Should the second amendment apply to the mentally ill?

[DeepSouth]

I've always said it depends entirely on the definition of "mentally ill"

Example:

U.S. Navy veteran and retired police officer Donald Montgomery is suing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other officials after his firearms were reportedly confiscated by police after he sought treatment for insomnia.


It all started after Montgomery visited his primary care physician on May 6 and complained about trouble sleeping, the Daily Caller reported. He claimed to have been suffering from insomnia since moving from a different state. Montgomery then returned to the hospital again days later for the same problems, except this time he was diagnosed with “Depression; Insomnia” by hospital staff.

On May 23, Montgomery returned to the hospital yet again with the same symptoms. He reportedly stayed at the hospital for 48 hours voluntarily for treatment.

Under New York’s SAFE Act, mental health professionals are required to report patients who are determined to be threats to themselves or others. Regardless, the lawsuit claims the veteran was cleared.

“Patient has no thoughts of hurting himself. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts,” the hospital notes from the visit allegedly said.

Montgomery says that on May 30, the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department showed up to his house and confiscated his pistol license and four handguns — Colt .38 revolver, Derringer .38, Glock 26 9mm, Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380.

More details and full article at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-officers-were-knocking-on-his-door-lawsuit/
Its a Mobil link so it might not work.
But theblaze.com carried the story which was apparently originally carried by the daily caller. I just picked the main points for the quote.



This is just one example of what can happen if we let antigunners wright legislation restricting the 2A rights of the "mentally ill"
This is a touchy topic and honestly I haven't heard any solution that sounds good, nor can I think of one.

Just thought I'd share this one instance of the system gone wrong.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

And these firearm seizures are coming from one bill, rammed through a midnight committee and passed before it was even read. This is some scary stuff.

 

[Catshooter]

Not only what is the definition, but who does the defining?

I love my country, but I dislike my governments, especially the federal. And I trust all of them the same: as far as I can throw them.

On all levels they have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted and are very corrupt.

So I say yes, the 2A applies to the mentally ill. I refuse to allow the power of making that call and defining the terms to fall into the governments hands.

In addition, where in the 2A is there mention of mental illness? Sorry, but if we're going to stand on the 2A then we need to actually stand there, not quibble.

Freedom is scary and it can be dangerous. That is one of the larger factors that make liberals of all stripes fight it so. They are scared and want to feel safe.

Safety is but an illusion, doesn't exist in reality.


Cat

 

[WestKentucky]

To answer the question in your title, the constitution in its entirety should apply to all persons legally residing in the country. My view is that it should even apply to felons once their time is served and parole is over...or at least the process for reinstatement of rights should be easier. So for "mentally ill" they include any number of conditions that people my have such as insomnia, depression, or even bipolarism. These people should be denied access to a tool used for recreation, gathering food, and defending ones life??? That's absurd. People who have threatened or attempted suicide or murder obviously need admitted to a rehab facility or jail where firearms aren't allowed.

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ I agree. If anyone is truly a threat, they should not be walking free.

However, that opens a new can of worms.

Instead of merely losing one's firearms over a simple interpretation or definition, one could be losing one's overall freedom. Now that would be scary.

 

[Tommygunn]

U.S. Navy veteran and retired police officer Donald Montgomery is suing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other officials after his firearms were reportedly confiscated by police after he sought treatment for insomnia.

Should the second amendment apply to the mentally ill?​

Insomnia makes you "mentally ill? ? ?"
Geeesh. I must be partially ... "mentally ill" at times ....like when I can't get to sleep.

To address the question seriously, there are different kinds of "mentally ill." If one has some mental problem that causes one to have a tendency toward violence then I can understand why society might desire that firearms (and other dangerous items) be removed. In all likelyhood it might even be best to have such a person hospitalized so as to protect him and others.

However, it seems to me there are many kinds of mental illness which cause no tendencies to violence, and such people can still be competent. These people should continue to enjoy all their rights.

