Quote:On December 18, a three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a ban on gun purchases for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of a Michigan man who was denied a gun purchase because of a mental institution commitment in 1986.

According to The Wall Street Journal, 73-year-old Clifford Charles Taylor “recently attempted to buy a gun but was denied on the grounds that he had been committed by a court to a mental institution in 1986 after emotional problems associated with a divorce.”

Judge Danny Boggs wrote the majority opinion for the panel: “The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...itutional/

I'm inclined to agree.

There has also been speculation that there would be gun grabbing using the medical records of anyone that has been treated for depression or any mental problem. That could tend to prevent people from getting help when they need it. I tend to agree this is the right decision. It prevents the slippery slope and takes the subjectivity out of the equation. We don't strip constitutional rights in this country to those that haven't committed any crimes because they might according to a lawmaker or a shrink.

I wrote this a while ago and it still holds interest today

http://csnbbs.com/thread-607313-post-870...pid8701976

(12-14-2012 04:26 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I've had this type of discussion with a close personal friend who is a professional child psychologist numerous times. She knows her stuff.

Did you know that schizophrenics, severe manic-depressives and other seriously ill, but not involuntarily committed, individuals may legally purchase firearms? It is true in most cases. Most gun buyers, myself included until recently, assume that federal and state authorities verify the mental health question but that, unfortunately, is not the case. The disqualifying factors are weak, nebulous and often hard to prove because health care law and privacy laws actually prohibits access to the vast majority of mental health records for gun purchasers. Unless you self-diagnose yourself as "teh krazy," there are few legal ways to stop someone with mental health concerns from purchasing a firearm.

Now virtually everyone, including health care professionals in general, agree that individuals suffering from serious mental illnesses should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Serious mental illness is not all that common, however.

Plus, and this is important, the mental health profession doesn't believe that mental health concerns always need to be a prohibiting factor for gun purchases - and this from a profession that is generally proud of being decidedly liberal, left-wing and anti-gun. They say it doesn't make sense because past mental illness does not predict future violence. She can cite research that proves that those committed for mental health reasons commit violent gun crimes at only a slightly higher rate than the normal population. The numbers simply don't support that crazy people are more dangerous gun owners.

BTW: My friend assumes that under general mental health terms, up to 20% of Americans have a mental disability (depression being #1 - think about this when looking at cops, firefighters, politicians, your neighbors etc ) but the vast majority are of no danger, even to themselves.

She always stresses to me, and most importantly for us laymen to understand, that psychiatrists have no special knowledge or ability with which to predict future dangerous behavior. Based on past actions, she can say you're crazy, she can have you committed and shot up with drugs, she put you in a room with padded walls and medicate you to within an inch of your life, but she cannot in any certain terms know what you will do tomorrow. Or 30 minutes in the future.

Because of that, a prohibition on gun purchases by all mentally ill persons could raise constitutional issues. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Because only involuntary commitment is the result of a court proceeding, the individual being committed is deprived of liberty through due process of law and thus potentially no longer guaranteed firearm ownership. But taking Zoloft or Valium is not involuntary commitment that disqualifies gun ownership any more than taking a Sudafed.

Quote:Now virtually everyone, including health care professionals in general, agree that individuals suffering from serious mental illnesses should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Serious mental illness is not all that common, however.

What is a "serious mental illness"? Who defines that? How is it diagnosed? Who makes the final determination that your right is gone? Where in the constitution does that person or group have the authority to take that right?

I don't want delusional schizophrenics running around with firearms either; however, the above questions need to be addressed.

The gun ban would have prevented trannys from acquiring them - at least according to NY's governor since he believes wanting to swap sex parts is a mental condition: “An issuer of a policy that includes coverage for mental health conditions may not exclude coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria,” the governor’s letter says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/nyregi....html?_r=2

(12-19-2014 12:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  What is a "serious mental illness"?

Serious mental illness has definitions and parameters just like any other medical field.

(12-19-2014 12:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Who defines that? How is it diagnosed?

