Should the second amendment apply to the mentally ill?

[Vern Humphrey]

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?

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

If they are considered too dangerous to own a gun, they should not be allowed to vote, either.

 

[Warp]

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

Because of the context/entirety of the circumstances. You are focusing on only one aspect to what I was responding to.

I think I just spelled out exactly what I was saying. If you got a different impression reading the first post the first time, fine, but it should be clarified now.

 

[rogerjames]

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.

The problem with this approach is that we have a lot of mentally ill people walking around that SHOULD be institutionalized, but our mental health system is broken and we no longer have those facilities and resources.

My wife is an RN that works for a non-profit community mental health agency. Many of the most unstable clients are the bipolar and schizophrenic patients. The stories she tells me about many of these people is crazy. Jumping out of a social worker's car going 40 mph, walking around and defecating in public places, violence, etc etc etc. Ever see the guy at the bus stop carrying on a conversation with NOBODY, randomly yelling at passing cars, etc etc?

These people are all free, not because they SHOULD be, but because we don't have an alternative place for them to be. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that a person who is detached from reality, hallucinating, paranoid, etc should have legal access to own a gun. I agree that there needs to be some uniform criteria for diagnosis etc, but treating the severely mentally ill as every other citizen, is negligent and also a denial of the reality of mental health issues.

 

[SlayerOfBunnies]

Should the 2nd Amendment apply to the mentally ill? Should the 1st? How about the 4th?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The problem with this approach is that we have a lot of mentally ill people walking around that SHOULD be institutionalized, but our mental health system is broken and we no longer have those facilities and resources.

How do we KNOW someone is mentally ill? Does a suspected case get a trial, a chance to defend himself? Is he entitled to anything like due process?

And what do we mean by "mentally ill?" Is a person who compulsively arranges his tableware to be considered the same as someone who stalks women? Is there any room at all for degrees of "mentally ill?"

And what about people who are no danger to others, but merely want to be left alone? Do we forcibly incarcerate them and keep them drugged for the rest of their lives?

 

[Jim NE]

No, the 2nd Amendment should not apply to the dangerously mentally ill. The term "mentally ill" is way too broad, though. Mental diagnosis could potentially become politicized, meaning that unpopular opinions about government, society, religion, race or anything else could be pathologized (turned into an "illness") by those who might want to suppress those opinions. And obviously, if somebody has an unnatural fear of heights or tunnels or germs, that shouldn't be called mental illness, either.

 

[rogerjames]

How do we KNOW someone is mentally ill? Does a suspected case get a trial, a chance to defend himself? Is he entitled to anything like due process?



And what do we mean by "mentally ill?" Is a person who compulsively arranges his tableware to be considered the same as someone who stalks women? Is there any room at all for degrees of "mentally ill?"



And what about people who are no danger to others, but merely want to be left alone? Do we forcibly incarcerate them and keep them drugged for the rest of their lives?

How do we KNOW someone has Parkinson's? There's no diagnostic test to my knowledge, but there are a known set of symptoms and common presentations of tremors, delayed motor planning, flat affect, balance issues, etc and when given certain medications, those symptoms and manifestations are mediated or reduced in some observable, measurable way.

That is very similar to how we KNOW someone has bipolar or schizophrenia disorders. They display certain behaviors, delusions, detachments from reality, etc that are known, common to the diagnosis, observable, and somewhat mediated with certain medications.

I would imagine that if "loss of 2A rights" was a concern for anyone diagnosed with active bipolar or schizophrenia, that it would be prudent to have some sort of process for which this diagnosis could be verified by some independent panel of experts,. Have you ever met or known someone with bipolar or schizophrenia disorders? In many, if not most cases, it's about as obvious to a lay person as someone with Parkinson's.

As far as the definition of "mentally ill", that's a good question. There definitely is a large divide between someone with depression/anxiety, and the detachments from reality and instability that are associated with more severe diagnoses such as bipolar and schizophrenia. My personal opinion, is that it is definitely necessary to treat these diagnoses differently and I don't think that a diagnosis of depression, anxiety etc should affect someone's 2A rights unless there has been evidence of violence to others or one's self.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think I can say that our mental health system is wholly inadequate. I agree that there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked and addressed, but I definitely don't think that people with severe mental issues such as bipolar and schizophrenia should be allowed to legally own a gun.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

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

Don't remember saying or implying I was bogged down. would rather not imply...so I will ask....are you saying that i am wasting my time?

