"A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun"

[rushmc 18]

this one is going to raise a fuss

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/19/us-appeals-court-deems-gun-law-unconstitutional/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[RonD1120 59]

Kallend's hair is on fire.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[SkyDekker 1,319]

Great victory for the freedoms in the US.

[BillyVance 34]

He spent one month getting mental treatment in 1986 following a divorce. No issues since. 28 years later, they use it against him?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[rushmc 18]

BillyVance

He spent one month getting mental treatment in 1986 following a divorce. No issues since. 28 years later, they use it against him?

Ya
In Iowa, if a spouce or live in partner get a restraining order against you, the police can (and many times do) come get your guns

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 355]

SkyDekker

Great victory for the freedoms in the US.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic.

I agree with the decision, and I think it could well be a net positive wrt gun violence. The effectively permanent loss of gun and other rights, as well as life-long problems with employment, is a significant deterrent that discourages people from getting treatment for mental illness. Many people choose to struggle through their illness on their own, or choose not to try to get loved ones to seek treatment, because of the permanent stigmatization.

Personally I think the prohibition on gun ownership should be restricted to people who are suffering from a mental illness that results in paranoia or a serious impairment in their ability to make rational decisions. It makes no sense to apply it to people who pose no elevated risk, such as people with obsessive-compulsive disorder or panic attacks. Further, if the condition is temporary any prohibition should be revoked automatically once the condition no longer exists and is unlikely to recur. People should not have to go to court, at considerable expense, time, and effort, to prove they are not a danger; rather if the state wants to restrict their rights the state should have to make a case that they are a significant ongoing risk to public safety.

As a Canadian, I am not sure if you understand how broken the American mental health treatment system is. As an ex-pat Canadian myself, I am routinely shocked at the cavalier treatment of the mentally ill in the US; I recall things being much different in Canada. Treatment facilities are woefully inadequate here; you basically have to commit a major violent crime to get treatment for serious illnesses such as paranoia and schizophrenia. Invariably after such a crime we learn that the family has been trying to get treatment for the patient for years, but there is no room. It is also almost always the case that there is an escalating history of violent incidents before the "big one". Of course, once things have got to that point the patient is also involved with the criminal "justice" system, which by default becomes the mechanism to warehouse the seriously mentally ill. It's unfortunate but true that the majority of Americans will fight tooth and nail against paying taxes to fund mental health hospitals, but the same people are all in favor of building ever more prisons.

Anyway, the attitude towards mental illness is so backward that most of the public is entirely incapable of the nuance needed to realize that not all mental illnesses are the same, and most are not at all associated with violent tenancies. Any politician who proposed any relaxation of the current laws regarding the mentally ill would get clobbered on election day.

If it takes a court ruling to get the legislature to change their tune, so be it. In the meantime, anything that reduces the stigma that discourages people from seeking treatment is a good thing in my book.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Great victory for the freedoms in the US.

It is a small step in the correct direction

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 355]

rushmc

***He spent one month getting mental treatment in 1986 following a divorce. No issues since. 28 years later, they use it against him?

Ya
In Iowa, if a spouce or live in partner get a restraining order against you, the police can (and many times do) come get your gunsThat's a completely different issue from mental illness. Unfortunately it's all too common for people, overwhelmingly women, to be killed or seriously injured by their spouse/partner. If enough evidence of threatening behavior exists to warrant a restraining order it seems not unreasonable to try to limit someone's ability to cause deadly harm. No doubt most of the people being "retrained" would not actually follow through on their threatening behavior, but in the end they are only temporarily inconvenienced, and that has to be balanced against the hundreds of women who are murdered or critically injured every year.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

GeorgiaDon

******He spent one month getting mental treatment in 1986 following a divorce. No issues since. 28 years later, they use it against him?

Ya
In Iowa, if a spouce or live in partner get a restraining order against you, the police can (and many times do) come get your gunsThat's a completely different issue from mental illness. Unfortunately it's all too common for people, overwhelmingly women, to be killed or seriously injured by their spouse/partner. If enough evidence of threatening behavior exists to warrant a restraining order it seems not unreasonable to try to limit someone's ability to cause deadly harm. No doubt most of the people being "retrained" would not actually follow through on their threatening behavior, but in the end they are only temporarily inconvenienced, and that has to be balanced against the hundreds of women who are murdered or critically injured every year.

Don

It takes thousands of dollars and much time to have a CHANCE to get your guns back
If you dont have the money, the police keep them
And I know it is different than mental illness per se (good post you made btw) but it is the same attitude toward gun rights
And I dont buy the "all too common" off handed comment

That is the same as saying white cops are killing unarmed black kids all the time
aint happenen

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 1]

Just so people understand what the Court is and is not ruling here, I think the key part to understanding the rationale for the Court's ruling is in this part of the article (esp. the parts I've highlighted):

Quote

Federal law bans gun ownership for convicted felons, people under 18, illegal immigrants, drug addicts and those ordered by a court to a mental institution. The law also [says] that people must have a chance to prove that their disqualifying disabilities have ended in order to possess a firearm legally.

