(02-22-2013 11:08 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: Wait, are we now seriously discussing whether or not someone deemed mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?
A person can have mental problems without being mentally ill.
(02-22-2013 11:15 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: (02-22-2013 11:13 AM)EverRespect Wrote: (02-22-2013 11:05 AM)jh Wrote: (02-22-2013 10:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote: (02-22-2013 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote: Don't we put folks in mental facilities for that very reason?
As far as I know, we don't put adults in facilities unless they themselves sign off on it or they have committed a crime, in which case a judge does have that leeway. We are not and should not be a society that just locks people up because someone thinks they are nuts. That is pretty much exactly how Hitler and Stalin were able to consolidate power. If you are willing to compromise freedom in the name of security, you get neither.
Civil commitment is allowed in this country. As its name implies this is a civil procedure unrelated to any previous violation of criminal law. Perhaps its most common use is with people deemed to be sex predators, who are civilly committed not because of their past crimes (it happens after they would have been released from prison) but because the danger they will commit future crimes. It is also used for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/l...-standards
It appears the Brady Bill prohibits a certain class of mental ill people to be prohibited from owning firearms. The letters seem to be telling the veterans that if they are deemed incomptent (to the extent that a fiduciary need be appointed to handle their VA benefits) they will fall into this category. It also gives them the opportunity to present additional evidence and request a hearing. You can (barely) read a full copy of one of the letters here:
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarmi...ammunition
I have no idea how many veterans are getting these letters and I have no idea how good the evidence they based their preliminary determination is. Given it's a government operation I suspect it's rife with errors, including veterans who are in no way incompetant receiveing letters, but it will take a little more to convince me it's a nefarious government plot.
I do know one thing... if I came back from combat and was disturbed by what happened there, I wouldn't bother seeking help for this very reason. If what you say about civil commitment is true, that is blatently Unamerican and Unconstitutional.
No it's not. There is due process involved. Before you can be committed to a mental institution against your will, a hearing before a judge is required. This stuff has been going on for a hundred years. Why all of a sudden are we ready to storm the castle gates about it? What is it about Obama that sets you people off so bad?
His smile, his forked tongue, his lies, his lies, his lies, his incompetence, his flagrant disregard for our Constitution, ......you do realize that I could go on for page after page, correct?
(02-22-2013 11:45 AM)EverRespect Wrote: (02-22-2013 11:08 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: Wait, are we now seriously discussing whether or not someone deemed mentally ill should be able to buy firearms?
There is no objective way to determine if someone is "mentally ill".
Different areas of the country have different requirements. Unless you voluntarily go in for observation it normally would take two doctors agreeing and signing off on your being held for observation, normally a judge would need to observe you or have testimony about you to make a longer observation and/or treatment period. Having a close relative sign off on it helps the court determine many times.
(02-22-2013 12:01 PM)EverRespect Wrote: We are agruing:
1. At what threshold should someone be too mentally incompetant to bear arms?
2. Can that be objectively defined and tested?
3. How can you legislate a ban without violating constitutional rights and due process of those who, in the spirit of the defined "mental incompetance", do and do not in fact fall outside the definition? In other words, guarantee the constitutional right to bear arms for every mentally competant US Citizen who passes the criminal background check.
My argument is that it can't be done since, no matter how you slice it, it will always comedown to someone's subjective opinion, be it a judge, a shrink, a family member, or a bureaucrat.
Think of people, for instance, going into the Betty Ford Clinic as having actually a mental problem for alcoholism. Would you demand their gun rights to be taken away? At the same time you wouldn't want them to be holding a gun on you drunk.
It could be brain trauma that causes a mental problem.
Many people caught in constant artillery barrages have problems that they cannot stop for the rest of their lives. Seen pictures of soldiers that would hide under their beds and shake like crazy.
There are many forms of mental problems, only some are caused by mental illness. Some say that everyone has mental problems in fact.
Working on a third degree, in Psychology, I have seen people that are mentally ill. Many cannot be cured, only controlled to some point.
(Sorry I didn't answer some people's response to my previous posting on this thread, but I was gone and tied up for several hours.)