- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Mental Illness and Guns
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:56 am
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:56 am
Mental illness is a real thing. It's a real problem. People that are truly, dangerously mentally ill need to be limited from owning firearms in a way that respects Due Process, and in a way that respects all of our rights to keep and bear arms.
It is extremely difficult from a legal standpoint to adjudicate someone as mentally ill to the point of incapable and/or to force them into psychiatric treatment. Should there be a way to do so on a limited basis that prevents you from possessing a gun if you are proven to be dangerously mentally ill (by virtue of prior threats, even those posted on social media and/or by medical history) and/or suicidal? I think so, but I'm not totally sure, and I think you 2A experts on here can help answer.
This latest shooter, for example, had obviously displayed DANGEROUS mental illness that at the very least should have prevented him from possessing a gun. Same with the Columbine killers, the Aurora Movie Theater lunatic, and the Sandy Hook killer. These people were deranged, and displayed their derangement before their horrific crimes in writings, on social media, in interaction with others, and even in their prior health treatment. Their family and friends, not to mention the authorities had no way to legally intervene.
I don't own a gun, so I am less familiar with all the rules. However, do you guys think that laws that make it easier for a family member/roommate/spouse/health care provider/other interested party to bring an action that would AFTER DUE PROCESS create a limited finding that someone lacks the legal capacity to own or posses a firearm (or have them in the home), even on a temporary basis could make a huge difference. You shouldn't have to be convicted of a violent felony and/or murder 17 kids BEFORE that happens. I sincerely want to know. NOBODY should be on some registry that prevents them from buying a gun without notice and opportunity to be heard. We have a fundamental right as Americans to keep and bear arms.
As an atty, my thought has always been that any law that bans a type of gun/ number of guns / type of ammo./ amount of ammo, etc. just seems to be focusing on the wrong thing - the instrumentality, and won't help; and it's unconstitutional. It's the behavior we need to regulate. Not the instrumentality. What say you Poli Board?
It is extremely difficult from a legal standpoint to adjudicate someone as mentally ill to the point of incapable and/or to force them into psychiatric treatment. Should there be a way to do so on a limited basis that prevents you from possessing a gun if you are proven to be dangerously mentally ill (by virtue of prior threats, even those posted on social media and/or by medical history) and/or suicidal? I think so, but I'm not totally sure, and I think you 2A experts on here can help answer.
This latest shooter, for example, had obviously displayed DANGEROUS mental illness that at the very least should have prevented him from possessing a gun. Same with the Columbine killers, the Aurora Movie Theater lunatic, and the Sandy Hook killer. These people were deranged, and displayed their derangement before their horrific crimes in writings, on social media, in interaction with others, and even in their prior health treatment. Their family and friends, not to mention the authorities had no way to legally intervene.
I don't own a gun, so I am less familiar with all the rules. However, do you guys think that laws that make it easier for a family member/roommate/spouse/health care provider/other interested party to bring an action that would AFTER DUE PROCESS create a limited finding that someone lacks the legal capacity to own or posses a firearm (or have them in the home), even on a temporary basis could make a huge difference. You shouldn't have to be convicted of a violent felony and/or murder 17 kids BEFORE that happens. I sincerely want to know. NOBODY should be on some registry that prevents them from buying a gun without notice and opportunity to be heard. We have a fundamental right as Americans to keep and bear arms.
As an atty, my thought has always been that any law that bans a type of gun/ number of guns / type of ammo./ amount of ammo, etc. just seems to be focusing on the wrong thing - the instrumentality, and won't help; and it's unconstitutional. It's the behavior we need to regulate. Not the instrumentality. What say you Poli Board?
18
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:01 am to Wednesday
Guns were confiscated during Katrina in New Orleans from law abiding citizens. From what I saw reported most were never given back or were ruined before they were given back years later.
If you wind up on a gubment list (maybe through no fault of your own) it's very hard to get off the list, if you ever do get off of it.
If you wind up on a gubment list (maybe through no fault of your own) it's very hard to get off the list, if you ever do get off of it.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:02 am to Wednesday
I cant think of one thing more American than mentally ill people having access to weapons.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:03 am to Wednesday
Great post. My thoughts on this subject are that yes, there should be a process to limit ownership among the mentally ill. Here's how I would envision this process working that would probably stand up to a constitutional challenge.
I would empower our District Attorneys and/or create a new special entity with the power to sue individuals that they deem are mentally ill and should not own guns.
They would essentially file a civil lawsuit having that person deemed mentally incompetent to own a weapon. The person would then have the opportunity to respond to the suit, and the process would then go forward just like a normal civil case.
I know that's not a perfect solution. The two things that immediately jump out to me are the costs of getting legal representation to respond, and the fallout of having a court judgment declaring you mentally incompetent on any level.
However, I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. This allows some proactive steps to be taken, but it also allows a person the opportunity to defend against it and prevent an arbitrary decision to strip them of a constitutional right.
Thoughts?
ETA: to add that I would allow the person to keep their guns during the pendency of the lawsuit.
I would empower our District Attorneys and/or create a new special entity with the power to sue individuals that they deem are mentally ill and should not own guns.
