When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill

[Jack]

It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.

Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.

Saw a gun for sale in a yard sale within the last year, so the laws really have nothing to do with whether or not this person will or will not own firearms. Though handing over firearms to this particular person, my state mandate, seems a very odd thing for the state to do.

[bodie]

It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.

Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.

What you say makes sense but it contradicts what I read from Semicolons article. 

The Russo case highlights a central, unresolved issue in the debate over balancing public safety and the Second Amendment right to bear arms: just how powerless law enforcement can be when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally ill.

Connecticut’s law giving the police broad leeway to seize and hold guns for up to a year is actually relatively strict. Most states simply adhere to the federal standard, banning gun possession only after someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility or designated as mentally ill or incompetent after a court proceeding or other formal legal process. Relatively few with mental health issues, even serious ones, reach this point.

As a result, the police often find themselves grappling with legal ambiguities when they encounter mentally unstable people with guns, unsure how far they can go in searching for and seizing firearms and then, in particular, how they should respond when the owners want them back.

“There is a big gap in the law,” said Jeffrey Furbee, the chief legal adviser to the Police Department in Columbus, Ohio. “There is no common-sense middle ground to protect the public.”

A vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. But recent mass shootings — outside a Tucson supermarket in 2011, at a movie theater last year in Aurora, Colo., and at the Washington Navy Yard in September — have raised public awareness of the gray areas in the law. In each case, the gunman had been recognized as mentally disturbed but had never been barred from having firearms.

The article goes on, and on, and on  and lists many variations from state to state

In the absence of specific guidance under federal and state laws, local police departments vary widely in how they deal with the issue, The Times found. Some hew to a strict interpretation. Others appear to be searching for a middle ground, fearful of what may happen if they return guns to dangerous people but also aware that they are on difficult legal terrain.

It just seems a bit haphazard.  I am finding it hard to interpret the actual laws relating to this.  Seems to depend on your post code. 

[Semicolon]

It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.

Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.

What you say makes sense but it contradicts what I read from Semicolons article. 

The Russo case highlights a central, unresolved issue in the debate over balancing public safety and the Second Amendment right to bear arms: just how powerless law enforcement can be when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally ill.

Connecticut’s law giving the police broad leeway to seize and hold guns for up to a year is actually relatively strict. Most states simply adhere to the federal standard, banning gun possession only after someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility or designated as mentally ill or incompetent after a court proceeding or other formal legal process. Relatively few with mental health issues, even serious ones, reach this point.

As a result, the police often find themselves grappling with legal ambiguities when they encounter mentally unstable people with guns, unsure how far they can go in searching for and seizing firearms and then, in particular, how they should respond when the owners want them back.

“There is a big gap in the law,” said Jeffrey Furbee, the chief legal adviser to the Police Department in Columbus, Ohio. “There is no common-sense middle ground to protect the public.”

A vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. But recent mass shootings — outside a Tucson supermarket in 2011, at a movie theater last year in Aurora, Colo., and at the Washington Navy Yard in September — have raised public awareness of the gray areas in the law. In each case, the gunman had been recognized as mentally disturbed but had never been barred from having firearms.

The article goes on, and on, and on  and lists many variations from state to state

In the absence of specific guidance under federal and state laws, local police departments vary widely in how they deal with the issue, The Times found. Some hew to a strict interpretation. Others appear to be searching for a middle ground, fearful of what may happen if they return guns to dangerous people but also aware that they are on difficult legal terrain.

It just seems a bit haphazard.  I am finding it hard to interpret the actual laws relating to this.  Seems to depend on your post code.

It does. In order to lose a Constitutionally protected right, the gun owner has to be given due process (which basically means that a judge has to sign off on it, in a formal hearing). Plus, not all records are in the national database.

[bodie]

It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.

In the case of Mr Russo, I don't think he should have his guns back. 
* Mainly because of his recent actions.  His conduct was so that his right to have a gun should be forfeited.

* I think he is potentially dangerous, and this is magnified due to his unwillingness to accept he has a disorder.  His comment about 'taking only the smallest amount of medication' is not very reassuring.   The article suggests the likelihood of him repeating this behaviour boils down to him taking meds or not.   Therefore suggesting it is quite likely to reoccur.

* The use of guns by citizens should be for legitimate reasons such as hunting.  I accept that 'self defence' is another logical reason.  I hope 'threatening' people is not a legitimate use. 

* Most people probably say stuff they don't mean when angered.  However,  threatening to shoot people, especially when the person making the threats has  an armoury of 18 or more firearms should be taken seriously. 

I am not going to pretend that I know anything about American laws, or your constitution.  I find it a bit confusing when laws seem to differ from state to state.   My POV is purely from an angle of 'would I like to live next door to Mr Russo when he gets his firearm stash returned?'  No way.

