The problem with denying firearms to the "mentally ill"

[beatledog7]

We know precious little about the human mind--probably we're closer to uncovering the origin of existence or nailing down the Grand Unified Theory than we are to understanding what goes on inside our own heads.

Sadly, some judge may well be the final arbiter of who's mentally competent to own a firearm and who's not--a judge, we must note, who has little or no training in a field where even the "experts" can't be certain.

Judges in America = too much power.

 

[JRH6856]

Currently, mentally ill persons are prohibited from owning firearms but they must be adjudicated to be mentally ill, or found to be insane in a criminal case. Both of these findings are the result due process of law.

Due process applies to persons. Individuals. OTOH, administrative polices apply to people in general, or specific groups of people. What we must guard against is allowing the determination of mental state to become an administrative decision.


I used the following to start another thread that didn't go over too well. I'm reposting here because I think it is on point.

This is what could happen if we allow the determination of mental illness to become an administrative question rather than a judicial one:

Assume we're going to get UBCs. These will come with an expanded and detailed NICS database. The expansion will focus on newly required mental health information

This mental health information could come from mental health evaluations to be mandated under an amendment to Obamacare. OR it could come from expanded access to electronic patient records. There is currently a big push in the medical community to make all patient records available electronically with online access.

This mandate will come because the CDC has been tasked by Obama with studying gun violence and could easily identify irrational fear and paranoia as a causative factor in gun violence. The diagnostic indicators for this irrational fear might be a need to own firearms for self defense, a preference for military style weapons and high capacity magazines. owning several of these weapons, stockpiling ammunition,

Any physician or mental health professional who observes these indicators (minimum number to be determined by CDC)could be required to note them in the patient's record and/or report them to the FBI for inclusion the NICS database. Such an entry in the database would result in non approval.

And because there are already a lot of these irrational paranoids out there with firearms, we will have to have a national registry to find them and get them out of dangerous hands.

Think about it. This could easily happen if we are not careful. The laws may eventually fail under SCOTUS scrutiny, but that would depend a lot on the make up of the court when the cases reach it. In the meantime, think of the damage that could be done to those firearms owners affected (and that could well be all of us).

 

[beatledog7]

...determination of mental illness to become an administrative question rather than a judicial one:

It should be neither administrative or judicial. The diagnosis of mental illness is not for administrators or judges, as they have no training in the field.

An anti-gun, activist judge might readily declare that anyone who would want to own many firearms or design-capacity magazines or whatever he doesn't like can only be mentally disturbed since no normal person would see any reason to own such things. An anti-gun administrator would be very prone to erring on the side of declaring a person ineligible to cover his own backside should said person ever crack.

If we must decide who among us is not mentally fit to own a firearm, then let that decision fall to gun-owning, 2A-supporting professionals in the mental health field, people who will be the least prone to strip away a person's RKBA without truly knowing that said person is a danger and understanding why.

 

[JRH6856]

If the finding is judicial, one would hope (perhaps in vain) that the finding would come after the testimony of expert witnesses such as those gun-owning, 2A-supporting professionals in the mental health field.

There would be little hope of that in an administrative ruling.

But your point is well taken, and the truth is that mental illness is a poor criteria for denying a protected right. It isn't the illness, but the behavior that results that should be the criteria.

 

[Voyager]

We all agree, and probably this is almost universal, that seriously mentally ill people should not be permitted to purchase a firearm. How to define mentally ill is the big problem. Most mental illness symptoms are exaggerations of normal behavior, and in some case inappropriate behavior. It's easy to identify the extremes, but there is an awful lot of middle ground where the label of mentally ill may or may not truly apply. And then there are those who think that anyone who thinks differently than themselves must be mentally ill. What prompted me to write this thread was talking with a physician who stated that "no rational person should feel the NEED to own a gun", adding that in his opinion, "most gun owners appear to be irrational in their fears" and that in his opinion, "owning several guns, or keeping an arsenal of guns and ammunition is clearly a sign of serious mental illness". I told this individual that his ignorance was appalling and that maybe his statements were an indication of mental illness. Needless to say he now considers me another gun "nut". He asked me if I voted for Obama (I'm serious) and when I answered that normally I would respond that how I voted is none of his or anyone's business besides my own, but in this case I would state that I absolutely would never vote for Obama, considering him probably the worst president in American history. He then said "now I know you are really disturbed and should get help". This is why I fear a move to broadly define mental illness that would ensnare many of us for nothing more than owning guns and believing in the 2nd Amendment.

I can't produce the actual data, but I seem to recall that a study was done relatively recently, in which they determined that almost 90% of all licensed psychiatrists, and psychologists self identify as solidly left of the political center.

 

[miamivicedade]

The problem with denying ANY person the right to own a gun, who falls within a prohibited group, is that it is unconstitutional based on the original meaning. The Constitution is continually chipped away at out of necessity. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, banning felons from owning firearms, etc. We need to be tireless in our defense of the Constitution because our country is very, very young.

Our society could eventually have a largely anti-gun mindset. The anti-gunners lie, constantly, because they are trying to sway public opinion. If that happens, more judges will be appointed to reflect the will of the uninformed majority, and then we are in big trouble. You think stare decisis means anything to a group of liberal judges? Think again.