The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Stavros,
The Heller opinion, which is a fairly recent Supreme Court opinion, strongly implied that banning gun sales to the mentally ill and felons would be acceptable. They did not say how severe the mental illness would have to be in order for the ban to be upheld. It was in dicta, which means that it wasn't central to their decision in the case, and so they can change their mind (even if it was their holding they can change their mind, but when it's dicta it is considered persuasive but not binding as precedent).

Here's what they said (from wikipedia):
(2) "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

There are probably a lot of people who can answer this better than I can. Since the gun control laws are state laws, I am not sure how many states actually regulate even close to as stringently as they are allowed to under the 2nd amendment. I would guess not many.

But I see you said something about banning sales to those who have a mentally ill family member in the household. Or removing the gun from the house because of it. I bet such a law would be considered too broad. The state could probably make it illegal though to allow the mentally ill person in the household access to the gun, since they are allowed to ban the direct sale to that person.

They've found that motorists will obey the traffic laws even in ridiculous traffic jams, but when it is apparent the powers that be time road repairs during rush hours, or something stupid like that, motorists will revolt and drive all over the median or curbs to get to work or get home.
It's not so much a question of whether the insane should be allowed access to guns. the question is should black males, (late teens early twenties) be allowed access to guns. Or Dick Cheney after a few friendly drinks.
You've got maybe three million people in the US, cream of the crop, they are the few people who really understand Art, or Physics, or Medicine, math, science, humanities, writing, religion.

Then you've got the three million at the bottom. The insane, serial killers, pedophiles, criminals, drug traffickers.

With the exception of the drug traffickers, all the people at the top are well educated, articulate, and usually pretty rich. And the scum on the bottom are poor and uneducated.

I used to live in a really bad neighborhood. I had to pay 4 times as much mortgage to get to a neighborhood where folks were swell.

Guns are a problem in poor areas. You can't fix that with laws. Unless you hire more Police.

If the 2% of the Country gave the 98% of the country all it's money, everybody would immediately be twice as rich, billions of problems would be solved.

I went to College with a bunch of rich kids from NYC, they really were the beautiful people, right out of an F Scott Fitzgerald book. They had their sins, sure, who doesn't? But they sure didn't eat shit at some crap job or go to public school.

Lincoln's idea for slavery was to send all the blacks back to Africa,
Hitler gassed jews and gypsies,
The French guillotined their problem children.
I'm not sure if it would be better to shoot the richest, or the poorest......
just kidding, guns are here to stay, so are the rich and poor.
people think you legislate good and bad, but really you legislate rich and poor.

Ain't We Got Fun, Great Gatsby - YouTube

Guns are a problem in middle class areas as well. The various Colorado school shootings, the school shooting in Vermont, the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon, the shooting of Trevon Martin, the shooting in Florida over loud music, the shooting in Texas over texting in a movie theater, Cheney shooting his friend in the face, etc. etc. These incidents have no root in poverty; they are not low income, bad neighborhood crimes. They have no root in crime whatsoever, although they are crimes. They stem from idiocy, inadequate firearm regulation and laws that incentivize violence (stand your ground laws and laws that protect owners and manufacturers from libel).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Maybe not who? Think of it as a legal process.
Clearly the majority of gun owners in the USA are responsible, or the death toll on a weekly basis would be unacceptably high. So the issue is not about the law per se, but the individuals who are expected to abide by the law -which is why I raised the mental health issue because it does enable you to make a distinction between people and decide if mental health issues are sufficient to suspend 2nd Amendment rights to identifiable individuals. Stricter gun controls can in fact make sense, if the argument for them is sensible.

---

And we are. The majority of lawful gun owners are responsible. FBI and CDC statistics show that. I spent four hours going through FBI and CDC reports to create these two charts to put it into perspective for people.

When it comes to mental health, there becomes a multitude of questions. The biggest I see is, "What constitutes a disqualifying mental health disorder?" Quite obviously, a blanketing ban on persons with "mental health problems" would throw every trans-person into that mix, based on the existence of "Gender Dysphoria" and "Gender Identity Disorder", and both being considered DSM-V mental health issues in the United States.