II'm confused what this bogged down thing is

. So you do want to know or am I wasting my time? Which is it? Now I'm confused because even though they both had question marks they looked like statement (That Is how you imply)? First statement I questioned rather than imply. Second was an example of implication. Now I will infer that your two prior questions Make no sense. No need to imply!

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.

So hang them all or lock them up forever? Fine that's a solution. Now does it need to be in the argument of "2A rights for all" until the solution is implemented? Cart before the horse? One thing at a time? Focus on the big problem? Learn from Bloomberg?

Note: How is it originally posted by me when you changed the words?

Originally Posted by Wreck-n-Crew View Post
I see no reason to associate 2A with such a broad variety of [people]

That was not my original quote ....

I fixed that for you.
You fixed it for me? You changed the whole meaning!

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

No you did not fix it for me! You cut out a phrase and left out the context...! I did not know i was running for office!

This was the context:

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!

That in no way shape or form relate to a variety of people! It was addressing murderers who used a gun!


As far as constitution and bill of rights it says I have "the rite to the pursuit of happiness" Guess I can just do anything that makes me happy in life any the law can't touch me less it infringes upon my rights?! Wait I just twisted the meaning to prove the point about context didn't I ...yup I believe so!

Originally Posted by Wreck-n-Crew View Post
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.

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 am still trying to figure out why you think they both A: have 2A rights that should not be infringed if they are free in society and B: they could be a problem to 2A as well and should be dealt with if it becomes a problem. It is an Elephant in the room and will bog down 2A fights in any state or federal level if it is ever a part of it. That's all I have been saying. It lacks focus and in reality is a "dead and going no where fight"!

Either some people give up rights by breaking certain laws or they don't. Either way that should not be the focus of 2A IMO. Key word focus!

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?

Bogged down is when we are even thinking of defending the rights to a "murderer by gun" as it applies to 2A. Counterproductive to the efforts of the majority of supporters of 2A as well as people on the fence. People who don't trust the government and are scared of bad people with guns make up a majority of the fence sitters. Which side they coming down on if we hold that belief ?

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

I implied nothing...I stated the belief of 2A rights "to murderers by gun" is counterproductive. Damaging would be an act...not a discussion about an act.

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.

All now or none? Even to those that commit murder? If "the right to keep and bear arms" is so literal and can never be revoked then that means they can take their gun to jail with them and to Court when sentenced, finally to prison. Sure, that is not bogged down discussion time either!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The RKBA is everyone's right. The Second Amendment makes no exceptions as to who's right is more or less sacred than anyone else's. The right shall not be infringed.

After due process of law, a person can be deprived of liberty, and the only way to deprive someone of their liberty is to lock them up. If you are a danger to society, you can be imprisoned, held in an institution, kept under full time guardianship, or executed. Once freed, you have the right to exercise any and all of your rights. If you are not executed and remain a danger, you should be kept locked up or forever in guardianship.

Without due process, government has no power to infringe upon any right. So, yes, the Second Amendment protects everyone's RKBA, and to be grammatically correct, it is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that applies to everyone. The Second Amendment applies to government.

Woody

 

[Warp]

...

You want to talk a more practical approach and not just what we think "should" be the case?

Does making it illegal for a person intent on committing murder to possess a gun prevent them possessing a gun or from committing murder? Probably not.

Does making it illegal for a person who wishes to defend themselves within the law to possess a gun prevent them from possessing a gun? Probably yes.


I mean, come on now, if a person who is 'free in society' is really that dangerous, they are really that dangerous, and telling them they can't possess a gun doesn't change very much at all.

 

[george burns]

Things like this are why mental illness goes untreated. No one will go and seek help if they lose their rights.

 

[Thermactor]

Mental illness will play a pivotal role in the 2A fight ahead. Most shootings that turn the public opinion against RKBA are committed by mentally ill people.

It's one thing to say that if they are allowed to be out in society, they should have their full rights.
But there are a lot of nutcases out there in society right now. Some are very dangerous just by themselves. In fact, we need the 2nd amendment to protect OURSELVES from them!

 

[BSA1]

How do we KNOW someone is mentally ill? Does a suspected case get a trial, a chance to defend himself? Is he entitled to anything like due process?

And what do we mean by "mentally ill?" Is a person who compulsively arranges his tableware to be considered the same as someone who stalks women? Is there any room at all for degrees of "mentally ill?"

And what about people who are no danger to others, but merely want to be left alone? Do we forcibly incarcerate them and keep them drugged for the rest of their lives?