Unless there is something missing from the story I don't get how retired police officer Donald Montgomery is any danger to anyone. Insomnia is a very inconvenient problem, but it appears Mr. Montgomery was perfectly sane & sober since he sought treatment from medical professionals.
He therefor fits into my second category, not my first.

The New York SAFE ACT seems to be the main offending culprit here.

Not only what is the definition, but who does the defining?

Indeed. A very good question. Apparently, the powers that be -- in a inordinantly arbitrary way.

 

[Drail]

As far as I can tell the Bill of Rights applies to "all men" with no qualifiers. Of course we had to allow it to be applied to women as well. If we are going to allow it to apply to women then all other mentally challenged persons should be allowed as well.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Here's a simple solution -- everyone who can vote can bear arms.

If a person's "Mental Illness" is bad enough to debar him from voting, only then does he lose his Second Amendment rights.

 

[tomrkba]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except those we don't like, shall not be infringed."

 

[Warp]

All persons who are 'free in society' ought to have an un-infringed Right to keep and bear arms.

Unless and until a person has proven themselves incapable of being free in society, be it through a serious mental condition or a serious or violent crime that has them currently incarcerated, no infringement. Once those people are released back 'onto the street', no infringement.

Simple.

 

[d2wing]

This is going to be a can of worms. Who ever heard of due process. The should be a civil process with checks and balances. Lately bills like this that sound reasonable are a method to erode civil rights. There needs to be a process to investigate and a jury. Not just a one sided government fiat.

 

[urbaneruralite]

If they are out walking around on their own, they must be able to defend themselves.

 

[GEM]

This is a complicated issue.

Pre-emptive bans based on psychiatric or medical interviews alone are not seen by the trade as good predictors of violence. The best predictor is past violent behavior. Review indicate that interviews alone or testing should not be used to terminate civil rights.

The rate of violent behavior from people with mental disorders is approximately that of folks without. Some indicators of violence are a small subset of disorders and substance abuse involvement. However, even then you would have a large false positive rate.

Things that might predict are:
1. History of violence
2. Direct threats
3. Delusions, antisocial personality disorder
4. Hidden arsenals (meaning the person above is starting to purchase weapons or acquire such and no one knows about it). This is tricky and sets off RKBA objections.

It is a good idea to remove easy firearms access from folks showing specific suicidal ideation.

But even with these, we may be seeing hindsight bias in cases.

Laws like the SAFE act have generated thousands of reports and accordingly many false positives.

Given rampage shooters with mental illness presentations, we see moral panic and a general call for bannning the mentally ill from folks who want to cut down gun ownership or know little about what the term mentally ill means.

As far as the right to keep and bear arms being absolute. We have been down that road before. It might be your belief and you may thing the Almighty believes that but it is fairly clear that restrictions can make some sense. Now what is reasonable is a debate (thanks, Scalia - bah).

Is banning your 1911 from the MRI room reasonable? Yes, because they can fire the gun.

If someone makes a direct threat to kill you or rampage - should the law go for their guns? That's the problem with the Tarasoff paradigm.

If you are involved with the authorities, should you have legal recourse - but of course.

Do such laws inhibit folks with problems from seeking therapy? That's a large risk and the mental health community debates the confidentially issue.

It occurs elsewhere. Will service people or LEOs report PTSD symptoms that might influence their jobs or RKBA?

In CA, they have passed a law that mental health professionals must report a client that says they have looked at kiddie porn. You might say that is OK as kiddie porn is disgusting. Looking at kiddie porn is a crime (as creating such with real kids is a crime and the observer contributes to the crime by consuming such). But should the therapist report someone seeking help? What about someone who reports driving under the influence?

However, it has the same tremendous false positive problem as millions look at such but few molest kids. Is that different from the gun hater who thinks owning guns is perverted?

To conclude, this is not simple issue. The core is that we cannot at this time have any guaranteed measure of predicting violence in a truly useful mass way. We have rampage shooters and workplace avengers that do show signs of illness and many that do not.

