US Appeals Court deems gun law unconstitutional

[mrsat_98]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...onstitutional/

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun.

The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-yearold Clifford Charles Tyler.

Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.

Tyler’s lawyer, Lucas McCarthy, hopes that the ruling would have a “significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

The decision is the first by a federal appeals court to rule a federal gun law is unconstitutional since 2008. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in D.C. vs. Heller struck down the Washington, D.C. ban on firearms ownership.

Federal law bans gun ownership for convicted felons, people under 18, illegal immigrants, drug addicts and those ordered by a court to a mental institution. The law also syas that people must have a chance to prove that their disqualifying disabilities have ended in order to possess a firearm legally.

Since 2008, states have been able to get federal grants to set up “relief from disabilities program,” which was defunded in 1992. Michigan has not set one up, which left Tyler without a way to prove that his so-called “disability” should no longer apply.

“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 Ronald Reagan, for the panel.

[Spikender]

A month of mental institution over a divorce almost thirty years ago seemed like good enough grounds to withhold a gun on the guy?

Glad this case was won, but I'm guessing there was a lot of "the law is the law" no matter how $#@!ty it smelled getting passed around.

[NACBA]

I know the founders were big on the idea of mentally ill people having access to guns

[Spikender]

I know the founders were big on the idea of mentally ill people having access to guns

They were known as "demoniacs" back then, thank you very much.

[NACBA]

They were known as "demoniacs" back then, thank you very much.

Mass Murderers with guns are always mentally ill. Think Sandy Hook.

[Spikender]

Mass Murderers with guns are always mentally ill. Think Sandy Hook.

What's your point? Why are you telling me obvious information? Do you like scary movies?

[NACBA]

LOL.

My point is that truly mentally ill people should not be able to own guns.

[Spikender]

LOL.

My point is that truly mentally ill people should not be able to own guns.

Who is to make that determination of mental illness?

As long as you're not insinuating that a guy who was institutionalized for a month almost thirty years ago to deal with an emotional divorce qualifies as mentally ill, we're all good here.

[NACBA]

Who is to make that determination of mental illness?

As long as you're not insinuating that a guy who was institutionalized for a month almost thirty years ago to deal with an emotional divorce qualifies as mentally ill, we're all good here.

Certainly not a layperson on an Internet forum

[Spikender]

Certainly not a layperson on an Internet forum

That's too bad, I have multiple medical certifications.

I even printed them myself.

[Danke]

LOL.

My point is that truly mentally ill people should not be able to own guns.

Nor knives.

[NACBA]

Gun rights extremists remind me of abortion rights extremists in so many ways

[Spikender]

I'd like to know what ways gun rights activists remind you of abortion rights "extremists".

[NACBA]

I'd like to know what ways gun rights activists remind you of abortion rights "extremists".

They both freak out about any regulation at all and start the slippery slope arguments.

[CaptUSA]

Gun rights extremists remind me of abortion rights extremists in so many ways

It's not extreme to see a gun as a tool. There are lots of dangerous tools.

[CaptUSA]

They both freak out about any regulation at all and start the slippery slope arguments.

Slippery slope?

You're the one saying the "government" has a right to tell people what they can and can't own.

Listen, you are NEVER going to be able to stop madmen from doing things that you don't like. NEVER. There is no law you can pass. NONE.
Unfortunately, you just have to accept that a certain level of $#@! is going to occur in the world.

[NACBA]

Good thing no one held my mental illness against me --I am so glad I had the right to get me some guns

[GunnyFreedom]

Gun rights extremists remind me of abortion rights extremists in so many ways

What happens when the DSM-III lists "obsessive belief in the Constitution" as a symptom of 'Governmental Authority Defiance Disorder' and use that as an excuse to prohibit firearms ownership from a political class?

[NACBA]

What happens when the DSM-III lists "obsessive belief in the Constitution" as a symptom of 'Governmental Authority Defiance Disorder' and use that as an excuse to prohibit firearms ownership from a political class?

It could happen.

I've heard of cases where racists say that their racism is a mental impairment and then they ask for Social Security Disability benefits.

BTW Gunny--you still in the legislature down there?

[GunnyFreedom]

It could happen.

I've heard of cases where racists say that their racism is a mental impairment and then they ask for Social Security Disability benefits.

BTW Gunny--you still in the legislature down there?

No, I got redistricted out, because polling revealed I was destined for reelection. My county got the worst gerrymander in the State.

I have to head north to go can up some home-made long term survival food rice kits, so I may only be spotty online the next 8 hours, but yeah, it could happen, which is why the government with all of it's political considerations is a danger when exercising that power, lest it turn that power to do evil. Which, as has always been the case, they inevitably will. Neither at least at the federal level are they even authorized for such measures.

