...no one on the bus except us crazies...

T

The Tourist

Moderator
Many times we debate gun ownership by repeating guaranties in The Second or in citing references in The Federalist Papers.

As for an armed society, we often debate staunch leftists and gun control advocates on just what these statements mean in a modern application.

But the one thing that strikes me is the concept of "mental defect or illness."

It pops up in many concepts. The idea of abortion is another hot-button debate, but we might soften our stance in cases of rape or mental defect.

And to be sure, a defendant's life or freedom can hinge on his sanity at the time of his crime. He could kill an entire family, and yet walk free.

So, I'd like to ask my fellow TFL members, just what exactly should be our parameters for a mental defect. If it is an illness, should sufferers still get a chance to own firearms. What are your feelings about mental patients free in your town that legally own firearms under our current laws.

And don't be polite on my account. Speak the truth.
 
honestly,i sometimes think im the only person on the planet without a "mental defect/illness".

maybe thats a sure sign i have one?
 
Some of the voices in my head say yes while others say no...:rolleyes:
Actually I am feeling like if some one is UNSTABLE than no... But how do we decide this? My wife works for a mental help operation. I think some of her less severely distraught unstable folks would be fine while others should never see a gun let alone possess one!
Brent
 
Jermtheory said:
maybe thats a sure sign i have one?
Click to expand...

Well, until you take an MMPI2 test, we won't really know.

But let's take that concept a step farther. Let's suppose for the sake of this debate that the left really wanted to curttail ownership and use of firearms.

As you know, you cannot possess a firearm if you violate conditions of the Lautenberg Act.

So, let's suppose that the left decides to expand the parameters of the this act (nose of the camel) to include "hate speech" and mental defects for spousal abuse. In other words, you come home a tad cranky and bark at the wife.

The next thing you know a psychiatrist is doing tests on you, the state declares you unfit, they invoke the Lautenberg Act and off your gun collection goes to the metal schredder.

Now, if that sent a chill up your back, good. One in ten Americans suffer from some sort of mental duress. And trust me, you do in fact know when it hits you.

However, diagnosis and treatment are confidential under HIPAA, for now.

A stroke of the pen will change that, because isn't it really safer and better for society to strip weapons from all of those mental whack-jobs?

If you've ever gone to couples' counseling or asked your doctor for something to help you sleep, I'll save room for you on the bus...
 
In my "twisted", "barbaric", and antiquated way of thinking : If the perpetrator is capable of discerning right from wrong he should be subject to the same penalties as anyone else. This includes mental illness, mental retardation, young age, etc. It wouldn’t bother me a bit to throw the switch on old sparky for a murdering schizophrenic teenager as long as he knew right from wrong when he committed the crime.
For those without this ability, commitment to a treatment facility until a minimum of 5 years has passed after it can be demonstrated that they have developed it.
Note: "temporary insanity" defense gets you 5 years of treatment/confinement.
 
animal said:
It wouldn’t bother me a bit to throw the switch on old sparky
Click to expand...

Ah, that's my point. I wasn't diagnosed until I was 51 years of age.

Animal, I don't know how old you are, but suppose you are a younger man, and as such, you have never had much of a brush with the law.

As you have pointed out, we have a problem with our definitions here. Either they are far too tight, or often way too loose. As for too tight, the Lautenberg Act strips a man of his enumerated rights, and as for too loose, a diagnosed schizophrenic can walk away free from a grizzly axe murder.

There is a hole in our legal system here which I believe can be exploited far too easily.

For example, how often have you seen a liberal view a collector's gun-room and gasp the expression, "Yikes, is he paranoid?"

Being paranoid, suffering from anxiety attacks or being OCD are all signs and symptoms of mental illness. And that relates to one of the questions on the 4473.

Frankly, I see a day in my life when my approval is denied for just such verbal gymnastics.
 
"Being paranoid, suffering from anxiety attacks or being OCD are all signs and symptoms of mental illness. And that relates to one of the questions on the 4473."

Not really. You either haven't read the 4473 or you do not understand the meaning of the word adjudicated and the question on the form. It's a legal term requiring a legal decision, not a mental health term that's dependent on a diagnosis.

I'm sorry you're fearful, but all of these what-if scenarios are sort of useless. What if they do this? What if they do that? What if the sky falls?

John
 
I assume you are refering to the ATF's Form 4473 form, the one that you have to fill out in order to purchase a firearm?

Its been a bit. Does anyone have a link to a readable copy of the form?
 
Actually under federal law, you can be mentally ill all you like and still own and possess firearms. In order to be prohibited, you must be "adjudicated mentally defective" or "involuntarily committed."

"Adjudicated mentally defective" means that a court or similar body (VA Medical Board for example) has determined that you are a danger to yourself or others because of your mental illness.

The problem is that while it requires an adversarial hearing in order to be committed involuntarily, it doesn't always require an adversarial hearing to be adjudicated mentally defective. Some Circuit Courts (2nd and 6th) have decided that you can be adjudicated mentally defective on the word of a judge without any lawyer or doctor to represent you and argue your side. I don't think that is an acceptable standard for a basic human right and I'd like to see that change.

