Posted: 3/25/2013 1:50:39 AM EDT
|
___Did a search for the past 10 years and couldn't find a similar thread___
A guy in my office has an autistic son. He insists that his son should be able to own and operate a firearm as well as ANYONE that is mentally ill because the right is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. He says if we restrict his son's rights, there should be an amendment to the constitution barring mentally ill from ownership. He says, any law forbidding the mentally ill of gun ownership is un-constitutional. However, he does agree that felons SHOULD NOT be allowed to own guns. It has been the view of the NRA and people on here that the restrictions of firearm ownership from illegal immigrants, mentally ill, and convicted felons are reasonable. -I argued that gun laws restrict the mentally ill because of inability to differentiate between right and wrong. This makes them a danger to themselves and others. What say you? If you agree with me and the NRA, tell me why and I'll relay the message. If you agree with him, explain yourself. I have to admit, I'm having a hard time arguing against mentally ill gun ownership. ETA: If you choose "Depends on the illness" please explain. (after a lot of thought, I'm leaning this way) |
|
This definitely depends on the illness and what we classify mental illness as.
Should a schizophrenic be able to own a gun? Definitely not Should someone with Aspergers who can function almost normally in society? I'm not sure, maybe Also would ADD be considered a mental illness? |
|
There is a difference between a felon and a mentally ill person owning a firearm. A felon has proven they will do wrong. A mentally ill person has not. As far as illegal aliens go..The constitution covers American Citizens, not foreign nationals that are illegally in our country.
With that being said, if a mentally ill person isn't capable of taking care of themselves, has an inability to reason or make life changing decisions for themselves, then why would you put a firearm in their hands. Sometimes common sense just needs to prevail. We don't need laws..we just need common sense. Furthermore, making a law to say that mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms would be pointless. How the hell do you enforce such a law? How does a background check get information on your medical records. Oh wait, you want to give the government even more information on your personal business? The entire argument is retarded. |
|
All rights can be restricted through due process. I happen to think if a felon can't be trusted to own a gun then they shouldn't be out of prison. Likewise if a mentally ill person can't be trusted to own a gun then they shouldn't be out of the mental institution. In both cases there was a process with checks and balances to go through to remove said rights. |
|
Quoted:
There is a difference between a felon and a mentally ill person owning a firearm. A felon has proven they will do wrong. A mentally ill person has not. As far as illegal aliens go..The constitution covers American Citizens, not foreign nationals that are illegally in our country. With that being said, if a mentally ill person isn't capable of taking care of themselves, has an inability to reason or make life changing decisions for themselves, then why would you put a firearm in their hands. Sometimes common sense just needs to prevail. We don't need laws..we just need common sense. Furthermore, making a law to say that mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms would be pointless. How the hell do you enforce such a law? How does a background check get information on your medical records. Oh wait, you want to give the government even more information on your personal business? The entire argument is retarded. His entire point hinges on the "shall not be infringed" argument. I mentioned convicted felons to show you all that he does acknowledge some people should be restricted. Showing him laws restricting ownership is a lost cause. He says they are un-constitutional (as it is currently written). I agree it's a retarded argument (puns are fun), but I'm having a hard time arguing against it short of a straw man retort. Edit: grammar mistake |
|
Quoted:
His entire point hinges on the "shall not be infringed" argument. I mentioned convicted felons to show you all that he does acknowledge some people should be restricted. Showing him laws restricting ownership is a lost cause. He says they are un-constitutional (as it is currently written). It is not simply "mental illness" that results in someone becoming a prohibited possessor. It requires the involvement of the medical and legal systems -- someone has to be involuntarily committed, or otherwise adjudicated seriously mentally ill, to lose his 2A rights. If his son hasn't been, then his son is GTG. If his son has been, then odds are he's disconnected enough from reality that he shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms. The system is far from perfect, but it is not as arbitrary as your coworker seems to think. Jared Loughner was legally able to buy his handgun, at least at the time he purchased it, from what I've read of the Arizona/Giffords shootings. It's too bad the system didn't catch him a few weeks sooner; reading his ramblings on social media, it was very obvious that he was schizophrenic. But he hadn't been involuntarily committed, so. . . . ETA: "Autism" encompasses a huge range of disorders. If his son functions on the level of a certain frequent poster here, I don't see any problem with him owning guns. If his son functions on the level of Adam Lanza . . . problem. |