They would essentially file a civil lawsuit having that person deemed mentally incompetent to own a weapon. The person would then have the opportunity to respond to the suit, and the process would then go forward just like a normal civil case.
I know that's not a perfect solution. The two things that immediately jump out to me are the costs of getting legal representation to respond, and the fallout of having a court judgment declaring you mentally incompetent on any level.
However, I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. This allows some proactive steps to be taken, but it also allows a person the opportunity to defend against it and prevent an arbitrary decision to strip them of a constitutional right.
Thoughts?
ETA: to add that I would allow the person to keep their guns during the pendency of the lawsuit.
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 9:05 am
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:04 am to Wednesday
Who decides who is mentally ill? What is the criteria?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:06 am to Tigereye10005
How about people that live with someone who has their rights revoked?
Would you also lose your rights to own firearms or just have to keep them secured at all times?
Would you also lose your rights to own firearms or just have to keep them secured at all times?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:07 am to Wednesday
I agree with everything you say.
I hear libs lamenting that they can't get Reps to get onboard with the "terror watch list gun ban." The problem with the "terrorist watch list" is there is no due process. Those lists were meant to be used internally by the FBI for ongoing terror investigations, not as some definitive proof of wrong-doing. I am with the Reps on this one - it is dangerous to be putting people on lists and denying them constitutional rights based on mere suspicion.
The same is true of "mental illness" lists. We need strict definitions of what mental illness *is* before we can have this debate. About 20% of all Americans will, at some point in their lives, have some form of mental illness. So, obviously, the term "mental illness" needs further refining. What we should be concerned with are people with mental illnesses that have a high probability of resulting in violence.
The problem is I am not sure there's any real data on what causes violence. I have seen no correlation between, say, depression and school shootings. Schizophrenia is considered one of the most debilitating mental illnesses, but almost none of them are school shooters. There's many schizophrenics who hear voices that never commit violence. Most homeless people are severely mentally ill (it's why they're homeless), but these people never shoot up schools. No, they are too busy walking around talking to themselves to be concerned about other stuff.
It's not as easy or simple as people make it. It's a very complicated issue, even BEFORE you factor in the constitution.
I hear libs lamenting that they can't get Reps to get onboard with the "terror watch list gun ban." The problem with the "terrorist watch list" is there is no due process. Those lists were meant to be used internally by the FBI for ongoing terror investigations, not as some definitive proof of wrong-doing. I am with the Reps on this one - it is dangerous to be putting people on lists and denying them constitutional rights based on mere suspicion.
The same is true of "mental illness" lists. We need strict definitions of what mental illness *is* before we can have this debate. About 20% of all Americans will, at some point in their lives, have some form of mental illness. So, obviously, the term "mental illness" needs further refining. What we should be concerned with are people with mental illnesses that have a high probability of resulting in violence.
The problem is I am not sure there's any real data on what causes violence. I have seen no correlation between, say, depression and school shootings. Schizophrenia is considered one of the most debilitating mental illnesses, but almost none of them are school shooters. There's many schizophrenics who hear voices that never commit violence. Most homeless people are severely mentally ill (it's why they're homeless), but these people never shoot up schools. No, they are too busy walking around talking to themselves to be concerned about other stuff.
It's not as easy or simple as people make it. It's a very complicated issue, even BEFORE you factor in the constitution.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:10 am to Crimson Wraith
quote:
How about people that live with someone who has their rights revoked? Would you also lose your rights to own firearms or just have to keep them secured at all times?
I think that's something that would have to be worked out if this type of system were put in place. My immediate thoughts would be that the person cannot have guns in their living quarters. So, I would say that people living with someone who has their rights removed could not own and keep a gun in the house. They could of course have one and store it somewhere else.
Could also go with your suggestion of having it secured at all times, but of course that's not a full proof plan. I think it's just something that would have to be worked out if this plan actually went forward.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:11 am to Wednesday
quote:
However, do you guys think that laws that make it easier for a family member/roommate/spouse/health care provider/other interested party to bring an action that would AFTER DUE PROCESS create a limited finding that someone lacks the legal capacity to own or posses a firearm (or have them in the home), even on a temporary basis could make a huge difference.
Damn right! The process should start with a visit from some very large/intimidating FBI types who 'interview' profiled individuals who are obviously going off the rails.
Re former Vets with PTSD...hell no. It's not them that are going off, it's punk sociopaths who play video games and have never served the greater society a day in their tortured life.
Given Obama's serious corruption of the Intel/LE Bureaucracy...we can FORGET limiting ARs. Hell would break loose if we tried. Thank you Obama.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:11 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
I would say that people living with someone who has their rights removed could not own and keep a gun in the house. They could of course have one and store it somewhere else.
Doesn't do you much good if you have to store it somewhere else.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:13 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
I would empower our District Attorneys and/or create a new special entity with the power to sue individuals that they deem are mentally ill and should not own guns.
