Paper abstract; mental illness and gun laws

[BridgeWalker]

Pardon any poor sentence construction, spelling or grammar errors. I just finished writing this and want to post for commented before everyone goes to bed. I mentioned several weeks back I was gonna be working on a paper on mental illness and gun laws. Well, I've become a bit of an expert in various areas, looking for a good way to analyze areas that will work well within the accepted legal context--that is, not so much "guns are a fundamental right for all, molon labe!" but rather "this is the law and this is how this law is illegal"

I think I have found it in the 14th am. Comments, critiques, questions?

An equal protection analysis of selected state gun laws

The 14th amendment of the US constitution guarantees that no state shall abridge any citizen’s right to equal protection under the law. The problem of determining equal treatment is complicated by people’s vastly differing capabilities and characteristics. Nonetheless, even the lowest standard of equal protection requires that no class of persons should be singled out for restrictions or unequal treatment without a rational basis for that discrimination.

One class of persons who have historically been denied equal protection is the mentally ill. Some restrictions placed on some affected individuals are rational and well-advised. However, in the past several years, as our understanding of mental illness has changed, that classification has expanded and now includes a very substantial portion of the US adult population.

Gun laws and policies have reflected the unfounded wariness of mental illness found throughout the general culture. The result of this wariness are laws in many states that create restrictions on classes of persons that bear no rational relationship to the public policy goal of preventing violence.

The over-expansive nature of these gun laws has several effects. First, when laws use broad language, they violate the 14th amendment right to equal protection. Second, they perpetuate the social stigma to which people with mental illness are subject. Finally, they may, in many cases, prevent people with mental illness from seeking diagnosis and treatment.

This paper presents an analysis of laws in Michigan, xxx, and xxx [[I've got lots of candidates, narrowing down will depend on which have best caselaw or committee notes; pretty much I'm obviously looking at laws that restrict "the mentally ill" without use of important phrases like "adjudicated" or "danger to self or others". MI's CPL law uses over-expansive language like this, as do several others]] that, through insufficient specificity, violate the right to equal protection. It will discuss the language in the laws and how that language leads to not only the aforementioned constitutional violation, but also to the related negative social consequences of broad classification of less-privileged citizens.

 

[armedandsafe]

I would like very much to see your paper when it is finished. This is the very reason I refuse to get a clinical diagnosis of my, or my sons' Aspergers Syndrom. Once on record, it will potentially block some of my rights.

Pops

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

You have found it. Follow that theme diligently and then see if you can condense it down to an overview for your paper. I also would like to read it when you are done.

When I was more politically active I vehemently argued that issuing concealed carry permits in effect created a "privileged class" and relegated others to a sub class. I think that line of reasoning works well for your theme also.

 

[The Tourist]

This is one of those "careful what you wish for" topics. I'm bipolar, and while I enjoy the refreshing discussion of this issue, it also sends out a red flag to those who would strip us of firearms by any means.

For example, I am BP II. If I get a mania, I might polish my Harley really well or play cards and take all of your money. If I go into a slump, I sleep. That's it. No whacky tales of woe. No spicy stories.

I have great doctors who have provided me with a fanatastic program of meds and counseling. I feel better than ever.

Having sad that, there are always the uninformed--even within our own ranks--who know absolutely nothing about the topic, but insist on yelling that fact at the top of their lungs.

I don't mind a white-paper discussion on this medcial condition. It's the shaggy-dog stories without foundation that trouble me.

 

[brighamr]

Yet another person who would like to read your finished paper. I think your reasoning will work well, but as others have said it may open a can of worms.

You might want to compare the current "mentally ill" laws vs the racist gun control laws of old... just a thought.

Another idea, include the fact that any person of wealth is above the "mentally ill" clause. Has any wealthy person ever been denied a CCW?

Just trying to give you more ammo for your paper. I think you're off to a great start!

 

[REOIV]

You mean to tell me there are mentally ill people out there that aren't complete crazy and want to kill and injure everyone?

Next you want me to believe that not all felons are rapists, pederasts, murderers and thieves.

Or that Jews don't have horns and control all the money.

Or that Gay people don't have a secret agenda.

