Mental Health and the 2nd Amendment

[TopDog]

Yes, how does one know?

Several of us have asked. Define: Serious Mental Illness. I also asked who gets to make that determination? Without answers to both of these questions the whole thread is pretty much mute. You can't argue either side without this knowledge.

Signing off the thread now...

 

[jamil]

Not all, just the ones that aren't mentally stable enough to own guns.

You could extrapolate that to everyone. If we could just prevent people who would use guns to harm people...

But really, either way, you don't know until you know. So the most you can do is throw a blanket over some group of people because you think they can't be trusted. If we have to rely on that I hope your blanket is big enough to cover this guy:

 

[88GT]

You could extrapolate that to everyone. If we could just prevent people who would use guns to harm people...

But really, either way, you don't know until you know. So the most you can do is throw a blanket over some group of people because you think they can't be trusted. If we have to rely on that I hope your blanket is big enough to cover this guy:

Is that Dorn? The guy that caused the kerfluffle in LA?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Yes, how does one know?

Kenneth Anderson showed past behavior that lead his family and the officers that dealt with him to believe that he was mentally ill and should not have been in possession of firearms. Behavior and subsequent evaluation by mental health professionals would probably be a good indicator of determining who should or shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

You could extrapolate that to everyone. If we could just prevent people who would use guns to harm people...

But really, either way, you don't know until you know. So the most you can do is throw a blanket over some group of people because you think they can't be trusted. If we have to rely on that I hope your blanket is big enough to cover this guy:

I'm not throwing a blanket over anyone. Someone asked why the INGO LEOs overwhelmingly voted that mentally ill persons should not own firearms, and I gave my personal feeling on the matter. I don't see any outrage against the non-LEOs that voted no, but I don't really expect anything different. After all, I'm just trying to keep those that aren't supercitizens down.

 

[TopDog]

I'm not throwing a blanket over anyone. Someone asked why the INGO LEOs overwhelmingly voted that mentally ill persons should not own firearms, and I gave my personal feeling on the matter. I don't see any outrage against the non-LEOs that voted no, but I don't really expect anything different. After all, I'm just trying to keep those that aren't supercitizens down.

Frank, I would like to get a cops perspective on this as in what you can and or would do. If you get a call, man with a gun. You get on scene and the guy has done nothing wrong, say he was just wearing his gun on his hip on his own property. But during your questioning him you believe he is unstable. What can you do? What would you do? Can you disarm him pending an evaluation? Do you bring him in for some kind of evaluation?

 

[88GT]

Kenneth Anderson showed past behavior that lead his family and the officers that dealt with him to believe that he was mentally ill and should not have been in possession of firearms. Behavior and subsequent evaluation by mental health professionals would probably be a good indicator of determining who should or shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Well, now you've brought up an additional factor: past behavior.

Do you believe that diagnosis alone is sufficient to strip a citizen of his right to own firearms?

Of all the criminal uses of a firearm, how many are perpetrated by the mentally ill? Is this really even a problem? I guess it comes down to whether you think you can prevent crime or not. I don't believe you can. Not with laws. Why would the mentally ill have any more difficulty getting a firearm than the criminals who are prohibited? Such a law would probably result in nothing more than a mentally ill criminal whose only crime was obtaining a firearm.

 

[jamil]

I'm not throwing a blanket over anyone. Someone asked why the INGO LEOs overwhelmingly voted that mentally ill persons should not own firearms, and I gave my personal feeling on the matter. I don't see any outrage against the non-LEOs that voted no, but I don't really expect anything different. After all, I'm just trying to keep those that aren't supercitizens down.

I'm not outraged and I'm not sure that other INGOers are outraged either. I thought that post was just an inquiry.

The Dorner reference was just to give an example of a LEO who was nuts. What behavior did Dorner exhibit that would have disqualified him from owning firearms? And even if he were disqualified, how would you stop him from getting them anyway?

And I'm not trying to put you or anyone on the spot. I'm just saying that "mentally ill persons" is a pretty big blanket.

Maybe when someone acts like Kenneth Anderson, you can make them get evaluated, but how objective will that be? But who makes the call that he should see a shrink? If I were a shrink, who didn't really care much about 2A rights, I might think that it's better to play it safe and deny than to risk things turning out bad, and getting sued.

 

[jamil]

Frank, I would like to get a cops perspective on this as in what you can and or would do. If you get a call, man with a gun. You get on scene and the guy has done nothing wrong, say he was just wearing his gun on his hip on his own property. But during your questioning him you believe he is unstable. What can you do? What would you do? Can you disarm him pending an evaluation? Do you bring him in for some kind of evaluation?

