(02-16-2017 01:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

Then you build your case and plead it in front of the court where the person you are trying to deny their Constitutional rights has a chance for due process.

that already happened. when a judge had his say in dictating they couldn't manage their finances.

No they didn't.

When it is something as significant as a Constitutional right it needs it's own, standalone hearing.

Why? You have no problem shitting on voting rights but gun rights are fair game?

Just like the no-fly list started out for terrorists and ended up with random people on it.
Just like sex offender lists started out for violent sexual predators and ended up with 18 year old frat boys on it who peed in the bushes.

It always ends up this way. No matter what "the list" is.

(02-16-2017 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

Its no different than if a Vet loses their eyesight, that they shouldn't be able to drive a car.

It sucks, and thanks for their service, and give them the money they need to work with their injury.....but no firearm.

If they want to go to a range and fire a gun, sure, that's probably okay. But if you're so impaired by injuries received that you're getting a check for it? Sorry, no private gun collection that isn't supervised.

That's fine.

Go argue your case in front of a judge and let the person have their due process, not have some nameless, unaccountable bureaucrat strip them of their rights.

(02-16-2017 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

What other rights should they lose?

If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

(02-16-2017 01:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

Then you build your case and plead it in front of the court where the person you are trying to deny their Constitutional rights has a chance for due process.

that already happened. when a judge had his say in dictating they couldn't manage their finances.

No they didn't.

When it is something as significant as a Constitutional right it needs it's own, standalone hearing.

Why? You have no problem shitting on voting rights but gun rights are fair game?

Who has **** on voter right? That's borderline Libel there..

(02-16-2017 01:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you can't manage your finances, then no, you shouldn't be all Yosimite Sam.

Then you build your case and plead it in front of the court where the person you are trying to deny their Constitutional rights has a chance for due process.

that already happened. when a judge had his say in dictating they couldn't manage their finances.

No they didn't.

When it is something as significant as a Constitutional right it needs it's own, standalone hearing.

Why? You have no problem shitting on voting rights but gun rights are fair game?

Nobody is permanently barred from voting. As soon as they get an ID they can vote.

But again....maybe we need to be more consistent and make people undergo a background check prior to registering them to vote since we require it for other Constitutional rights.

(02-16-2017 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:33 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Wouldn't you rather have the "mentally ill" be on record as buying them?

Sent from my C6743 using CSNbbs mobile app

The big problem is the definition of "mentally ill" and the way the data is collected.

Personal anecdote on the topic:

My grandfather is 91. He does everything on his own but lives with me as a precaution. He drives the 15 miles into town, goes grocery shopping, doctors appointments, etc. He manages his own medications, about 6 pills a day, and goes to the doctor on his own.
Sometime last year he was assigned a PA at his doctor's office (which he has been going to and seeing the same doctor for 40 years) who asks him a bunch of questions on every visit. (I know because I have accompanied him to the doctors office when he was sick and didn't feel up to driving himself.) She asked him about his living situation and he told her he lived with me. I informed her that I don't provide any sort of care, but she still put down that he doesn't/can't (thats the way it was worded on the form) live on his own. She asked if anybody helped with his medication and he said that he did it on his own, but told her I'll pick up his prescriptions for him (pharmacy is 20 miles away and he isn't in town everyday). She marked that he had assistance with his medications. She asked if he managed his own finances. He replied that he did, but I wrote checks for him and he signed them. (At 91 his writing isn't exactly perfect anymore). She wrote down that he needed assistance with finances. I told her he was perfect capable of doing all himself and she asked him if he was comfortable doing so and he replied yes, but didn't make that note on the form.

That's three different questions that can be used to determine he is unfit to own firearms since according to the PA he requires assistance with living/medications/finances. GTS is correct in his comment, this isn't just restricted to true "mentally ill" or even unstable people. It's an undo infringement on second amendment rights. It was too broad of a net cast and needed to be overturned.

Excellent post.

What restrictions are currently being proposed for "mentally ill" people? I'm sure advocates for these people are being vocal about potential legislation on this matter.

Let's start with the definition of "mentally ill".

The issue with the 1968 law and subsequent laws is that they say a person is "mentally ill" if they can't 'manage their own affairs'. A little vague don't you think?