Can we incarcerate in mental institutions hundreds of thousands? Someone with violent ideation can easily pick up a knife or run over folks? Guns make it easier to cause many causalities but if we think guns have utility for private ownership - we take that risk.

 

[Midwest]

Suppose a woman sought treatment for depression because her ex husband is stalking her.
Under "NY State Safe Act" would she be disarmed? How can she protect herself from her ex if the state disarmed her?
.

 

[Bobson]

Is there anyone, or any group of people, in this entire country who ought to decide for the rest of us who should and should not be allowed to exercise his Constitutional rights? Would you approve of giving that right to someone?

Is the right to a firearm potentially more dangerous than the right to speak out in public without being censored? Is a gun more dangerous than a vote? Plato said that the biggest problem with a republic like ours is that a fool is allowed to have a voice (read: the reason a democracy can't last forever) - not that a madman can own a sword. I think he was correct.

A criminal with a sword does far less damage than a deceitful man with his voice. That was true in Plato's world; how much more true is it in the world we live in today? Eliminating anyone's right to own a gun based on what a small group of people believe constitutes a threat is chasing after the wind in the name of public safety. Better to keep things as they are, and allow everyone the right to protect himself according to the laws we have in place, as opposed to trampling the rights of others underfoot, and believing we're doing anybody a favor.

 

[Sol]

Mentally ill such as a schizophrenic who claims to talk to Satan?

Or mentally ill such as the OCD hand washer?

Too broad, too many variables.

Should be dealt with in a case by case manner?

 

[P5 Guy]

the hospital notes from the visit allegedly said.

Since it was written down how does "alleged" even enter in the discussion?

 

[Warp]

Mentally ill such as a schizophrenic who claims to talk to Satan?

Or mentally ill such as the OCD hand washer?

Too broad, too many variables.

Should be dealt with in a case by case manner?

No, it shouldn't. Might as well have May Issue permits for possession of firearms at that rate.

If they are out walking around on their own, they must be able to defend themselves.

All persons who are 'free in society' ought to have an un-infringed Right to keep and bear arms.

Unless and until a person has proven themselves incapable of being free in society, be it through a serious mental condition or a serious or violent crime that has them currently incarcerated, no infringement. Once those people are released back 'onto the street', no infringement.

Simple.

^^ I agree. If anyone is truly a threat, they should not be walking free.

However, that opens a new can of worms.

Instead of merely losing one's firearms over a simple interpretation or definition, one could be losing one's overall freedom. Now that would be scary.

Due process.

Not even in New York do I think they are going to lock the guy up against his will for insomnia.

Of course, being New York, I wouldn't put it past them, but that is not quite the same issue brought up by the OP/being discussed in this thread.

 

[Schwing]

These types of laws will IMHO inevitably have consequences far beyond appeasing anti-gunners and their "We just HAVE to do Something!" Mentality.

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone with anxiety, depression, insomnia, etc. At some point, I don't think a soul alive has not suffered from all of them at one point or another.

I know many folks who chronically suffer from these things yet are not a danger to themselves or others. Imagine a world where your basic rights are stripped away from you just for seeking treatment for something like insomnia!

What happens if people with these conditions decide not to seek treatment for fear of losing their rights? Most of the time, nothing will happen and the problem will resolve itself. Then there are those who truly have a physical condition that causes the problem. Left untreated, it can and does lead to dangerous mental states.

For the typically P.C. correct anti-gunner, I am stunned that they don't see the hypocrisy in the blatant discrimination. To put this into perspective here are some statistics regarding "Mental illness" in the U.S.

18% of the adult population in the U.S. is estimated to have general anxiety disorders.
3% are estimated to have panic disorder.
7% are estimated to have social anxiety disorder.
9% are estimated to have specific phobias.
1% are estimated to have OCD (probably much higher in reality).
4% are estimated to have PTSD.
7% are estimated to have Major depressive disorders.
2% are estimated to have Persistent depressive disorders.
30% are estimated to be suffering from insomnia at any given time.


