The fearmongering of the mentally ill

Status
Not open for further replies.
They're arranged in Schedules... Schedule I is the worst highly addictive, with no recognized(by the feds) medical use... Marijuana, designer drugs, that sort... the stuff you can pretty much ONLY buy on the street.

Schedule II is the medical stuff that can be highly addictive and abused. Cocaine, Percoset, Oxycodone, and....

Just about every ADHD drug known to man. Quick research tells me 3-5% of kids are diagnosed with ADHD, and up to half of them retain it as adults.

Given the drugs' locations in the schedule- on par with cocaine, and two schedules higher than Marinol (basically THC), and the stigma attached to ADHD kids being bullied until they pull a Columbine, this is just asked all the anti's to blackball every kid who ever was diagnosed with ADHD.

Further, you now have your doctor in the mix. Take Diazepam. It's Mind altering, Schedule IV. But given some of the things it's for.. it would be good they don't have weapons... some of the other things it's for.. for example to take before the anesthesia you take for surgery..
 
In my youth-the 1950s, not the 1850s-there was phrase "He can't help it, he's mental!". Back then it was said in jest with undertones of sarcasm, nowadays too many take it literally and see "mental illness" as an all purpose explanation that somewho excuses obnoxious, selfish, self centered and inconsiderate behavior. Cf the old "unhappy childhood" excuse. The failure of community based treatment and over reliance on a pharamacological approach
has been proven, IMHO and must be scrapped and protection of innocents and society at large must take precedent.
And I will not accept loss of 2nd Amendmnent RIGHTS on the basis of what are at best quasi-scientific criteria. As I tell some of the anti-gunners I know I am not worried about guns on the street-if I see them I take them home. I am worried about people on the street who, to quote my mother "can't spend more than 10 seconds a day thinking about anybody but themselves." And "refuse to live by society's rules." to quote Ronald George of California.
 
If you are mentally ill and not in your right mind, you can still have competent counsel to protect your rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah you can get all the counsel you want, but historically any judge will listen to the hospital staff in making a call whether or not you can be involuntarily committed and each state has a mandatory holding period to determine just that. Some states can forcibly make you take your medication or you face involuntary commitment. Getting each state to report this for an FBI background checks has proven to be elusive and will only face determination when presented to the Supreme Court.

To me it's amazing that people can request and get a court restraining order based on one persons word against another, but we find it untenable for a relative to submit a family members name to the FBI prohibiting fire arm purchases with a caveat for removal by another relative who assumes felony responsibility. Restraining orders are abused, but they are a necessary evil to protect those that truly need it.
 
Restraining orders can be challenged by the restrained, without need of a relative's intervention; they are ordered by a judge, not entered by a bureaucrat; and while a temporary order may be put in place before the restrained gets his day in court, a permanent order cannot be.

Your idea flies in the face of several Amendments, and I find it abhorrent.
 
Gee, do you think many permanent restraining orders are denied when a woman says her partner has threatened to hurt her or kill her? No proof, just her word against his. It's no secret that restraining order abuse is a problem and a judge is going to lean towards the side of her safety.

I think the fact that the FBI as a bureaucrat will accept a relatives warning that a disturbed individual should not be able to purchase firearms with a caveat for removal by another relative with felony responsibility is a check and balance that could save your life is a good idea.....don't you?

Oh, I forgot.....abhorrent.
 
Your idea does not meet any semblance of check and balance. A family member's word is all that should be necessary to deprive one of civil liberties? No witnesses, no experts, no judge, no jury... That is a recipe for severe abuse, and it is obvious that it is.

It has one merit: it is so very, very bad that I would be amazed to see anything like it in my lifetime, so at least I don't have to worry about it.

But your efforts would be better spent finding systemic improvements that do not require subversion of the Constitution, or our justice and mental health systems.

Edit: Nazi Germany actually did stuff such as what you suggest.
 
You want a barrel of laughs? All this talk about restraining orders *against* the mentally ill, try having someone mentally ill turning the legal system on *you*. Get someone with strong borderline/narcissistic personality (eventually proven) latched onto your a** you'll find out what one human being can truly do to another in the civil, police and legal system, and to your ability to hold a job and function in society. It is said that "G*d" rested on the 7th day, a BPD sufferer won't, they are focussed and relentless.

Due process is your last defense against, having to go explain this and that in front of police or a judge and try to sort it out from the available information.

Loss of rights on a word or a whim without a chance to go before a judge? Heaven help that the US should descend into such lawlessness.

I have to remind people, on a forum about weapons for the destruction of the human body. . . . The legal system is a weapon for the destruction of human beings. You don't carelessly sweep people with the muzzle, you keep your finger off the trigger, and be very very careful with this dangerous thing.
 
Last edited:
I think that we may be getting a bit far afield here. My question is simple, until or if I have my Constitutional rights denied me by due process, as laid out by the Constitution, will you stand with me to ensure my 2nd Amendment rights are not stripped of me as you would stand with others?
 
OP, yes.

I like to advocate that with regard to guns, we should punish the guilty instead of depriving the innocent, and that we can use existing laws to deal with those who actually create problems.

Oddly enough, that is a virtually unanimous sentiment on TFL - but some posters don't see their inherent hypocrisy when they suggest a different standard when mental health is brought into the discussion.
 
You want a barrel of laughs? All this talk about restraining orders *against* the mentally ill, try having someone mentally ill turning the legal system on *you*. Get someone with strong borderline/narcissistic personality (eventually proven) latched onto your a** you'll find out what one human being can truly do to another in the civil, police and legal system, and to your ability to hold a job and function in society. It is said that "G*d" rested on the 7th day, a BPD sufferer won't, they are focussed and relentless.

Due process is your last defense against, having to go explain this and that in front of police or a judge and try to sort it out from the available information.

Loss of rights on a word or a whim without a chance to go before a judge? Heaven help that the US should descend into such lawlessness.

I have to remind people, on a forum about weapons for the destruction of the human body. . . . The legal system is a weapon for the destruction of human beings. You don't carelessly sweep people with the muzzle, you keep your finger off the trigger, and be very very careful with this dangerous thing.
Click to expand...

I'm betting you and I had a similar situation. The wife's ex husband (who was a millionaire at the time) sued us 47 times. He sued schools, judges, our lawyer, his lawyer(s), and a court appointed guardian ad litem. He had a nasty habit of "appearing" at our house at times that indicated he had been watching us. A psychiatrist (his) described him, in court, as "clinically narcissistic." We know he has a vicodin addiction and doctor shops (and scams the government). The police (whom my wife had worked for earlier in her life) recommended a CHL, dogs, security systems, and 911 on speed dial. We are always armed, even now when things have quieted down.

He literally spent all his money suing us, and his son (my step son I guess although I've known him since 5) is now estranged from him.
 
dorc-1, would you like to give an example of any other type of law that allows people to vouch for you and take "felony responsibility" for a relative?

Released on recognizance of a family member is a very different concept.

Nothing you suggest has any place in our Justice system, and the more you try to bolster your idea, the more outrageous you become.
 
He literally spent all his money suing us,
Click to expand...

What a twit (he is), you don't have to spend a dime causing legal mayhem. A true nut can (and in my case did) spend 24/7 learning legal tricks. Technically, lawyerlessness is an advantage when trying to cause trouble, as lawyers have limits/ethics (well, compared to clinical narcissists). A lawyer will try to coordinate a single hearing, a pro se can turn one issue into many via messing with the scheduling logistics (moving hearings, setting them right after opposing counsel declares a vacation - you have to have a hearing to move it again, etc.).

Best of luck to you and yours.
 
historically any judge will listen to the hospital staff in making a call whether or not you can be involuntarily committed

If this is true, then why do about 55-60% of the patients on whom I file commitment petitions NOT get committed?
 
In dire times you have to think outside of the box Mr. Leake. If you are a law abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about in garnering support from a relative to take that responsibility. The report and felony responsibility would only apply to that weapon purchased, not your arsenal of other guns.
 
If you are a law abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about
Click to expand...

I think in the bizarre situation you describe, that one can be both completely law-abiding *and* worrying at the same time, if you sponsor someone. Maybe noone would want this "worry" no matter how much they like or trust their relative.

I think this is in the realm of fantasy. We often discuss the axis of more liberty/rights or less rights, this is off on a separate axis of bizarro-eligibility rights, some parallel universe where your legal freedom of action is contingent on happening to have 3 relatives.
 
If this is true, then why do about 55-60% of the patients on whom I file commitment petitions NOT get committed?
Click to expand...

You must not be able to make a good enough case, or there is no money to pay for it.
 
Either reason is possible.

Meanwhile, while the media love to exploit violent scenes such as Newtown, these are hardly dire times due to violence rates. Violence is lower than it was twenty years ago.

What may make times dire is the increasing number of Americans who appear willing to throw the liberties of others under the bus, if it will protect their pet issue. So it seems, at least, looking at the microcosm of TFL.

People are acting like panicky rabbits.

"Let's offer up background checks for everybody and agree to licensing schemes!"

"Let's blame video games!"

"I don't need more than six rounds, and you should not, if you can shoot!"

And now, "Let's allow a complete bypass of civil rights protections, based on a relative's say-so!"

It would be funny, if it were not both scary and pathetic.

Rather than running around in a panic, people might want to consider contacting elected officials, and donating heavily to RKBA organizations. They also might consider trying to educate some of the antis they know.

They should not try to protect a right by curtailing the rights of others.

What dorc-1 calls thinking outside the box, I call reprehensible.
 
Meanwhile, with regard to making cases...

One of my ongoing frustrations during my active duty years was the pervasive assumption that DOD government civilians could not be sanctioned nor fired for poor performance or bad attitudes. Senior officers would tolerate behavior that should have been unacceptable, because they felt it was just too hard to correct.

Really, all it should have required was proper documentation and actions. Keep accurate notes; counsel the offender in accordance with regs, and document the counseling. Have the offender sign the paperwork, or have a witness sign that the offender was counseled but refused to sign.

Could it take a while, cost man-hours, and be a minor or even major nuisance? Yes, of course, but it could be done, and was not so impossible as many would seem to believe.

There is a parallel here. If there really is a history of threatening behavior, and it is properly documented, then mechanisms are in place, so long as one crosses the t's and dots the i's.

If there is no money or bed space, that is a separate issue with regard to commitments, but that is one that would need to be addressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top