Now how about "mental disorders" What percentage of people in the US have mental disorders? Studies put it between 18-26%. What percentage of those mental disorders are linked to violence? I'm not sure, but only 3 percent of violent crimes in 2015 were committed by people with mental disorders. That stat on it's own illustrates that the law could potentially limit the Constitutional rights of over 55 million people (assuming all were over 18) due to the possibility that 1.7 million people labeled as having mental disorders could be violent.

So the question is still what to do about potentially violent mentally ill people owning guns. Who gets to decide they've lost their second amendment rights? For how long? Can they be restored? What about people living with mentally ill people who are prohibited from having firearms?

A one-size-fits-all solution isnt the answer and that was the problem with this.

(02-15-2017 05:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Was this the rule that dubbed having third party designees manage your SS benefits as a "mental impairment"?

Yeah, I'm glad this was struck down. Good job, GOP!

(02-16-2017 01:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:33 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Wouldn't you rather have the "mentally ill" be on record as buying them?

Sent from my C6743 using CSNbbs mobile app

The big problem is the definition of "mentally ill" and the way the data is collected.

Personal anecdote on the topic:

My grandfather is 91. He does everything on his own but lives with me as a precaution. He drives the 15 miles into town, goes grocery shopping, doctors appointments, etc. He manages his own medications, about 6 pills a day, and goes to the doctor on his own.
Sometime last year he was assigned a PA at his doctor's office (which he has been going to and seeing the same doctor for 40 years) who asks him a bunch of questions on every visit. (I know because I have accompanied him to the doctors office when he was sick and didn't feel up to driving himself.) She asked him about his living situation and he told her he lived with me. I informed her that I don't provide any sort of care, but she still put down that he doesn't/can't (thats the way it was worded on the form) live on his own. She asked if anybody helped with his medication and he said that he did it on his own, but told her I'll pick up his prescriptions for him (pharmacy is 20 miles away and he isn't in town everyday). She marked that he had assistance with his medications. She asked if he managed his own finances. He replied that he did, but I wrote checks for him and he signed them. (At 91 his writing isn't exactly perfect anymore). She wrote down that he needed assistance with finances. I told her he was perfect capable of doing all himself and she asked him if he was comfortable doing so and he replied yes, but didn't make that note on the form.

That's three different questions that can be used to determine he is unfit to own firearms since according to the PA he requires assistance with living/medications/finances. GTS is correct in his comment, this isn't just restricted to true "mentally ill" or even unstable people. It's an undo infringement on second amendment rights. It was too broad of a net cast and needed to be overturned.

Excellent post.

What restrictions are currently being proposed for "mentally ill" people? I'm sure advocates for these people are being vocal about potential legislation on this matter.

Yes, good post.

I feel certain that 'the right' on the issue overwhelmingly agrees that mentally ill people should not have guns... They simply disagree that anything other than a specific diagnosis to that fact should act as a proxy.

(02-16-2017 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 05:32 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  I get all my self defense objects from private dealings to begin with, so what would exactly be stopping them from doing so in the first place?

Sent from my C6743 using CSNbbs mobile app

Handguns, even in a private transaction, require a permit (at least in NC) depending on the definition of "mentally ill" one wouldn't be able to legally purchase a handgun without said permit.

Not really much in there that would have prevented someone from purchasing a long gun from another individual.

No permit in SC required except for concealed carry.

same in NC. Limited to 5 purchase permits per year (i think) but unlimited with CC permit.

(02-16-2017 01:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  No permit in SC required except for concealed carry.

And we've gotten close a few times to removing even that permit.

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

What other rights should they lose?

If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

Dude the VA disability system is a complete joke. I have a friend who injured her knee when she was in the Air Force, so when was discharged she was 30% "disabled" from her injury. She's now a nurse who works 12 hour shifts on her feet without issue, but still gets money from the VA.

I would not use the VA calling anyone disabled as the gospel for anything.

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Just like the no-fly list started out for terrorists and ended up with random people on it.
Just like sex offender lists started out for violent sexual predators and ended up with 18 year old frat boys on it who peed in the bushes.

It always ends up this way. No matter what "the list" is.

That isn't a fair comparison or a valid analogy.

You have no constitutional right to board private aircraft to travel.

You only get put on a sex offender list after an adjudication.

(02-16-2017 04:02 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

What other rights should they lose?

