must be seen for what it is…the result of an opinion having the votes to be established in law and court. Doesn’t matter if a majority of the people want a restriction (and provide some mechanism – “due process” – to obfuscate the opinion from being what it is), it is a restriction, an exception. Doesn’t even matter if it make perfect “sense”. The dike of absolutism cannot survive even a finger-sized hole.

          So, following the logic is “sensible” exception, one opinion is as good as another. Thus, “sensible” gun restrictions are the result of who holds the political power to impose the restriction. If gun owners believe that restricting the gun rights of released prisoners, mentally ill, or any other excuse, they are no more correct or moral than those of us who believe the general population cannot be trusted with firearms unless they…..(whatever restriction I support).

          Yes, a firearm ban can be overturned, but the history of such attempts should not be encouraging to you.

  7. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Well, the 2nd Amendment protects gun rights, but clearly the auto industry should use its considerable clout to ban “anyone with a diagnosed mental health condition from” driving a truck.

    Can a get a “Sieg, Heil!”

    Because that’s CLEARLY where these leftists are politically.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      It does in the effort to obtain a CDL. Note however when a truck driver lies to a doctor those laws are ineffective, same as gun laws.

  8. avatar NorincoJay says:

    If someone can vote they can own a gun. If you don’t trust someone to vote or own a gun they should not be in society. They should be held somewhere either prison, a mental health facility or group home with lock up.

    1. avatar Geoff PR: says:

      “They should be held somewhere either prison, a mental health facility or group home with lock up.”

      We had that here in the USA. The Left got them released back into society back around the 60’s.

      They consider that one of their greatest political victories…

      (Just heard on Limbaugh – Ted Cruz has had long meetings with the Trump transition team and an hour-long meeting with Trump over *possibly* being the next Attorney General (AG) of the USA…)

    2. avatar ad says:

      Permanent resident aliens can legally own firearms in the US but are not allowed to vote…..

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I think you just made his point.

  9. avatar I1ULUZ says:

    Well let’s start with him, his view is crazy. So doctors can decide if a person should have their rights revoked. Veterans with PTSD not allowed to own a firearm. Talk about a way to cause more harm than good with a stupid law, firearm owners who seek help would loose their firearms, permits, etc…. No court hearing, guess a 1-800 number to report a firearm owner and the black SUV would pull up in front of their home to collect their firearms.

    ADHD could be included, one way to keep children from enjoying firearms and being responsible, sorry kid you have ADHD, you can NEVER touch, much less own a firearm. So you can go into the Peace Corp, but not the military.

    One would think someone in his position should understand that bad laws only create problems where none were before.

    1. avatar LT says:

      Exactly. We’re going to take away a Soldier’s Second Amendment right because he/she had some trouble re-integrating into a non-combat environment? Ridiculous. You know how many people have had that label hung on them only to conquer that bulls!$% too? How about we restrict everyone who’s ever had any psych diagnosis from doing anything that may be dangerous, like driving a car, or serving in any level of government where they can make or enforce unconstitutional, harmful, and/or draconian laws? If you’re going to f*(& me an mine at least don’t hold any double standards.

  10. avatar Racer88 says:

    “Every constitutional right has exceptions, and this should be one of the more reasonable and sensible ones to the Second Amendment.”

    Really? They say this, but none can cite a single example of exceptions to our other enumerated Constitutional Rights.

    And, no…. “can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is a factually incorrect canard about the 1st Amendment.

    What are the exceptions to the 8th Amendment? Is there a situation where cruel and unusual punishment is acceptable?

    What are the exceptions to the 5th Amendment? The 6th?

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      The Constitution makes it quite clear that rights may be denied with due process of law. That includes any right, including life itself.

      1. avatar Racer88 says:

        Yes… but, not WITHOUT Due Process. The suggestions by the anti-liberty faction is that there are de facto exceptions as in Prior Restraint… BEFORE Due Process.

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          It’s not prior restraint, if it is in response to (part of the punishment for) a previous conviction for a violent crime.

          No one is advocating disarming innocent people. The subject of these laws (at least the ones I support) are people who have already demonstrated, by their previous actions, that they cannot be trusted with firearms because they used them against innocent citizens in commission of a crime.

          To say that part of their sentence for a violent crime cannot be permanent loss of legal possession of firearms is ludicrous. While they are in prison they cannot have firearms, and by law, we can keep them in prison for as long as the lawfully agreed-upon sentence allows. How is letting them out of prison but still restricting their legal access to firearms somehow “worse” than leaving them locked-up for the rest of their natural lives?

          Or are you also saying that prisoners should also have access to firearms while in prison?

        2. avatar Racer88 says:

          Read my comment again. I have not remotely suggested that FELONS be given access to firearms (during or after prison). My point is specifically aimed at the notion that there are “exceptions to ALL of our Constitutional Rights” BEFORE Due Process. I then asked for the “restrictions” that exist for any of the other Amendments.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          Isn’t “due process” up to the Supremes?

          Intelligent people understand that Tump will not get the 61 votes necessary to get any Supreme Court nominee accepted.

          We are happy with a full split.