It is your kind of logic and thinking that is making it harder and harder to oppress people based upon gross stereotypes. Quite frankly I'm offended and appalled by your suggestions. Won't someone think of the children!!!

 

[keeleon]

You mean to tell me there are mentally ill people out there that aren't complete crazy and want to kill and injure everyone?

Next you want me to believe that not all felons are rapists, pederasts, murderers and thieves.

Or that Jews don't have horns and control all the money.

Or that Gay people don't have a secret agenda.

It is your kind of logic and thinking that is making it harder and harder to oppress people based upon gross stereotypes. Quite frankly I'm offended and appalled by your suggestions. Won't someone think of the children!!!

I came her to say this but it was already taken. Great Job!

 

[The Tourist]

You mean to tell me there are mentally ill people out there that aren't complete crazy?

Well, I must admit that I once bought a Honda and dated a redhead. Lately about the silliest thing I've done is start my own business.

I regret the redhead, and I'm riding Harleys again. But, sorry guys, when I get a little down, I go take a nap.

No pillages, no rapine. I might do laundry later.

 

[rainbowbob]

This probably isn't what you are looking for to bolster your position - but it is a facet of mental illness that must be taken into consideration in any discussion about mental illness and gun rights. Notice that in this and other similar stories on their website, guns are not blamed for these tragedies - untreated mental illness is. For more information, please visit the Treatment Advocacy Center website at www.TreatmentAdvocacyCenter.org

PASADENA STAR NEWS (CA), February 29, 2008

HELP FOR THE MENTALLY ILL

LAST April 16 at Virginia Tech University, mentally ill student Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting rampage killing 32 people and himself. This past Valentine's Day, Stephen Kazmierczak killed five people then himself inside a Northern Illinois University lecture hall not long after he stopped taking his medication. In Baldwin Park, a 28-year-old self-described mentally disturbed man shot and killed his mother and then walked into his neighbors' house and fatally shot two people inside, including a 4-year-old girl.

These and other rampage shootings are tied together by a common denominator: shooters who are mentally ill and refuse treatment or stop taking their medication.

Monday night's rampage in a quiet Baldwin Park neighborhood prompted longtime mental health advocate Dolores Encinas of West Covina to say in a letter to our newspapers: "These unnecessary killings have got to stop!" A similar incident in New York moved Dr. E. Fuller Torrey to write in an op-ed in the New York Post: "We know what to do, of course. Most individuals like (mentally ill shooter David Tarloff in New York) do very well if they are properly followed up and treated."
Torrey, president of the Treatment Advocacy Center and an expert on the country's mental health treatment issues, said every America shares in the blame for not demanding a mental health system that works. Until we hold "hospital and mental-health accountable ... each mind-numbing tragedy will keep on being followed by another," he wrote.

We know what to do. We just need the will to do it.

Because getting people the help they need, and the follow-up treatment to make sure they stay on their medication, takes money, coordination and can collide with civil rights.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Bob, I'm not merely looking to bolster my position, but to present a position and discuss both sides of the issue.

That said, the TAC is a VERY troublesome organization.

The trouble is, and the problem I am addressing too, is not that of the seriously mentally ill (~6% of the population according to NAMI), but the slightly mentally ill (~18% of the population).

 

[doc2rn]

According to the BATFE all of us vets returning from conflicts abroad int the last 10 yrs all need to be stripped of our rights until undergoing treatment. At least that was what I got from the last couple of bills introduced and backed by the NRA.

 

[BruceRDucer]

Don't confuse RATIONAL with SCIENTIFIC

Hey BridgeWalker:

Congratulations on your ambitious undertaking. So far, you've covered a lot of bases. I agree with you by the way.

Here's some comments about the area of ............"RATIONAL BASIS" ...................identified in your article in paragraph #1


"Nonetheless, even the lowest standard of equal protection requires that no class of persons should be singled out for restrictions or unequal treatment without a rational basis for that discrimination."--BridgeWalker"

RATIONAL BASIS is a critical phrase, because it breaks down into distinctly different meanings.

For example: RATIONAL, per se, does not mean scientific.

The criteria a court will examine to determine a legal question of constitutionality will be "medical evidence" or evidence derived from "medical science".

