Mental Health and the 2nd Amendment

[2A_Tom]

Exactly the response I would expect from you.

 

[public servant]

My friend has left him 1 disabled 1911 that the man carries daily.

I ask you in all seriousness to ask your friend to re-think this, please.

I see nothing good coming of this.

 

[88GT]

I ask you in all seriousness to ask your friend to re-think this, please.

I see nothing good coming of this.

How so?

 

[public servant]

How so?

Some of the signs and symptoms of dementia...

Problems communicating, disorientation, poor judgement, mood changes and personality changes.

What happens if the man becomes confused, scared then angry and the disabled firearm is mistaken for a functional firearm?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What happens if the man becomes confused, scared then angry and the disabled firearm is mistaken for a functional firearm?

Oh, I know, I know, teacher pick me, I'm ever so smart.

What would happen is a 142 page thread on INGO about how the police should have kung fu'd the disabled gun out of his hand like Chuck Norris and how they are pussies for not doing so.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Some of the signs and symptoms of dementia...

Problems communicating, disorientation, poor judgement, mood changes and personality changes.

What happens if the man becomes confused, scared then angry and the disabled firearm is mistaken for a functional firearm?

He would get shot. Maybe that's what they are hoping for, maybe not. If he got shot I certainly wouldnt blame anyone for shooting him unless the gun never cleared leather.

 

[public servant]

He would get shot. Maybe that's what they are hoping for, maybe not. If he got shot I certainly wouldnt blame anyone for shooting him unless the gun never cleared leather.

I doubt that's what they are hoping for. But one never knows.

I'd hate to have to wake up every morning knowing I was the one who shot and killed a mentally ill man with a gun that wouldn't fire because in his confusion and fear he began waving it around. I know the odds are slim...but I know it were...say, my father, I'd never put him in that position.

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartass. I just don't see this as a good choice.

 

[88GT]

Some of the signs and symptoms of dementia...

Problems communicating, disorientation, poor judgement, mood changes and personality changes.

What happens if the man becomes confused, scared then angry and the disabled firearm is mistaken for a functional firearm?

Oh, yes. I see that now. I was only looking at it from one angle. Didn't think to consider it from the other one. Sadly, that's probably the most likely source of the negative outcome.

 

[Denny347]

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.

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.

Institutionalized? I honestly do not know how we as LEO's can go about doing that. The most we can do on the street level is an Immediate Detention under IC 12-26-4 and it can only be up to a 24hr hold. Anything longer than that requires a doctor to go to court and few will ever take the time. Most ID's are out in 3-5hrs. I've ID'ed so VERY disturbed and violent people only to have them back home before my shift ends. Many of these people have either NO family or their family won't have anything to do with them. I've IDed some people so many times I've lost count and the medics/nurses know them by their first name. A neighboring district just IDed a guy who kept calling 911 telling us he was going to kill his neighbors (no one named specific) because he thought they implanted stuff in his head to spy on him. He also thought they were trying to poison him, etc. HE did this for a while before they finally IDed him and took his guns. This guy was flat out crazy and potentially very dangerous. He was back home within hours. Why in the hell would you let a guy carry a disabled pistol thinking it was real?

 

[nakinate]

I'd feel terrible if I were the family member who gave my mentally ill relative a disabled gun to carry. My grandmother has Alzheimer's. I know how this goes. An demented person with a disabled gun will eventually result in that person being gunned down or involved in a serious incident with the police.

 

[88GT]

Institutionalized? I honestly do not know how we as LEO's can go about doing that. The most we can do on the street level is an Immediate Detention under IC 12-26-4 and it can only be up to a 24hr hold. Anything longer than that requires a doctor to go to court and few will ever take the time. Most ID's are out in 3-5hrs. I've ID'ed so VERY disturbed and violent people only to have them back home before my shift ends. Many of these people have either NO family or their family won't have anything to do with them. I've IDed some people so many times I've lost count and the medics/nurses know them by their first name. A neighboring district just IDed a guy who kept calling 911 telling us he was going to kill his neighbors (no one named specific) because he thought they implanted stuff in his head to spy on him. He also thought they were trying to poison him, etc. HE did this for a while before they finally IDed him and took his guns. This guy was flat out crazy and potentially very dangerous. He was back home within hours. Why in the hell would you let a guy carry a disabled pistol thinking it was real?