        4. avatar NineShooter says:

          Fortunately, Harry Reid has already laid the groundwork for changing Senate rules to eliminate the 61-vote margin for judicial nominees, and if you think the Republicans are going to ignore that precedent — think again. It will be a simple majority vote to change the rule, and a simple majority to confirm nominees after the rule change, and you have the Dems to thank for it.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          He carved-out the SC nominations. Still need 61

        6. avatar Cliff H says:

          Per the Constitution the Senate makes its own rules. So far as I know there is no means by which Harry Reid or Mitch McConnel or any party, group or faction can establish a Senate rule that cannot be repealed, revoked or re-written by a subsequent Senate with sufficient votes to do so. Even the Constitution itself can be amended. There is no way to make a law or a rule that is absolute and can never be changed.

          Step in here, all you lawyers on TTAG. Is it possible for a person to establish an unbreakable contract that must be adhered to by future generations who had no say in the making of that contract? Thomas Jefferson didn’t seem to think so. (Sorry, it’s past my bedtime and I can’t locate the reference for that Jefferson quote.) Something along the lines of (paraphrasing): “No group of men may establish legislation that a subsequent group of duly elected legislators may not revoke.”

        7. avatar NineShooter says:

          Sam I Am, his SCOTUS carve-out included the clear threat that that carve-out would not remain carved-out if the Dems idea of a “qualified nominee” was opposed. Same rules will apply here, so get used to the idea.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          @Sam

          There is no portion of the CotUS that requires SCotUS nominations to be approved by a 61 vote majority. In fact, a simple majority vote is all that is needed. If the DNC is expecting to use the same tactic they decried not 6 months ago to stop Trump’s mandate, they have a severe shock in their future.

          Simply put, not only can we approve nominees with a simple majority, we can also expand the number of seats on the court with a simple majority. I wonder how well the DNC will sleep at night with a 15 judge court with 7 Trump nominees on it.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the “nuclear option” to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required. A 3/5 supermajority is still required to end filibusters unrelated to those nominees.”
          – Ryan Grim; Michael McAuliff (2013-11-21). “Senate Votes For Nuclear Option”. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2013-11-21.

          60 votes required for SCOTUS appointment consent.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          Show me where it says that in the CotUS. Senate rules are set by simple majority. There is no binding precedent to back up your position.

        11. avatar 2Asux says:

          How do you think Senate rules are established?

          As already noted, Harry Reid ended the filibuster by majority of Democrats voting to make appointments subject only to simple majority….except Supreme Court appointments. It’s why the Republicans are so giddy that they will ram a new justice down the throats of America. They are wrong, unless McConnell changes the filibuster for SC appointments to simple majority. Which he can do, and which Republicans will regret forever (BTW, how did that amendment to prevent presidents from serving forever work out for you? Democrats jammed it up your nose.)

    2. avatar Daily Beatings says:

      Well to be fair there are time and place restrictions with regards to the first amendment plus imminent lawless action and inciting an immediate breach of the peace, aka ‘fighting words’, restrictions.

      The biggest gripe I have is that the second amendment is not given the same judicial review the first receives with regards to strict scrutiny.

      1. avatar Racer88 says:

        That’s AFTER the fact… after the infraction of inciting a riot, etc. There is no Prior Restraint.

        1. avatar Daily Beatings says:

          Time, place, and manner restrictions are considered a prior restraint with regards to the first amendment.

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      There are no exceptions to constitutionally recognized rights, only limitations. You don’t have a right to use your speech to cause a panic that could get people injured or killed (using speech to commit fraud would be a better example IMO, but then that would get a lot of politicians in hot water). Likewise, your constitutionally recognized right to keep and bear arms for your protection (from both criminals and governments) does not mean that you have a right to use those arms to kill or maim the innocent. It does not mean that the government gets to decide which individuals can be armed and which cannot, nor does it mean that the government gets to decide what arms you may have provided they are suitable for the defense of yourself and your family.

      1. avatar Racer88 says:

        The restrictions are AFTER the fact, yes? In other words, you are accountable for damages caused by your speech (with Due Process), and you cannot use the 1A as a DEFENSE for CAUSING HARM.

        But, there is no law or statute specifically saying, “You can’t yell ‘fire’….,” for example.

        That said… Apparently, the EXCEPTIONS to that are if you say, “Burn this bitch down” in Ferguson or Baltimore. :-/

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Limitations, not exceptions.

          First, you’re rights aren’t granted by the government, they’re granted by God. The Constitution grants powers to the federal government and it’s agents. The Bill of Rights places restrictions on the government in deference to our God given rights. So the question isn’t so much ‘what do we have the right to do?’, but ‘is the government acting under it’s constitutional authority?’ There’s nothing unconstitutional about a law against conspiracy to commit murder or attempted murder. These laws prohibit specific actions whether or not they result in actual harm to anyone. Therefore, to take it to the extreme, if agents of the state catch you with a nuclear weapon or a rental truck with a diesel-fertilizer bomb it is reasonable to infer malicious intent on your behalf which constitutes an attempt or a conspiracy. You on the other hand have the right to due process and for your fate to be decided by a jury of your peers.

          Now if the government were to ban ‘scary black rifles’ or handguns (or the carrying of such on your person) they would be clearly acting outside their constitutional authority since these weapons are not only suitable for your defense but also commonly used as such. There is no evidence of malicious intent if you are caught with a concealed handgun on your person, any laws prohibiting such are unconstitutional. Naturally there will be a grey area, e.g. do you have the right to mount a Ma Deuce to in the bed of your pick up truck? But generally agents of the government despise restrictions to their authority and are always trying to push those restrictions back, so the fight will probably always be to eliminate restrictions that clearly exceed the government’s constitutional authority.