This is the first issue with your idea, and really the only one that matters. Is this just their personal opinion, or is it someone else's?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:18 am to Wednesday
Define mentally ill. The government could use this as the opportunity for the gun-grab they've always wanted. What percentage of the U.S. population has taken anti-depressants, etc. at some point in their life? 1/4? 1/3? The point is, the government could easily say anyone who has ever taken any kind of medication, or seen a psychologist/psychiatrist, as mentally unfit to own a gun. In an instant, 30% of the population could have their gun rights taken away. Could every soldier who has served overseas be suddenly branded with PTSD? Every new mother who took Lexipro for a few months after their baby was born suddenly a threat?
There are the obvious nutjob cases. However, you know if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile, or ten.
There are the obvious nutjob cases. However, you know if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile, or ten.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:24 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Definitely there should be legal standards on (1) the type of illness/type of behavior; (2) definitely the living quarters thing would have to be determined.
I agree with the suggestion of a DA handling the matter as a civil matter. Much like the injunction procedure. You start with a TRO, but after a time the injunction is temporary, then permanent. The specifics of each case could be worked on as they go. If we have public defenders for criminal matters to respect someone’s right to an atty before they lose rights, I dont see why a PD could not apply in theses cases.
I see the concerns about guns by the gun control nuts - but we absolutely do not need to be engaged in a gun grab without due process. However, and for example, I have no problem with convicted felons not being able to own guns or vote. They lost those rights AFTER Notice and opportunity to be heard. Due Process doesn’t guarantee you win your case, just that you have the opportunity to make it.
I agree with the suggestion of a DA handling the matter as a civil matter. Much like the injunction procedure. You start with a TRO, but after a time the injunction is temporary, then permanent. The specifics of each case could be worked on as they go. If we have public defenders for criminal matters to respect someone’s right to an atty before they lose rights, I dont see why a PD could not apply in theses cases.
I see the concerns about guns by the gun control nuts - but we absolutely do not need to be engaged in a gun grab without due process. However, and for example, I have no problem with convicted felons not being able to own guns or vote. They lost those rights AFTER Notice and opportunity to be heard. Due Process doesn’t guarantee you win your case, just that you have the opportunity to make it.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:26 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
I cant think of one thing more American than mentally ill people having access to weapons.
Victimization and entitlement should be at the top of new American tendencies.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:26 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Is this just their personal opinion, or is it someone else's?
Presumably they'd act based on tips and reports they get from others. I mean, I can sue anybody for anything based on my personal opinion, doesn't mean I'm winning that lawsuit.
That's why the person being sued as notice and the opportunity to respond. It's called due process. If it's frivolous and/or arbitrary, the suit will get thrown out or the person challenging will win in court.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:30 am to Wednesday
quote:None of the bolded people are fortune tellers.
However, do you guys think that laws that make it easier for a family member/roommate/spouse/health care provider/other interested party to bring an action that would AFTER DUE PROCESS create a limited finding that someone lacks the legal capacity to own or posses a firearm (or have them in the home), even on a temporary basis could make a huge difference.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:31 am to Wednesday
What I'm getting at is what initially kicks this off? The DA just finds some people he doesn't think should own firearms? Mental health professionals? Or is it really just anyone that can get it started?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:34 am to TheFonz
Mental illness should be after a judicial finding that the illness has caused the person to exhibit dangerous behavior in the form of threats or hallucinations or suicidal ideations.
I think there should definitely be some fairly stringent definitions on what constitutes dangerous. Soldiers with PTSD shouldn’t have to be stigmatized. People with mental illness, have an illness. We should treat them with compassion.
I have a cousin who was schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is incurable. He didn’t ask
For that. He shot himself. It was awful. His 80 year old mother found him. I wish she had a way to have made sure he couldn’t own a gun.
I think there should definitely be some fairly stringent definitions on what constitutes dangerous. Soldiers with PTSD shouldn’t have to be stigmatized. People with mental illness, have an illness. We should treat them with compassion.
I have a cousin who was schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is incurable. He didn’t ask
For that. He shot himself. It was awful. His 80 year old mother found him. I wish she had a way to have made sure he couldn’t own a gun.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:37 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:WE can totally trust the police. Ask any Black person.
The DA just finds some people he doesn't think should own firearms?
quote:Sure. They are awesome at telling the future.
Mental health professionals?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:39 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
What I'm getting at is what initially kicks this off? The DA just finds some people he doesn't think should own firearms? Mental health professionals? Or is it really just anyone that can get it started?
I think it would be similar to any lawsuit. The DA (or whoever it is filing the lawsuit) is going to file and make a claim that a person is mentally incompetent to own a gun. The courts will read the complaint "in the light most favorable" to the person filing the suit. Which essentially means they will accept the case if there is some basis for it. So the person filing will have to provide a basis. It might be reports from mental health professionals, reports from family, fb posts, etc.
If the court determines there is enough there that the person being sued COULD be found incompetent, the case moves forward. If the court decides there's not enough, they throw it out.
It's a fairly low bar to get a case accepted, but you also have to remember that the party suing will have to prove their case in court too. That means if they show up with one fb post and an affidavit from someone's childhood enemy, they're not likely winning that case. They will have to present some solid evidence, and the person being sued will have the opportunity to dispute/counter that evidence every step of the way.
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News