I don't think LEO have any authority. Courts or the family, but not LEO.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm torn. I look at the situation you've described, and I applaud his family for stepping up and making a hard decision. (It's only an easy decision if you don't know the guy and don't give a da*n about the effect of being made helpless and defenseless on what of his mind is left.) I think part of this will depend on the 1911 they left him. How was it disabled? Just internally, i.e. no firing pin? Or a "training barrel" installed, such that anyone looking at the business end may instantly know it's been rendered harmless? That makes some difference. In addition, a factor is his supervision. If he has someone, a responsible adult, with him 24/7, without fail, someone who can intercede and talk him down, who knows what's going on, I can see how the whole "let him die with dignity" thing would be a good thing, both kind and considerate, while still being cautious in re: others.
That is a very high bar to set, BTW, and I'm not sure anyone can reach that standard. Without "what if"ing this to death, I consider that the responsible adult mentioned might not be able to be there, might not be able to talk him down, might be incapacitated, and/or might be the target of his aggression. (Don't forget, a 1911 is not a light little piece of combat tupperware, and could be used as a bludgeon as well.)

With all of that said, I'm still hesitant to empower and/or invoke government on this guy. I think there has to be an intermediate solution, something that respects the valid concerns the LEOs have voiced, but still respects the man who has done nothing wrong and shouldn't have to prove his innocence. (our justice system presumes innocence; a charge does not default to guilt.) Their concerns address not only his safety, but the mental well-being of others affected by this man's decisions.

Kut raised a good point: What if the family doesn't care, or does not exist? Who protects this man from himself when he is no longer capable of doing so? (Note that last bit, it's the salient point: "...when he is no longer capable of doing so" due to his dementia.) Further, what happens when this guy's situation changes again, for the better? There is something called a fugue state, wherein a person might lose who he is and go off to start a new life as a different person with no memory of the life he's lived to that point. (forgive the vague description, I read a little on this several years ago, and I don't remember it well. Corrections from those who know it better are welcome, and solicited.) Technically, the guy in the fugue state is perhaps in control of himself, but a bit disconnected from reality. When that state terminates and he returns to himself, what happens to the property government "confiscated" (stole) from him? Under Sen. Tomes' new law, his guns could have been sold at retail or auctioned, and no longer able to be returned to him. He might get that money, which could well be pennies on the dollar.

No solution is universal. What will work in one case may not in another. I do think some intermediate level of interdiction, similar to mediation vs. a court case, should probably exist, though family action would be preferable.

I speak from experience. My uncle suffered from a diminished capacity (I don't know that it qualified as dementia generally or Alzheimer's specifically) and recently went to his safe in his closet at home, opened it, and removed a handgun he'd had for many years, turned it on himself, and fired, killing himself. Whose fault was it? Ultimately, it was his own choice. His son, my cousin, presumably knew he had it, and for reasons I don't know and won't ask, let him keep it there in the safe. Maybe he'd forgotten the combination to where it was. (like a lockbox in the safe itself, I don't know, I'm guessing here) Maybe it was the whole "die with dignity" thing. Maybe my cousin just forgot he had it. For whatever reason, the end result is that my uncle is now dead, but he no longer misses his wife, who preceded him in death (cancer) several years ago.

The fault does not belong to the gun. It's an inanimate object.
The fault does not belong to my uncle. He may have known what he was doing, but I don't know that he was thoroughly rational.
The fault does not belong to my cousin. He was halfway around the world when this happened, and the reason for his action or inaction is not known, but is irrelevant: He has lost his father.

Perhaps there is no fault to be placed at all. Maybe s*** like this just happens sometimes in life... and the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces when it happens.

Blessings,
Bill

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.