    4. avatar Racer88 says:

      I’ll ask again… what are the exceptions to the 8th Amendment? To the 5th Amendment? The D.A. suggested there are exceptions to ALL of our Rights.

      1. avatar Lkb says:

        Even better, how about the13th?

  11. avatar Rich K. says:

    I read somewhere that around 40% of all Americans have had SOME sort of mental health issue, at some time during their lives. If the libtards can get them all classified as “potentially dangerous”, then that disarms nearly half the population (assuming they’re honest enough – or sheeple enough – to turn their guns in!). I agree with another poster – if they are diagnosed as being dangerous to themselves or others, or mentally incompetent to the point where possession of a gun would make them dangerous (whether out of malice or not), then institutionalize them – but if they are cured and declared not dangerous, it should be as if the institutionalization never happened. As for the others – mild depression, S.A.D., etc – leave them alone. And meanwhile, let ALL law-abiding citizens be armed, in all places they have any business being, so that if a dangerous nut DOES come unscrewed, they can be dealt with quickly and decisively without having to wait for a police response team (and having casualties rack up while waiting for them).

    1. avatar ad says:

      40% sounds a bit aggressive. The Kim Foundation (whatever that it…) cites 26.2% of Americans >18 yo have a diagnosable mental disorder. 13% of Americans are on antidepressants

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        And once again I ask, Who decides what constitutes the point at which the government decides you can no longer exercise your RKBA? D certain prescription drugs make you ineligible? I pinched a nerve in my back a while ago and the doctor prescribed Valium to reduce stress and allow me to relax while it healed. Am I now a prohibited person?

        There is no reasonable way to allow the government to make this evaluation since they cannot be trusted to be unbiased but they CAN be trusted to abuse every inch of authority they are allowed.

  12. avatar TexPat says:

    If someone is a danger to the point they should be committed, they probably should not be allowed to own firearms.

    But, there are number of people who have mental health issues that are reasonably controlled and/or minor.

    When my fiancé died from cancer, I got depressed while grieving. With counseling & time, I got better.

    Does OCD count? ADD, ADHD, etc?

  13. This wasn’t a yes or no question so I can’t play.

    I guess I would draw the line in the sand?

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    Generally I assume them to be between 5’6″ and 6’4″. A little quick arithmetic and I generally have a good idea which lines on my reticle to use…

  15. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Exactly who is it that is to determine whether I am ‘mentally ill’? The gubmint? And how will they know if I’m not required to undergo an extensive mental evaluation with perpetual reevaluations? And how will they keep me from killing someone with a kitchen knife and stealing their guns? Too many questions…

  16. avatar Brian says:

    The mental illness thing became a thing with Dodd Senior’s 1968 Gun Control Act, which he cribbed from Hitler’s Nazi-era gun laws.

    Repeal GCA ’68–a constitutional republic has no business with Nazi laws on its books–and the issue/problem dramatically abates. That way, we aren’t taking away the rights of people who have trouble handling their money. Most mentally ill people are not disposed to violence, but the minority who are and Hollywood create a false image.

  17. avatar Retro says:

    Has the person been judged a violent danger to themselves or others unanimously by a panel of qualified psychiatrists such that they are ordered to be institutionalized by a judge after a hearing where they are represented by an independent lawyer.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Even in such situations the individual does not lose their natural, civil and Constitutionally PROTECTED right to keep and bear arms. At most they have that natural right severely restricted to the best of the institution’s ability for as long as they are in their custody and/or under close supervision. The right itself continues to exist and CANNOT be taken away short of death.

      Whole cabinets full of improvised weapons in each and every jail and prison attest to this fact. A friend of mine who was a C.O. at Deer Lodge prison in Montana was shot by an inmate who had improvised a pistol from some pipe and used match-heads as propellant. Not seriously injured, but proves the point.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        But Cliff, if they have an ABSOLUTE right to defend themselves (as EVERYONE does, as you have argued above), where do WE get the right to force these “severe restrictions” upon criminals and the severely mentally ill?

        And if we DO have the right and ability to force these temporary restrictions upon the severely mentally ill and convicted criminals, such as when they are in prison, when do we lose that right (provide references, please)?

        If the choice is: leave them locked-up and disarmed for the rest of their natural lives (even in a violent place such as a prison, which you seem to admit we can do), or let them out but continue to restrict their legal access to certain weapons, how can anyone say with a straight face that the second option is somehow worse than the first?

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        You make it difficult for me to respond by putting up straw-man arguments to things I never claimed.

        People, even in prisons, have the same natural right to self defense as anyone else. All a prison environment can do is limit the possible choices of arms for that purpose, which results in improvised arms and the formation of prison gangs for mutual protection. So even in prisons and mental institutions the right CANNOT be revoked, only restricted, following Due Process under the Constitution.

        As to what happens after they have served their sentence and been released, the hope is that they will have learned their lesson and not commit any acts in the future that would result in their return to the harshness of prison life. The reality is that they generally return to the same environment that led to their criminal behavior in the first place and no matter what restrictions may have been placed on them at the time of their release they can and will obtain weapons if they decide they need them. To think otherwise is a foolish pipe-dream.

