Developmentally Delayed CCW?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JCF

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
700
I recently spoke to a newspaper reporter who advised me of a story that he had heard in which a Texas man diagnosed with Down's Syndrome was challenging the State's declination of his application for a concealed handgun permit.

I am curious... given the position of many members on this board that concealed carry should not be subject to licensure, or any form of state regulation period; should the mentally impaired be subject to restrictions on their ability to carry? If so... what do you feel should be the defining criteria for this restriction (in light of the fact that plenty of developmentally delayed persons are able to drive, marry, raise children, hold jobs, etc..).

For those less versed in the language of contemporary political correctness... "developmental delay or disability" is what used to be referred to as "mental retardation".
 
If he's okay to be let loose on society with a car, I find it difficult to create an argument that holds up logically on why he shouldn't be permitted a gun if he can meet the same CCW standards as everyone else.

I guess my argument from a pure perspective would be that if he can't be trusted with a gun he needs to be adjudicated incompetent and be living in a monitored environment.

If he's adult enough to truly live on his own (not monitored like a child would be) he should be able to defend himself.

This paternalistic mainstreaming crud is part of the problem here. We want to feel good about how civilized we are about mental deficiency so we create these little play worlds where folks who need what is in essence parenting are allowed to "live alone" but aren't really given freedom. Either cut the strings entirely, leave 'em with their folks/guardians or formally institutionalize em. Otherwise it's a sick joke, a "home" by another name.
 
Carebear

I concur.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
 
Criteria for the mentally impaired

I am curious... given the position of many members on this board that concealed carry should not be subject to licensure, or any form of state regulation period; should the mentally impaired be subject to restrictions on their ability to carry?
Click to expand...
Interesting. If we dare go down that road, i think that a lot of people that are not considered mentally impaired, would be disqualified from gun ownership:rolleyes:
Trying to set that type of criteria would be extremely difficult, at best.
Maybe we should ask the brady bunch for their input:barf: :neener:
 
I guess my argument from a pure perspective would be that if he can't be trusted with a gun he needs to be adjudicated incompetent and be living in a monitored environment.

If he's adult enough to truly live on his own (not monitored like a child would be) he should be able to defend himself.
Click to expand...
Very good point. Good original post/question. No easy answer or solution.
 
If he's okay to be let loose on society with a car, I find it difficult to create an argument that holds up logically on why he shouldn't be permitted a gun if he can meet the same CCW standards as everyone else.

I guess my argument from a pure perspective would be that if he can't be trusted with a gun he needs to be adjudicated incompetent and be living in a monitored environment.

If he's adult enough to truly live on his own (not monitored like a child would be) he should be able to defend himself.

This paternalistic mainstreaming crud is part of the problem here. We want to feel good about how civilized we are about mental deficiency so we create these little play worlds where folks who need what is in essence parenting are allowed to "live alone" but aren't really given freedom. Either cut the strings entirely, leave 'em with their folks/guardians or formally institutionalize em. Otherwise it's a sick joke, a "home" by another name.
Click to expand...

Great response. I want to clarify that I have no idea as to the functioning level of this individual, but that the overwhelming majority of Down's Syndrome diagnosed persons fall into the sub-70 IQ range (with most considerably lower). I do not know whether or not this particular person is licensed to drive a car, but I highly doubt it based upon my experience of Down's Syndrome.

The issue is somewhat more complicated also in that a great many persons who are unable to live completely independently due to mental incapacity are not legally definable as incompetent, and many legally incompetent persons are completely capable of living independently (this is hard to wrap one's head around until experienced, but legal definitions of competency are not necessarily equivalent to functional ability).

The question boils down to the ability to exercise judgement in the face of complex conflict. I'm hesitant to use the ability to be licensed to drive as appropriate criteria for a determination of competence. I don't know the answer... but thanks for your input.
 
The issue is somewhat more complicated also in that a great many persons who are unable to live completely independently due to mental incapacity are not legally definable as incompetent, and many legally incompetent persons are completely capable of living independently (this is hard to wrap one's head around until experienced, but legal definitions of competency are not necessarily equivalent to functional ability).
Click to expand...

Can this not be corrected? So that legal and practical incompetence fall in line? That would remove all of the problems with how the mentally incapable are treated in all areas of life.

If they are capable of making decisions as well as "normal" people of whatever intelligence they should be treated the same (and face the same consequences); if they are not able to make the same decisions they should be treated accordingly, with "normal" folks that means they end up in jail. Preemptive denial of some rights is ludicrous, it's all or none.

