Prove that you are not insane?

[Owen Sparks]

Should you have to prove that you are sane to be allowed to carry a pistol?

or

Should the government have to prove you are insane before denying you a Constitutionally enumerated right?

Isn't the burden of proof supposed to be on the accuser?

 

[zstephens13]

Innocent until proven guilty.
If we start splitting hairs to decide who gets their rights and who doesn't, it won't belong before NO ONE gets them.
You'll be called crazy for wanting to carry a gun, but with the government labeling everyone as crazy, why WOULDN'T you carry one?

 

[hardluk1]

Did the sheriff or feds ask if you were loco ?? I thought the gov, looked to see if had any flags haveing to do with metal issues to worry with and thats that. 26 years I have not had to prove anything.

 

[C0untZer0]

I never ever jokingly tell anyone I am depressed.

I think gun owners have to be extremely careful about that sort of thing.


We had two 2A cases go against us in Illinois: Moore v Madigan and Shepard v Madigan - they were illogical rulings, very bad decisions that went against us it was very disheartening. And the legislative session in Illinois just expired and the Chicago machine was able to bottle up our CCW legislation in committee - very DISHEARTENING

But it wasn't depressing

 

[mljdeckard]

What prompted the question?

 

[greenr18]

There's no real definition of insanity vs sanity legally that I know of, it comes down to someone "higher-up's" discretion I believe; which is both frightening and sad.

 

[Skribs]

I'm almost wondering if Owen meant to put this in another thread but created a new one instead of hitting reply.

As a psych major, I can tell you - everyone is crazy (psychologists are the worst). It's not a determination of whether or not someone is crazy, but about how crazy they are (and whether that type of crazy involves violence or breaks from reality) that is relevant to gun ownership.

 

[Owen Sparks]

What prompted the question?

The recent shooting in Seattle that has been all over the news.

It seems that some people think that the best way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to treat everyone as if they are potentially crazy unless they prove otherwise.

 

[Texan Scott]

Look to the law: my locality (if you can call TX a 'locality') has SPECIFIC LEGAL CRITERIA that may be used for denying eligibility for most things firearms related (NFA devices still being local sheriff's discretion, unfortunately - means if my neighbor shoots a hog at 2am, i WILL be woken up, because the sheriff doesn't think my law abiding neighbor NEEDS a suppressor. end rant tangent.)

Ineligibility criteria are based on documented past occurances, e.g. commitment to a mental health facility or judicial order/ warrant related to a mental health or substance abuse LEGAL issue. I.e, a judge ordering couseling and probation for drunken&disorderly is a LEGAL criteria, the sheriff knowing for a fact that someone attends AA meetings is not. Record of commitment to a mental hospital is a disqualifier; the sheriff's personal opinion that someone is 'weird' or 'not quite right' is not (unless you're applying for an NFA item you don't 'need'- return to rant tangent).

What you're raising is a question that would end up being an end-run around 'shall-issue' laws in many localities.

Maybe we ought to all be pre-emptively placed in protective custody for our own safety. Just the fact that someone WANTS a firearm would be enough to make some liberals 'reasonably suspect' the person to be unstable.

Freedom isn't free; it isn't even RISK-FREE; but neither is subservience or servitude, no matter what anyone tells you.

 

[BSA1]

Well the voices I hear in my head keep me from getting lonely. I guess that makes me my own best friend.

 

[ForumSurfer]

Innocent until proven guilty.

We'd also need a national law clarifying the definition of sanity. More junk we don't need.

 

[FROGO207]

I am sure I would check out OK but any of my friends, THAT'S a whole different kettle of worms I assure you.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

A mod would be insane not to close this nonsense thread.

What sort of discussion do you think you're going to get on this forum in response to a painfully vague statement like, "some people think that the best way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people is to treat everyone as if they are potentially crazy unless they prove otherwise."?

Frankly, the opening post is dangerously close to trolling.