I know that this will sound strange, but such "medical evidence" is not precisely identical with RATIONAL evidence or a RATIONAL BASIS.

Anything you write can be left inadequate without a clear distinction between the RATIONALLY derived propositions and SCIENTIFIC PROPOSITIONS. In this regard, a RATIONAL argument can be more of a philosophical argument, and be totally devoid of "medical evidence". Anyone opposed to your argument can offer "medical evidence". That is where it gets difficult. "Medical evidence" can be used in an IRRATIONAL manner.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I'll try to clarify this a little. Here are some important things to keep in mind.

From the assumptions of Science [Laws, theories, etc] it is IMPOSSIBLE to derive either a MORAL or an ETHIC.

However, one can derive and formulate MORALS and ETHICS from plain REASON.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So, when Mental Illness is discussed, medical Science is the source of that definition, and REASON is not the source of that designation.

That's why your quote, specifying a RATIONAL BASIS needs clarification for you to write a solid argument with no weaknesses.

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane".--Waylon Jennings

 

[fatguynlittlecoat]

I think I read or heard somewhere that if everyone went to a shrink, 99.9% of those patients could be diagnosed with at least one mental, personality or character disorder(borderline, bi-poloar, dissociative, OCD etc).

Do you know anyone who has never been depressed, angry, a tad OCD-ish? Probably not. Hell, most of the time it's the person that's willing to seek treatment for an illness that should be given a second chance in society, not denied their right to own a firearm. And it really comes down to a case by case basis. It's too broad to just deny everyone with a mental illness because a lot of these people cope just fine in society. It just so happens that they may have gone through a divorce, lost a job, lost a loved one etc. And now that they've gone to a therapist and took a few meds for a few months they are denied firearms forever. It's silly.

What's next? Is everyone without a formal education gonna be denied a firearm? Maybe they'll start getting even more extreme and picky about who can own a firearm. We need to draw the line somewhere and fast otherwise it's just gonna keep getting worse and worse. Look what happened in Great Britain. The UK citizens became lazy about gun policy and all the sudden the rug was taken out from under their feet. Join the NRA and bug the crap out of your local politicians.

 

[The Tourist]

Maybe they'll start getting even more extreme and picky about who can own a firearm.

Be careful what you wish for.

I love to cite statistics in discussing mental illness. Being bipolar, I always love the look on people's faces when they actually see the numbers.

For example, if The Green Bay Packers lose a game, who causes the most cases of spousal abuse? It's the "normal" husbands, not the bipolars.

Who causes the most cases of "domestic dispute" or "man with a gun" calls for your local police? This one always tickles me. It's guys who own double-wide trailors, not bipolars. I once joked that if you really wanted to curb violence by actual numbers you should make trailors illegal.

After all, you don't see many bipolars on "COPS," but you do see drunken, shirtless bubbas.

The concept that the mentally ill are there causing crimes is a false stereotype. I had the backside of a mania in 2001 and I could barely get out of bed. The idea of running all over town on a crime spree never entered my head. In fact, I didn't have the energy to walk to the kitchen and eat dinner with my wife. For several months she brought small bowls of pasta to the bedroom.

Oh, and the manias. Funny story--I clean and do laundry. I am so OCD that during a runaway mania I once dusted the tops of the copper pipes in my basement. I'm surprised I'm not wearing through the chrome on my bike.

To stem the tide of senseless violence quit looking to bipolars. Go to the sleazy bars in your area and investigate the real offenders--drunken townies.

If you find a guy with the same number of toes as he does teeth (usually that's eleven), you are more apt to be looking at a crime statistic.

 

[fatguynlittlecoat]

Be careful what you wish for.

I wasn't wishing for that. In the context I wrote that in, I meant that's what will start happening if we don't draw the line somewhere.

 

[BruceRDucer]

A sensible, reasonable person like fatguynlittlecoat

A sensible, reasonable person like fatguynlittlecoat, will always qualify as a madman.

A hysterical gun control advocate will always be viewed as a reasonable, people-loving, politically correct citizen, eager to pass out balloons and cookies to kids and give warm-fuzzies, when not actually singing the "Sound of Music" theme at the top of a green hill.

An overstressed, philosophical, patriotic American such as me, who owns some guns, will always be viewed as a stark-raving lunatic.

