4027

Is there for folks with mental illness?

4028

Catch 22 - Wanting a gun shows that you are mental ill. :)

4029

Not always. If you commit domestic violence, you permanently lose your right to own a firearm, forever.

Additionally, for all practical purposes, you actually cannot ever have your right to own a gun restored in many states. In order for you to no longer be covered under the federal firearms ban, you need to have your civil rights specifically restored from the conviction, but in many states this never actually happens. Which means the federal government will never consider them eligible to own firearms again.

As an example, North Carolina has no provision for ever restoring a felon’s right to own a firearm, and thus even though the federal ban says that they can have their right restored, it’s essentially impossible since it depends upon something which is not possible under NC’s state law (except, I believe, the case where a conviction is ultimately overturned and expunged completely).

And I think that such limitations are probably ok, as they do not constitute a widespread infringement upon the rights of the citizenry at large, but rather are infringements upon the rights of individuals that are directly related to their own actions.

4030

I don’t know why you’re using examples of flawed, broken, and/or missing law for restoring rights to felons in order to show that the mentally ill should not have due process for the same.

That’s a failure on government, not a philosophical reason for anything. Your last paragraph is fine, though I vehemently disagree.

4031

I think that’s a fair point, in that the treatment of felons doesn’t necessarily justify futher actions along the same line. It merely establishes precedence for the practice.

However at the same time, it seems like we have something of an impasse here. We recognize that there is a major problem with the mentally ill having access to firearms, and we want to limit their ability to gain such access. But then the argument against such a thing is that you can’t limit their ability to gain access to firearms.

If being mentally ill is not a disqualifier for owning a firearm, then what’s the goal?

4032

Having mental health issues doesn’t mean you’re a threat yourself, or to society, necessarily. It simply means you have mental health problems. A subset of the afflicted do injure themselves, and some do lash out at society, but how do predict that? Their symptoms look largely the same and it’s only a small fraction of the whole.

4033

I mean, hey, you’re entitled to disagree. That’s fine. I for one don’t want to live in a country where convicted felons have the right to legally own guns. Is there no circumstance where you view a person should no longer be allowed to possess a gun?

4034

I wonder if it’s a situation where people will assume that “the market” will monitor itself; if a medical professional gets a reputation for flagging patients, perhaps they’ll get fewer patients. (this is NOT an ideal solution, just imagining how it might actually work in the real world)

4035

Well clearly some people are okay with this due process. It’s not automatic, mind you.

If you’re confident enough in our legal system (hahaha) that you’re comfortable with a universal lifetime revocation of rights, well, I think this is where the true believers usually say, “OMG vote in the right politicians LOL.” It’s just that easy, Craig.

4036

That is not the question I asked though. I got the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that you do not support bans on ownership for any reason.

However if this is inaccurate, and your opposition is based on a lack of confidence in the legal process, then that is a different story. I’d still disagree, but at least there would be room for discussion.

4037

I know. I removed your question because it’s irrelevant to this discussion of the legal concept of due process. No matter what the cause (felony, misdemeanor domestic violence, mental illness, etc.) or right we’re talking about (voting, gun possession, etc.) I believe there ought to be SOME appeal process. Some mechanism to attempt to restore rights. It doesn’t need to be automatic or even likely, but there must be a process spelled out beforehand.

That’s simply a fundamental belief in liberty and civilization. YMMV.

4038

That’s fine, I even agree. It’s why I loathe the ‘no-fly’ list. It’s a black box with no way to find out a) why you’re on it b) if you’re on it c) how to get off it. Unconstitutional as hell, and I would not support a gun ban based on it for that reason.

However I do not feel the same about something like a felony conviction. To achieve a conviction, by default, requires due process. Now you can argue about broken court, appeals, plea barganing all you want. That is a separate issue. But since there is a due process I find this to be an acceptable system. However if you want to argue that the appeals process needs work, I’m willing to concede that may be the case. However I’m not sure I have a problem with a felony conviction being a permanent ban. If the only way to restore that right is to get the conviction overturned, then that seems to be working as intended to me. You may have issue with that, I’m not sure I do though.

4039

That’s a fair point, I suspect some doctors would be very permissive - and the word would certainly get around. The opposite would also be true, some would be very reluctant.

Is it good legislation though, or simply legislation for the sake of legislation? Does this serve a greater purpose if doctors can’t reasonably determine risk?