Rather than thinking about the US as being like Great Britain, think of it as like the EU, and every state is a nation (which is imprecise, I know). The federal government can only make laws about certain things, most of which involve multiple states (such as highways, currency, the military, etc.) Everything else is reserved for the state to make laws about (including many gun laws). The states have different histories, and the citizens of each state elect representatives differently, so a state dominated by gun violence might make stricter laws than a state where most adult citizens hunt for food. In any case, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution (a federal document), so all states must obey it, whether they want to or not.

That kind of made sense, until the last bit!  Thanks for the explanation anyway. 

[Jack]

It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.

Not really talking about singling out anyone or what's right or wrong. Talking about the laws which exist. It's a national standard that people with a history of being in a mental institution don't pass the background check to purchase guns. Of course, background checks don't stop anyone from acquiring guns, only those who purchase them from legitimate dealers. Not sure what state law mandates his guns be returned, but it seems like a loophole. Maybe he owned the guns before being institutionalized; maybe it's because he's not trying to purchase them from a legitimate dealer; don't know.

What you say makes sense but it contradicts what I read from Semicolons article. 

The Russo case highlights a central, unresolved issue in the debate over balancing public safety and the Second Amendment right to bear arms: just how powerless law enforcement can be when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally ill.

Connecticut’s law giving the police broad leeway to seize and hold guns for up to a year is actually relatively strict. Most states simply adhere to the federal standard, banning gun possession only after someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility or designated as mentally ill or incompetent after a court proceeding or other formal legal process. Relatively few with mental health issues, even serious ones, reach this point.

As a result, the police often find themselves grappling with legal ambiguities when they encounter mentally unstable people with guns, unsure how far they can go in searching for and seizing firearms and then, in particular, how they should respond when the owners want them back.

“There is a big gap in the law,” said Jeffrey Furbee, the chief legal adviser to the Police Department in Columbus, Ohio. “There is no common-sense middle ground to protect the public.”

A vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. But recent mass shootings — outside a Tucson supermarket in 2011, at a movie theater last year in Aurora, Colo., and at the Washington Navy Yard in September — have raised public awareness of the gray areas in the law. In each case, the gunman had been recognized as mentally disturbed but had never been barred from having firearms.

The article goes on, and on, and on  and lists many variations from state to state

In the absence of specific guidance under federal and state laws, local police departments vary widely in how they deal with the issue, The Times found. Some hew to a strict interpretation. Others appear to be searching for a middle ground, fearful of what may happen if they return guns to dangerous people but also aware that they are on difficult legal terrain.

It just seems a bit haphazard.  I am finding it hard to interpret the actual laws relating to this.  Seems to depend on your post code.

There are exceptions when it comes to those who have the right to own firearms. It's all very convoluted, yes.

[Jack]

It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.

In the case of Mr Russo, I don't think he should have his guns back. 
* Mainly because of his recent actions.  His conduct was so that his right to have a gun should be forfeited.

* I think he is potentially dangerous, and this is magnified due to his unwillingness to accept he has a disorder.  His comment about 'taking only the smallest amount of medication' is not very reassuring.   The article suggests the likelihood of him repeating this behaviour boils down to him taking meds or not.   Therefore suggesting it is quite likely to reoccur.

* The use of guns by citizens should be for legitimate reasons such as hunting.  I accept that 'self defence' is another logical reason.  I hope 'threatening' people is not a legitimate use. 

* Most people probably say stuff they don't mean when angered.  However,  threatening to shoot people, especially when the person making the threats has  an armoury of 18 or more firearms should be taken seriously. 

I am not going to pretend that I know anything about American laws, or your constitution.  I find it a bit confusing when laws seem to differ from state to state.   My POV is purely from an angle of 'would I like to live next door to Mr Russo when he gets his firearm stash returned?'  No way.

Rather than thinking about the US as being like Great Britain, think of it as like the EU, and every state is a nation (which is imprecise, I know). The federal government can only make laws about certain things, most of which involve multiple states (such as highways, currency, the military, etc.) Everything else is reserved for the state to make laws about (including many gun laws). The states have different histories, and the citizens of each state elect representatives differently, so a state dominated by gun violence might make stricter laws than a state where most adult citizens hunt for food. In any case, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution (a federal document), so all states must obey it, whether they want to or not.

That kind of made sense, until the last bit!  Thanks for the explanation anyway.

The last bit simply means state law can't supersede federal law; though sometimes it does anyway, not just this topic. 

[Semicolon]

It would be wrong to single out schizophrenics or anyone with a mental disorder.

In the case of Mr Russo, I don't think he should have his guns back. 
* Mainly because of his recent actions.  His conduct was so that his right to have a gun should be forfeited.

* I think he is potentially dangerous, and this is magnified due to his unwillingness to accept he has a disorder.  His comment about 'taking only the smallest amount of medication' is not very reassuring.   The article suggests the likelihood of him repeating this behaviour boils down to him taking meds or not.   Therefore suggesting it is quite likely to reoccur.