A fundamental element, if not the core basis, of our health care system is the patients right of medical confidentally with their Doctor / Health Care Provider. HIPPA (Health Information Patient and Portability Act) is a Federal Law that has severe penalties for health care organizations and workers that release / disclose medical information of patients without the patients consent.

State law such as N.Y.’s Safe Act is in direct conflict with Federal HIPPA Law.

I have considerable experience (20+ years plus a college degree) working with the mentally ill and mental health treatment providers. In my previous life in the prison system the D.O.C. used to require certain inmates take mental program(s) (i.e. mandatory program prior to release). There was a lot of resistance by inmates taking these programs since they knew the information they disclosed would be released to D.O.C. personnel and could have a negative inmate on getting paroled.

Later the mandatory mental health program requirement was eliminated (Supreme Court ruling) and our fear was inmates would not participate in mental health counseling programs since they didn’t have too. To our surprise inmate participation increased after they learned what they said and the results was kept confidential. The mental health folks could only alert us if they had reason to believe the inmate posed a serious security risk and then what they could tell us was very limited.

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

Or mentally ill such as the OCD hand washer?

One thing I always taught my staff was when a inmate said they were hearing voices was to ask him what the voices were saying! Voices telling him he has to kill someone to make the voices go away is far, far different than him hearing non-violent voices that he can easily ignore.

Mental illness will play a pivotal role in the 2A fight ahead. Most shootings that turn the public opinion against RKBA are committed by mentally ill people.

A more accurate statement is the crimes that are reported by the media as the person being mental ill. I cringe at how the news chick (there are not true news reporters anymore on TV) on the 5:00 news reports that the person committing the crime a few hours earlier was bipolar and had social problems such as depression. How and what from what source does this information come from? Usually it is some citizen or unidentified “family member” on the scene that claims to know the criminal.

What we do know is when the media says it is so then it is accepted as the truth.

The problem with this approach is that we have a lot of mentally ill people walking around that SHOULD be institutionalized, but our mental health system is broken and we no longer have those facilities and resources

Very subjective. What is a lot?

Many of the most unstable clients are the bipolar and schizophrenic patients.
How do we KNOW someone has Parkinson's? There's no diagnostic test to my knowledge, but there are a known set of symptoms and common presentations of tremors, delayed motor planning, flat affect, balance issues, etc and when given certain medications, those symptoms and manifestations are mediated or reduced in some observable, measurable way.

That is very similar to how we KNOW someone has bipolar or schizophrenia disorders. They display certain behaviors, delusions, detachments from reality, etc that are known, common to the diagnosis, observable, and somewhat mediated with certain medications.

First of all bipolar is not all that easy to diagnose. Many types of mental illnesses share the same symptoms. Different Doctors and Mental Health Professionals often interpret the same symptoms differentially. And most people that are bipolar are not violent and do not pose a any risk to other people.

My personal opinion, is that it is definitely necessary to treat these diagnoses differently and I don't think that a diagnosis of depression, anxiety etc should affect someone's 2A rights unless there has been evidence of violence to others or one's self.

Good summary and conclusion.

 

[22-rimfire]

The mental health issue is a very important issue relative to guns, owning guns, carrying guns, and shooting guns. For many firearm owners, it will hurt their doctor-patient relationship regardless of HIPPA.

I thnk Cuomo will loose this fight. The problem is that there should not be a fight to begin with.

I mean, come on now, if a person who is 'free in society' is really that dangerous, they are really that dangerous, and telling them they can't possess a gun doesn't change very much at all.

All the peasants are judged dangerous if they own a firearm.

 

[Warp]

BSA1: If you had a magic wand that could implement whatever laws/regulations/funding, federal and state, that you deemed fit...what would the result be?

 

[rd_zzyzx]

The definition of mental illness seems to have expanded to include any mood that can be changed with the use of prescription drugs. Or in other words, any doctor that agrees that you should alter your mood diagnoses you with some accepted term, such as depression, and prescribes you with medication. For the convoluted ways law, insurance, doctors, and pharmacies all work together to create this hugely lucrative market (reminds me of prohibition stories I have read) so that insurance or government medical programs will pick up part of the bill. It seems that it has to be declared an illness to get the money flowing through this system, and there is the rock at the bottom of the slippery slope, you find yourself declared ill, but not just any ill, mentally ill, and there is nothing more scary than "mentally ill".

So, what do you imagine when you here someone is mentally ill? Adam Lanza? Someone that can't be trusted. If someone in your family is mentally ill do you let them babysit your kids, do you trust them with important tasks, etc, etc.