My wife will be viewed as just stoopud, cause she likes to shoot too.

Meanwhile, the world's history of violence, banditry, tyranny and civil wars, will always be viewed as attempts to confuse the real facts of the Constitutional issue regarding the Right To Bear Arms.

Therefore, in uttermost frustration, I'm discarding REASON altogether, and buying a RUBBER-BAND gun and some water balloons to defend myself. So fooey to all of that!

If you can't beat the LOONEY BRIGADE, just join'em, I say!

 

[The Tourist]

If you can't beat the LOONEY BRIGADE, just join'em, I say!

I'm sorry, we're not taking any new members.

You might try Hillary's campaign. She "sees" snipers and incoming rounds, and trust me, at my worst I never saw that!

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I think I read or heard somewhere that if everyone went to a shrink, 99.9% of those patients could be diagnosed with at least one mental, personality or character disorder(borderline, bi-poloar, dissociative, OCD etc).

I suppose it depends on what the definition of "personality or character disorder" is that you're relying on. According to the DSM-IV (is that the current one still?), every category that I've ever read -- not having read them all -- has very specific language about what has to occur before an illness rises to a clinical level or "official" diagnosis. The behaviors must first have a significant impact in one or more areas of a person's life, such as school, work, family life, and so on. One example would be if you spend literally hours every day washing your hands; you are constantly late for work or cannot complete homework assignments or your wife is constantly angry at you for spending so much money on soap and hot water bills and your hands are constantly raw and bleeding because you scrub them so much. Also, the behaviors must have occurred (usually) two or more times within the past six months -- not that you wash your hands, but that these significant troubles have arisen. A person who has bipolar disorder would have to have several clinically significant occurrances during a certain period of time -- I don't remember the numbers off hand and I'm too lazy right now to go get my pocket reference guide, but you all get the idea.

These are the current standards that every clinician must ethically follow at minimum and there are legal consequences as well.

Also, speaking of the legal side of things, most jurisdictions will not touch a person's RKBA unless and until they are adjudicated in a court of law as to be either a danger to themselves or others or so impaired as to not being able to take care of themselves in ADL's (activities of daily living).

So, 99.9%? Gimme a break. Even with the broadest, most lax definitions of mental illness I still don't go for it; though as with everything, I could be wrong.

Do you know anyone who has never been depressed, angry, a tad OCD-ish? Probably not.

Of course -- all those feelings are part of the human condition. What's your point? Do these feelings or behaviors cause any significant distress or impairment in their lives? Has a court issued a judgement stating that they cannot take care of themselves? Okay then, let's drop the overgeneralizations. It does no one any favors.

Hell, most of the time it's the person that's willing to seek treatment for an illness that should be given a second chance in society, not denied their right to own a firearm. And it really comes down to a case by case basis. It's too broad to just deny everyone with a mental illness because a lot of these people cope just fine in society.

Which is exactly my point. Even by the standards as they currently are, just taking Prozac once in a while or having normal feelings of sadness or inflated sense of self-worth or excitement still doesn't even come close to the kinds of impairments that we are talking about.

It just so happens that they may have gone through a divorce, lost a job, lost a loved one etc. And now that they've gone to a therapist and took a few meds for a few months they are denied firearms forever. It's silly.

Yes, your example is silly. Do we all want to prevent that slide down the slippery slope? (heh. I'm so alliterative!) Yes, of course. How can we do that? My own belief is that we make sure that the standards of someone being adjudicated mentally ill remain as high as possible and try and prevent the laws from being so vague in some states that allow a doc, without a court order, to label someone legally mentally ill.

 

[BridgeWalker]

According to the BATFE all of us vets returning from conflicts abroad int the last 10 yrs all need to be stripped of our rights until undergoing treatment. At least that was what I got from the last couple of bills introduced and backed by the NRA.

What many people don't realize is that in some states, many/most of these vets already don't have the right to carry concealed.

Michigan's concealed carry law does not allow anyone with a diagnosed mental illness to obtain a license.

I've decided to focus my paper exclusively on the MI law, btw. No room in ten pages for comparisons of other laws. MI's law adequately illustrates my point.