* The use of guns by citizens should be for legitimate reasons such as hunting.  I accept that 'self defence' is another logical reason.  I hope 'threatening' people is not a legitimate use. 

* Most people probably say stuff they don't mean when angered.  However,  threatening to shoot people, especially when the person making the threats has  an armoury of 18 or more firearms should be taken seriously. 

I am not going to pretend that I know anything about American laws, or your constitution.  I find it a bit confusing when laws seem to differ from state to state.   My POV is purely from an angle of 'would I like to live next door to Mr Russo when he gets his firearm stash returned?'  No way.

Rather than thinking about the US as being like Great Britain, think of it as like the EU, and every state is a nation (which is imprecise, I know). The federal government can only make laws about certain things, most of which involve multiple states (such as highways, currency, the military, etc.) Everything else is reserved for the state to make laws about (including many gun laws). The states have different histories, and the citizens of each state elect representatives differently, so a state dominated by gun violence might make stricter laws than a state where most adult citizens hunt for food. In any case, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution (a federal document), so all states must obey it, whether they want to or not.

That kind of made sense, until the last bit!  Thanks for the explanation anyway.

I don't explain well. Link

[bodie]

When I watch 'criminal minds' or 'CSI' I often see a Sheriff get all uppity when the feds move in and take over a murder enquiry. 

I  assumed that federal law supersedes state laws which has  often made me wonder why  they have them?   

[Semicolon]

When I watch 'criminal minds' or 'CSI' I often see a Sheriff get all uppity when the feds move in and take over a murder enquiry. 

I  assumed that federal law supersedes state laws which has  often made me wonder why  they have them? 

You should trust everything that you see on TV.

I don't understand what you mean.

[odeon]

When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.

/shrugs

That's the way the US system is set up. Link

And until it's changed, innocent people risk getting shot. I would have thought that common sense would be enough, in this case.

Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.

Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.

This one is and has very clearly shown why.

[odeon]

Seems to depend on your post code.

^This.

I see a nation on tiptoes, with some realising that cases like this one should be fairly obvious, considering public safety and all that, but with all sides fearing a costly lawsuit.

In other words, it's not about anyone's constitutional rights anymore.

[bodie]

When I watch 'criminal minds' or 'CSI' I often see a Sheriff get all uppity when the feds move in and take over a murder enquiry. 

I  assumed that federal law supersedes state laws which has  often made me wonder why  they have them? 

You should trust everything that you see on TV.

I don't understand what you mean.

It was a 'tongue in cheek' comment.  Just to show how cosmopolitan I am 

I actually hate police type drama's and soaps in general.  British and American.  I have been looking after my Mum, who has not been well and have been spending a bit of time at her house.  She watches them.  She also watches a lot of gardening stuff.   As with a lot of older people, the TV is on so bloody loud it is hard to ignore. 

She even tells me not to call round between 7 - 8pm so that I don't interrupt her beloved Coronation Street and Eastenders.   

[Semicolon]

When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.

/shrugs

That's the way the US system is set up. Link

And until it's changed, innocent people risk getting shot. I would have thought that common sense would be enough, in this case.

How would we change it? By depriving people of their rights without due process?

Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.

Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.

This one is and has very clearly shown why.

Seems to depend on your post code.

^This.

I see a nation on tiptoes, with some realising that cases like this one should be fairly obvious, considering public safety and all that, but with all sides fearing a costly lawsuit.

In other words, it's not about anyone's constitutional rights anymore.

I see it as much more about Constitutional rights than lawsuits. Heavily political state legislatures don't normally shy away from passing laws that could easily be overturned by a judge; there have been many such laws passed about abortion.

[Gopher Gary]

How would we change it? By depriving people of their rights without due process?

We should give all the nutters crossbows instead. 

[odeon]

When the rights of the one weigh more than the rights of the many. Karma is a bitch and will bite you in the ass, eventually.

/shrugs

That's the way the US system is set up. Link

And until it's changed, innocent people risk getting shot. I would have thought that common sense would be enough, in this case.

How would we change it? By depriving people of their rights without due process?

By realising that the rights of the many sometimes outweigh the rights of the one. In other words, that preventive measures (i. e. not giving the man his guns back) are sometimes a good thing.

Somebody who can't stay on their meds is not recovered from schizophrenia.

Perhaps, but schizophrenics are not automatically dangerous, and it does them a disservice to deprive them of their Constitutional rights based on a stereotype.

This one is and has very clearly shown why.

Seems to depend on your post code.

^This.

I see a nation on tiptoes, with some realising that cases like this one should be fairly obvious, considering public safety and all that, but with all sides fearing a costly lawsuit.

In other words, it's not about anyone's constitutional rights anymore.

I see it as much more about Constitutional rights than lawsuits. Heavily political state legislatures don't normally shy away from passing laws that could easily be overturned by a judge; there have been many such laws passed about abortion.

Well, here's their chance to prove that they have a couple of brain waves left.