        The solution to violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill is for good people to be prepared for their own defense and to deal with the threat when and if it presents itself. This cannot be guaranteed to be 100% effective, but it is the option envisioned by the Second Amendment. It would be a logical conclusion that in any community where more honest citizens were prepared to defend themselves and their families and neighbors than there were criminals willing to risk sudden death for ill-gotten gains the criminal element would be quickly renting (or stealing) U-Hauls and looking for safer environs.

        As for the dangerously mentally ill, there is no certain way to identify them prior to the violent act, and certainly no way to trust the government with determining in advance who those individuals might be. Historically, in those cases, the government WILL decide at some point that their political opposition is insane and must be put in camps.

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          Not sure what straw-man arguments you are referring to; these are direct quotes of statements you made in comments above this one, and anyone who can copy/paste sections of them into the Ctrl-F box can find them:

          “There are NO QUALIFIERS in the Second Amendment. It is and was intended to be an ABSOLUTE protection against the government having any decision making capability as to who may or may not keep and bear arms.”

          “Nineshooter, if you actually follow my logic you will see that I make the point that because the government does not GIVE you the RKBA they cannot take away your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA. The most they can do, under certain conditions, as in arrested, in custody, convicted, and incarcerated, is make a valiant attempt to severely restrict your exercise of that natural right.”

          That’s a pretty fine line, isn’t it? What is the precise difference between taking away “… your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA” and just “severely restricting” it? Again, I ask, what is the legal reference for the RKBA restriction during incarceration, and why can’t it be legally (if not physically) continued after their release?

          And from your comment just above this comment: “People, even in prisons, have the same natural right to self defense as anyone else. All a prison environment can do is limit the possible choices of arms for that purpose, which results in improvised arms and the formation of prison gangs for mutual protection.”

          All I asked you to do was to reconcile these statements. If everyone has this right, and if you agree it can legally be severely limited/restricted when they are incarcerated due to their conviction, how can you claim that it CAN’T be limited/restricted once they have been released, given the other choices I keep hearing about (leaving them in prison or a mental institution, or letting them out and allowing full restoration of their rights)?

          Note I did not say anything about whether I thought these legal restrictions would actually impair them from GETTING guns; I just indicated that because they could get guns from illegal sources, was no reason to give them access to guns from LEGAL sources. I would also argue that if they obtained guns from illegal sources upon release, that would be a great indicator that they were in fact NOT rehabilitated, were still unable or unwilling to obey reasonable laws agreed upon by society at large, and it would be a reason to re-arrest, try, convict, and re-incarcerate them, circumstances permitting.

  18. avatar great unknown says:

    I would agree for the mental disease “progressive”. However, I am ambiguous about simple “registered Democrat.”

    [Not just snark – there has been movement among the authors of the DSM to classify “conservative” as a mental disorder.]

  19. avatar former water walker says:

    I’m not interested in agreeing with leftards. So no blanket prohibitions…

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      But there is ONE blanket prohibition: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      If someone cannot understand that simple phrase then they must be crazy. Does that make them a prohibited person?

  20. avatar PROUD chicano says:

    This is the argument my lefty friends hang their hat on. I always tell them it’s the liberals fault we can’t walk down that road because they’ve proven themselves untrustworthy to keep their word. Shame because it would be worth exploring in my opinion.

  21. avatar Pg2 says:

    Good question considering every mental illness diagnosed is purely subjective, ie a persons opinion. There are no lab tests or imaging to rule out of confirm any catalogued mental illness.

  22. avatar MudPuppy says:

    We’re gonna see more of this now that the anti-gun establishment feels the courts slipping out of their grasp. Sorry guys too bust trying to undo all the damage you’ve done to the 2d Amendment. Feel free to whinge about it for the next few years.

  23. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    All for it if it means all Democrats will be disarmed, rounded up, and shipped to freshly seceded Kalifornia and NY state Socialist Zones, where they will be kept penned in so they can no longer spread their dangerous insanity.

  24. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Haven’t we all agreed that when someone is judged in court proceedings (not government “administrative hearings”) to be assigned to an institution for treatment, then second amendment rights can be curtailed…and restored immediately upon release?

  25. avatar matty 9 says:

    Mental health issues don’t restrict any other of the rights. Especially not the firat, look at the main stream media.

  26. avatar Icabod says:

    Washington State just pasted a law to seize a person’s guns. All it takes is for their spouse to say they are afraid. The first notification a person gets is when the police arrive to seize the guns. (Likely the SWAT team with a “no knock” warrant)
    No doubt DeCecco will find this laudable.
    Would someone ask DeCecco what medications he’s on? Then ask about his emotional issues. Yes, denial is an emotional issue. None of use are so perfect that the gun control groups can’t find something to seize the guns.

  27. avatar Noishkel says:

    Gun ownership and carrying are an enumerated right. They can not be tampered with only under the very serious circumstances. Circumstances in which a person would have to loose their rights otherwise anyway.

    On the actual topic of mental illness itself, well I might break a little bit with some people I think there might be something said for emergency gun seizure orders, like in Cali and sadly my state of Washington. HOWEVER the way they are being done is COMPLETELY unacceptable pretty much everywhere they do them. This ‘well just put them on a permanent ban list’ BS has got to go.

    Honestly there’s probably not going to a a great solution here, but there must be a legal standard it must be one that completely leaves the burden of proof upon the state to a very high legal standard. Ideally so much so that about the only way to take a persons guns would be to put them in a facility for treatment to begin with.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The very fact that the government: “…the way they are being done is COMPLETELY unacceptable pretty much everywhere they do them…” only proves the point that the government should NEVER be allowed to make such decisions.