Perhaps in certain States depending on their individual Constitutions, there is an authority to regulate gun ownership amongst the deranged. In those states alone it would not be illegal for them to do so. However, like my peers I worry about who gets to decide 'what is insane?'

I am a prepper. I am about to go home-make and home-can 52 meals worth of emergency long term storage food to store away in the event of a cataclysm. The Mormons consider this "good religion," while you likely consider it "a little bit insane."

Now that I am a little bit insane, should the government be allowed to prohibit me from owning firearms? If such a prohibition is in fact unrighteous, then what should I do when they send the MRAP's and the shock troops to come take my guns?

[osan]

LOL.

My point is that truly mentally ill people should not be able to own guns.

The only thing you are succeeding with here is to demonstrate your rank ignorance and/or stupidity. There is endless FAIL here.

"Truly mentally ill" - for pity's sake, did your schools teach you nothing? Let us begin dismembering your absurd argumentation with the fact that there is no rigorous definition of mental illness. If we refer to the work of Thomas Szasz, a rather brilliant scientist, the entire concept of mental illness is a lie. I am strongly inclined to agree.

No matter how one defines "mental illness", the formalization can be demolished and exposed as arbitrary, incomplete, unclear, incorrect, and by any of these virtues demonstrated to be complete BULL$#@!.

But to refine the point just a wee bit, where does this definition come from and why should we accept it as applicable to all people in all places and at all times? Who specified it? By what authority is it imposed upon all? What is the standard by which it was established? Why is that standard acceptable? Who says? Why should we believe them? We can go on down that chain of questions and answers ad infinitum because the very nature of the answers leads us to nothing irreducible and irrefutable. But if you do not believe me, I recommend you have at it. I will tie both hands behind my back as you take you best shot. My hands will remain so tied, and I predict that I will grind your argument to fine dust in no time whatsoever, and without breaking a single bead upon my brow. It's a loser and a non-challenge, but I will still be happy to oblige you for the sake of illustration - though I will go no further than two iterations deep because by then the fundamentally and recursively repeating pattern will have been established and there will remain nothing more that can be said as the proof will have been made, the horse killed dead, and there being no reason to beat it further.

Ball's in your court.

[osan]

Certainly not a layperson on an Internet forum

Sub-amateur dodge. Answer the question or prove yourself clueless, a troll, or both.

[Schifference]

Future follow up to the Story:

Recently a US court of appeals ruled that a person with a past history of mental illness could obtain a gun permit. Today it is with a saddened heart that we need to inform you that this person with the history of mental illness killed his ex-wife. It was 31 years ago to the day that this man's wife divorced him leading him to seek help from mental health professionals. Be it not for the ruling of the court this woman would be alive today.

What we need is stronger gun control laws!

[willwash]

Mass Murderers with guns are always mentally ill. Think Sandy Hook.

Every soldier in every army, ever, is mentally ill?

[Kotin]

I know the founders were big on the idea of mentally ill people having access to guns

$#@! that... Like you can be the judge of whether he is mentally ill or not just by reading an article..

[Danke]

Sub-amateur dodge. Answer the question or prove yourself clueless, a troll, or both.

Bump

[pcosmar]

LOL.

My point is that truly mentally ill people should not be able to own guns.

Can you prove that you are mentally stable? Can you prove it by any arbitrary standard I wish to chose?

This is not about a "mentally ill" person getting a gun..
This is about a law abiding man,, who is accused of "mental illness" being denied a gun.

[NACBA]

Can you prove that you are mentally stable? Can you prove it by any arbitrary standard I wish to chose?

This is not about a "mentally ill" person getting a gun..
This is about a law abiding man,, who is accused of "mental illness" being denied a gun.

I agree with this:


Gun Ban for Mentally Ill Struck Down as Too Broad


A federal law prohibiting anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution from owning a firearm is unconstitutional, the 6th Circuit ruled.

“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,” U.S. Circuit Judge Danny Boggs said, writing for the three-judge panel.

http://www.infowars.com/gun-ban-for-...-as-too-broad/

[jmdrake]

Good thing no one held my mental illness against me --I am so glad I had the right to get me some guns

Yeah....the problem with your "logic" is the person in the OP isn't mentally ill. Not unless you think a month long bought with post divorce depression back in freaking 1986 with no intervening bouts of mental illness means someone should forever be deemed crazy.

[jmdrake]

Every soldier in every army, ever, is mentally ill?

LOL.