So, should the mentally ill have a gun? When the category is so wide you have to think the answer is "no".

Should you be careful about with whom you describe your feelings? Yes. You tell a doctor you are sad and the next thing you know you are defined as depressed.

Should you be careful about taking all of the meds. Absolutely. A neighbor girl just killed herself after they switched her meds for some new ones. Makes me sick. This little gal was just 14 and was two weeks older than my daughter and they grew up together, played on the same sports teams, etc.

So, with the way mental illness is currently defined, as broad as it is, I have to say no, the mentally ill do not need guns. Why? Because the person who is just upset with how life has turned out goes and gets diagnosed as depressed and put on meds that have a list of side-effects that include suicide, and if the drug can cause suicide, or in layman terms "killing" then can you prove it will not cause you to kill others?

So, don't go to the doctor, stay off these meds that are dangerous, and do something about your life and you get to keep your guns in the process. Move, change jobs, throw that lazy bum out of the house, etc.

Should convicted felons who have served their time and been deemed good enough to re-enter society be allowed to own firearms? They may need to protect themselves more than the average citizen. They have old "friends" that may want to drag them down, or may want them to pay up on some old debt, or because they are busted and fresh out of prison may live in a cheap apartment in a place that is dangerous.

 

[BSA1]

rd,

You just yanking chains aren't you?

Otherwise your lack of knowledge is appalling.

 

[BSA1]

Warp,

Given our current lack of knowledge of causes and effective treatment of mental illnesses this is too complicated for a magic bullet. The medical community is much too lacking in it's knowledge of the brain.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How do we KNOW someone has Parkinson's? There's no diagnostic test to my knowledge, but there are a known set of symptoms and common presentations of tremors, delayed motor planning, flat affect, balance issues, etc and when given certain medications, those symptoms and manifestations are mediated or reduced in some observable, measurable way.

And when a person is diagnosed with Parkinson's, do we deprive them of their basic rights, with no due process and no right of appeal?

 

[blarby]

Yet another very good example of a situation that presents itself as :

"Why don't those people who need help, proceed to obtain it?"

This particular Stigma has some far reaching consequences in our society.


Granted, what actually was observed and noted of the patient during treatment is rightly not for our eyes to read.

However, given that often complex diagnoses are simply being sorted into "buckets" for medical coding, this is a very real "risk". Thats a procedural problem, however, what your doctor chooses to do about your given situation is completely out of your hands- and in some cases his hands- once a few particular words or intentions are out of the bag. Even those under sometimes considerable duress and anxiety.

Talk to your Family, specifically your spouse. Talk to your confidantes- not just "the guys", but "that guy", talk with the leader of your flock.... But, be exceptionally guarded with your choice of verbiage with ANYONE who has the ability or capacity to relay your words or intents outside of your area of control.

Its sad, but Attorney client Priviledge, and Cloth priviledge, seem to be about the last bastions of a locked up conversation these days.

Should the second amendment apply to the mentally ill?
I've always said it depends entirely on the definition of "mentally ill"

Slippery slope, exemplified.

With the definition of "mentally ill" expanding at an alarming rate based solely on looser and looser diagnostic requirement for illness, the influx of cash into the treatment of symptoms that follows said diagnoses, coupled with often considerable political and personal will in making those diagnoses stick for the reasons so specified- its a MIGHTY slippery one at that.

Given that we have a legal process for determining ineligibility for possession of firearms stated right on the form you fill out to get one, I think we should leave it at that. That standard seems to meet at least a reasonable standard for concern : Involuntary confinement for an extended period as a result of psychological concerns for the health and welfare of not only yourself, but others. I think thats a pretty decent line to draw, and I believe many individuals would draw the same conclusion.

Sadly, a few states ( I.E, new york and california ) have already began to assert more authority in this regard, as evidenced.

I personally believe that once lawmakers deem themselves clinicians- especially in psychology and psychiatry- that the ride has certainly began, and someone should say so.

Essentially whats happening here is that at best bureaucrats are inserting themselves into what should be a protected doctor patient relationship based upon understanding and confidentiality. At worst would be stripping of rights based on (often) an initial patients' presentation of their frustrated state- and not one based on sound continued evaluation of a given patient.

 

[rd_zzyzx]

rd,

You just yanking chains aren't you?

Otherwise your lack of knowledge is appalling.

My lack of knowledge has always appalled someone.