Since 2008, states have been able to get federal grants to set up “relief from disabilities program,” which was defunded in 1992. Michigan has not set one up, which left Tyler without a way to prove that his so-called “disability” should no longer apply.

So it appears, in large part, to be an issue of due process (in this case, a lack thereof). This seems to at least suggest that had Michigan had such a “relief from disabilities program" set up, the ruling might have gone the other way.

[GeorgiaDon 355]

Quote

So it appears, in large part, to be an issue of due process (in this case, a lack thereof). This seems to at least suggest that had Michigan had such a “relief from disabilities program" set up, the ruling might have gone the other way.

I read it that way also. I just wonder why the state would not have set up any mechanism for people to get their rights back. That it was not a priority is just another indication of the too-common attitude towards anyone who has ever dealt with any form of mental illness. Unfortunately the best we can hope for is that Michigan does, obviously reluctantly, set up a program. People will still have to spend a small fortune, and likely a lot of time in court, to prove their treatment for depression 28 years ago does not mean they are still too dangerous to be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights. The system will continue to deter people from seeking treatment for mental illness, adding to the toll of unnecessary suffering (on the part of the ill who don't get help) and public risk (by discouraging intervention before a violent crime is committed).

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wolfriverjoe 1,481]

GeorgiaDon

... I just wonder why the state would not have set up any mechanism for people to get their rights back...

Because the government (as a whole) doesn't like to give people their rights back. It just likes to take them away.

The founding fathers understood that.

That's why they gave us the BOR.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[muff528 3]

wolfriverjoe

***... I just wonder why the state would not have set up any mechanism for people to get their rights back...

Because the government (as a whole) doesn't like to give people their rights back. It just likes to take them away.

The founding fathers understood that.

That's why they gave us the BOR.

I think it ultimately comes down to an individual person who will make the decision to reinstate the "denied" rights of gun ownership to someone who had previously been judged to be too mentally unstable to have a gun. That bureaucrat may not want to bear any responsibility if the previously disenfranchised citizen goes off the rails again.

[rushmc 18]

muff528

******... I just wonder why the state would not have set up any mechanism for people to get their rights back...

Because the government (as a whole) doesn't like to give people their rights back. It just likes to take them away.

The founding fathers understood that.

That's why they gave us the BOR.

I think it ultimately comes down to an individual person who will make the decision to reinstate the "denied" rights of gun ownership to someone who had previously been judged to be too mentally unstable to have a gun. That bureaucrat may not want to bear any responsibility if the previously disenfranchised citizen goes off the rails again.

He was just sent to get help for mental problems
He NEVER had his right to own guns formally taken
They just did it because is was sent for help

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[muff528 3]

rushmc

......

He was just sent to get help for mental problems
He NEVER had his right to own guns formally taken
They just did it because is was sent for help

What difference, at this point, does it make? They took his guns and now someone has to decide whether or not to give them back. Who the heck wants that personal exposure to liability? Suppose he later decides to shoot up a Starbucks or something. Who's head is gonna roll (liability speaking)?

[rushmc 18]

muff528

***......

He was just sent to get help for mental problems
He NEVER had his right to own guns formally taken
They just did it because is was sent for help

What difference, at this point, does it make? They took his guns and now someone has to decide whether or not to give them back. Who the heck wants that personal exposure to liability? Suppose he later decides to shoot up a Starbucks or something. Who's head is gonna roll (liability speaking)?

You make the very point I was making
Who decided he should not have guns to start with?
It was not done in court
It was an arbitrary actions by law enforcement
The liability of giving back what should have never been taken to begin with is the point

Someone could say you or I are mentally unstable and the cops can come take our guns

Nothing more need be done but the accusation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[muff528 3]

rushmc

....
You make the very point I was making
Who decided he should not have guns to start with?
It was not done in court
It was an arbitrary actions by law enforcement
The liability of giving back what should have never been taken to begin with is the point

Someone could say you or I are mentally unstable and the cops can come take our guns

Nothing more need be done but the accusation

Yep. Who decides which citizens are too mentally unstable to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? Who appoints or allows that person to make that decision? Who decides what parameters must be met to allow or disallow rights? What political views might be deemed to be too extreme to allow gun ownership? By whom? Too much room for persecution. Then there is the whole question of reinstatement of rights and who might bear responsibility for the consequences of any decisions made, one way or the other.