      If a spouse is afraid of an ex the solution is to defend yourself, and to make public notice of that intent and the reasons, not to give away other people’s natural rights to make yourself FEEL more safe than you ever actually will be. If your ex is dangerous enough that you feel the need to have the government disarm him/her then they are certainly dangerous enough, and now REALLY pissed off, to find some other way to harm you. Have you ever seen the YouTube videos of what happens to an average automobile when even tapped from the rear while traveling at speed? And that’s only one option.

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Where Do You Draw the Line on Mental Illness and Gun Ownership?”

    Government jobs.

    If you have a mental illness (low bar) you can’t hold a gov’t job or benefits, and you can’t own/posess/hold any arms, nor be in charge of anyone who can

  29. avatar Nanashi says:

    “Insane” is purely a government definition. It doesn’t exist in psychology or psychiatry (not even starting with ho both fields have willfully thrown out any science in them to suit the desires of political correctness and the government and can no longer be trust). Governments (The Soviets most notably, but it has happened in the US. Look up Adrian Schoolcraft) have used branding people as “insane” to deny rights since the dawn of time.

    Therefore it is NEVER a cause to deny rights.

  30. avatar Louis Marschalko says:

    Unless they are currently institutionalized they should be able to retain all of their rights. Why would anyone not possess a firearm if they were physically able to, whether “legally” or not? According to the theory that criminals or the mentally ill should be free to live in society, but be disarmed, we should castrate all male sex offenders who are not locked up.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      And if you truly believe armed defense to be a natural right for all, then there is no basis for denying armed defense to to those who are institutionalized, either.

      Once you cross the line into “Yes, we can restrict the right when they are institutionalized, but…” you don’t get to snivel about where the line is drawn later on.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Precisely. And once you accept any limitation, you are into opinion and votes. We won the popular vote; that matters. The election legally goes to Trump, but we are still the majority thought in the country. “Reasonable limits” are defined by the winners of political and court contests. The popular vote is with “reasonable limits” on unfettered gun use.

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          The popular vote obviously does NOT matter in a Presidential election, nor does it apply in any election where the rules (popular vote wins) is not clearly defined in advance. For instance, in CA, many Republican voters had almost no reason to go to the polls in this last election. The Presidential vote and all electors were obviously going to go to the Dems, both the senate candidates were Dems, and many local races either didn’t have any Republican candidate, or at least not a serious one. Based on this, Republican turnout was very low, and that gave the impression that Hillary won the popular vote by a wide margin, when in fact many voters who would have voted against her just stayed home, as their vote counted for nothing under these circumstances.

          In a popular vote contest, this would no longer be true. If you subtract Hillary’s “overvotes” in CA (many of which would have been offset if Republicans knew in advance a contest would be a popular-vote election) and combine it with the same effect in other Dem-stronghold states/cites, her so-called nationwide popular vote “victory” would collapse.

          Heck, if you just subtract her overvotes in CA from the current totals, she loses the popular vote in the rest of the US in the last election.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          Take a breath here, mate. I am not arguing the popular vs. electoral vote for president, as relates to whether Trump won legitimately; he did. My point is the popular vote went to the candidate aligned with sensible restrictions on “gun rights”. Those votes did not disappear, nor did the ideas behind them. We will continue to win in the courts, and in local votes across the country. Ignore us at your peril, but please do ignore us while we wrest control of the institution from the inmates.

        3. avatar Cliff H says:

          Approximately 33% of Americans (more if you count only persons over 21 years old) own personal weapons and believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ignore us at YOUR peril.

          Even if you somehow managed to gain total control of the government and repealed the right to keep and bear arms, we still have the natural right to defend ourselves and you still have to come and get them. Good luck with that. Molon Labe.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          You misunderstand. I have no interest in repealing or eliminating the second amendment. I have no interest in interpreting the amendment such as to functionally eliminate it. I have great interest in seeing that careless, irresponsible, undisciplined, non-trained individuals do not abuse the amendment.

        5. avatar NineShooter says:

          “2Asux says: Take a breath here, mate. I am not arguing the popular vs. electoral vote for president, as relates to whether Trump won legitimately; he did. My point is the popular vote went to the candidate aligned with sensible restrictions on ‘gun rights’.”

          And my point, which you are doing your best to ignore or subvert, is that the vote totals of a non-popular-vote election cannot be used to gauge the level of support for a single issue pushed by the losing candidate. Especially when more than the margin of that popular-vote support came from a single anti-gun/anti-gun-rights state (CA), without which, she would have lost the national popular vote, too.

          “We will continue to win in the courts, and in local votes across the country.” Concealed Carry reform indicates otherwise, and whatever tiny victories you can scrape together in the lower courts will be overturned by the 100+ Federal judges and multiple SCOTUS justices that Trump will be appointing.

          “Ignore us at your peril, but please do ignore us while we wrest control of the institution from the inmates.” The people you are referring to, unlike the inmates in your ill-chosen metaphor, are well-armed and well-practiced, and those hoping to “wrest control” away from them claim to abhor violence, and in most cases aren’t very good at it — at all. Good luck with that.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          As California goes, so goes the nation. Just ask the happy residents of Oregon, Washington (state, not city) and Montana, maybe even Arizona and New Mexico.

