Gun Rights and Mental Illness

[Islam Imamate]

TBF, there are some valid concerns over the workability of the solutions currently proposed in this thread.

Doctor patient confidentiality exists so that patients feel comfortable in disclosing personal information to professionals which enables those professionals to better perform their job and for the patients to be better treated. This would get greatly hindered if patients knew that anything they told doctors or psychologists could be used against them and could result in their losing certain rights.

I agree wholeheartedly. Any legislation on this issue should just work within the current limits of patient confidentiality.

My concern in the wake of these kinds of shooting is that people with an agenda already in place will take every advantage they can to take away what is not theirs to take away.

Seeing as gun legislation failed after Newtown and Aurora I don't see it happening on a federal level anytime soon.

 

[oldshadow]

Amendment VI of the Bill or Rights:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


A judge deciding your fate without the ability to represent yourself in court is NOT due process.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Evidence to be collected, criminal activity is Death threat.

 

[Darkballs]

Amendment VI of the Bill or Rights:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


A judge deciding your fate without the ability to represent yourself in court is NOT due process.

Nope.

People do this too much in the war room. Throw up the text of a Constitutional amendment and then just throw out their opinion. Go read the relevant case law. Due process does not always involve a jury trial with a presiding judge. It does for criminal offenses. But the state has authority to deprive property based on an administrative hearing (in a nutshell). For instance, if you leave your car parked on the street, most cities will impound it and issue you a fine without first having to convene a jury and have a lengthy trial.

 

[Uchi Mata]

TBF, there are some valid concerns over the workability of the solutions currently proposed in this thread.

Doctor patient confidentiality exists so that patients feel comfortable in disclosing personal information to professionals which enables those professionals to better perform their job and for the patients to be better treated. This would get greatly hindered if patients knew that anything they told doctors or psychologists could be used against them and could result in their losing certain rights.

Yeah, there are, but the point of the thread was to demonstrate that there are a sizable segment of right wingers to whom gun rights are so important that why they'll say they support removing gun rights from dangerous mentally ill people that any actual policy that tries to do so will be decried as 'gun grabbing' and an example of big government overreach. Which I think it has.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

4th-6th Amendments. Particularly, substantive and procedural due process.

So looking at it, under what circumstances can you be stripped of free speech and jailed if you ever speak ill of someone or something?

I don't think the question is fairly framed. I don't want to deprive a "%" or any large number of people, if you want a number then probably ".05%" because the demographic is small but the danger is large.

I'm not talking about some jack boot thugs kicking in a poor guys door at 3 a.m. to raid his 2nd Amendment Rights.

I am talking about a process where a family member lodges a complaint, a judge takes a look at the validity, and then issues a summons to have the guy appear for psychological evaluation and or a test. That is so radical really?

Ok. My point is that it's naive to think that only people destined to commit violence will be punished. So out of all the people that get punished I'm asking what % of them would have to be future criminals (if we could factually ascertain that) for you to be cool with it? It's obviously a philosophical question designed to illuminate your tolerance for screwing innocent people over on the off chance you get the person you're after.

Evidence to be collected, criminal activity is Death threat.

Funny that you highlighted the probabe cause part. Where does that come in? What makes it probable that someone is going to commit a certain act in the future? I'd like to hear more about how probability is determined. "Better safe than sorry" is an attitude that indicates improbability mixed with fear/caution. What are the criteria being evaluated and how do those criteria track with violent crime?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Yeah, there are, but the point of the thread was to demonstrate that there are a sizable segment of right wingers to whom gun rights are so important that why they'll say they support removing gun rights from dangerous mentally ill people that any actual policy that tries to do so will be decried as 'gun grabbing' and an example of big government overreach. Which I think it has.

A Psych Major said "psychologists and psychiatrists are already obligated to contact the police should the patient mention a specific plan to hurt him or herself or others." Assuming that's true, what more do you want?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

The best thing would be a psych evaluation when people first purchase a gun, but no Murkans would support that because most of them would probably fail it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The best thing would be a psych evaluation when people first purchase a gun, but no Murkans would support that because most of them would probably fail it.

Where are you from?

 

[tdluxon]

It's a subjective criteria so giving a clear definition of who is or isn't mentally unstable, and whether they are unstable enough to not be allowed a gun would be pretty much impossible.

Pro-gun people (I'm not FYI) would freak out, saying that it is a slippery slope and pretty soon the government will be using it as an excuse to take everyone's gun. Not saying it's true, but it would ignite a firestorm among the gun-rights groups.

 

[Darkballs]

So looking at it, under what circumstances can you be stripped of free speech and jailed if you ever speak ill of someone or something?

You're either being dishonest here or not paying attention. You cannot be "jailed" without a jury trial (excluding pre-trial deprivations such as being a flight risk, or failure to pay bail).

However, SCOTUS has long held that you can be deprived of certain rights or property though with only a fair and timely administrative hearing. This is a pretty detailed part of the Court's history with substantive and procedural due process, so feel free to look it up. I'm not going to detail decades worth of federal court holdings though.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

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.