If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

Dude the VA disability system is a complete joke. I have a friend who injured her knee when she was in the Air Force, so when was discharged she was 30% "disabled" from her injury. She's now a nurse who works 12 hour shifts on her feet without issue, but still gets money from the VA.

I would not use the VA calling anyone disabled as the gospel for anything.

Either you''re disabled or you're not. Take the money...take the diagnosis.

(02-16-2017 04:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:02 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

What other rights should they lose?

If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

Dude the VA disability system is a complete joke. I have a friend who injured her knee when she was in the Air Force, so when was discharged she was 30% "disabled" from her injury. She's now a nurse who works 12 hour shifts on her feet without issue, but still gets money from the VA.

I would not use the VA calling anyone disabled as the gospel for anything.

Either you''re disabled or you're not. Take the money...take the diagnosis.

So you're proposing the govt could 'buy' an individual's constitutional rights back from them?

(02-16-2017 04:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Just like the no-fly list started out for terrorists and ended up with random people on it.
Just like sex offender lists started out for violent sexual predators and ended up with 18 year old frat boys on it who peed in the bushes.

It always ends up this way. No matter what "the list" is.

That isn't a fair comparison or a valid analogy.

You have no constitutional right to board private aircraft to travel.

You only get put on a sex offender list after an adjudication.

The point is the same. If you establish a list to take away rights or privileges, some bureaucrats and functionaries that run it are going to want more and more and more people on that list.

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

Wow... you realize that not all who suffer from PTSD have episodes of mental impairment.

The Social Security Administration is not a court

What do you consider 'basic financial tasks'? Dislexia might prevent someone from doing basic financial tasks easily/without assistance. That doesn't make them incapable of safely operating a gun.

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This is a case where the left is hiding to some extend behind the phrase "mentally ill". In several lefty states vets with PTSD are denied the ability to own a firearm, even if range time is one of the few things that calms them down and re-centers them. PTSD being a mental health issue, these vets are lumped in with schizos, bipolars, etc. It's not as clean cut as the left would have you think.

If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

What other rights should they lose?

If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

Whats wrong with someone who has PTSD owning a firearm?

Whats are basic financial tasks?

(02-16-2017 06:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

Wow... you realize that not all who suffer from PTSD have episodes of mental impairment.

The Social Security Administration is not a court

What do you consider 'basic financial tasks'? Dislexia might prevent someone from doing basic financial tasks easily/without assistance. That doesn't make them incapable of safely operating a gun.

beat me to the punch.

(02-16-2017 04:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:02 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you have a mental condition so bad that you receive a disability check for it....no you shouldn't be able to have independent, unsupervised custody of a firearm.

What other rights should they lose?

If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

Dude the VA disability system is a complete joke. I have a friend who injured her knee when she was in the Air Force, so when was discharged she was 30% "disabled" from her injury. She's now a nurse who works 12 hour shifts on her feet without issue, but still gets money from the VA.

I would not use the VA calling anyone disabled as the gospel for anything.

Either you''re disabled or you're not. Take the money...take the diagnosis.

Again, if you strongly feel that someone deserves to have their rights denied then it shouldn't be much of a problem for you to present your evidence in court and give them the due process they deserve.

(02-16-2017 06:15 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 06:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you are diagnosed with PTSD, to the extent that you get paid for that injury, then no firearms.

If you are so irresponsible that a court has said that you cannot perform basic financial tasks, then no firearms.

This is not rocket science.

Wow... you realize that not all who suffer from PTSD have episodes of mental impairment.

The Social Security Administration is not a court

What do you consider 'basic financial tasks'? Dislexia might prevent someone from doing basic financial tasks easily/without assistance. That doesn't make them incapable of safely operating a gun.

beat me to the punch.

Let me be clear... I'm okay with taking the right to own a gun away from someone with a medical diagnosis OR court order (usually requiring medical expert testimony) that they are incompetent to own a gun.

I'm just not okay with the idea that because you can't (or it's just a major unnecessary hassle for you to) balance your checkbook, you automatically lose other rights. That's not due process. Sure... 'insane' or 'criminally insane' is a diagnosis or court declaration which comes with a loss of some rights... but if we're trying not to stigmatize mental issues in an effort to encourage treatment as opposed to self-medication for such issues, then we need to be careful about 'piling on' the penalties for seeking such treatment.

SOME of the left is (imo) duplicitous in this regard