 

[Tanfodude]

^That's why a man's freedom and rights are closely adherent to a sound mind.

 

[KLB]

Perhaps there is no fault to be placed at all. Maybe s*** like this just happens sometimes in life... and the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces when it happens.

Blessings,
Bill

This is something that many in this country do not want to accept. There always has to be someone held accountable for something bad happening.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This is something that many in this country do not want to accept. There always has to be someone held accountable for something bad happening.

Some may insist on that. Some in my own family are wont to blame the gun. It's very simple: it didn't fire itself. It didn't pick itself up and point itself at him. He did all those things himself. I wish he hadn't, but he did. He had caregivers in the next room, from whom he'd excused himself before he left the room. He made a choice. On what he based that choice, no one will ever know. The facts are clear though. I hope he is happier where he is now than he was here, without his wife.

Blame, however, is pointless. Who cares whose fault it is? Why does it matter?
In the case of a suicide, the additional question to ask is, "Who owned his life?", and I would say that he did. It was his to give back to our Creator who gave it to him in the first place.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Dauvis]

I see there's quite a few illiterate people in this poll.

The law clearly indicates "shall not be infringed." It does not make exception, it does not present a case or an argument contrary. Just because some illiterate judge can't seem to understand that does not change the document.

No, no man shall be denied their rights. I don't really care if you take issue with other citizens in this country, you do not have the right to decide what their rights are or are not.

If that individual is in such bad mental condition, then he or she will end up in an asylum eventually when they violate a law or demonstrate severe bodily harm to themselves or others.

The same amendment stresses the importance of a "well-regulated" militia. I have a hard time believing that someone who has a demonstrated mental illness that can result in violent behavior should be considered part of a "well-regulated" militia.

As for OP, the poll is way to broad to be meaningful. There are many conditions that are considered mentally ill that are not sufficient to limit their rights.

 

[armedindy]

There are many levels of mentally ill. The question would be where do you draw the line? Who determines if you are unfit or not? The only answer would be uncle Sam and I cannot vote for that.

Its a tough issue, because there are some perfectly "sane" people out there that are very bad, and very capable of doing bad things...then there can be a manic depressive schizophrenic who has never and will never hurt a soul......

 

[nakinate]

The same amendment stresses the importance of a "well-regulated" militia. I have a hard time believing that someone who has a demonstrated mental illness that can result in violent behavior should be considered part of a "well-regulated" militia.

As for OP, the poll is way to broad to be meaningful. There are many conditions that are considered mentally ill that are not sufficient to limit their rights.

The wording is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say you must be in a militia to bear arms. It says that without arms we cannot have a well regulated militia or a free state.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

I would argue your general premise in saying "like" and then listing those that obviously (in 20/20 hindsight) should not have had access to them and therefore the bad things would not have happened... Its like saying should people like Tamerlan and Szhokhar Tsarnev should not have access to pressure cookers or backpacks. It is easy to point a finger, AFTER the FACT, and say this was obviously not a good idea, but as others have said previously, are you going to trust a bureaucrat somewhere to be making that decision prior to any thing occurring. I could make a pretty good argument that ANY wolf who is violent and preys on others (sheep) is in many many ways, "Mentally Ill". But how this is determined prior to an occurance is the issue... Therefore, the question could possibly be phrased, should anyone SUSPECTED of being mentally ill, be kept from owning a firearm and in that case it is a NO.

This has shades of Minority Report here... how do you determine what some "mentally ill" Person is going to do at some time... in the future...

Heck, on occasion when I spend the whole day out at the range having a grand ol time with friends punching holes in match targets, I would think my wife would suspect I was a bit "Mental"....

 

[Dauvis]

The wording is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say you must be in a militia to bear arms. It says that without arms we cannot have a well regulated militia or a free state.

I'm not claiming that one has to be a member of the militia. I am saying that I have a hard time believing that someone who has a demonstrated mental illness with the tendency of violence can be considered part of a "well-regulated" militia. The amendment explicitly states the need for a "well-regulated" militia rather than just a militia. I personally think that wording was intentional rather than superfluous.