          The popular vote does imply that the majority of voters are likely to be pro-common sense gun laws, or will gladly give-up gun rights in order to secure a more tolerant, gentler and socially sensitive political environment.

          Your grasp of the Queen’s own language is somewhat lacking. To “wrest” something may imply power, but it does not exclusively mean force or violence. Though Americans may actually not be able to see the difference.

          If ALL gun lovers were trained and disciplined, some of the wind would be taken from our sails regarding gun safety in the hands of the populace. The alleged 110 (or whatever) millions of gun owners are not all well-trained, well-practiced, or well disciplined. And if trained, practiced and disciplined police can shoot each other “accidentally”, and if similar civilian instructors can botch gun handling, what hope is there possible for the masses to be more qualified and trustworthy?

          Nothing to see here folks, just a quiet movement to sanity. Move along, now. No pictures, please.

  31. avatar AgingDisgracefully says:

    Clearly, his blanket ban is just plain silly and offensive: all kinds of people have all kinds of conditions (diagnosed and undiagnosed) with varying degrees of implications for the safety of themselves and others. I know lots of people I would describe as mildly OCD, for instance, and they present no risk to themselves or others. They are just annoying. I have also known someone who had full fledged mania (bi-polar disorder) and that got scary at one point, but not now. So these people with mild OCD, are they supposed to lose their rights simply because they have strong feelings about how their closets should be arranged? Seems silly, right? Or this person with bipolar, now controlled and quite stable (for years), are they a risk sufficient to strip them of their rights? If you say yes, then what about all of the people who seem normal now but will have some kind of psychotic or manic break in the future (b/c some totally “normal” people will)? What we need is a reasonable standard, and that is where this guy’s position falls apart. It lacks any meaningful specificity. Perhaps the standard should be one that would get you involuntarily committed: evidence of immediate risk to yourself or others.

  32. avatar ad says:

    Interestingly, the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 includes the language that those that have been adjudicated mentally defective are prohibited from possessing or receiving ammunition that has traveled across state lines. It is easy to see how firearm purchase is enforced, how are ammunition purchases enforced?

  33. avatar Trapdoor says:

    Being a supporter of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party is proof of mental illness. Such people should not be allowed to own a gun; not allowed to vote; and committed to a mental institution for their own safety and the safety of the general population.

    This is a medical issue.

  34. avatar LHW says:

    If they are too dangerous to own a gun, then they are too dangerous to walk the streets.

  35. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    Guns and mental health should be like driving and vision problems.

    If your eyesight can be corrected, you can drive. If your mental health issues can be corrected, you can have a gun.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Driving is not a right.

      And as far as I know, no one has yet been able to prove that a mental problem has been “corrected”.

  36. avatar Aven says:

    It apparently has not occurred to anyone in power that the mental illness aspect of gun ownership leaves many in need of medication or therapy living without it. They know if they seek help, they will be prevented from owning a gun. Therefore, mentally ill people in need of help do not seek help so they can maintain ownership of the guns they already own and can buy additional ones.

  37. avatar Roymond says:

    I have to recuse myself as being biased, since I consider the desire to be a professional politician to be a mental illness.

  38. avatar David says:

    Guess this would be a reason to never seek help if you are having any issues like depression, PTSD, anxiety or whatever if getting diagnosed means you lose your gun rights

    1. avatar Brian says:

      This is already happening… As I posted earlier, the Dodd Sr. addition to our current metastatic mess of unconstitutional Federal law, the Gun Control Act of 1968, followed the Nazi law rather closely. The Nazis were actively elimiating mental patients by other means, too, so people with mental issues avoided government health care then as a matter of survival.

  39. avatar Mark Horning says:

    The vast majority of folks with “mental health issues” are not a danger to themself or others. And frankly, I don’t actually care if someone is a danger to himself or herself.

    The vast majority of folks with felony convictions are the same, btw.

    The standard is simple and straightforward. Someone should not be allowed to posses a firearm after being duly adjudicated as a threat, and then incarcerated. That may be criminal (Jail/Prison) or medical (Hospital/Asylum), but it must be due to adjudication where the accused is afforded the right to defend himself.

    If someone is too dangerous to posses a firearm, he is too dangerous to be let loose without a keeper. Whether that is due to malice or incompetence is really not relevant.

  40. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Ahhh, I know exactly where this is going….The old chestnut my father used to talk about from around the 60’s…Where a group of politicians came up with a great idea of trying to make a number of ” large scale Federal Mental institutions” throughout the USA…There wee planning to “sentence” Americans who were deemed Mentally defective because of their Political backgrounds….Sound a little “1984 /NWO” again….Nothing like reasoning someones Constitutional rights way for political expediency…Get rid of pesky things like “due process” , or ” charge, arrest, and fair trail bu ones peers…” Yeah, come on… It’s just a contraved constitutional infringement…Designed to make everyone guilt till they prove themselves innocent to a government official…Sort of like an Authoritarian Government….Maybe like China…Where thre is no Bill of Rights…Kind of like what this @$$-hole politicians we all help put into power…Who couldn’t Manage a Burger King !!!!!

  41. avatar JW says:

    While legally committed to a mental health facility, they should not be allowed weapons. If free to walk the streets, they have the same rights we all do. Those who struggle with mental illness but are not hospitalized are, in general, no more likely to be violent than anyone else – they deserve as much due process as I do.