I imagine there are a few people, including LEO, who would think that OCing at all, let alone on your own property is nuts.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Frank, I would like to get a cops perspective on this as in what you can and or would do. If you get a call, man with a gun. You get on scene and the guy has done nothing wrong, say he was just wearing his gun on his hip on his own property. But during your questioning him you believe he is unstable. What can you do? What would you do? Can you disarm him pending an evaluation? Do you bring him in for some kind of evaluation?

Ask for his LTCH. Nothing if presented. Take his name down, and she if there's ever been an issue that would have disqualified him from carrying

 

[2A_Tom]

Kenneth Anderson is my rational argument.
A cop killer must always be put down no other option.
And why aren't you chastising the non-LEOs that voted no?
Timothy "Jake" Laird

Well I looked in the public poll list and saw that most of the libertarians, a couple of others and I voted yes. I also noted that every member that I know that portrays them self as an LEO voted no, along with others.

One guy does something bad with a gun and you want to penalize all gun owners?

^^^^THIS^^^^

Not all, just the ones that aren't mentally stable enough to own guns.

Yes, how does one know?

Who sets the criteria? Who decides?

Kenneth Anderson showed past behavior that lead his family and the officers that dealt with him to believe that he was mentally ill and should not have been in possession of firearms. Behavior and subsequent evaluation by mental health professionals would probably be a good indicator of determining who should or shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

As for this if a person is indeed proved to be too dangerous to live with others either by mental incompetence or by committing of violent crimes they should be instititionalized. Any one who is then determined to have passed their period of danger should then be returned to full liberty.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Ask for his LTCH. Nothing if presented. Take his name down, and she if there's ever been an issue that would have disqualified him from carrying

His own property and LTCH?

 

[Kutnupe14]

His own property and LTCH?

I missed that part. Hopefully I would have never been dispatched to the residence in the first place.

 

[Tanfodude]

I think one thing we all have in common is the preservation of life, bearing arms greatly aides and equalizes that.

But if that tool is in on a person known not to have a rational mind, would you trust that person to weld a firearm? Even though nothing has happen yet. Just asking.

Another way of putting it is, would you place a firearm on the night stand where a 3-4 y/o has easy access?

I can understand that being absolute in saying "yes" as that was my original answer since we're in a real world where everything can be exploited by the appointed in powers.

I answered "no" based on one's right to life, even though they choose be victims or just have other no means to defend themselves.

 

[88GT]

I think one thing we all have in common is the preservation of like, bearing arms greatly aides and equalizes that.

But if that tool is in on a person known not to have a rational mind, would you trust that person to weld a firearm? Even though nothing has happen yet. Just asking.

Another way of putting it is, would you place a firearm on the night stand where a 3-4 y/o has easy access?

I can understand that being absolute in saying "yes" as that was my original answer since we're in a real world where everything can be exploited by the appointed in powers.

I answered "no" based on one's right to life, even though they choose be victims or just have other means to defend themselves.

Not counting INGOers?

 

[nakinate]

Ask for his LTCH. Nothing if presented. Take his name down, and she if there's ever been an issue that would have disqualified him from carrying

He doesn't need an LTCH on his own property.

*edit* just saw it was already called out.

 

[Tanfodude]

Not counting INGOers?

LOL.

edit: just realized my typos and missing words. Hate typing on the phone.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not counting INGOers?

Well....maybe just the soulless, lunatic ones....

 

[2A_Tom]

I have a friend who is selling all of the guns, ammunition and accessories for the family of a man diagnosed with dementia. This is very debilitating and like alzheimers he may forget who his wife is and possibly think her an intruder. In this case I believe the family has made the correct decision. It is a matter for the family not the government.

PS. My friend has left him 1 disabled 1911 that the man carries daily. What is it the libs are always saying? Let a person die with dignity.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have a friend who is selling all of the guns, ammunition and accessories for the family of a man diagnosed with dementia. This is very debilitating and like alzheimers he may forget who his wife is and possibly think her an intruder. In this case I believe the family has made the correct decision. It is a matter for the family not the government.

PS. My friend has left him 1 disabled 1911 that the man carries daily. What is it the libs are always saying? Let a person die with dignity.

Sorry bro, that case is exactly when I want the govt to step in. If this guy had no family, or they didn't care, what then? And I disagree with them allowing him to carry a disabled firearm. If he's in such a state of mind, that he can't tell friend from for, what happens if he pulls it on the "wrong" person? It's not as if the other person knows the firearm is disabled. That's something your friend may not have considered.