Granted, some of these certainly overlap but those statistics are not available. Without that info, it is assumable that 81% of the adult population is suffering from some kind of "Mental illness" at any given time. If anti-gunners have their way, this is an easy ticket for disarming a huge portion of the population for "Their own good".







7% are estimated to have social anxiety disorders.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No, it shouldn't. Might as well have May Issue permits for possession of firearms at that rate.

Excuse me?

Are you saying we should no longer be treated as individuals, but regarded as cyphers by the legal system?

 

[tomrkba]

This is only a complicated issue because we are allowing the government to treat a right as if it were a privilege.

 

[Warp]

Excuse me?

Are you saying we should no longer be treated as individuals, but regarded as cyphers by the legal system?

Read my posts in this thread and think of the context when reading that post.

What I am saying is that we should not be confiscating anybody's firearms or declaring them somehow unfit for firearms unless they are presently incarcerated as a result of due process.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

There are people who serve 20+ years for murder and get out without parole/probation. Suppose we pass legislation to insure second amendment rights to all people even with this type of history (including paths made easier for the suggested). Odds are that enough of those given the easier path will recommit a crime using a firearm and that will not bode well with the media nor public opinion of 2A rights. IMO you would end up losing more ground than you gain!

I see no reason to associate 2A with such a broad variety of criminals that include "murder by gun". Narrow down the field and include non violent offenders, etc. Makes much more sense to me. Yet there is still enough gambling with that to cause more loss in rights than gains IMO.

Here's a simple solution -- everyone who can vote can bear arms.

Problem with what seems simple is that ex-cons convicted of murder by gun and out on parole are able to vote in many states! Do you really want that association to 2A?



This is not about concessions to me but focus on the important fight ("the bigger picture first") like in California, DC, and Colorado! Allowing ourselves to be bogged down in fights that should be after we win the most important ones is counterproductive.

Just makes since to me to insure the right to keep and bear for people that they (the anti's) have no strong argument for and move forward from there! We have a road to build to get from point A to B...several bridges must be built for the road to be completed. Why on earth get bogged down on point X,Y, or Z when we have not successfully built the road or bridge to get to B first! Especially when there is no denying we have to go to B?

 

[Warp]

There are people who serve 20+ years for murder and get out without parole/probation. Suppose we pass legislation to insure second amendment rights to all people even with this type of history (including paths made easier for the suggested). Odds are that enough of those given the easier path will recommit a crime using a firearm and that will not bode well with the media nor public opinion of 2A rights. IMO you would end up losing more ground than you gain!

The solution to that, if it does in fact turn out to be a problem and not just busy-body hand-wringing, is revisiting how we deal with people convicted of such crimes.

I see no reason to associate 2A with such a broad variety of [people]

I fixed that for you.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is meant to apply to everybody, to all variety of people.

Problem with what seems simple is that ex-cons convicted of murder by gun and out on parole are able to vote in many states! Do you really want that association to 2A?

Are they 'free in society'? Then they get their Rights.

This is not about concessions to me but focus on the important fight ("the bigger picture first") like in California, DC, and Colorado! Allowing ourselves to be bogged down in fights that should be after we win the most important ones is counterproductive.

I may have missed something, who is bogged down in what that you don't think is worthwhile?

Are you implying that offering opinions and perspective in this thread is somehow damaging the RKBA??

Just makes since to me to insure the right to keep and bear for people that they (the anti's) have no strong argument for and move forward from there!

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be applied to everybody.

We have a road to build to get from point A to B...several bridges must be built for the road to be completed. Why on earth get bogged down on point X,Y, or Z when we have not successfully built the road or bridge to get to B first! Especially when there is no denying we have to go to B?

Why are you wasting time getting bogged down posting in this thread then?

I'm confused what this bogged down thing is.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Read my posts in this thread and think of the context when reading that post.

What I am saying is that we should not be confiscating anybody's firearms or declaring them somehow unfit for firearms unless they are presently incarcerated as a result of due process.

Then why the objection to case-by-case rulings?

After all, even Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon Bomber, is getting that kind of treatment.