 

[BridgeWalker]

RATIONAL BASIS is a critical phrase, because it breaks down into distinctly different meanings.

Here, I am using it as a legal term of art that refers to a specific standard of review in ConLaw cases.

Unfortunately it is a very standard, and "rational basis" can be almost anything. However when there are considerable social concerns on the other side of the issue, the court may weight the competing interests.

 

[BridgeWalker]

I think I read or heard somewhere that if everyone went to a shrink, 99.9% of those patients could be diagnosed with at least one mental, personality or character disorder(borderline, bi-poloar, dissociative, OCD etc).

Not quite. About 24% at any given point. Over the course of a lifetime, the number is much larger since many or most mental illnesses are transient.

 

[Catherine]

I would like to read your paper when you are through with it.

I read the long thread on this board about this very issue. Good and bad points were made by some people.

According to the mass media, some psycho babble 'experts' ( I slept in a Holiday Inn last night types. Old commercial.), many in the medical profession, some teachers, some social agencies, some groups/organizations, the top 3 candidates no matter if they have a R or D initial behind their name, some religions, some 'activist' groups, some of your neighbors, some of your friends, some of your relatives, your GUN FREE ZONES, your 'leaders' in the District of Criminals, many politicians, many religious 'leaders', anti gun globalist people and the United Nations, etc. THINK, BELIEVE, WANT TO CONTROL, WANT TO BAN SOME FIREARMS, WANT TO RID YOU OF CONCEAL OR OPEN CARRY, WANT MORE RESTRICTIVE LAWS FOR ANY TYPE OF FIREARM, ESPECIALLY HAND GUNS, SEMI AUTO AND FULL AUTO RIFLES, REGULATE and "BRAND" AMMUNITION IN A VERY RESTRICTIVE WAY, even in so called pro gun states, THEY ARE SALIVATING TO GET THE A.W. BAN AGAIN, ETC. --- if SOME OF US - gun owners - OBJECT to all of this regulation and having even more rules/regs imposed on us as firearm owners... we are called "NUTS" or mentally ill by the anti gunners, Brady Bunch, some gun groups because it is for OUR OWN GOOD while they agree with the anti gunners and moderate Rinos and moderate Dems.

You know how it goes. Some think that if you think that the Constitution/Bill of Rights really means what it says as in the SECOND and all of the others... you are nuts, an extremist in your views, mentally ill, a tin foil hatter, paranoid if you see what the blazes has gone on with the SELL OUT of your GUN RIGHTS and OTHER LIBERTY ISSUES in the last 10, 20, and more years... well, dang, shoot, those gun nuts are too extreme in their views so they have to be mentally ill or fill in the blank name.

If you are not in a mental institution or were in one and released, healed and/or treated PROPERLY... you should be able to drive a car, hold a job, not be on the dole/welfare, own all kinds of tools/objects including a firearm.

From what I gather there are all kinds of 'felons' too. If you were in jail, released, served your time and deemed safe to be in SOCIETY... the above applies too. If you are a Manson type or of his ILK... you should not be released. In fact, you should not be kept alive @ the taxpayers expense because a Manson type should be put down... better yet... hang 'em high.

The Second means just that. Just because I 'think' that someone is NOT FIT, sane, safe or does NOT THINK/BELIEVE ONLY MY WAY... is NO reason for me to deny him or her the RKBA. If that was the case and I got to choose and pick these people... 95% of Congress and White House people would not be able to own or shoot firearms! Then I could go down the list with all of the other power control freaks who think that THEIR LIFE is worth way more than MY LIFE (Yours too!) because that is 'their law' and their special rights! ADD to that the fact that THEY have the perks, bennies, etc. of PAID protection @ your taxpayer expense. UGH. If they are not sane or FIT to hold the job and do their duty... I get to DENY them gun rights, eh? If they do that to some of YOU out there... you get to do it to those incompetent people including ordinary citizens who think that they are the NANNY of your life, this nation and world! UGH. What they 'think' is just that a thought! Geesh.

Anytime someone goes on about those gun nuts and they don't need this or that... I want to scream. It is about freedom, all of our rights, about self defense, the SECOND, etc.

