Gun Rights and Mental Illness

[Uchi Mata]

So post Santa Barbara, there's been a lot of talk about why the doctors didn't do anything if they knew the kid was disturbed. Similar questions were asked regarding Adam Lanza after Sandy Hook. So here's my question:

Should psychiatrists and police in combination be legally allowed to seize weapons if they decide a person is mentally unstable and hold those weapons (and prevent the person from buying more guns) throughout some sort of hearing on mental stability? If the person is found to be disturbed should their gun rights be restricted forever? Should it be a felony for such a person to buy guns, and a felony to sell them to him? Should only private psychiatrists be able to do this, or should people suspected of insanity be subject to psychiatric evaluation that could lead to loss of gun rights?

I'd vote yes, but then again I don't consider the right to bear arms particularly important in this day and age. Certainly not restrictions on things like high capacity magazines and slightly altered military grade weapons like AR-15s.

 

[InternetHero]

I think if both an approved psychiatrists and a judge (I wouldn't leave it to simple law officers) and also possibly depending on the State, a competent family member sign off that it should absolute be allowed.

You could do it for different periods of time too.

60 days, 90 days, or have a 1 to 2 year moratorium with evaluation thereafter.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You've still got the basic issue of depriving people of their rights who haven't violated any law. I'd rather keep that in place and risk the occasional shooting than compromise there. But I'm listening. Will these folks be disallowed from voting and put on house arrest too?

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

What kind of mental illness? 99.99% of people with mental illness don't go around killing people. I bet the percentage of a mentally ill person killing or harming another human being is the same as a mentally fit individual.

 

[InternetHero]

You've still got the basic issue of depriving people of their rights who haven't violated any law. I'd rather keep that in place and risk the occasional shooting than compromise there. But I'm listening. Will these folks be disallowed from voting and put on house arrest too?

I think it is clear some people who have not strictly violated the law with permission of the State and their family should have a process to simply step in.

The friggen cops can seize your gun as suspected forever, so why not give a sane and legal reason with multiple checks a chance to do so? It could be on a State by State basis.

 

[glennrod]

But if a nutcase gets his guns taken away...whats stopping him from obtaining another one in a country that is rife with guns?

 

[InternetHero]

What kind of mental illness? 99.99% of people with mental illness don't go around killing people. I bet the percentage of a mentally ill person killing or harming another human being is the same as a mentally fit individual.

We could classify it as "dangerous" mental illnesses then.

And, how about, if the person objects to the order they could go for a simple and free examination of mental health and or take a mental competency test?

 

[InternetHero]

But if a nutcase gets his guns taken away...whats stopping him from obtaining another one in a country that is rife with guns?

It's harder at least, and especially harder for your average Joe six pack.

 

[oldshadow]

I'll jump in since we started this in the other thread.

The doctor or other people should be able to report their concerns to the police. The police should investigate and then take that evidence to a court . If the court finds just cause then a temporary order to remove the weapons is issued and the cop serve it.

The case then goes to court to make it longer but with the stipulation that the right may be returned if the court is convinced they are well. The order would in any case always be temporary with a set limit at which time the court would review it and the person has a chance to contest it.

 

[glennrod]

It's harder at least, and especially harder for your average Joe six pack.

I so badly want to believe that, but I know that there are so many guns on the streets. and not just the streets too, chances are that the person who would be prohibited from buying a gun might know somebody who has a gun or two laying around...I agree that it would be harder, but not to the point where a potential massacre could be prevented.

 

[oldshadow]

I so badly want to believe that, but I know that there are so many guns on the streets. and not just the streets too, chances are that the person who would be prohibited from buying a gun might know somebody who has a gun or two laying around...I agree that it would be harder, but not to the point where a potential massacre could be prevented.

Because if they are caught with a gun after that they could could be committed as a danger to themselves or others.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

I so badly want to believe that, but I know that there are so many guns on the streets. and not just the streets too, chances are that the person who would be prohibited from buying a gun might know somebody who has a gun or two laying around...I agree that it would be harder, but not to the point where a potential massacre could be prevented.

Why does it have to be guns? He could just get in a car and plow right through a mob of children in a school crossing.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

Should psychiatrists and police in combination be legally allowed to seize weapons if they decide a person is mentally unstable and hold those weapons (and prevent the person from buying more guns) throughout some sort of hearing on mental stability? If the person is found to be disturbed should their gun rights be restricted forever? Should it be a felony for such a person to buy guns, and a felony to sell them to him? Should only private psychiatrists be able to do this, or should people suspected of insanity be subject to psychiatric evaluation that could lead to loss of gun rights?

:icon_lol:

I'm sorry if I'm ruining your troll. What you've listed there is exactly the law as it stands now. There are special civil courts that process civil committals. If you are committed you lose your gun rights forever. It's a felony to try to buy one. It's a felony to sell one to such a person as well. They are not private psychiatrists that determine this. They are state judges.

I guess you should be happy to know your dream is a reality.

 

[glennrod]

Why does it have to be guns? He could just get in a car and plow right through a mob of children in a school crossing.

Oh come on...lets not pretend that guns aren't the worst offenders with cowardly weasels who want to make a statement go out with a bang....

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

No room for abuse in this type of thing at all. SMH

 

[oldshadow]

Why does it have to be guns? He could just get in a car and plow right through a mob of children in a school crossing.

And if they believed this and had evidence of a plan he could be committed.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think it is clear some people who have not strictly violated the law with permission of the State and their family should have a process to simply step in.

If no law is broken then why should the state be stepping in? But let's say that's reasonable. With what amount of accuracy will science need to be able to determine someone's violent destiny in order to make you comfortable with the number of people who are penalized for what someone thinks they MIGHT do? Put another way, if we're 10% certain x, y & z traits/behaviors will make you a killer is that enough to deprive the other 90% of their Constitutional rights?

The friggen cops can seize your gun as suspected forever, so why not give a sane and legal reason with multiple checks a chance to do so? It could be on a State by State basis.

I don't know that I'm in agreement with current laws regarding gun seizing.

 

[oldshadow]

No room for abuse in this type of thing at all. SMH

Of course there is that's why the cops don't get to decide the court does.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Oh come on...lets not pretend that guns aren't the worst offenders with cowardly weasels who want to make a statement go out with a bang....

Of course. It's the easiest way to kill and the easiest way to defend yourself with. But you can do some major damage with the infinite number of ways a sick individual can come up with.... and it wouldn't be any less tragic.. and it wouldn't be any less sensational through the eyes of the media.

 

[glennrod]

Of course. It's the easiest way to kill and the easiest way to defend yourself with. But you can do some major damage with the infinite number of ways a sick individual can come up with.... and it wouldn't be any less tragic.. and it wouldn't be any less sensational through the eyes of the media.

It probably would though..another thing I know, is that the media has a huge hard on for gun related mass murders.