New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Some have urged that we should respond to the wave of mass murders with firearms by addressing the problem of mental illness, not guns.
This is true, but new laws or regulations targeting the mentally ill are likely to be abused. For example, if we decree that anyone who has sought therapy can be denied gun ownership, then we will persecute harmless depressed people and veterans with PTSD .
Therefore , a law of this type should specify that those denied gun ownership are not the mentally ill in general, but specifically those who have been certified in writing by a psychiatrist (after an examination ) to be a threat to others.
This would lessen the likelihood of abuse.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,118 Posts
Some have urged that we should respond to the wave of mass murders with firearms by addressing the problem of mental illness, not guns.
This is true, but new laws or regulations targeting the mentally ill are likely to be abused. For example, if we decree that anyone who has sought therapy can be denied gun ownership, then we will persecute harmless depressed people and veterans with PTSD .
Therefore , a law of this type should specify that those denied gun ownership are not the mentally ill in general, but specifically those who have been certified in writing by a psychiatrist (after an examination ) to be a threat to others.
This would lessen the likelihood of abuse.

First new Mental Health Law I would enact is to put away MOST politicians. They seem to be one can short of a six pack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,617 Posts
Liberal Democrat Statist perspective:
Wanting a firearm is a mental illness. Ergo, anyone who wants a firearm is disqualified from owing one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,775 Posts
Agreed. Mental illness is the next fertile ground for prohibitionists. It is hard to get out in front of overreaching legislation. Thats what makes it so frustrating, because you can see the storm clouds gathering. There's really no substitute for having the legislative numbers in your camp's favor.

Some have urged that we should respond to the wave of mass murders with firearms by addressing the problem of mental illness, not guns.
This is true, but new laws or regulations targeting the mentally ill are likely to be abused. For example, if we decree that anyone who has sought therapy can be denied gun ownership, then we will persecute harmless depressed people and veterans with PTSD .
Therefore , a law of this type should specify that those denied gun ownership are not the mentally ill in general, but specifically those who have been certified in writing by a psychiatrist (after an examination ) to be a threat to others.
This would lessen the likelihood of abuse.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
The problem here is that you really can't even discuss any new laws pertaining to guns and mental health without the grabbers trying to include everyone under the sun in it. Look what a joke zero tolerance in schools has become. Florida actually had to pass a law to get it under control, the pop-tart law.

No new laws, not now, not ever. If they want something then they can start by plugging the holes in the NICS system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
^^^

I disagree completely. I think the NICS system is, in practice, a monumental failure. Gangbangers and drug dealers who weren't even born when it was implemented have no problem buying all the guns they want so "plugging any holes" amounts to nothing more than further restrictions infringements on the lawful vast majority of We The People
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,768 Posts
The problem here is that you really can't even discuss any new laws pertaining to guns and mental health without the grabbers trying to include everyone under the sun in it. Look what a joke zero tolerance in schools has become. Florida actually had to pass a law to get it under control, the pop-tart law.

No new laws, not now, not ever. If they want something then they can start by plugging the holes in the NICS system.
And that's exactly it. Personally, I think before someone loses their 2A rights because of mental illness they should be adjudicated by a panel of mental health professionals to determine the person's condition (less chance of extreme anti being the sole one making the cause). Only then could their guns be taken away. Exceptions would be for clear and present danger such as domestic violence situations with clear evidence or someone similar. People who suffer from lesser degrees of mental illness (anxiety and depression) by and large aren't a threat to anyone and shouldn't necessarily lose their rights because they're seeking treatment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,136 Posts
Why is it that mental illness only effects the 2A? Why not the other rights under the Constitution? Someone with MI can still vote right? Do they give up their rights to free speech? How about the whole search thing? If you have some out of alignment with you mental state, can the authorities search your home, person and belongings at will?

NO, No they can not! So I ask again, why only go after the 2A?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
^^^

I disagree completely. I think the NICS system is, in practice, a monumental failure. Gangbangers and drug dealers who weren't even born when it was implemented have no problem buying all the guns they want so "plugging any holes" amounts to nothing more than further restrictions infringements on the lawful vast majority of We The People
My comments above are limited to mental health only. Gangstas and their ilk are another subject entirely. My point is, if they want to address mental health, then they can start by making sure every person who's prohibited because of a mental health issue is reported to NICS. Politically, that's all I'm going to let them get away with, they can enforce the existing laws before whining about making new ones. As of now, the criteria is having been sent to a mental facility under judicial order, let grabbers start modifying it, anyone whose ever cried at a funeral will be prohibited. We're not talking rational people here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
And that's exactly it. Personally, I think before someone loses their 2A rights because of mental illness they should be adjudicated by a panel of mental health professionals to determine the person's condition (less chance of extreme anti being the sole one making the cause). Only then could their guns be taken away. Exceptions would be for clear and present danger such as domestic violence situations with clear evidence or someone similar. People who suffer from lesser degrees of mental illness (anxiety and depression) by and large aren't a threat to anyone and shouldn't necessarily lose their rights because they're seeking treatment.
Well spoken. And there should be a process similar to the relief from disabilities that's afforded to felons who want to regain their gun rights. 99% of the mentally ill pose no threat to anyone, just the 1% who all seem to have certain disorders that were treated with specific medications. Something in common with every school shooting.

The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
My comments above are limited to mental health only. Gangstas and their ilk are another subject entirely. My point is, if they want to address mental health, then they can start by making sure every person who's prohibited because of a mental health issue is reported to NICS. Politically, that's all I'm going to let them get away with, they can enforce the existing laws before whining about making new ones. As of now, the criteria is having been sent to a mental facility under judicial order, let grabbers start modifying it, anyone whose ever cried at a funeral will be prohibited. We're not talking rational people here.



I take it you're referring to the antis, libs and grabbers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
In NYS, a mild case of A.D.D. is considered mental illness. When they start digitizing school and medical records its going to be a cluster ****!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,136 Posts
It really is no wonder that the anti's and the libs are winning the fight against the 2A.

Even here on this forum people are finding it okay to take away another mans right. The Bill of Rights were not given by the Government; they cannot be taken away either from the government. We start down this slope of deciding who is "worthy" or sane enough to own a firearm, the list will only get longer those with firearms will get smaller and smaller until no man owns.

How can we not see this?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top