4040

Does this serve a greater purpose if doctors can’t reasonably determine risk?

Doctors are already called upon by our justice system to determine risk.

4041

Agreed. This is where I get concerned on the mental health side, as well. There needs to be a due process, at minimum, for anything involving removal of a right. There’s tons of room for reasonable debate on how high the bar is, what’s involved to get the rights restored (if possible at all), etc…

4042

In court? That’s generally ex post facto.

I was initially in favor of medical screenings, but having spoken with a few of my old classmates I’m less sure of their utility. None of my friends were confident in their ability to predict harm.

4043

You seem to have a very skewed vision of mental illness. To think that a person with depression can’t have complex thought processes is silly. If anything thats often the problem, they have too complex a thought process.

Let’s say Bob has issues with depression. Bob also likes guns for whatever reason, upbringing, he shot them with his dad, self defense, whatever. Now Bob should probably seek help, he’s been having suicidal thoughts or the like. Or his life is just a living hell. Bob would get help, but the second he does, he loses his 2nd Amendment rights. So Bob doesn’t ever get help. Then Bob shoots himself one day when it all becomes too much. Or he goes to work and kills a bunch of coworkers, or any of a variety of nightmare scenarios.

Or maybe Bob does get help and still carries his gun on him. And then gets arrested and put in prison for having an illegal firearm. Because he tried to get help. Odds are Bob just wont get help and then something bad will happen. Seeking help isn’t a guarantee of success, why risk what you have for something that might not even work? People already don’t get help because of the stigma attached to mental health issues.

Saying that crazy people can’t think is beyond false. They often just have a skewed vision of reality for whatever reason. It doesn’t mean they can’t do math or understand cause and effect or judge risk (though many have a bad framework for what constitutes a reasonable risk or the like).

I mean have you ever gone to see a doctor for a mental health issue? It’s not fucking easy. Losing out on rights because you do isn’t going to get more people to seek help, it’s only going to make people who are on the fence (which by the by is basically everyone who isn’t mandated there by court order) to not take that first step.

4044

You seem to have a very skewed vision of mental illness. To think that a person with depression can’t have complex thought processes is silly. If anything thats often the problem, they have too complex a thought process.

No, what I think is silly is that someone is going to have mental illness, and that the primary thing they are going to be worried about to the extent that they will forego medical treatment, is that they are afraid they might not be able to buy a gun.

Let’s say Bob has issues with depression. Bob also likes guns for whatever reason, upbringing, he shot them with his dad, self defense, whatever. Now Bob should probably seek help, he’s been having suicidal thoughts or the like. Or his life is just a living hell. Bob would get help, but the second he does, he loses his 2nd Amendment rights. So Bob doesn’t ever get help. Then Bob shoots himself one day when it all becomes too much. Or he goes to work and kills a bunch of coworkers, or any of a variety of nightmare scenarios.

I think this is a contrived situation whose occurrence is rare to the degree that it should not be a serious consideration in this case.

Or maybe Bob does get help and still carries his gun on him. And then gets arrested and put in prison for having an illegal firearm.

I don’t believe that anything that has been proposed would actually result in this. The medical notice from his doctor would prevent him from purchasing new firearms, but I do not believe it would result in him not being able to keep firearms he already owned.

4045

I’m going to be honest with you guys.

I’d rather they just take all the guns than be forced to watch a townhall meeting about the issue on CNN.

Rip the bandaid off quickly.

4046

The process for obtaining a CCW is the same as for buying a gun in most cases. The wording is almost nearly identical in most states.

And my example isn’t contrived at all, nor rare. What you’re telling people is that everyone who is a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights will never get any sort of help for mental illness. These people vote solely on this issue, they take Christmas pictures with kids holding AR-15s. Personally, I’d rather those people were able to get help than not.

Think of it this way. Ted Cruz is basically an admitted schizophrenic, he has said “God literally talks to me.” He can buy a gun because he’s never seen a doctor for the voices in his head. Now we’ll take Bob, maybe he goes to see a doctor and gets some medication to make his depression better. Bob can never buy a gun ever again. The dude that did the right thing and is probably a lesser threat to the populace is cut out but the person who listens to the voices in his head isn’t.

But, whatever. You obviously have your mind made up and think that mental illness is an easy thing and getting help is an easy choice. And also that people with them can’t think and probably scream at walls and throw feces at people, so there isn’t any point in trying to get you to see otherwise.