Unconstitutional to Ban Gun Ownership to People Committed to Mental Institution

[ClydeR]

A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.

“The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights,” wrote Judge Danny Boggs, an appointee of President Reagan, for the panel.

More... (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/12/18/appeals-court-finds-gun-ban-for-committed-man-unconstitutional)

Should similar reasoning apply to people convicted of felonies?

[Atlanteax]

Will be just as bad as the Citizens United decision was... =/

[Gelston]

I'd say this is a fairly important little blurb...

However, federal law also says that people must have opportunities to prove that their disqualifying “disabilities” have ended and that they should be able to own a gun.

According to the opinion, the federal government defunded its so-called “relief from disabilities” program in 1992. Since 2008, states have been able to get federal grants to set up their own programs. But such programs are voluntary on the part of the states, and Michigan has yet to set one up, leaving Mr. Tyler without a venue by which to prove that his “disability” no longer should apply.

[Jarvan]

Will be just as bad as the Citizens United decision was... =/


"According to Thursday’s opinion, Mr. Tyler had recently attempted to buy a gun but was denied on grounds that he had been committed by a court to a mental institution in 1986 following emotional problems associated with a divorce. His commitment lasted less than a month.

Federal law bans gun ownership for a variety of types of people, including convicted felons, people under 18, illegal aliens, drug addicts, and those ordered by a court to a mental institution.

However, federal law also says that people must have opportunities to prove that their disqualifying “disabilities” have ended and that they should be able to own a gun."

So.. spending one month in a mental institution 28 years ago because you were depressed your wife left you is a reason to have a fundamental right taken away?

Maybe they should also say you can't own a gun if you ever had to much to drink and became drunk. Cause.. you know.. maybe you will become drunk again and shoot someone.

Do people with mental illnesses need controls on owning guns? Yes. Does someone like this, who really doesn't have an "illness" need to have a right taken away? No.

Things happen.. and people get depressed. A friend of mine spent 2 weeks in an institution after his mom killed herself. Which she did because his dad died in an airplane crash. In the course of 3 weeks he lost both parents, dropped out of college, and retreated from life basically. He ended up going back to college and getting his engineering degree. Guess he shouldn't own a gun because he was committed for 2 weeks. (Mom killed herself by carbon dioxide poisoning)

[Gelston]

So.. spending one month in a mental institution 28 years ago because you were depressed your wife left you is a reason to have a fundamental right taken away?

Maybe they should also say you can't own a gun if you ever had to much to drink and became drunk. Cause.. you know.. maybe you will become drunk again and shoot someone.

Do people with mental illnesses need controls on owning guns? Yes. Does someone like this, who really doesn't have an "illness" need to have a right taken away? No.

Things happen.. and people get depressed. A friend of mine spent 2 weeks in an institution after his mom killed herself. Which she did because his dad died in an airplane crash. In the course of 3 weeks he lost both parents, dropped out of college, and retreated from life basically. He ended up going back to college and getting his engineering degree. Guess he shouldn't own a gun because he was committed for 2 weeks. (Mom killed herself by carbon dioxide poisoning)

Was he voluntary or involuntary? That is the difference. Either way, for something like mental institution, I think there should be a way to regain your right to arm bears.

Obviously if you were sent there due to having committed a felony or other violent crime, I don't think you should be able to regain the right.

[Buckwheet]

So.. spending one month in a mental institution 28 years ago because you were depressed your wife left you is a reason to have a fundamental right taken away?

Maybe they should also say you can't own a gun if you ever had to much to drink and became drunk. Cause.. you know.. maybe you will become drunk again and shoot someone.

Do people with mental illnesses need controls on owning guns? Yes. Does someone like this, who really doesn't have an "illness" need to have a right taken away? No.

Things happen.. and people get depressed. A friend of mine spent 2 weeks in an institution after his mom killed herself. Which she did because his dad died in an airplane crash. In the course of 3 weeks he lost both parents, dropped out of college, and retreated from life basically. He ended up going back to college and getting his engineering degree. Guess he shouldn't own a gun because he was committed for 2 weeks. (Mom killed herself by carbon dioxide poisoning)

The only issue I have with it is who/how do you dry the line at different mental disabilities. Case in point, I had an aunt committed to a mental institution. She did crazy shit like say my uncle was hurting their children, our family was sexually abusing them, and it ended up in divorce because none of it was true and she was sent to an institution. She was "ill" for many years, probably 10 before she was released. In that time I had moved and as soon as she was released she made it a point to track down all the former family members and I saw her drive by our house one day. She still does weird shit to this day. I am not super comfortable with the idea of her being able to buy a gun because 15 years have passed.

Anyone who interacts with her knows she is a nutcase, but she isn't "sick" anymore.

I don't agree that two weeks of suicide watch should be a cause for someone to spend a lifetime without their right. But some people are just god damn crazy and it doesn't matter if 50 years passes. Just need to identify a way to address that. I also will say if this guy went to a private sale, he could have gotten a gun so its all pretty moot. A lot more private sellers are saying you need to show them a permit to purchase or carry permit here in MN now just to do the deal, but until that is 100% of all private sales, it doesn't matter what the law is because these people have access, just not from a gun store.

[Gelston]

The only issue I have with it is who/how do you dry the line at different mental disabilities. Case in point, I had an aunt committed to a mental institution. She did crazy shit like say my uncle was hurting their children, our family was sexually abusing them, and it ended up in divorce because none of it was true and she was sent to an institution. She was "ill" for many years, probably 10 before she was released. In that time I had moved and as soon as she was released she made it a point to track down all the former family members and I saw her drive by our house one day. She still does weird shit to this day. I am not super comfortable with the idea of her being able to buy a gun because 15 years have passed.


And in that case, she wouldn't be given back the right to purchase. It isn't a time based thing completely. They have to go in and get reevaluated and all this.

[Atlanteax]

The way I was looking at it, it was SCOTUS saying "hey, even if you are medically found to be bat-shit crazy, you cannot be denied gun ownership ... enjoy shooting!"

[Gelston]

The way I was looking at it, it was SCOTUS saying "hey, even if you are medically found to be bat-shit crazy, you cannot be denied gun ownership ... enjoy shooting!"

This wasn't at SCOTUS? But the ruling is far from what you are saying in this quote.

The ruling is more against the part where a "relief from disabilities" program isn't set up.