I saw the bit about depression and this or that on the other thread here. There is NOT one person, normal person, who has NEVER been down or depressed. If they never had those feelings, I would really wonder because they might be a ZOMBIE in their real life (Ha ha.) or some ROBOT with NO brain, no soul, no spirit, etc. People who lose a spouse, a parent, a dog, a close friend due to cancer, any illness, an accident, in war time, for any reason will be depressed. That does not mean that they ALL are mentally ill or need medicine or help. Sometimes all they need is time, prayer if they believe, a friend to talk to, some rest if it was a long illness and ordeal before the death or incident, a happy event, exercise, etc. Many people lose loved ones, some lose employment, some become disabled, some lose their homes, some have to resort to 2 jobs or less pay because they have been outsourced and sold out, some have NO medical insurance or fall in that LOOP HOLE so they get screwed while a welfare queen/king or illegal alien GETS ALL KINDS OF FREE STUFF and help yet the hardworking person who actually has some savings or a home can't get jack squat - well, if that does not make some people go nuts (NO offense.) in the sense of being angry/frustrated... what would?!? Grin.

I think that all of this Orwellian stuff including the new laws promoted by some people are a bunch of hooey. If they want to screw people who ever got professional help and, yes, I think that is their PLAN as stated by the moderator on the OTHER thread here... I think that is wrong. Slippery slope.

Well, any so called authority figure can come out and say that some of us old fashioned and/or real Constitution people are mentally ill no matter what political party we belong to. To them an Extremist = mentally ill or 'off a bit' because he has strong views. Most of us can be VERY Conservative with a dash of Libertarian in us... some are even, gasp, liberals in the TRUE old fashioned sense of the word. You know if they tried to figure out the Founding Fathers today - they would be called extremists, nuts, mentally ill, off a bit, different, etc. Throw in muskets, black powder, swords, pitchforks, defying the KING and authority figures... well... those guys just HAD TO BE MENTALLY ILL! NOT!

You know how it all goes... if you talk about gun rights that tie into anti gun talk and anti gun POLICIES in this NWO globalist scheme of things... that makes you nuts too. NOT!

If you would have told our older parents, mentors, forefathers what is being done NOW in this Republic about our own GUN rights and ALL other freedom/liberty - Constitution shredding issues... they would call those people NUTS because those things could NEVER happen in the US of A!

Don't deny someone the RKBA just because you 'think' that they might do this or that. If you do that and they are that 'ILL' - they should not use most tools or even drive a vehicle! Some may not be in society if they are that ILL.

I think that the last compromise GUN deal was wrong too. That is my NOT so humble opinion... you know what they say about opinions now, eh? We all have them! Grin.

Respectfully yours,

Catherine
PS: I tried to correct my typos and if I missed some - forgive me. Thank you.

 

[The Tourist]

Catherine,

Even among people who own and enjoy firearms, people like me will always be slightly "tinged." You might a lose finger or two in an industrial accident and not even be able to hold a firearm steady enough to use it properly, but society will look at a maimed person in a better light than a bipolar.

You want to know the dirty little secret? I will never be able to provide enough evidence by medical opinion or success in the world to silence those who feel being "mentally ill" is a precursor to becoming an axe murder.

Frustrating? You bet. Fully 90% of the critics will never achieve what my wife and I have built in terms of employment, our own businesses, even in our hobbies. And yet some toothless idiot who will most likely drink and smoke himself to death before the age of 40 will still consider us damaged goods.

And you can test it.

Sometimes if I run into some smug clown who sincerely needs his bowels emptied in abject fear, I mention that I am bipolar and clearly insane. Then I twitch my eyes in that special way somewhere between court jester and working vampire. The guy usually remembers a very important date he had, and scoots.

My friends will admonish me, but I remind them that not a single punch was thrown, and I used my opponent's natural fear of the insane against him.

Perhaps that's more truth than poetry. Lots of people fear snakes and spiders. Who knows, maybe people are hard-wired to fear the mentally ill. In history many were regarded as mystics and soothsayers, so there is a long spate of wonder and awe.

Now take that concept nation wide. Do you ever think that a country where half of the states are liberal at present will ever grant me the same rights to firearms as you? I believe, in a very sense, that I will be one of the first to be stripped of my 2A enumerated rights.