My opinion of the "mental health industry" is obviously very low. I am sorry if you are in that profession and find my opinion to be ignorant and upsets you.

"Suffers from mental illness" is so broad that it includes those that are probably dangerous as well and what I imagine to be a vastly number of persons that are not dangerous at all. I am casting blame towards those that have lumped them all together. I am casting blame at those that are profiting from lumping them all together.

The logic is simple "set logic". If the set in "mentally ill" and the set includes those that are probably dangerous then those that are in the set will be included when any judgements are made about the set, or in other words, "you are mentally ill, some mentally ill are dangerous, therefore you should not have access to a firearm." That is the slippery slope. The politics behind this is to play off of the fear of the "mentally ill" without defining which set of mentally ill they are referring to. Since they do not constrain the set that leaves people to believe that anyone that is mentally ill should not have a firearm.

I am saying define the set of the dangerous, inside the set of dangerous are people that may or may not be mentally ill. I guess some would argue that being dangerous is a mental illness.

I am saying also that people shouldn't run to the doctor because they saw some commercial that says, "Do you ever experience any of these feelings.... you may be suffering from blah blah blah, and we have Ridilzac the latest drug that will treat you. Warning, side effects may be suicidal thoughts, voting Democrat, letting people piss down your back and tell you its raining,...."

Is rage a mental illness? Is it temporary mental illness?

Is being unhappy with how things are going depression? If so, I have been unhappy ever since the presidential elections. Is there a pill to make me fill better? Do I have to give up my rights to get this pill? Will it be worth it? Yes, I am being a smart alec. The reason for being one is that people are so willing to dump personal responsibility and consequence to say, "I am sorry, but I am depressed, its not my fault." Yes, there is an illness that is rampant in this country, one of being so dang wimpy that people avoid responsibility. If I had to label it I would call it progressive liberalism. Just a term I made up.

Now that I have ranted a bit, should the dangerous mentally ill have firearms? No.
Should non-violent felons that have served their time have firearms? Yes.
Should violent felons have firearms? No. Should they be released? No.
Should child molesters have firearms? No. Why? Because I don't like them and I do not want them to participate in any benefit of society. Should the be released from prison? No.

If we do not limit the restriction to the violent who will stop someone from deciding that the acceptance of a free market isn't the sign of a mental illness? It is a slippery slope.

 

[blarby]

If "ridlizac" got people to vote, mayvbe we should pipe it in like flouride.



Regardless of how you choose to, until we get a real voter turnout over 65%, we're never gonna know how the "majority" really feel.

 

[docsleepy]

The problem here was avoidable, and everyone should be aware of how to avoid it.

My state, and probably every other one, have laws that allow people to be involuntarily admitted to a hospital if they are considered a danger to themselves or others due to an acute mental process. The involuntarily part of it is the key: that is also the criteria for which you lose firearms rights. At least in states other than New York.

Insomnia is a common symptom of depression. Not that everyone with insomnia has depression, but depressed people often have insomnia.

The gentleman consented to be admitted for his insomnia, which I probably would have advised him against. Insomnia does not need a hospital admission! It went downhill from there, because someone considered it an involuntary admission, and bingo, he gets reported.

Never do anything that gets you involuntarily admitted. Work with your doctor, everything you can to avoid involuntary admission

 

[docsleepy]

An addendum: probably three quarters to 90% of the patients whom I take care of are on some kind of mood altering drug: benzodiazepine, or a sleeping pill, or an antidepressant.

I strongly urge you not to get yourself on these kinds of medications! They will form the basis of you being diagnosed with something you don't want to be labeled with. Don't take Valium, don't take sleeping pills, don't take anti-anxiety pills, unless you really really really need them. Docs get pats on the back for handing out drugs, avoid them like the plague.

 

[george burns]

On voting, if you don't vote, you should not complain, and the old argument that there is no one to vote for, is not effective. There is always someone on that ticket who deserves a shot at holding office more than the others trying to get the job.
if a citizen can't even bother to cast a vote for the betterment of his own country, they have no right to complain about it, just my 2 cents
On Mental Illness and Constitutional law, It's too complicated unless you have been educated on those subjects and can make informed decisions that the average person who is just talking out of their rear end cannot possibly make.
It takes years of study to become schooled on the repercussions of what could or would happen and the legality's, and social consequences, that would occur if laws were changed.
We do have a few guys here who may be educated sufficiently to make arguments one way or the other, but I feel it's over our heads for the most part, other than what we on an individual basis would like.