When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill

[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?

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.

The question is how you would accomplish this. This man has the right to own guns, until due process of law intervenes. Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

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.

Mental illness is not a crime. If a citizen is determined healthy by the authorities, all rights should revert to the citizen, including firearms ownership.

[odeon]

/shrugs

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'd rather protect the people around him now than come up with suitable excuses later.

[bodie]

Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

Yes.  It is called 'crime prevention'.   We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.   

We are talking about someone in denial,  with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people,  and having messages from 'God'.  Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'.  Someone known to the police.

This man has red flags hanging out his pockets!  If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'. 

[Semicolon]

Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

Yes.  It is called 'crime prevention'.   We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.   

We are talking about someone in denial,  with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people,  and having messages from 'God'.  Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'.  Someone known to the police.

This man has red flags hanging out his pockets!  If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.

They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.

[RageBeoulve]

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.

The question is how you would accomplish this. This man has the right to own guns, until due process of law intervenes. Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

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.

Mental illness is not a crime. If a citizen is determined healthy by the authorities, all rights should revert to the citizen, including firearms ownership.

If he's so crazy that this much of a stink is made about it, then the kid needs to be pulled from his home and taken somewhere that he can receive proper treatment. I don't think they allow guns inside mental hospitals.

[Lestat]

Heh, crossbows.

We had a crossbow killer in the news I think it was sometime last year. Media took to calling him the crossbow cannibal.

Real charming guy from the sound of it.

[bodie]

Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

Yes.  It is called 'crime prevention'.   We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.   

We are talking about someone in denial,  with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people,  and having messages from 'God'.  Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'.  Someone known to the police.

This man has red flags hanging out his pockets!  If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.

They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.

I think you have got me wrong  'because the police say so' is not something I would support at all.  I think a lot of police are jumped up and power crazy.  They are likely to take the piss for sure.

It is not the police who make laws, they just enforce them.  My honest opinion is if the law allows 'the crazies' to access guns, then the law needs adjusting.  If this interferes with constitutional rights, then adjust those too.

Look, if i lived over there i would be happy living next door to PPK, and maybe IceQueen two doors down, and Rage on the corner! 
I would not sleep well at all knowing this Mr Russo lived on my street.  I would also be concerned for his Mother.

[RageBeoulve]

Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

Yes.  It is called 'crime prevention'.   We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.   

We are talking about someone in denial,  with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people,  and having messages from 'God'.  Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'.  Someone known to the police.

This man has red flags hanging out his pockets!  If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.

They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.

I think you have got me wrong  'because the police say so' is not something I would support at all.  I think a lot of police are jumped up and power crazy.  They are likely to take the piss for sure.

It is not the police who make laws, they just enforce them.  My honest opinion is if the law allows 'the crazies' to access guns, then the law needs adjusting.  If this interferes with constitutional rights, then adjust those too.

Look, if i lived over there i would be happy living next door to PPK, and maybe IceQueen two doors down, and Rage on the corner! 
I would not sleep well at all knowing this Mr Russo lived on my street.  I would also be concerned for his Mother.

Agreed. I say this kind of stuff just gets silly out of hand and that if the kid is sick he needs care. Its really that simple to me.

Also: Even if he is a sick boy, if he came crashing through my door with a gun I would shoot him or snap his neck. Again. Its that simple dude.

[Icequeen]

In Pa if you were ever committed "involuntarily" you cannot own a firearm. Should you sign yourself in for a "vacation" that does not apply.

Every state is different.

[Gopher Gary]

In Pa if you were ever committed "involuntarily" you cannot own a firearm. Should you sign yourself in for a "vacation" that does not apply.

Every state is different.

The Brady Act is a Congressional Act and say the nutters have to settle for crossbows. 

[Icequeen]

In Pa if you were ever committed "involuntarily" you cannot own a firearm. Should you sign yourself in for a "vacation" that does not apply.

Every state is different.

The Brady Act is a Congressional Act and say the nutters have to settle for crossbows. 

Crossbows are awesome too. 

[odeon]

Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

Yes.  It is called 'crime prevention'.   We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.   

We are talking about someone in denial,  with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people,  and having messages from 'God'.  Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'.  Someone known to the police.

This man has red flags hanging out his pockets!  If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.

They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.

What good is a state that does not protect its citizens even when the risk is obvious to even the most casual observer?

[odeon]

Look, if i lived over there i would be happy living next door to PPK, and maybe IceQueen two doors down, and Rage on the corner! 

Just imagine the fun that could be had.

[RageBeoulve]

Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

Yes.  It is called 'crime prevention'.   We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.   

We are talking about someone in denial,  with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people,  and having messages from 'God'.  Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'.  Someone known to the police.

This man has red flags hanging out his pockets!  If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.

They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.

What good is a state that does not protect its citizens even when the risk is obvious to even the most casual observer?

Indeed. One would think the reason guns are being systematically removed is because the state has developed the ability to protect the citizens and that they don't need guns to feel safe.

Paradox. 

[odeon]

Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

Yes.  It is called 'crime prevention'.   We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.   

We are talking about someone in denial,  with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people,  and having messages from 'God'.  Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'.  Someone known to the police.

This man has red flags hanging out his pockets!  If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.

They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.

What good is a state that does not protect its citizens even when the risk is obvious to even the most casual observer?

Indeed. One would think the reason guns are being systematically removed is because the state has developed the ability to protect the citizens and that they don't need guns to feel safe.

Paradox. 

Yeah, that's why they want to give back this guy's guns.