Do restrictions on mentally unstable people owning guns restrict their rights?

[Joe Republic]

... their constitutional rights, of course.

Discuss.

[Gabu]

Well, it obviously restricts their right to own a gun, if you believe that such a thing exists universally.

That does not mean that that's a bad thing, though.

[Joe Republic]

Well, it obviously restricts their right to own a gun, if you believe that such a thing exists universally.

Many people do.

That does not mean that that's a bad thing, though.

Of course.  I'm merely interested to see if any of the Second Amendment 'literalists' would be happy to defend a mentally unstable person's right to bear arms.  The poll won't tell us that, but hopefully the thread might.

[Gabu]

Well, it obviously restricts their right to own a gun, if you believe that such a thing exists universally.

Many people do.

I meant "you" as in the generic "you", not you specifically.

[Joe Republic]

Oh I know, but my point was that many people do believe in the universal right to own guns in the U.S., and hence this question is particularly aimed at them.  (Is it a stretch to say that Bono, for example, is one of them?)

[David S]

Well it does restrict their rights, but it does so in a manner which is permitted under the constitution. The 5th amendment says no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That of course implies that they can be deprived of those things when there is due process of law. So if someone is convicted of a crime or is adjudicated to be mentally ill by a court of law then that person can be deprived of his liberty, in this case the liberty to posses a gun.

[John Dibble]

Well it does restrict their rights, but it does so in a manner which is permitted under the constitution. The 5th amendment says no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That of course implies that they can be deprived of those things when there is due process of law. So if someone is convicted of a crime or is adjudicated to be mentally ill by a court of law then that person can be deprived of his liberty, in this case the liberty to posses a gun.

[Sam Spade]

Even under a fairly literalist (individualized) version of the 2nd amendment, restrictions on those who are declared mentally ill by a court would probably not present much of a Constitutional issue and I wouldn't be opposed to it.

After all, its not like great quantities of people are being put into institutions nowadays, as so happened pre-1965 or so, so the class of people being declared "mentally ill" is unlikely to include those who aren't really. 

[specific_name]

Well it does restrict their rights, but it does so in a manner which is permitted under the constitution. The 5th amendment says no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That of course implies that they can be deprived of those things when there is due process of law. So if someone is convicted of a crime or is adjudicated to be mentally ill by a court of law then that person can be deprived of his liberty, in this case the liberty to posses a gun.

Of course it seems like a really bad idea to let people have guns, if they have been shown to be mentally unstable (legally defined, not just because they've had therapy).

Though, it seems that if someone can be deprived of liberty if due process is used to determine what liberties may be curtailed; it follows that other liberties could be similarly limited. This could reach far further than the second amendment, I suppose liberties such as freedom of speech or free assembly could be limited as well, if due process were to be applied in other cases involving those liberties.

I'm wondering if you believe this to be the case, that a wider interpertation of the fifth could lead to legal due process being used to deprive an individual of other liberties.

[minionofmidas]

Well it does restrict their rights, but it does so in a manner which is permitted under the constitution. The 5th amendment says no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That of course implies that they can be deprived of those things when there is due process of law.

I don't see how, if that reasoning is accepted, the 2nd amendment retains any meaning at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You deprive people of the right to have guns on the technical ground that they've been to jail rather than on an evaluation that they're indeed too dangerous to have guns, so why treat mental illness differently?

[David S]

Well it does restrict their rights, but it does so in a manner which is permitted under the constitution. The 5th amendment says no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That of course implies that they can be deprived of those things when there is due process of law. So if someone is convicted of a crime or is adjudicated to be mentally ill by a court of law then that person can be deprived of his liberty, in this case the liberty to posses a gun.

Of course it seems like a really bad idea to let people have guns, if they have been shown to be mentally unstable (legally defined, not just because they've had therapy).

Though, it seems that if someone can be deprived of liberty if due process is used to determine what liberties may be curtailed; it follows that other liberties could be similarly limited. This could reach far further than the second amendment, I suppose liberties such as freedom of speech or free assembly could be limited as well, if due process were to be applied in other cases involving those liberties.

I'm wondering if you believe this to be the case, that a wider interpertation of the fifth could lead to legal due process being used to deprive an individual of other liberties.

