But along with this law should be an easy-to-traverse and effective appeals process so those accused of being mentally unstable fir gun ownership rights purposes can show they are not unstable
It depends on what the definition of "Mentally ill" is and who makes that decision. I have PTSD am I on that list? I defended my country and gave 7 years of my life to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and defend every other right that all American citizens have. I'm not going to go out and go on a shooting spree. What if I (or another person) wants to go hunting?? This is a "muddy water" situation and a "slippery slope" to go down for our state and our country. If you think these laws are out there to cut crime you're dreaming. These laws are being put into place to fall "in line" with the UNs ban on small arms ownership. Just my opinion. Bottom line here is: A criminal won't give a crap about a list. I guarantee 99% of idiots who commit gun related crimes won't have legally obtained their gun anyways.
I agree that mentally ill people who are deemed to have the potential to commit violence to themselves or others should be disallowed firearm ownership. My problem with this portion of the law is in regards to the lack of due process before taking away that right. there is no good reason why a hearing shouldn't be started immediately.
The rest of the SAFE Act is political theater as far as I am concerned.
I agree with Sam. The definition of mental illness is way too broad. And how will the judgment be made who is who? Will the appeals process demand that the government prove someone is dangerous or will a person be presumed crazy and hev to prove that they are not.
And what about cultural differences? When will the defintion creep to include folks who are just different than the folks winning elections lately? City culture and urban culture have very different norms when it comes to guns. The "SAFE" act needs to go.
My cousin hears voices, and claims the State of Kansas will kill her if she resists its directives to commit evil acts. But actually, most of the time, she wouldn't hurt a fly. (Excepting the time she attacked the waitress who dared seat her in an evil place. It was no big deal, the waitress was out of the hospital in no time.) And her son was a Navy Seal, a patriot who served his country to preserve our freedom!
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that the right to bear arms of the lunatic, or the mentally infirm, shall be infringed? Does it make any such exception? Hell no! My cousin wants a weapon for self-protection. Is she just supposed to wait around for the cops?
I wanted to comment on today's poll regarding ownership of guns by the mentally ill. If you look at this question in it's broadest sense, The results of this poll make perfect sense. What is missing though is a simple detail: What is mentally ill and who makes that determination?
Obviously the YES respondents are thinking about anyone who has commited a violent crime (especially with a gun) and was determined to be mentally incompetent (who could argue)
But how about these scenario's?:
A) Has ever had a restraining order filed against them.
B) Has ever held a doctor's prescription for an anti depressant.
I bet the YES number would be considerably lower.In the future, What IF the people who make this determination decided that this group should also include:
C) Anyone with military service and had been involved in combat action
D) Anyone who has ever spoken out again the government or identifies themselves with a political party other then one currently in power
This would be a very different result, I am sure and these kinds of changes can happen without our consent.
My point here is that as always,the devil is in the details. What has been given to us by our forefathers in the 2nd Amendment is being chipped away at a little at a time.and what starts out to be a good idea can become bad very quickly in the hands of corrupt politicians.
You need to look no further than Andrew Cuomo's Safe Act for proof of this. The crowning achievement of this Bill was to ban sale and eventually ownership of "assault weapons". It is hard to understand how banning a weapon that is statistically insignificant in crime statistics would do much to make us safer, but the corrupt leadership in Albany sure thinks so.
the poll got a NO vote from me, as far as I am concerned everyone has a God given right to protect themselves. a firearm is the best way as the firearm will put you on a level playing field with the criminal element as well as government agents.
I think it depends on the mental illness and the diagnosis. I had a family member make several comments that he had a gun and he would use it. The person would show up at my home all the time in a paranoid bizarre state. For months I was scared to death. A family member reported the behavior to the police but nothing ever became of it.
All mental diagnoses are written in pencil. Mental health status can change drastically with either better evaluation tests, caring doctors, and adjustments to medications. Not to mention, the term "Mentally ill" is so generalized that it can't be used in this discussion properly. More over, mentally ill does not have anything to do with a person's cognitive stability. Mental illnesses range from ADD, OCD, nervous twitching, all the way to schizophrenia. Heck, if you know an introvert, then you know someone who has a "mental illness." This term has way too many levels, groups, and sub-groups to give any side legitimate ground to stand on. So don't use "illness," instead use "unstable."
And in that case - If you have been certified unstable, then you definitely shouldn't have a gun. Which should not be too much of a big deal as you would have far more (and certainly far worse) things to worry about.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- 2nd Amendment; Bill of Rights
Shall Not Be Infringed
Where in the wording of the 2nd Amendment does anyone think there is specified or implied that there are, or can be, regulations or restrictions?
The Supreme Court has ruled on different occasions that the 2nd Amendment pertains to citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. Don't "all" people have a life that deserves the right of self defense?
Is it Constitutional to deny anyone the right to their choice of method to protect themselves? What about an ex-con? Once they have done the time [paid the penalty] and are released do they not still have a life that deserves their right to protect?
DEFINITELY! But along with
DEFINITELY!
But along with this law should be an easy-to-traverse and effective appeals process so those accused of being mentally unstable fir gun ownership rights purposes can show they are not unstable
Well I see that there were 30
Well I see that there were 30 mentally ill people who voted "No" so far...