 

[TEDDY]

whats left.

this post is one of the reasons I have always stated that the gov should follow the constitution.I dont trust the courts and I have reason not to.I came from a much freer time pre ww2.the cop on the beat had been there since he joined "hi officer ***"hi son".they knew us and we knew them.the police kept the peace,not enforce some activists laws. If they can make use all felon or mental cases to win their agenda they will.I dont think any of you realy have lived in a free time.:banghead:

 

[Catherine]

Dear Tourist,

You are correct and they would strip you of your RKBA according to the SECOND.

They might go after VERY outspoken people who call those _____ what they are! (Not being paranoid but remembering HISTORY here!) Heck, I know of many active and retired Veterans along with other middle aged people who see/know what is going on with THEIR agenda. That goes for any political party and ANY past, present and future administration. Gun Rights!

It is all smoke and mirrors... we will "LET" you have this gun right but you can't have this gun right because it is for the children, for the interest of the country due to x, y or z reason, because it LOOKS evil and shoots too many rounds, etc. Baloney!

While they strip you of your RKBA because of your illness, they go down the list and strip other rights from ALL of us all in the name of Homeland INsecurity or some other 'special' goobmint name. They ignore the 4th, you better watch your 1st because you could be deemed subversive (Grin.) aka TOO opinionated like a 'terrorist', they can put you away and not give you some other 'rights' or even the REASON WHY they are doing this to YOU all in the name of some other color coded #@ name. Rights? What rights - what do you think this is anyway... America or Amerika?!? We need the EXPERTS to tell you what those freaking amendments mean? You are too stupid or tinged to understand your rights! That is what they tell you in real life and in the mass media. We know what is BEST for YOU even if you are not a felon or mentally ill. Baa, baa and baa. Sheep!

FIRST they came for the fill in the blanks and I did not speak up... you know the drill.

By the way, I feel this way about PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE (God help us!) politicians in ALL parties, those new Patriot Acts, new rules/regs and laws when it comes to GUN RIGHTS and all other liberty issues because they tie into one another. It is NOT complicated.

How many people here called Billy Boy and Reno when WACO happened? I did. Most gun owners forget those things or don't even get the story straight there. Too much to say. What about Ruby Ridge? What about all of those other abuses of POWER?

I think that power control freaks who IGNORE the Constitution and basic laws along with the Golden Rule are NUTS! They can call themselves any religion and any party but they are still CON ARTISTS when it comes to freedom issues. You can put lipstick on a pig, call it anything but it is still a PIG.

Here is another example... I think that people who are pack rats, hoarders, SUPER slobs and SUPER disorganized are slightly 'off'. (OCD or some other 'name' - I don't care.) I have one relative like that and I know of many people who choose to live like that.

The relative and some of those think that I am TOO much of a neat freak in some things because I may be into ONE thing and they are into a zillion other things/projects or they don't do ANYTHING. I usually am into a couple of things at a time, have many interests but if there is a dead line or a specific issue that NEEDS to be addressed/solved... I handle the matter and DEAL with it!

The one relative and some others that I know just whine, cry, wish it away, don't even start the dang project or DEAL with the problem because they are in a standstill while offering EXCUSES. Well, I think that is NUTS and tell them to handle it. They ask for advice, I give it, I have even gone to their homes (Airplane trip and tons more in the past.) and still they remain the same UNLESS I take the bull by the horns... if they let you do this. They or some of those types of people... think that I can be too blunt, a task master, a solution solver, an organizer, etc. - they think that is nuts.

Oh yes, one of them thinks that ME owning and shooting firearms is a mental issue along with my talk about self defense and that silly piece of paper (Constitution/Bill of Rights.) that so many want to IGNORE or have forgotten! GRIN. To each their own and I tell them whatever trips their trigger! I don't shove a gun in their hands and they should not take mine away!

So... when it comes down to it - who is "tinged" as you say and who is not?

There are many of those power control freaks who want to remove YOUR gun rights and call YOU unfit because of your illness, Tourist. Some of those power control freaks were and still are UNFIT for Command NO matter what authority that they have or 'title'!!!

Take care. Blessings to you and yours.

Respectfully yours,

Catherine