In the following video, constitutional gun rights activist, Ted Nugent tell CNN's Erin Burnet that he opposes the various gun restriction bill currently being considered by the U.S. Congress. Mr. Nugent also discusses the issue of revoking peoples' gun rights due to "mental health" problems.
The views expressed in this video about gun rights with regard to what its participants described as "mentally ill" people do not align with current federal statutory firearms law as codified in 18 USC § 922(d)(4) and 18 USC § 922(g)(4), and in the statutory firearm rights laws of most U.S. states, which require that specific legal conditions must be met before a person's gun rights can be revoked. Most state statutes do not use the term "mentally ill", or "mental illness" in reference to this threshold. The relevant terms used in the federal statute to describe the criteria for revoking a person's firearm rights are: "adjudicated as a mental defective", "committed to any mental institution", and after a "pleading not guilty by reason of insanity" in a criminal trial. In all three of those circumstances, the person whose firearm rights are revoked is provided judicial due process, in accordance with the fifth amendment, before revocation of their rights under the second amendment.
Just as the issue of gun purchase background checks could quickly turn into a slippery slope, it seems important for American's to remain on guard against a slippery slope regarding revocation of a person's firearm rights due to mental incompetence. So called "mental illness" in general has never been the standard for such revocations. Some politicians talk and write with implications that they might like to see the gun rights of people revoked merely for actions like requesting a prescription for sleep medication, anti-anxiety medication, or an anti-depressant from a psychiatrist or even a primary healthcare providing physician, including Senators Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin within some of the language in the Toomey / Manchin bill regarding "mental health". Most people probably agree that such a standard would be going too far, because it would not only ensnare millions of people unnecessarily, and without constitutional due process, but it would surely deter many people from seeking any help whatsoever for such problems out of fear of losing their constitutional firearm rights. For at least the past century the standard for revocation of a person's firearm rights due to mental incompetence has always been establishment in a court of law that someone is "a danger to self and/or a danger to others", and it doesn't seem like that standard needs any change.
There is however, a bill before the U.S. Senate, sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham, whose intent is to clarify the definitions and criteria with regard to revocation of firearm rights due to mental incompetence. It is Senate Bill S. 480, which is available on this web site at this link.
http://afirearmrightschronicle.blogspot.com/2013/03/senate-bill-s480-nics-reporting.html
Just as the issue of gun purchase background checks could quickly turn into a slippery slope, it seems important for American's to remain on guard against a slippery slope regarding revocation of a person's firearm rights due to mental incompetence. So called "mental illness" in general has never been the standard for such revocations. Some politicians talk and write with implications that they might like to see the gun rights of people revoked merely for actions like requesting a prescription for sleep medication, anti-anxiety medication, or an anti-depressant from a psychiatrist or even a primary healthcare providing physician, including Senators Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin within some of the language in the Toomey / Manchin bill regarding "mental health". Most people probably agree that such a standard would be going too far, because it would not only ensnare millions of people unnecessarily, and without constitutional due process, but it would surely deter many people from seeking any help whatsoever for such problems out of fear of losing their constitutional firearm rights. For at least the past century the standard for revocation of a person's firearm rights due to mental incompetence has always been establishment in a court of law that someone is "a danger to self and/or a danger to others", and it doesn't seem like that standard needs any change.
There is however, a bill before the U.S. Senate, sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham, whose intent is to clarify the definitions and criteria with regard to revocation of firearm rights due to mental incompetence. It is Senate Bill S. 480, which is available on this web site at this link.
http://afirearmrightschronicle.blogspot.com/2013/03/senate-bill-s480-nics-reporting.html
No comments:
Post a Comment