The classic libertarian test is the ability of a person to support themself without aid. Not necessarily support themselves "well" or "comfortably" but keep a job and pay their way. If someone with Down's can do that, worry about the gun when they actually misuse it, just like everyone else. If they have to have a minder check in every week, quit pretending they are competent to be on their own at all.
 
I'm mostly in agreement w/ Carebear.

Though some folks consider it heresy, I take the point of view that it is legitimate to prohibit arms to those who present a clear and present danger to the public. (Where I differ from our current policies is where the burden of proof is. As it stands, the citizen must prove his worthiness, I think the reverse should be true: it is the burden and duty of the state to prove the person's unworthiness, pragmatic problems notwithstanding.)

Generally, this falls into categories of a history of violent criminal predation, and mental impairment such that judgement, knowledge of right/wrong, and so forth are compromised to the point of public danger. As carebear points out, whether such folks should be loose in public without supervision is an excellent question.

That being said, I think it's fair that Downs or similiar situations is "probable cause", if you will, for deeper scrutiny of the person's specific levels of functionality. In other words, it's enough to invalidate the presumption of "no danger", but not enough, in and of itself, to positively presume a danger exists, and therefore sufficient to automatically apply a prohibition.

There must be a fair and valid mechanism for objective investigation and disposition of the "grey case".
 
How does one objectively investigate something that, by its nature, is subjective?
Click to expand...

It's not entirely subjective. Believe it or not, there are a number of psych instruments that can assess one's stage of moral development and decision making. They're not perfect, they're not gospel, but they would certainly inform the grant or withhold decision.


The nature of the beast is that they will not, and can not "prove*" that the person being scrutizined is moral and of sound judgement, or guarantee that moral, sound judgement will be used in any particular case.

What they can do, however, is "prove*" whether that person is _capable_ of moral, sound judgement, and a negative outcome would be useful to know.




* "Prove" within certain limits.

Incidentally, this outlines one of the dangers of allowing psych testing to be a routine part of the permit granting process.

It wouldn't take much for the uninformed politician or electorate to demand such testing that somehow "proves" the sober judgement of the applicant. Such testing isn't possible, even in principle. Explaining why that is so makes Joe & Jane Normal's eyes glaze over.
 
GEEK and others;

You make valid points about the "objectivity" tests. However, I have an intrinsic distrust of psychologists (have you ever heard of one issuing an opinion that the subject is "normal"?). I think not. The psychologist is trying to figure out what's "wrong" with the particular subject. So much for "objective" testing.

In addition, it's pretty absurd to expect my beloved Texas or any other state to maintain a staff of psychologists in order to test particular applicants. Perhaps this ought to be left to the applicant's resources.

Furthermore, the original post leaves something to be desired. Is one to assume that the subject was identified as having Down's Syndrome from mere observation at the CHL application? Was it an answer to the question; "Are you on medication for XXXX disorders?"

The post merely says the subject was denied because of Down's Syndrome.
It begs the question; how was that determined/discovered? And what signs or symptoms led to that discovery? And, of course, we don't know whether this is merely the reporter's catch phrase or if the applicant is also seriously incompetent.

Methinks we're chasing a rabbit trail here, although the general topic surely bears discussion.

ElZorro
 
Believe it or not, there are a number of psych instruments that can assess one's stage of moral development and decision making. They're not perfect, they're not gospel, but they would certainly inform the grant or withhold decision.
Click to expand...
I presume you are referring to such as the MMPI. Unfortunately, results are subject to interpretation. One shrink's complete whackjob (technical psychiatric term) is another shrink's completely normal person. This is seen quite often in the courts. Upon reflection, it doesn't appear to be much different than the judging in figure skating.

Ultimately, we have someone denying Constitution rights based on opinion, and that opinion may well be influenced by the personal political views of the person making the determination. It's pretty dangerous territory when basic rights can be withheld by mere opinion.
 
I presume you are referring to such as the MMPI. Unfortunately, results are subject to interpretation. One shrink's complete whackjob (technical psychiatric term) is another shrink's completely normal person. This is seen quite often in the courts. Upon reflection, it doesn't appear to be much different than the judging in figure skating.
Click to expand...

That is a fairly common assertion, and one which is largely based in popular mythology. In point of fact, psychologists (and other mental health clinicians) very commonly disagree on the finer points of various disorders and their effects, but exceptionally rarely to the extent that one asserts profound mental illness in the face of another's assessment of an utter lack thereof.

The validity of the practice of behavioral health sciences is not the point however.

In a great majority of instances where diagnoses of some manner of developmentally based intellectual impairment are concerned, there is no contention. We are not talking mental health.... we are talking mental retardation. The question is whether or not the state should be permitted (or required) to restrict one's right to carry in these cases, and how that determination should be made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top