    Will those with mental illness sometimes get so out of touch with reality that they will harm others? Yes.
    Will entirely sane people sometimes get so out of touch with morality that they harm others? Yes.

    If you allow someones rights to be denied without due process because they MIGHT cause someone harm, your rights will be next.

  42. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Repeatedly doing the same action expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

    Gun control is, as a result of current liberal ideation and inept apppication, insane.

    Oddly, practical measures like dealing with the people committing crimes yields a tangible result. As done arming law abiding citizens.

    Go figure.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      “Repeatedly doing the same action….”

      A cute slogan that has some limited application to human efforts. But…..
      An idea/theory badly executed does not invalidate the idea. Repeating bad execution should result in bad results. It is only just recently (the last 15 years, or so) that more sophisticated ideas about sensible gun controls have been put forward. They have not all been given proper attention, proper support, proper execution. Because it is a human effort, trial and effort is the only useful means for discovering the proper steps, proper regulation, proper means of implementation. In the past, much has been said about how gun controls do not prevent criminal activity. Targeting criminal elements prematurely is a major mistake. First, stop the bleeding. Stop making more and more opportunities for criminals to get guns, for private citizens to become criminals because of easy access to guns. Remove guns from law abiding people, and a source dries up. Once there is no need to be watchful that new gun crimes are not committed by so-called responsible gun owners, near full attention can be directed toward removing guns from the criminal element. A two-front war has been waged since the 1930s. Time to admit there are not resources enough to fight two wars; focus on the one more easily ended. Make use of guns so onerous (making people with guns meet all sorts of requirements for participating in life – like refusing driver’s license and other privileges to anyone who possesses a gun, severe taxes on purchases, and many other methods that don’t require forceful confiscation – and the problem of “civilian” gun ownership solves itself. After that, muster all the law enforcement with legislation compelling grand sweeps of criminal enclaves, thereby gaining a “twofer”; removal of illegal immigrants and reduction in the number of gangs.

      America is the engine of innovation. Why stick with old ideas about controlling the proliferation of firearms?

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        “Stop making more and more opportunities for criminals to get guns, for private citizens to become criminals because of easy access to guns.”

        Yeah, that’s a new idea. Welcome to 1976.

        And because you obviously haven’t been paying attention, you should know that the whole “guns cause crime” thing has been disproved many times over. While the violent crime rate was falling, from the late 90s through the early twenty-teens, America added MILLIONS of firearms to our households every year. That’s right, millions.

        Every. Single. Year.

        While violent crime rates fell.

        You don’t have to take my word for it. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports will give you the crime data, and the BATFE has the annual gun manufacturing/import/export reports for gun sales figures. Do a little reading, it’ll save you some (future) embarrassment.

        “Guns cause crime like pencils cause misspelled words”.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          Take a little time to venture outside your shell. Some things are more nuanced thank sloganeers can manage.

          People who are not yet criminals, who have guns can become criminals with guns. Having the gun does not necessarily create the criminal (but without a gun, criminals cannot create gun-related crimes). A person who today does not have a gun might find themselves in a situation where the possession of a gun makes committing a crime more appealing. One might be desperate for cash, yet not consider robbing a bank because without the gun, intimidating the cashier into surrendering likely will not work. Introduce a gun, and the bank robbery may become more attractive. Nothing here points to the gun taking control of the citizen. Why provide the weapon in the first place (bank robberies are rarely carried off when a knife is the weapon)?

          Related, but slightly off topic, thank you for waltzing into my parlor; crime rates.

          Yes, crime has been going down since 1993, and gun purchases have been going up. Notwithstanding that the two statistics cannot be proven interactive (“correlation is not causation”…TTAG), let us go with that for the moment. If crime is at an all time low, and gun ownership at an all time high, what is the need for more guns in the hands of the public. Do you suppose that there is a number of guns owned that will equate to near-zero crime? What would that number be, and if known, why has it not been reached? There are more and more guns in Chicago every year, yet the shooting incidents keep rising?

          There is no direct relationship between guns available, and crime statistics. Welcome to 2016.

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          What “need” for guns? Do you even live in the same country I do?

          This is America; it isn’t about “need” and it never will be.

          And even if it was, I wouldn’t be letting an anti-gunner tell me what I “need”, nor would any of the other gun owners I know.

          Please do introduce these proposed laws, it will help make it clear who will be voted-out on the next go-round.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          Politicians who disappoint you can, indeed, be voted out of office. Please not that in America, about 95% of incumbents are re-elected. But, after “POTG” vote a politician out of office, the law still stands. Getting a law over-turned is not so easy a project. The bonus is that while the law is being opposed in legislature, or court, the law stands. Eventually, the populace becomes accustomed to the law, maybe even embracing it. Only your side believes in “once and for all”. Common sense gun laws may come and go, and come again. The difference is we never rest, while your gang eventually tires of the struggle. The arc of history bends inexorably toward social justice and responsibility.

      2. avatar NineShooter says:

        “Remove guns from law abiding people, and a source dries up. Once there is no need to be watchful that new gun crimes are not committed by so-called responsible gun owners, near full attention can be directed toward removing guns from the criminal element.”

        So, disarm the law-abiding while leaving the criminals armed? Yeah, that’ll go smoothly.

        You’re a special kind of stu… silly, aren’t you?