I really think that there needs to be a national "no buy" list for people identified as severely mentally/emotionally disturbed. To be removed, and possibly requalify for owning a gun, one needs to be cleared by a panel of three psychiatrists. Only after rigorous mental help. Also, the whole ethics and morals paradigm that Zeke'sCG is so adamantly against is imho a MUST or this whole debate is a fruitless exercise.

Morals and ethics, basic right from wrong, should be an integral part of our children's legislated schoolroom curriculum from this point forth. Now Mr. Chaingun's, objections to government mandated "interference" is just a point of argument with no basis on what a normal person ( not that some of you wouldn't consider Zeke's opinions normal lol) object to . I mean really... why would you object to a law mandating that our kids be taught morals, ethics, not to bully?!?!? here's Zeke "NO I OBJECT!!!" he thinks this will some how turn us into a totalitarian state our something.

The status quo is a massive failure. The law enforcement reactionary response to crime in general, not just mass shootings is a massive failure (which I am a part of). Something completely different needs to be at least be tried on a probationary basis.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You're either being dishonest here or not paying attention. You cannot be "jailed" without a jury trial (excluding pre-trial deprivations such as being a flight risk, or failure to pay bail).

However, SCOTUS has long held that you can be deprived of certain rights or property though with only a fair and timely administrative hearing. This is a pretty detailed part of the Court's history with substantive and procedural due process, so feel free to look it up. I'm not going to detail decades worth of federal court holdings though.

Nevermind then. I thought you were trying to be informative so I asked a specific question since looking at the Amendments, the ones you pointed out, don't make me think it's ok to...

1. Identify potential wrong-doers who've yet to commit any crime
2. Have a random professional agree somebody might do something (probable or not)
3. Seize Constitutionally protected private property
4. Take away enumerated rights for the rest of their lives

When I add all this up it doesn't really pass the smell test for me.

 

[Uchi Mata]

A Psych Major said "psychologists and psychiatrists are already obligated to contact the police should the patient mention a specific plan to hurt him or herself or others." Assuming that's true, what more do you want?

Obligated in what sense? Are Adam Lanza and the Santa Barbara shooter's doctors going to jail? And how specific does the plan have to be? If a schizophrenic says that he fantasizes about hurting people, is that enough? Or does he actually have to say 'I am going to shoot Joe Blow on Tuesday at 10:00 am"? It's not so easy when you get down the details.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

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.

I think it should go through the court vs. simple law enforcement and that it should be for a specified time, after which you can ask to have your rights restored by the judge who will review a new phyc eval.

btw- were any of the shooting carried out with military grade weapons or high capacity mags? I remember Cho had 2 pistols and multiple mags, but none that held more than 14 rounds.

 

[dawnslayer]

were any of the shooting carried out with military grade weapons or high capacity mags? I remember Cho had 2 pistols and multiple mags, but none that held more than 14 rounds.

No sir.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

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:


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.

To the question, maybe, but probably not.

Here's what I'd like all liberals to think about with the gun issue. Take it to the nuclear option, which is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution itself.

You successfully deny, erode, and erase an option that is part of the very nervous system of our form of Government, and where does that leave the rest of the rights of that bill?

Open season.

I say this for the record that you must look the Bill of Rights as a whole as much as individually. It's crucial.

 

[djacobox372]

Anybody that thinks someone's gun "rights" can be taken away without due process of law doesn't understand wtf a "right" is.

 

[oldshadow]

So looking at it, under what circumstances can you be stripped of free speech and jailed if you ever speak ill of someone or something?



Ok. My point is that it's naive to think that only people destined to commit violence will be punished. So out of all the people that get punished I'm asking what % of them would have to be future criminals (if we could factually ascertain that) for you to be cool with it? It's obviously a philosophical question designed to illuminate your tolerance for screwing innocent people over on the off chance you get the person you're after.



Funny that you highlighted the probabe cause part. Where does that come in? What makes it probable that someone is going to commit a certain act in the future? I'd like to hear more about how probability is determined. "Better safe than sorry" is an attitude that indicates improbability mixed with fear/caution. What are the criteria being evaluated and how do those criteria track with violent crime?

You have witness testimony, of the death threats, under oath not just a statement to the cops.And they go and get the guns. The judge decides if the statement and evidence presented is enough to issue the temporary order.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You have witness testimony, of the death threats, under oath not just a statement to the cops.And they go and get the guns. The judge decides if the statement and evidence presented is enough to issue the temporary order.

Specific threats should be addressed. Picking broad/ambiguous disorders and using those as a blanket reason to take people's rights would be more along the lines of what I object to. So just having some diagnosis doesn't meet probable cause in my mind because to my knowledge there isn't one that has the strong of a correlation to violent crime.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

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?

what about the rights of those around them?

realistically, what really happens to someone if you take away their right to own a gun for 90 days? does their universe collapse? will they be burned alive by the SS or gestapo? nah. they cant feel like a badass or shoot cans for a few days. they can read jefferson quotes about blood of tyrants and trees until they get their rights and sanity back.