Ted Nugent Speaks His Mind About New Gun Legislation

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

The Legal Standard for Deprivation of a Person's Firearm Rights is Mental Incomptence, not Mental Illness

At the Seattle Times, staff writer Sarah Freishtat incorrectly and inappropriately uses the phrases "mental illness" and "mental health" in her article about records reported to the FBI regarding people whose firearm rights have been revoked by courts of law, due to “mental incompetence” or being a “mental defective”. 

The phrase "mental illness" does not even appear in any relevant portion of Washington State statute Chapter RCW 9.41 – Firearms Laws. The term used on RCW Chapter 9.41 is "mentally incompetent", as is found in RCW 9.41.098 - Forfeiture of Firearms. In RCW 9.41.040 the phrase used is "involuntarily committed for mental health treatment" which requires a court order of "mental incompetence", as quotes from those statutes prove. Similarly the relevant federal statute uses the phrase “mental defective” and “committed to any mental institution” (see 18 USC § 922(d), 18 USC § 922(g), and 18 USC § 922(s)), as the basis for denying a person the right to purchase or possess a firearm. Mental illness by itself is not and never has been a determining threshold for denial of a person’s firearm rights. 

The fact is that pursuant to Washington State statutory law and federal statutory law, the standard for revocation of firearm rights is "mental incompetence" not "mental illness". In fact many people with a variety of mental illnesses codified in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses (the DSM) are competent to possess firearms, are legally able to possess concealed pistol licenses, and they do so under state and federal statutory law. 

More importantly, “mental health records” are not what is reported to the FBI for inclusion in its NICS National Instant Firearms Purchase Criminal Background Check System. The FBI receives – court records – that include court orders regarding involuntary commitment, court orders finding mental incompetence, and court orders issued after findings of not guilty by reason of insanity. The law exists in this form in part, as even the article by Freishtat points out, because “due process of law” is constitutionally required, as the federal fifth amendment states, a person may not, “be deprived of life, liberty, or property …”, where revocation of someone’s firearm rights constitutes a deprivation of an aspect of that person's liberty. For people who would rather know the law than read about it misrepresented in amateurish writing by mass media reporters, there are links below to the complete relevant statutes. 

Washington State Firearms Laws
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41&full=true 

Federal Firearms Statute
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Members of Congress Speak Up About the Gun Ban Bills

Some members of the U.S. Congress are speaking up about their opposition to the various gun ban bills introduced in the U.S. Senate by gun ban zealot politicians such as Dianne Feinstein and Frank Lautenberg. Here is what a few members of the U.S. Congress are saying on the subject:

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, said “protecting gun ownership is not inconsistent with protecting our children from weapons of war in the hands of the deranged.”

Sen. John Cornyn, said he “will continue to defend the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Texans”.

U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, warned that Obama’s executive orders “infringe upon the … right to keep and bear arms,” vowed “peaceable legislative force” to reverse Obama’s “anti-gun sneak attack” with impeachment to be considered if that failed.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, a former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Obama ought to “focus on the underlying causes of these acts including addressing mental illness and violence in the media.”

U.S. Rep. Pete Olson, called Obama’s proposal to ban assault-style, semi-automatic weapons “nothing more than a red herring to target the constitutionally protected liberties of law abiding gun owners.”

U.S. Rep. Randy Weber, said, “Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens only reduces their ability to protect themselves, and will in no way deter those who act completely outside the law”.

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, says the Senate won’t consider ANY gun legislation for at least three months.