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          When you are wounded, stop the bleeding. When you are in a hole, stop digging. Strangle the source, and then deal with the puss sack.

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          Go for it, sport.

          Just make sure you’re up front, personally supervising the door knocking/kicking.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Just make sure you’re up front, personally supervising the door knocking/kicking.”

          Oh please. Are you really that juvenile? There will be no attempt to forcefully relieve people of legal firearms; no need. The water temperature will simply rise gradually. If “gun rights” can be adequately burdened such that owning a gun becomes only useful in the case of the mythical tyrannical government, then everyone wins. If guns are for defense against the government, then the intent of the second amendment is met. Should the apocalypse ever occur, you have your guns. Should it never occur, you have your guns. Even the Supreme Court icon you so treasured (Scalia) did not opine “guns everywhere, all the time, for any reason whatsoever”. So, if guns are restricted to the home for self-defense and eventual rebellion against the government, the second amendment remains in tact, and society is more secure.

      3. avatar NineShooter says:

        “Why stick with old ideas about controlling the proliferation of firearms?”

        Let’s go with: To prevent the civil war that will start when these “ideas” of your are implemented on a legally armed population.

        You simply cannot be serious. It’s not nice to troll.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          I am most serious about how to remove firearms from an unreliable public. SWAT will not get the job done; plays into the hands of all the cowboys. Being more understated stands a better chance of success. Annual taxes on firearms, mandated annual safety and competency training, recovery of taxpayer expenses for anyone who seeks medical treatment, and is a gun owner (if you lie, it is an automatic federal felony), local state and federal use tax at every established gun range, sales tax refund for all firearms-related items purchased (proofs of purchase required), transportation usage tax for firearm owners (if you transport a gun, ever, you pay a flat tax (to obtain the sales tax refund, you must purchase a gun and transport if from the point of sale), universal liability insurance (or proof of) required as condition of sale of firearms or related items. The possibilities are endless. None of the recommendations listed prevent anyone from legally owning a firearm). You see, the tax on every bullet/cartridge opened the door to further taxes and soft controls on firearms. Avoids a shoot-out.

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          So, a “poll tax” on guns?

          How’d that work out the last time someone tried to tax a constitutional right?

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          So far, tax on bullets is successful. No court is going to stop a gun safety law from being passed. And if one does not buy gun items, not tax would be due. Thus, a philosophically aggrieved gun owner could not sue to stop the law from taking effect. Let’s just imagine that an excise tax is imposed on the sale of a gun. Someone must buy the gun, pay the tax, THEN find a willing solicitor, then get the case filed, then run it through every level of court and finally get the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional. How much time do you think that would take. All the while, the tax stands. Tax revenues, once enjoyed, are jealously guarded, and surrendered grudgingly.

          How would that work out?

  43. The mentally ill have been and remain targets for violent attacks committed upon their person unless they have been convicted of committing a violent crime they should not be disenfranchised from exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights.

  44. avatar Alexander says:

    Obama’s press secretary has recently claimed as a fact that Obama’s administration has been the most transparent ever! The obvious question is, is the administration insane? is the entire government insane? are the American people calmly listening to this are insane? what happens when the insane judge sane? are we ready to allow the insane government determine and label our sanity?

  45. avatar James in AZ says:

    No victim no crime, no crime no punishment.

    Have they commited a crime serious enough for forced admission into a mental house? Yes, then send them to the mental house. No? Leave them alone.

  46. avatar drew says:

    To remove any rights, the person with mental illness should have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. They should have the right to legal counsel & to call their own expert witnesses in defense of sound mind; or to plead no-contest. The decision should not be in hands of 1 unaccountable person, who may or may not be biased against the “accused”.

  47. avatar James in AZ says:

    2Asux sounds so smart and logical that I almost took him seriously. His “decent” and “proper” demeanor sure means a reasonable and open discussion about common sense gun laws that keep everyone safe.

    Nah just kidding.

    Note to 2Asux: find a board filled with fencesitters and fudds instead of us extremist insurgents.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      As so many times before…

      If you want only to be a member of the choir, don’t read what is difficult; delete the email.

      If it is difficult to think beyond, “I got my rights, STFU”, delete the email.

      Of course, clamoring for an uninterrupted echo chamber reinforces the earned reputation of POTG.

      Wandering about with your finger in your ears must create quite a stir when you enter a room.

  48. avatar Adamanter says:

    If you accept a broad and blurry definition of mental illness as a basis to deprive someone of Second Amendment rights, then also be cognizant of and prepared for the fact that the anti-gunners and their fanboys within some portions of the powerful medical establishment (American Medical Association, etc.) (whose lobbying power, although it does not attract attention, is immense) will pretty much de facto presume that anyone with an interest in weapons or a perceived need for self defense is paranoid or otherwise pathologically ill…

    and ““Voila!” – if you float you are a witch! Your mere interest in firearms or self defense defines you as unfit

    There’s a brilliant and true bit within some of the AA literature: “Finally, we begin to see that all people, including ourselves, are to some extent emotionally ill as well as frequently wrong,”

    No one is as inherently unfit to wield weapons as those who propel themselves into authoritarian positions of power (whether they are coming from right or left) yet they’ll always have firepower.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Finally, someone with an agile brain discovered what was a stealth means of bringing sense to the gun debate. This line of approach may prove less useful that first thought. This being a single gun blog, with little broad-based recognition, perhaps we can keep things contained here.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email