thoughts....

[darthtang aw]

140000 vets are not allowed to own a firearm. mainly due to the level of ptsd they have attained....based off the va assessments. some of these restriction are brought about because peperwork was improperly filled.
my question is this....the constitution protects the right to bear arms.....if one is mentally unstable are they less of a person to have this right taken from them?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388584/thoughts#post_3427646
140000 vets are not allowed to own a firearm. mainly due to the level of ptsd they have attained....based off the va assessments. some of these restriction are brought about because peperwork was improperly filled.
my question is this....the constitution protects the right to bear arms.....if one is mentally unstable are they less of a person to have this right taken from them?
Yes, according to the supreme court.

 

[meowzer]

I believe in the right to bear arms...BUT....I also think we have to draw the line somewhere.....Mentally disabled, convicted violent criminal......I think you know what I mean LOL

 

[beth]

Mentally ill persons as defined in the existing law, vets or not, should not be allowed to own firearms. How many berserk people with guns go off on innocent people due to their mental illness? There are situations where your rights are curtailed, with the assumption that is best for the ill person, as well as the public at large. Such as situations where adult mentally ill people are institutionalized against their will. It happens.
Now if someone overcomes their problem, then they are able to go through processes to restore their rights, and that is the way to go. Unfortunately, and sadly, many people with these problems regress at various times in their life, struggling with their issues.

 

[darthtang aw]

I am wondering though...do they still retain the right to vote and should they? If they are a danger to society should the be making decisions that affect society? As far as I know, only convicted felons lose the right to Vote.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388584/thoughts#post_3427684
I am wondering though...do they still retain the right to vote and should they? If they are a danger to society should the be making decisions that affect society? As far as I know, only convicted felons lose the right to Vote.
If you took away mentally ill people's right to vote the Democrat party would collapse over night
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In theory you have a point but someone casting a foolish vote isn't a direct threat to the public. Felons lose the right to vote as punishment. Should we be punishing people for being ill?

 

[beth]

The threat to self and society over the gun is pretty clear. Voting is everyone's right, unless you are a felon. Mentally ill persons can still think, reason, and have decisions, but they pose a risk when it comes to firearms. Anyway, the vast majority of people with this illness never have any rights stripped-nor should they be stripped. People who are depressed, and take meds or seek therapy, have mental illness--doesn't mean that they don't get their rights.

 

[mantisman51]

It is my understanding that the criteria set was "mental incompetence". So if one suffers from PTSD, but it does not interfere with daily life, then one would not be "mentally incompetent". But a lot of states, counties and cities use any excuse they can to go in and take firearms. I think the ban on felons owning guns is questionable, but it is the law. So, because I unknowingly run my 4x4 over a ESA protected stream and get charged with a felony for breaking the law, I should never be allowed to protect myself again? I think the 1968 Gun Control Act is very un-Constitutional because it should have only been violent felons losing their rights, not someone who failed to pay taxes for a few years.

 

[darthtang aw]

been doing some digging into this.
the do not have to be deemed mentally incompetent.
Unnder the brady act...any person deemed mentally unable to handle their affairs is automatically prevented from purchasing a weapon. seems logical, right?
Many of the veterans this law is enveloping have been assigned fidiciaries to help them manage their finances. these fiduciaries are appointed the veterans by the VA. the do not determine or imply mental capacity to harm themselves or the public. they help with veteran compensation, disability compensation, pensions, survivors compensation and so on. the VA once they appoint a veteran a fiduciary, their name is sent to the fbi automatically and added to the brady act watch list of firarm sales.
now, back to my original thought.....if the right to bear arms is a right granted by the constitution and subject to mental capacity...should not all other rights be subject as well. would this not make sense?

 

[reefraff]

There are limits to free speech.
There's a better example of BLATANT violation of the constitution in terms of gun ownership
They created a law that anyone convicted of domestic abuse can't own firearms. If you had a conviction at any time in your life you can no longer own a gun.
That is an Ex post facto law which is prohibited by the US constitution. Why has nobody taken that one to court yet?

 

[geoj]

been doing some digging into this.
the do not have to be deemed mentally incompetent.
Unnder the brady act...any person deemed mentally unable to handle their affairs is automatically prevented from purchasing a weapon. seems logical, right?
Many of the veterans this law is enveloping have been assigned fidiciaries to help them manage their finances. these fiduciaries are appointed the veterans by the VA. the do not determine or imply mental capacity to harm themselves or the public. they help with veteran compensation, disability compensation, pensions, survivors compensation and so on. the VA once they appoint a veteran a fiduciary, their name is sent to the fbi automatically and added to the brady act watch list of firarm sales.
now, back to my original thought.....if the right to bear arms is a right granted by the constitution and subject to mental capacity...should not all other rights be subject as well. would this not make sense?
Yep, if I had a governmental bureaucratic fiduciary, I would go on a rampage too.... :cry:

 

[saxman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388584/thoughts#post_3427737
Under the brady act...any person deemed mentally unable to handle their affairs is automatically prevented from purchasing a weapon. seems logical, right?
THERE'S the problem...Brady! He and his gun-grabbing buddies really did a number on us, and NOW they (my lovely CA legislators) are trying to ban AIRSOFT because some 18 year old pointed an airsoft pistol at an officer AT NIGHT when the officer ID'd himself and the kid got lit up for his trouble...
As for "the right to bear arms", the gun grabbers say that it's no meant for the INDIVIDUAL, but that the PEOPLE as a whole have the right to organized military/militia.
Greg (they can have my guns when they pry them out of my cold, dead hand) Saxman