Qualified medical professionals.

(12-19-2014 12:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Who makes the final determination that your right is gone?/

The courts.

(12-19-2014 12:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Where in the constitution does that person or group have the authority to take that right?

It is generally understood and accepted that the right to bear arms comes with certain limitations, especially at the local and state level. You may FIRMLY believe otherwise, but this is the current arrangement and is the vehicle that is used to confiscate firearms or prohibit future firearm ownership.

Serious mental illness has definitions, parameters, and is only diagnosed via a medical professional or the courts. It's not perfect but those definitions are generally accepted as being acceptable reasons to limit the purchase and ownership of firearms.

(12-19-2014 12:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:Now virtually everyone, including health care professionals in general, agree that individuals suffering from serious mental illnesses should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Serious mental illness is not all that common, however.

What is a "serious mental illness"? Who defines that? How is it diagnosed? Who makes the final determination that your right is gone? Where in the constitution does that person or group have the authority to take that right?

I don't want delusional schizophrenics running around with firearms either; however, the above questions need to be addressed.

Generally speaking, DSM-IV (5) and ICD-9 (10) define it. Those groups are headed by psychiatric and medical professionals. Those disorders are diagnosed by people specifically educated in and licensed by the states to practice in those areas. The courts are the only people who can take those rights away and it is clearly stated (though in reverse) by the comment that they can't be taken away except by due process (which obviously implies and has been repeatedly interpreted to mean that they can be, using due process)

As far as delusional schizophrenics running around, unless and until they are medically (and legally) determined to meet that description, they aren't. If they do, then this law does not impact that... unless they have since been determined to no longer suffer from that disorder.

The only purpose of this ruling is to state that just because you once had an issue doesn't mean that you lose your rights forever. Given that convicted criminals can get back their rights, it only seems fair that sick people should be allowed to get them back.

Having said that, I'd be more comfortable if someone found not guilty of a crime by a firearm by reason of mental disorder or defect be looked at more carefully than someone who was diagnosed with anxiety but never used a gun to harm anyone.

I believe the court got this one right.

I agree with the court for now. I do however think that some consensus should be met by the qualified health professionals to define "mentally ill" in this regard. I can see cases that merit denial of gun purchases to certain patients.

(12-20-2014 06:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree with the court for now. I do however think that some consensus should be met by the qualified health professionals to define "mentally ill" in this regard. I can see cases that merit denial of gun purchases to certain patients.

Agreed.

You guys aren't understanding the ruling.

The guy was admitted, treated and 'cured' many years ago. He is not currently diagnosed with a disorder and hasn't been for a long time. The same sort of professional who deemed him 'ill' has since deemed him 'cured'. (bad choice of words, but correct enough)

People currently diagnosed with mental illness or defect can still be denied weapons.

(12-20-2014 06:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You guys aren't understanding the ruling.

The guy was admitted, treated and 'cured' many years ago. He is not currently diagnosed with a disorder and hasn't been for a long time. The same sort of professional who deemed him 'ill' has since deemed him 'cured'. (bad choice of words, but correct enough)

People currently diagnosed with mental illness or defect can still be denied weapons.

Like a said...some consensus..and standards...need to be established by the MH community on this. I can see an instance in which a person was "cured" of an illness being perfectly competent to own a firearm.

(12-21-2014 11:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 06:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You guys aren't understanding the ruling.

The guy was admitted, treated and 'cured' many years ago. He is not currently diagnosed with a disorder and hasn't been for a long time. The same sort of professional who deemed him 'ill' has since deemed him 'cured'. (bad choice of words, but correct enough)

People currently diagnosed with mental illness or defect can still be denied weapons.

Like a said...some consensus..and standards...need to be established by the MH community on this. I can see an instance in which a person was "cured" of an illness being perfectly competent to own a firearm.

continual development.....it has to happen regardless of the issue

imo, the issue itself is too micro and costly to effectively manage within economic means from a macro perspective at any level....too many variables....

(while laughing) this issue exceeds the six-sigma mentality....