| I know a guy that has a son that is autistic. They both love to shoot and I've been at the range the same time they were there. The kid does alright although what he really enjoys is just a mag dump. The dad keeps a very close eye on him and I've never seen any problems occur. I wouldn't feel comfortable around the kid without the dad's supervision though. Firearms are fun but serious business at the same time. I vote for having full faculties before being able to purchase and own firearms but that's just me. |
|
Quoted:
This definitely depends on the illness and what we classify mental illness as. Should a schizophrenic be able to own a gun? Definitely not Should someone with Aspergers who can function almost normally in society? I'm not sure, maybe Also would ADD be considered a mental illness? I definitely agree. It depends on the type of illness. |
|
Quoted:
This definitely depends on the illness and what we classify mental illness as. Should a schizophrenic be able to own a gun? Definitely not Should someone with Aspergers who can function almost normally in society? I'm not sure, maybe Also would ADD be considered a mental illness? This. Depression? |
|
Quoted:
There is a huge difference between being diagnosed as having a mental illness and bening adjudicated mentally deficient. No person should be denied due process. If trusting them with a firearm is too dangerous, then so be it. Found this to support what you and others have said. How are the terms "adjudicated as a mental defective" and "committed to a mental institution" defined?
Section 922(g)(4), Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by an individual who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." Regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, define these terms as follows: Adjudicated as a mental defective. (1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: Is a danger to himself or to others; or Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. (2) The term shall include — A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b. Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. To the top This whole thing seems lackluster. If one were so inclined, it appears they could arm someone who is mentally ill but hasn't been through the system. Does the NICS maintain a database of medical records or information on an individual's mental health condition, diagnosis, or treatment?
No. The NICS does not maintain a database of medical records or information on mental health diagnoses or treatment plans. When a record of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm as a result of mental health issues (i.e., a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated a “mental defective” by a court, board, or other lawful authority) is entered in the NICS Index, the entry contains only a name, other biographic identifiers, like date of birth, and codes for the submitting entity and prohibited category. The NICS Index does not contain medical records or medical information. Edit: nvm |
|
Quoted:
All rights can be restricted through due process. I happen to think if a felon can't be trusted to own a gun then they shouldn't be out of prison. Likewise if a mentally ill person can't be trusted to own a gun then they shouldn't be out of the mental institution. In both cases there was a process with checks and balances to go through to remove said rights. Doctors can manage mentally ill patients without confining them, though it takes a lot of work and cost. It would be nice if we could confine the seriously ill, but the places used for that purpose tend to be hellholes and if I had a choice, I'd take prison. So be careful what you wish for. It's awful. We can be sure that the approach we use now is not very good, even if we disagree on how to change it. |
|
Mental illness and develeopmental disability are 2 entirely different categories and there are varying degrees to each.
When you say "mental illness" as an all encompassing statement, you are lumping together people with full blown schizophrenia, along with folks who might have some situational depression or anxiety. The problem with mental illness is that almost everyone of us could find a shrink that's able to diagnose us with something. If someone has autism or another developmental disability, they currently retain all rights until someone goes to court and gets guardianship. Or they can be committed to the state for a period if they are a danger to themselves or others. If neither of these things have happened and they aren't on parole or probation, then they should be able to exercise all of their rights IMO. The system that is in place is fine. Unless you have been committed against your will because you are a danger to yourself and others, you should be able to own guns. However that system needs some major work. That's where the focus should be. |
|
If somebody's mental illness is so dangerous that they can't be trusted with a firearm because there is a belief they will hurt themselves or others, then they should be locked up, under supervision and treated. Not just released into the community with fingers crossed. |
|
Depends on illness. I have a family member who has been classified as developmentally disabled. She is able to cook, clean, have conversations, she can learn and remember things up to a certain level of complexity, she even knits clothes for her dolls. I wouldn't have a problem showing her how to use a firearm for home defense purposes but I wouldn't feel totally comfortable with her keeping it on her person. |