However, I'm OK with the concept that people who are so mentally ill they are involuntarily committed or a danger to themselves or others shouldn't have access to firearms. It is the execution that needs work.
 
This is why I also included the 'nose of the camel' phrase. Your note of the word adjudicated is the standard today.

For example, while restrictions have elapsed, we were once limited to a smaller magazine capacity. Our hi-cap mags were lost because the anti's were successful in selling this ridiculous idea. Why did they settle at 10 for a magazine limit? Why not 7? My point is that any limit or idea can be implemented if idiots can swing enough votes.

Do you remember our debate on age, maturity and driving? As it is now we can drive at 16, drink beer at 18 but we must wait until 21 to buy a handgun. All of these age limits are arbitrary--all of them subject to change on a whim.

(Madison once had 18 year old "beer bars." Then the age of 19 was bandied about, then changed once again.)

The crux of my position is that we all agree that being alert is one of the ways we protect the rights we have under The Second.

And let's be open about this. Sooner or later some leftist is going to awaken to the fact that 10% of the nation's firearms owners can be disenfranchised. And it all sounds so logical.

When Lautenberg passed there were mumerous police departments that had to disarm their officers and assign them to desk duty until the parameters were defined. In Wisconsin, any domestic call must end in an arrest. Follow the logic?

And if America was disturbed about agents searching through their purchases at book stores, wait until measures like The Patriot Act allow agents to go through your medicine cabinets.

And BTW, many people who suffer from depression and manias are despondent at times. It's hard to watch a spouse quit a job, take to bed for weeks and lose dozens of pounds neglecting to eat. In an effort to save them, you might seek legal rememdies to handle their affairs and get them into a hospital.

How would you like to wake up, innocent of any and all crimes, only to find you've been "adjudicated" out of your gun collection.
 
My first post was in response to your original post and incomplete (sorry). My answer to the firearms/mental illness question is below. I am answering with personal opinion of what "should be" rather than concerning actual law or proposed law.

As far as mental illness itself is concerned, I see no reason for a mentally ill person (who can discern right from wrong and does not suffer from compulsions to do harm) to be debarred arms. Period !

As far as those who cannot discern right from wrong or who have compulsions to do harm are concerned, I see them as incompatible with society. Therefore, they should be separated from society (committed and treated) until they can properly function. The "5 year additional idea" is to help to be sure of functionality for their sake as well as the population’s. That time would be used to introduce stresses and problems on the patient for the purpose of evaluation.

you do in fact know when it hits you.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily… This depends entirely on the type of mental illness.
Animal, I don't know how old you are, but suppose you are a younger man, and as such, you have never had much of a brush with the law.
Click to expand...
I’m in my 40’s, had a few brushes with the law but in all of those cases I was in the right. I’ve been a suspect in a murder investigation (I did NOT do it). Held bad guys until the cops arrived a few times. Sent a thief to CCU when he cornered me in a vacant house. Cursed out 2 detectives in the interrogation room of the police station when they implied that I was a drug dealer because I am always in extremely bad neighborhoods … and the lowlifes know not to f*** with me. Etc.
On the other side, I have at times, found it necessary to do things which were illegal (and had I been caught, I would’ve taken the law’s punishment) such as taking a little league aluminum bat to a room full of crackheads, recovering stolen property by force, and a few other things I’ll not discuss.
My background from a young age is not a pretty picture. There is much shame and abnormality both in situation and my reactions to it. I am sure that I could easily be diagnosed with mental illness. Rather than ride on the bus, I suppose that I have chosen to walk.
 
animal said:
As far as mental illness itself is concerned, I see no reason for a mentally ill person (who can discern right from wrong and does not suffer from compulsions to do harm) to be debarred arms. Period !
Click to expand...

This is going to be a hard sell. And I say that because, overall, it appears that we always lose more rights than we gain. In this country we once used to be able to carry any weapon, even weapons used by the army, anywhere we wished. Now we need licenses.

As to mental illness, imagine trying to defend that in a debate. For example, the lefties once passed some environmental act using some very aggressive numbers. When the GOP suggested a roll-back, the lefties said, "How can you be against programs that save the lives of children?" Good debating strategy.

And sooner or later, the left will come knocking at my door. Like any other gun issue, they will try to make a mountain out of a mole-hill with headlines like "20 million people on anti-depressants own fireams!"

Now, in reality most people who seek out proper treatment are pretty solid citizens. But such a leftie move would force the GOP to take the position that "some mentally ill can own firearms." I would hate to defend that debate.

We don't take time to do proper research, we live on sound bytes. Most people don't know or care about the differences between moderate depression and full-blown schizophrenia. The only words many will hear are mentally ill and then guns.

And just as in the faulty concept that felons stalk gun shows, average people will believe that mentally ill can get weapons whenever they want.

And some liberal will find a new idea to "protect America" while he blows hot air and does nothing.
 
I once took a Minnesota Multiple Personality Inventory test, but since one of my Anthropology courses involved dissecting the cultural biases of just that test, I knew all the right answers.
The shrink used my "completely clean" MMPI as evidence of my "schizoid tendencies". Kind of like the Soviet Union; they just defined wanting freedom as a mental defect and locked up dissidents for treatment. I'd rather take my chances with crazy people than have the gov't "help".
 
…..Never said you didn’t have a big target on your back and I wasn’t trying to sell you anything … just express my opinion.

I believe that many and possibly all of your points are valid. This could be used as another tact to disarm a segment of the populace. Although most of the population is woefully ignorant concerning mental illness, a defense against such legislation is possible along the lines of education. Not much different than fighting any other gun control legislation …

Another tact could be to fight towards using the legal definition of insanity rather than "adjudicated mentally ill".
 
Once upon a time the "feeble minded" and "mentaly ill" were forcibly sterilized by the state. While this practice very gradualy was discontiued it did happen. Now how hard would it be to remove gun rights from the "feeble minded" "for the children" Is it unreasonable to say any body who is unfit to own a gun shouldnt be alowed to vote or be LEO Fireman dogcatcher soldier sailor or indian chief. Felons are restricted this way as unfit citizens. Is it that much of a stetch to include the "mentaly ill" ?
What constitutes a mental illness? That is in the DSM. read some of that. I believe it includes PTSD ADD ADHD Depression. Its a long list. Determining the severity is subjective. any could be considered a danger to self and others that determination being made by a scared of there own shadow social worker. Thats who will be explaining your diagnosis very likely
 
Last edited:
Like any other gun issue, they will try to make a mountain out of a mole-hill with headlines like "20 million people on anti-depressants own fireams!"
Click to expand...

The practical problem with such tactics is that 20 million people is a big chunk of the electorate and you can bet that if 20 million people on anti-depressants own firearms, there are probably another 20 million who are on anti-depressants who do not own firearms but don't like being labeled a potential danger.

This is why I also included the 'nose of the camel' phrase. Your note of the word adjudicated is the standard today.
Click to expand...

Look, anything can be used as the "nose of the camel" if voters don't care about their rights. If you sit at home, don't pay attention and don't vote, a savvy politician can make sure everybody who buys Raisin Bran never owns a firearm again.

So what exactly is the point of sitting around dreaming up ways that the government might try to restrict firearms in the future when nobody in government is proposing that at the moment? We have lots of real, actual, happening-right-now types of threats. Why should we be thinking up new ones that nobody else has suggested and publishing them on the Internet?
 
It a great question, with some very good responses so far - I'll have to think about this one....

And don't be polite on my account. Speak the truth.
Click to expand...

OK, even though I don't think you're too often accused of perfect sanity, Tourist. :D :p Just razzin ya... :)
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Why should we be thinking up new ones that nobody else has suggested and publishing them on the Internet?
Click to expand...

Frankly, because I don't think I have to teach the lefties anything about trying to blunt gun rights. They will devise more that I can dream.

But I still feel that we can learn a lot from the actions surrounding the Lautenberg Act. To be honest, if I thought someone in my neighborhood was beating his wife, I'd stop by and give him a dramatic demonstration on what real pain feels like. I detest wife beaters.

However, having said that, Lautenberg was used to scoop up twenty year old misdemeanors and disarm the violators. How do you know that these violators didn't come to their senses and seek treatment? Conversely, how do you know that the violator was a man? Slightly more than 10% of spousal abuse is initiated by the wife.

As pointed out, we now use the word "adjudicated." Suppose we applied a new law to the same extent as the Lautenberg Act.

Here's the dealie. Suppose that 17 years ago TSR is working on a nut-buster assignment for his company. He's under stress, his boss is riding him like a swayback pony. Nothing is going right, he's so sleep deprived that he dreams he's sleeping.

His doctor prescribes Trazadone. It's a mild anti-depressant that actually works better as a sleeping bill.

With a fresh eye, TSR gets some needed sleep, lower blood pressure and he completes the project. Now enjoying completion and being well-rested, TSR stops taking Trazadone.

However, lets suppose that factions of any new anti-gun law using the phrase "mentally ill" are to be applied just as The Lautenberg Act. And no keystroke is ever really erased from a computer, be it a doc's med-recs or that of a pharmacist.

One morning TSR smells the scent of cheap cologne and hears the footfalls of gleaming jackboots. "Mr. TSR," the lead fascist gesticulates, "we're here to seize your firearms under the new Brainiac Hillary Act. Resistance is futile."

So, guys, any of you ever gotten a sleeping pill from your doctor?

FirstFreedom said:
OK, even though I don't think you're too often accused of perfect sanity, Tourist.
Click to expand...

No prob, FF, no offense taken--ever. But how do you normal guys ponder so slowly? It must be a gift...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top