It depends on what the
It depends on what the definition of "Mentally ill" is and who makes that decision. I have PTSD am I on that list? I defended my country and gave 7 years of my life to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and defend every other right that all American citizens have. I'm not going to go out and go on a shooting spree. What if I (or another person) wants to go hunting?? This is a "muddy water" situation and a "slippery slope" to go down for our state and our country. If you think these laws are out there to cut crime you're dreaming. These laws are being put into place to fall "in line" with the UNs ban on small arms ownership. Just my opinion. Bottom line here is: A criminal won't give a crap about a list. I guarantee 99% of idiots who commit gun related crimes won't have legally obtained their gun anyways.
I agree that mentally ill
I agree that mentally ill people who are deemed to have the potential to commit violence to themselves or others should be disallowed firearm ownership. My problem with this portion of the law is in regards to the lack of due process before taking away that right. there is no good reason why a hearing shouldn't be started immediately.
The rest of the SAFE Act is political theater as far as I am concerned.
I agree with Sam. The
I agree with Sam. The definition of mental illness is way too broad. And how will the judgment be made who is who? Will the appeals process demand that the government prove someone is dangerous or will a person be presumed crazy and hev to prove that they are not.
And what about cultural differences? When will the defintion creep to include folks who are just different than the folks winning elections lately? City culture and urban culture have very different norms when it comes to guns. The "SAFE" act needs to go.
Well said, Sam and Matthew. I
Well said, Sam and Matthew. I agree with you both.
My cousin hears voices, and
My cousin hears voices, and claims the State of Kansas will kill her if she resists its directives to commit evil acts. But actually, most of the time, she wouldn't hurt a fly. (Excepting the time she attacked the waitress who dared seat her in an evil place. It was no big deal, the waitress was out of the hospital in no time.) And her son was a Navy Seal, a patriot who served his country to preserve our freedom!
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that the right to bear arms of the lunatic, or the mentally infirm, shall be infringed? Does it make any such exception? Hell no! My cousin wants a weapon for self-protection. Is she just supposed to wait around for the cops?
Common sense, people!
"City [country?] culture and
"City [country?] culture and urban culture have very different norms when it comes to guns."
An excellent point. And the difference is for good cause.
I wanted to comment on
I wanted to comment on today's poll regarding ownership of guns by the mentally ill. If you look at this question in it's broadest sense, The results of this poll make perfect sense. What is missing though is a simple detail: What is mentally ill and who makes that determination?
Obviously the YES respondents are thinking about anyone who has commited a violent crime (especially with a gun) and was determined to be mentally incompetent (who could argue)
But how about these scenario's?:
A) Has ever had a restraining order filed against them.
B) Has ever held a doctor's prescription for an anti depressant.
I bet the YES number would be considerably lower.In the future, What IF the people who make this determination decided that this group should also include:
C) Anyone with military service and had been involved in combat action
D) Anyone who has ever spoken out again the government or identifies themselves with a political party other then one currently in power
This would be a very different result, I am sure and these kinds of changes can happen without our consent.
My point here is that as always,the devil is in the details. What has been given to us by our forefathers in the 2nd Amendment is being chipped away at a little at a time.and what starts out to be a good idea can become bad very quickly in the hands of corrupt politicians.
You need to look no further than Andrew Cuomo's Safe Act for proof of this. The crowning achievement of this Bill was to ban sale and eventually ownership of "assault weapons". It is hard to understand how banning a weapon that is statistically insignificant in crime statistics would do much to make us safer, but the corrupt leadership in Albany sure thinks so.
the poll got a NO vote from
the poll got a NO vote from me, as far as I am concerned everyone has a God given right to protect themselves. a firearm is the best way as the firearm will put you on a level playing field with the criminal element as well as government agents.
and now we have 115!! better
and now we have 115!! better hire a few more case workers
I think it depends on the
I think it depends on the mental illness and the diagnosis. I had a family member make several comments that he had a gun and he would use it. The person would show up at my home all the time in a paranoid bizarre state. For months I was scared to death. A family member reported the behavior to the police but nothing ever became of it.
Sam - you had me until the
Sam - you had me until the delusional UN control baloney.
Still, some good points.
All mental diagnoses are
All mental diagnoses are written in pencil. Mental health status can change drastically with either better evaluation tests, caring doctors, and adjustments to medications. Not to mention, the term "Mentally ill" is so generalized that it can't be used in this discussion properly. More over, mentally ill does not have anything to do with a person's cognitive stability. Mental illnesses range from ADD, OCD, nervous twitching, all the way to schizophrenia. Heck, if you know an introvert, then you know someone who has a "mental illness." This term has way too many levels, groups, and sub-groups to give any side legitimate ground to stand on. So don't use "illness," instead use "unstable."
And in that case - If you have been certified unstable, then you definitely shouldn't have a gun. Which should not be too much of a big deal as you would have far more (and certainly far worse) things to worry about.
Actually, it really depends
Actually, it really depends on our Constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- 2nd Amendment; Bill of Rights
Shall Not Be Infringed
Where in the wording of the 2nd Amendment does anyone think there is specified or implied that there are, or can be, regulations or restrictions?
The Supreme Court has ruled on different occasions that the 2nd Amendment pertains to citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. Don't "all" people have a life that deserves the right of self defense?
Is it Constitutional to deny anyone the right to their choice of method to protect themselves? What about an ex-con? Once they have done the time [paid the penalty] and are released do they not still have a life that deserves their right to protect?
Check this info: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html