Does the right to keep and bear arms include the mentally ill? (USA)

[Katlagter]

From the New York Times, interesting reading and not as simple as it seems:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us..._20131222&_r=0

[Lian]

firstly, i'd anything the newyorkistan times has to say with a lot of salt.
secondly i would say the mentally unstable is a risk already and adding guns just compounds the issue, however "mentally insane" fad is apparently being exploited like crazy. dont want people to have guns? declare them insane. tada.
just like the medieval times. dont like someone? declare him/her a witch.
just like the 50's and 60's. dont like someone? declare him a communist.

[Rewtd]

It actually is very simple. If gun ownership is a right then it is universal and only those that prove themselves incapabil of playing nicely should be denied it. of course I do not expect the government to mother me so I may not have a popular view on this...

[krieger]

Review what Stalin did to Russia's people. You don't go along with the what the gov't wants obviously you have mental problems. Since your mental problems are now a burden on the state it is Siberia or Shot. Pick any 2.

[Paul]

Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall.
[choir: 'Gainst the wall!]
There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me,
Get him up against the wall.
[choird: 'Gainst the wall!]
That one looks Jewish!
And that one's a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint!
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I'd have all of you shot!

... with apologies to Roger Waters...

[Fumbles]

This guy clearly sounds like he should not be allowed to keep firearms. The problem is how this situation can be manipulated by the feds as has been alluded to. But if he is threatening people while not on his medications, well he is clearly a threat to others. I'd say his firearms should be removed from his home...kept by a legal willing relative or held somewhere for him by the state. If he is still on meds after a certain time with no improvement....his onus to prove......he should be compensated for the guns somehow. Either the state pays him out and destroys them or sale of the guns is arranged. I dunno...something fair.......but we cannot have guns in the hands of the mentally ill. Bottom line.

The problem is...defining what is mentally ill, making sure that government has absolutely no hand in it and also guaranteeing the person his or her Constitutional rights. I have no idea how one get's around all that.

But when you throw in Adam Lanza et al into the equation.....and consider all the people these various spree killers have killed.....you realize something has to be done. This issue must be addressed. I'm pretty sure I know the NRA stance. No guns for the mentally ill. It's plain common sense.

I think also that gun owners should show their own common sense when dark times hit. For example......perhaps those who own guns and are going through a rough patch....a nasty divorce, loss of a loved one, or just found out someone is slipping it to the wife etc.............this is a time to have the clarity to have a friend come get your guns and look after them or change the combo on your safe and not give it to you until the dust has settled.

Anyway....in my mind the answer to the thread question is a resounding NO! You would take the keys from a drunk driver....so should you take the guns from any dangerously incompetent/impaired person.

[Paul]

.....but we cannot have guns in the hands of the mentally ill. Bottom line.

Therein lies the rub! Who is mentally ill, and to what degreee? And does only a certain degreee of severity preclude you from gun ownership? And who sets that limit? Also who decides?

It was a well-known truism at varsity that the only students permitted to register for post-graduate psychology were those who could demonstrate a degreee of empathy with their future patients...

[Lian]

Therein lies the rub! Who is mentally ill, and to what degreee?

exactly. just like everybody wants the death penalty back... you'd need to entrust govt with that.
rock & hard place.

[KevinF]

This guy clearly sounds like he should not be allowed to keep firearms. The problem is how this situation can be manipulated by the feds as has been alluded to. But if he is threatening people while not on his medications, well he is clearly a threat to others. I'd say his firearms should be removed from his home...kept by a legal willing relative or held somewhere for him by the state. If he is still on meds after a certain time with no improvement....his onus to prove......he should be compensated for the guns somehow. Either the state pays him out and destroys them or sale of the guns is arranged. I dunno...something fair.......but we cannot have guns in the hands of the mentally ill. Bottom line.

The problem is...defining what is mentally ill, making sure that government has absolutely no hand in it and also guaranteeing the person his or her Constitutional rights. I have no idea how one get's around all that.

But when you throw in Adam Lanza et al into the equation.....and consider all the people these various spree killers have killed.....you realize something has to be done. This issue must be addressed. I'm pretty sure I know the NRA stance. No guns for the mentally ill. It's plain common sense.

I think also that gun owners should show their own common sense when dark times hit. For example......perhaps those who own guns and are going through a rough patch....a nasty divorce, loss of a loved one, or just found out someone is slipping it to the wife etc.............this is a time to have the clarity to have a friend come get your guns and look after them or change the combo on your safe and not give it to you until the dust has settled.

Anyway....in my mind the answer to the thread question is a resounding NO! You would take the keys from a drunk driver....so should you take the guns from any dangerously incompetent/impaired person.

This ^^^ - I think you have pretty much nailed it Fumbles. I have often stated - and will continue to do so - that certain persons should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. The problem, as you have pointed out, is who should make this decision and on what basis should it be made. I'm afraid I don't have too mant bright ideas in this regard. I do, however, think that we as firearm owners should be more proactive in comming up with solutions to this problem, rather than either bleating that everybody should have an unrestricted right to gun-ownership, or else waiting for the antis to do it for us.

Therein lies the rub! Who is mentally ill, and to what degreee? And does only a certain degreee of severity preclude you from gun ownership? And who sets that limit? Also who decides?

It was a well-known truism at varsity that the only students permitted to register for post-graduate psychology were those who could demonstrate a degreee of empathy with their future patients...

Why thank you Paul!

[Paul]

Why thank you Paul!

Hey! If the straitjacket fits...