Kittykaiti,
A blanket ban on those with mental health disorders would probably be unconstitutional. It would have to be those that significantly increase the risk to one's self or others of owning a gun. This would certainly include the psychotic disorders. Sometimes bipolar disorder involves psychotic symptoms, but often it doesn't. Bipolar II involves only hypomania; it's not hypomania in my understanding if it includes hallucinations or grand delusions. I doubt they would even be able to include a ban for those with depression. Major depression can involve psychotic symptoms, but atypical depression is unlikely to.

The reason I say it would have to significantly increase the risk to one's self or others is because the law would have to be narrowly tailored since it implicates a fundamental right. A ban on owning guns for someone who has social anxiety disorder or gender dysphoria would not be narrowly tailored.

I can only imagine that such a law would be struck down if it banned those with gender dysphoria or any anxiety disorder. Barring those with gender dysphoria from owning would might even give rise to an equal protection challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

They stem from idiocy, inadequate firearm regulation and laws that incentivize violence (stand your ground laws and laws that protect owners and manufacturers from libel).

---

No. They stem from poor education systems, defenseless targets and Hollywood media and music that glorifies and fetishizes murder, rape, drugs, sex, hate, selfishness, greed, suicide and rebelliousness. Kids are fucked up today and they're all having kids of their own. Each generation is more violent, self centered, hateful and lacking of any decent human emotion and moral empathy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE

The retired policeman who shot a texter in a movie theater wasn't a kid, he was well trained in firearm care and safety and were the texter armed wouldn't have made a difference. Giffords never seen her assailant before she was shot, her being armed wouldn't have made a difference. The assailant was disarmed by an unarmed woman. Kids are not generally fucked up. But yes, children are immature. Can't help that. When there a guns everywhere in society, it only takes one depressed child or one angry child for tragedy to ensue. Prosecuting the people who allow their guns to fall into the hands of children would help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

And we are. The majority of lawful gun owners are responsible. FBI and CDC statistics show that. I spent four hours going through FBI and CDC reports to create these two charts to put it into perspective for people.

When it comes to mental health, there becomes a multitude of questions. The biggest I see is, "What constitutes a disqualifying mental health disorder?" Quite obviously, a blanketing ban on persons with "mental health problems" would throw every trans-person into that mix, based on the existence of "Gender Dysphoria" and "Gender Identity Disorder", and both being considered DSM-V mental health issues in the United States.

---

Broncofan's clarification of the law, and your post raise the follow-up question to my point about mental illness, which Broncofan says is included in measures designed to prevent Americans owning or having access to firearms. And that is, what is a mental illness?

I referred to depression because it can be, and is treated with medication, although medicine alone does not deal with the problem and therapy, which can help, is expensive and beyond most people's reach. I would include paranoia in the mix as it has been an element in gun crimes in Columbine, Sandy Hook and so on, but the key point must be in identifying the individuals as suffering to the extent that they are a danger to themselves and others, and I don't know how this is done if say, a parent decides claiming to be the son of Lucifer is just a phase Johnny is going through. The same would apply to Gender Dysphoria, which raises again the question of what is a mental illness, and why Gender Dysphoria would be classified as a mental illness, when, for example in the cases of people born intersexed or with indeterminate gender markers, it is a physical medical issue, albeit one with potential psychological impacts on the person. And, as you would probably agree, many transexuals before and after SRS are actually well adjusted people and safe to be around.

The law must have the right to intervene, and it must be clear what those rights to intervene are, and the imposing authority ought to have the resources to do it. It is a difficult area because of the stigma of mental illness and the reluctance of people to enter into a debate on it. Most people who get depressed will never admit to it, not even with their friends, and though a lot of depression may not be severe enough to require medication, talking about it is a thin end of a wedge people avoid. That, plus limited resources in local authorities, and a reluctance to intervene in private lives, means that sensational acts of gun crime will recur. Not sure how you deal with that, whereas in the UK we already limit gun ownership and don't have a problem doing so.

If you ignore gang violence, almost all the murders are related to the severely depressed, the suicides, killing your spouse.

There is a thin line between the American dream and the American nightmare.

Better legalize marijuana.