I think that is already being done. It has long been the case that the seriously mentally ill can be institutionalized against their will. In that case they are deprived of essentially all of their liberties.

I do have concerns that such power can be abused in such a way as to deprive sane people of their rights too. That can  be the situation in criminal cases as well. An overzealous prosecutor or dishonest police can get an innocent person convicted. I suppose its a risk inherent in any justice system. But then we have appeals processes to minimize the risk.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

After all, its not like great quantities of people are being put into institutions nowadays, as so happened pre-1965 or so, so the class of people being declared "mentally ill" is unlikely to include those who aren't really.

Hate to tell you this, but the United States is about like what the Soviet Union used to be as far as locking people up for having the "wrong" views.

Read about what happened to a 53-year-old woman in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, about a year ago.

The same thing infamously happened to a 16-year-old male in Kentucky when Pa Bush was in power. I know this, because that 16-year-old youth is now a 33-year-old man. And I know this because that man is me.

I happened to have the "wrong" politics in the "wrong" school system. I wasn't about to keep silent about what I believed, and I paid the price.

This happened in America, yes America. If you don't think this can happen, try putting yourself in the same situation.

[Gabu]

I happened to have the "wrong" politics in the "wrong" school system. I wasn't about to keep silent about what I believed, and I paid the price.

The "price" being...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The "price" being...

The price being something I could not afford.

I faced the next several months fighting at all costs to get my basic rights restored, and lied to repeatedly by the for-profit corporation that helped run this scam.

I'm not the only person in my area at the time who fell victim to this fraud, but I'm the only one who seems to have spoken up publicly about it. Local Republican politicians were in on it, for one of them worked for the corporation that was involved.

[MODU]

No. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

Is it constitutional? Yes
Does it restrict their rights? Yes

[minionofmidas]

Is it constitutional? Yes
Does it restrict their rights? Yes

We have a winner!

[DownWithTheLeft]

Is it constitutional? Yes
Does it restrict their rights? Yes

We have a winner!

Do I get one of Inks trophies?  BTW, I feel it is the right of every American to own a gun and that more guns, not less is the solution.  The bad guys will have the weapons, so the good guys should too.

[minionofmidas]

Is it constitutional? Yes
Does it restrict their rights? Yes

We have a winner!

Do I get one of Inks trophies?  BTW, I feel it is the right of every American to own a gun and that more guns, not less is the solution.  The bad guys will have the weapons, so the good guys should too.

Declaration of victory rescinded.

[Gabu]

Is it constitutional? Yes
Does it restrict their rights? Yes

We have a winner!

Do I get one of Inks trophies?  BTW, I feel it is the right of every American to own a gun and that more guns, not less is the solution.  The bad guys will have the weapons, so the good guys should too.

Don't you think it'd be a good idea, though, to at least make it harder for people who are obviously a danger to society, such as people convicted of violent crimes or those who have been on the record as mentally disturbed?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Is it constitutional? Yes
Does it restrict their rights? Yes

If it restricts their rights, then it's not constitutional. Period.

[John Dibble]

Is it constitutional? Yes
Does it restrict their rights? Yes

If it restricts their rights, then it's not constitutional. Period.

Would you argue that being put in prison for the commission of a crime puts no restrictions on a person's rights?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Would you argue that being put in prison for the commission of a crime puts no restrictions on a person's rights?

They opted to forfeit some of their rights when they committed crimes.

[John Dibble]

Would you argue that being put in prison for the commission of a crime puts no restrictions on a person's rights?

They opted to forfeit some of their rights when they committed crimes.

Frankly I think they'd disagree. It does restrict their rights, but you are merely arguing justification for doing so.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Is it constitutional? Yes
Does it restrict their rights? Yes

We have a winner!

Do I get one of Inks trophies?  BTW, I feel it is the right of every American to own a gun and that more guns, not less is the solution.  The bad guys will have the weapons, so the good guys should too.

Don't you think it'd be a good idea, though, to at least make it harder for people who are obviously a danger to society, such as people convicted of violent crimes or those who have been on the record as mentally disturbed?

Conviction of violent crimes is much different than mentally disturbed.  Mentally disturbed can mean a whole host of things and denying someone the right to own a gun based on that label is not right.