[rushmc 18]

muff528

***....
You make the very point I was making
Who decided he should not have guns to start with?
It was not done in court
It was an arbitrary actions by law enforcement
The liability of giving back what should have never been taken to begin with is the point

Someone could say you or I are mentally unstable and the cops can come take our guns

Nothing more need be done but the accusation

Yep. Who decides which citizens are too mentally unstable to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? Who appoints or allows that person to make that decision? Who decides what parameters must be met to allow or disallow rights? What political views might be deemed to be too extreme to allow gun ownership? By whom? Too much room for persecution. Then there is the whole question of reinstatement of rights and who might bear responsibility for the consequences of any decisions made, one way or the other.

and who SHOULD bear the respoinsibility ?

I say the person commiting what ever act
No one else

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]I am not sure if you understand how broken the American mental health treatment system is. As an ex-pat Canadian myself, I am routinely shocked at the cavalier treatment of the mentally ill in the US; I recall things being much different in Canada. Treatment facilities are woefully inadequate here; you basically have to commit a major violent crime to get treatment for serious illnesses such as paranoia and schizophrenia.

[champu 1]

rushmc

***He spent one month getting mental treatment in 1986 following a divorce. No issues since. 28 years later, they use it against him?

Ya
In Iowa, if a spouce or live in partner get a restraining order against you, the police can (and many times do) come get your guns

California passed AB1014 recently with revised language limiting it only to relatives and police, but the original language would have allowed anyone to file a restraining order against you on behalf of your firearms if they simply believed it was dangerous for you to have them. As I've said before, I don't believe there's some amount of crazy you can be where taking your firearms away, and only taking your firearms away, is an appropriate response. I think that law, even in its final form, is a due process violation lawsuit waiting to happen.

Opposing that bill and supporting this decision are not advocating arming dangerously insane people. Some people need to be reminded that simple, easy solutions to complex problems are often wrong.

[rushmc 18]

champu

******He spent one month getting mental treatment in 1986 following a divorce. No issues since. 28 years later, they use it against him?

Ya
In Iowa, if a spouce or live in partner get a restraining order against you, the police can (and many times do) come get your guns

California passed AB1014 recently with revised language limiting it only to relatives and police, but the original language would have allowed anyone to file a restraining order against you on behalf of your firearms if they simply believed it was dangerous for you to have them. As I've said before, I don't believe there's some amount of crazy you can be where taking your firearms away, and only taking your firearms away, is an appropriate response. I think that law, even in its final form, is a due process violation lawsuit waiting to happen.

Opposing that bill and supporting this decision are not advocating arming dangerously insane people. Some people need to be reminded that simple, easy solutions to complex problems are often wrong.

+1

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyMagilla 0]

muff528

Yep. Who decides which citizens are too mentally unstable to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? Who appoints or allows that person to make that decision? Who decides what parameters must be met to allow or disallow rights? What political views might be deemed to be too extreme to allow gun ownership? By whom? Too much room for persecution. Then there is the whole question of reinstatement of rights and who might bear responsibility for the consequences of any decisions made, one way or the other.

We already do that kind of thing with parole boards, which release former criminals from prison back into society. They don't always get it right, but at least we recognize that some people have earned and deserve a second chance at freedom. Gun rights or any other kind of rights should be no different.

[muff528 3]

SkyMagilla

***Yep. Who decides which citizens are too mentally unstable to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? Who appoints or allows that person to make that decision? Who decides what parameters must be met to allow or disallow rights? What political views might be deemed to be too extreme to allow gun ownership? By whom? Too much room for persecution. Then there is the whole question of reinstatement of rights and who might bear responsibility for the consequences of any decisions made, one way or the other.

We already do that kind of thing with parole boards, which release former criminals from prison back into society. They don't always get it right, but at least we recognize that some people have earned and deserve a second chance at freedom. Gun rights or any other kind of rights should be no different.

Whether we do or don't restore gun rights, or any other rights, to convicted felons who have committed known, specific crimes is another question altogether.

I'm more concerned with by what measure, and by whom, a person is denied rights because of alleged/diagnosed/deemed mental "issues" ...whether caused by brain damage, drug abuse, genetics, etc. or whether it is decided, by "someone" that a person is mentally unstable because of some event (restraining order), lifestyle (dz bum), or belief ("kill all the rich people..."). I'm only saying that it's probably easier to deny certain rights than it is to restore them because no one would want to take responsibility for deciding to restore those rights at some future time knowing that "mental instability" was the original alleged reason for denying those rights. Just look at who is now being sued in the Sandy Hook case ... an example of suing anyone who might have even a tangential connection to those murders. A person, who signs off on restoring even an unjustly-accused "crazy" person's gun rights would also be exposed, whether that person is a medical/psychiatric professional or a 9-5 paper-shuffling, rubber-stamping bureaucrat.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I agree with the decision, and I think it could well be a net positive wrt gun violence.

is ANYONE surprised by this answer? [face palm]

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun