Poll: Mentally incompetent citizens have a right to arms.

Arms for the mentally incompetent?

  • Yup. The Constitution says ALL men. No choice.

    Votes: 29 24.4%

  • Nope. The Framers weren't being quite that rigid.

    Votes: 90 75.6%
  • Total voters
    119
H

Handy

Moderator
Strict interpretation, or strict principle applied with good judgement:


Does an adult citizen of the United States have the right under the Second Amendment to purchase and bear arms, even if judged to be mentally incompetent and/or a danger to himself?

E.g., Institutionalized schizophrenics, mental or developmental retardation causing young child level intelligence, severe brain damage.



We aren't talking criminals, kids or foreigners. We are talking about your fellow citizens, so please consider how the language of the Bill of Rights does or does not protect the rights of even these people. Thanks.
 
I think that an argument could be made that a person with a damaged/inadequate mind is not fully "whole" -- not fully a "man."

Human, yes,
but not necessarily a "man" in the eyes of the law.

And thus, not necessarily entitled to all the rights entitled to a man.


I see where you are trying to trap "originalists" and others by forcing people to make a choice that you can then club them with, in an attempt to make people seem inconsistent in their beliefs about rights, handy. It's really transparent, and really pathetic.

When you point out that the 2nd Amendment can't be "absolute" because even we absolutists recognize certain limitations, you fail to realize the obviousness that we mean "absolute within an understood paradigm with understood limitations."

Meaning, it is understood that imprisoned convicts are not entitled to the right to keep and bear arms. For one thing, it should be obvious we can take that right away from them -- we've already taken away their right to come and go and live their life freely!

I think it is understood -- a no-brainer -- that we are talking about people who are mentally "whole" when we talk about them having the right to arms, and it is equally understood that rights belong to FREE men, and once a man's actions cause society to strip him of his freedom, he loses any and all rights (from "Life" on down...) depending on the structure of the society's laws. If society (like in the U.S.) says that a convicted felon has to be kept in jail, and can't vote, and can't have guns, BUT society says that he is not to be stripped of his right to worship, his right to be protected against cruel&unusual punishment, etc., then he has those protections. That stuff is all proscribed. So it is clear that we get pretty picky-choosy about what rights a person loses upon conviction for a crime, and it is also very clear that when we say "Men have certain absolute rights" we mean "while they are citizens in good standing and not the convicted perpetrators of crimes.

-azurefly
 
When you point out that the 2nd Amendment can't be "absolute" because even we absolutists recognize certain limitations, you fail to realize the obviousness that we mean "absolute within an understood paradigm with understood limitations."
Click to expand...
This is exactly as I see it as well. But I am seeing little agreement in what is "understood".


I'm willing to bet that others don't have the same "understanding" as you do.
 
What will in fact happen is the mentally incompetent will be denied firearms by law. That's because, despite what any fringe thinks, the overwhelming majority won't have it.

Start advocating guns for nuts and you are cheerleading for Brady.
 
Human, yes,
but not necessarily a "man" in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...
It took me a moment to process this. Are you implying that such a person doesn't receive BoR protection, such as protection from cruel and unusual punishments?

What an interesting perspective! The BoR is absolute in its definitions, but people aren't.


Ned,

I keep being told that there is such a thing as an absolute, involiable right. I'm looking for it.
 
The problem here, handy, is that the framers knew that mentally handicapped, foolish, morally vacant and just plain stupid people existed in the world.

They weren't out to enumerate everything possible in those first 10 rights...

They also knew that at the time, communities were self-policing. Families were self-policing. Someone had an autistic or retarded baby, guess what? That kid didn't get a squirrel gun at age 10 or learn how to shoot dad's rifled musket.

They didn't throw common sense safety out the window, crying out: "come one, come all! Murderers, rapist, thieves and retards! Get your guns! Get your guns! Guns for retards! I've got guns for retards, right here! Step right up and get your guns for retards!"

Government was endowed with powers to further police lives in accordance with the wishes of the people. One of those wishes later on was that people like Hinkley (sp? Reagan's wannabe assassin) not be able to purchase guns.

But the 2nd ammendment remains as a check on the power bestowed upon the executive branch, so that the policing of mentally handicapped folks does not extend any further than what is originally permitted.
 
I'm willing to bet that others don't have the same "understanding" as you do.
Click to expand...

Good job Handy.

In point of fact, an absolutist 2nd Am position is unsupportable logically and legally

WildherewegoagainAlaska
 
The question is confusing. The original question lumps those adjudicated mentally defective in with the mentally retarded and developmentally disabled. The problem here is that the MR and DD folks CAN buy guns (and get a driver's license and anything else you or I can do) unless they've been adjudicated to be incompetent. And most of the ones I've met during the past 30 years have NOT been declared incompetent.

So the question confuses a legal status (adjudicated incompetence) with a diagnosis (MR and DD.)

Individuals with severe traumatic brain injuries can buy guns...again, unless they've been legally declared incompetent. And the majority haven't.

I can hear it now "WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T THEY?" Well, because it's a free country and they haven't.

John
 
While we can (probably) all agree that an absolutist 2nd Amendment stance is not logically or legally supportable, it simply is also not true that the 2nd Amendment leaves room for all the restrictions that people claim are allowable.


Azredhawk44: Thanks, that barker bit had me laughing out loud! VERY funny! :D


-azurefly
 
it simply is also not true that the 2nd Amendment leaves room for all the restrictions that people claim are allowable.
Click to expand...

Thats correct and is inherent in the constituional analysis


WildilovenambusAlaska
 
John, "mentally incompetent" is in the title, and all examples are provided as ones that meet that criteria. Mild retardation, treatable psychosis and mild brain injury of course have no place in a discussion of those judged to be incompetent to care for themselves.
 
Handy,
I was one of the crazy guys who put "yes", but here's the rub:
The BoR also provides for 'Due process', which enshrines the ability to restrict an individual's rights. Convicted felons and those deemed "mentally incompetent" would belong to this group.
I'm not going to insult you for the attempted petard-hoist (as some here have done), but restricting civil liberty arbitrarily without due process is still unconstitutional.
 
As the Amendments are individual items, how does the due process clause necessarily change the language of a completely seperate Amendment? What language in the 2nd abdicates any of its power to any other amendment or law?
 
I believe these people should have the same rights, but they must also bear the same responsibility.

Therefore, if a psychotic murders another man, then he must serve time in prison the same as any other, or receive death if a jury concludes he should die. He does not have the option of an insanity defense. The insanity defense should be done away with, and all people should be held accountable for their actions.

If a person cannot charge the mentally incompetent with the responsibility of their actions, then you are not assigning them the same rights.

Yes, I have worked with schizophrenics, bipolars, and all the other usual suspects.
 
Exactly. If a diagnosed insane person is to argue that he should have the same right to own guns as I do (...um, I'm not insane) then he has to accept the same consequences for misdeeds he commits.

Otherwise you set up a privileged class of people whose mental incompetence is prohibited from being considered a justifiable reason to diminish the set of rights to which they are entitled, but at the same time they also cannot be punished because that same mental incompetence makes them somehow not responsible for their actions??

It does not comport.

-azurefly
 
Does a citizen of the United States have the right under the Second Amendment to purchase and bear arms?

Unequivocally, yes.
 
Handy,
The BoR is a fundamental list of our guaranteed "rights" as American citizens. The "Due Process" clause allows those rights to be legally restricted. It applies to all the amendments. Prisoners and those deemed legally incompetent have no right to free speech, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. Why would this not apply equally to the 2nd?
 
Therefore, if a psychotic murders another man, then he must serve time in prison the same as any other, or receive death if a jury concludes he should die. He does not have the option of an insanity defense. The insanity defense should be done away with, and all people should be held accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

I can't really go for that. For psychotics who experience severe hallucinations and have a false sense of reality, the common law has limited meaning. Say you woke up one night and SAW, HEARD and SMELLED a six foot intuder in your house with a weapon.... Say that "person" just happened to be a hallucination and could appear anywhere at anytime....how could you carry a weapon responsibly when you cannot perceive a real threat from a false one?

I've worked with a lot of clients who believed they were another person, another gender and/or that I was not who I said I was. In many instances they reacted as you or I would react.....if that was our given reality.
 
One of the basis of our laws is the reasonable man standard. A person who is not mentally competent is not a reasonable person and would be a danger to public safety. Same argument about yelling fire in a crowded theater even though we have freedom of speech. The BoR was meant to outline the rights of the people that government could not take away. It was not meant to strip people of common sense and responsibility for public safety. Those rights come with the responsibilty to not endanger the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top