Should mentally disturbed people be able to buy guns?

We've already seen what they try to do with the label of "mentally ill".

Most recently they decided if someone else is handing your finances, you're "mentally ill" and should lose your 2A rights.

We seem to have a lot of insane "journalists" running around. Let's classify them as "working for terrible organizations" and strip their 1A rights.

There's no difference between the two.

- - - Updated - - -

Mental health notes are perhaps the most heavily protected health records under HIPPA.

The reason these records do not get entered into NICS is because of HIPPA. Go argue with Bill Clinton on it.

 

You left out the biggest reason of all.

That law allowed the SSA to discriminate against someones protected rights based on, of all things, having someone else manage your finances.

That's how they lie and go after our rights, under the guise of "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to save lives".

 

Not so. Those who have been identified as mentally ill receive disability payments from Social Security. They are clearly enough mentally ill as to qualify for such payments. So that is an ideal way of identifying them for gun restrictions. If they are unjustly deprived, they can appeal it. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html

Wrong again. It's not about old people. See the above.

- - - Updated - - -

The Obama reform identifies mentally ill people as those receiving federal disability payments for mental disability.

 

Nope, if you got mental problems bad enuf to be on record...no guns for you other than a CA legal BB gun

 

New York cannot make any such law because the 14th amendment extended the restrictions on the Federal government found in the Bill of Rights to the states.

 

I'm sure such laws will stop illegal buying of guns across state lines.

 

That depends on whether the current restriction was seen as doing more harm than good, maybe not actually preventing anyone who shouldn’t have a gun from getting one but restricting people who would be perfect safe.

I don’t know. My main point was that nobody was voting to give the dangerously mentally ill access to firearms – that remains illegal even if this repeal goes through – and presenting it as such is dishonest.

 

I am a gun owner myself. I should have noted that there are responsible gun owners of assault rifles, and people who enjoy firing them at gun ranges etc., but personally I don't see the purpose for an citizen to own an assault rifle unless you contemplate a group or militia attacking you or your property. I know there's no way to win this argument but my opinion changed after Omar Mateen was able to purchase a rifle with an AR-15 style magazine that killed 49 people and wounded 53 others the Orlando Night Club massacre.

 

Nice to see the gun nuts have emerged from the closet, squealing like cats when you tread on their tails. The 2nd amendment doesn’t ban the mentally ill from buying guns does it? True, but maybe the founding fathers were equipped with a modicum of common sense which trusted future generations to acknowledge the bloody obvious, but then they had never met any 21st century gun nuts had they?

 

From your link:

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by "representative payees."


********************


As I've expressed in earlier threads here in PF, I have a friend and occasional employees who suffers from spina bifida. Over the yeas I've functioned as her payee for short periods. In 2015 she had the rods along her spine replaced, it took her out of daily life for months. In advance she assigned me payee to keep her payments etc current.

Not all with payees are incompetent.

Oh and the other issue I have, social security is one cumbersome byzantine agency. It is not the agency we want judging people's liberties.

Cheers

 

Covered by what? The reason it's not implemented is because it's illegal. It violates the RPP 1.1881

Show me how this law has changed.

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials-for-consumers/

Now, instead of calling people "uninformed" when you're uninformed yourself, don't just say "look it up", tell me when this law was changed.

 

Define mentally disturbed. If you mean adjudicated a danger to self or others, I agree they should be banned from having guns. If you mean has a slight non-dangerous mental defect like Asperger's or OCD, it would be silly to ban them from having guns. as

 

No.

This is about classifying people who have others handling their finances classified as "mentally ill" under a different definition than the medical one.

Having someone else handle your finances is not mentally-ill.

We don't need to "appeal" our rights, specifically when the BoR protects them, and the federal government was never given the enumerated right of deciding who can and cannot own a firearm without individual due process.

You need to prove someone is mentally ill before their rights can be stripped, they are not required to prove they are not mentally ill.

 

You are rather useful to the fascists.

 

The above means "I have no rational argument, so I will capitalize and space an interjection, and add, not one but two exclamation points."

 

Did your opinion change on trucks after the Nice attack?

 

The regulation that is being proposed to be gotten rid of was in place when Dylann Root bought his gun. It didn't (and couldn't) stop him from having a gun. Please research before spouting off nonsense.

 

There were no legally documented reasons that Mateen shouldn't have been able to buy a gun. He had a security guard license that allowed him to carry a gun (meaning he had been through background checks and several days of gun safety training). He had no felonies on his record. He was not adjudicated to be mentally ill. There is no logical reason that he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

 

Well, civil liberties matter to us. In the U.S., rights can be taken from individuals by due process (see the 5th and 14th amendments). Those adjudicated to be mentally ill can (and should) be restricted from owning firearms, just like convicted felons and those given a dishonorable discharge from the military. The key is due process. Rights cannot be taken away without due process. The founders didn't want the government to be able to decide these things without due process.

 

No and I know what your defense is "Guns don't kill People" "People kill People". I'm merely stating my reasoning because I happen to have a gay member in my family and that act of terrorism is extremely personal to me.

 

Federal law has addressed this since 1968.
You didn't know that?

- - - Updated - - -

Federal law covers interstate transfer of firearms.

 

It's about due process. The ssa is not an article III court and thus cannot adjudicate people mentally unfit. The mentally ill are still barred, they just have to be properly adjudicated.

 

So heterosexual victims are ok?

 

The Second Amendment does not prohibit fools, retarded, homosexuals, mentally unstable, perverts, people with mentally diminished capacities, crippled, criminal or people with birth defects or tattoos from possessing guns. So that is legal and Constitutional.

 

You were the one who called someone's post weak first. I don't see how it isn't childish when you do it but childish when someone else does it. Hypocrisy.

Back to your OP: I think most people agree that the mentally disturbed should not own firearms. However different people might have different criteria for what qualifies as mentally disturbed. So who gets to determine that?

If people want to own an assault rifle, that's their right. They don't need to prove to you that they have a "proper purpose" for such weapons. The fact they want one should be all that you need to know.