“Keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill”
I heard that phrase today in the background checks debate on CNN
By what means does the constitution of the United States abrogate the rights of mentally ill Americans to hold and bear arms ?
Interesting question, and one that I hope to see more of.
The limitations on the rights of people, and then citizens have several controls / subgroups.
As I understand it (please correct)
All people have 1st amendment, 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights (Speech and the cops can’t mess with you too much)
Adult Citizens without felonies:
The right to vote (varies based on State regarding felonies)
The right to keep and bear arms
Over 21:
All people have the right to drink
So we have already played with rights based on a few areas like felonies and citizenship status.
Are you serious? Do you really not understand the concept of mental competence?
Is that addressed in the US contstitution ?
By means of the law that forbids people adjudicated mentally ill to possess firearms, and its affirmation by the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.
No right is absolute. There are always exceptions for the purposes of public safety and the like. See Brandenberg v. Ohio for the public safety exception on free speech, for example.
I’m at a loss to understand why this is an issue.
The only problem I have with it is that they use the blanket term “mentally ill.” There’s a huge gulf of difference between a guy with social anxiety owning a gun, and a sociopath with bipolar owning a gun.
Agreement: “mentally ill” is much to broad. (Hell, let’s face it, does anyone here know anybody who isn’t a bit screwy in one way or another?)
Fortunately, “legal competence” is slightly more strictly defined, and is the bright line used in denial of various rights. And even that is graduated, with milder impositions and greater ones. The most extreme denial of rights comes with mandatory incarceration. But, sad as it may be, some citizens are simply too ill to be allowed in public, and institutionalization is a necessity.
ETA; This doesn’t exactly violate the Constitution, so long as it is done under due process of law. Obviously, no one wants this power to be abused, as it was in the old Soviet Union, where dissidents were declared insane and imprisoned. A free society requires vigilance against corruption.
As to the law, I understand that all laws are subject to the constitution and/or Supreme Court rulings and the Supreme Court affirmation you cite seems to deliberately and specifically avoid the issue regarding the mentally ill.
No it doesn’t. It specifically says, again, that “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”. That’s a direct statement. What else do you want?
Should an angry misanthrope have the right to bear arms?
No they don’t. There is no “right” to drink. The federal government, states, counties, and municipalities are free to put restrictions on where and when alcohol may be possessed/consumed, including having places that are completely “dry”.
Also, judges routinely prohibit people on on parole/probation from possessing/consuming alcohol. This is no different than prohibiting felons/mental incompetents from bearing arms.
You know what? I’m changing my answer. After all, nuclear weapons are “arms” and I have the right to one! Show me in the Constitution where it says Congress can deny that to me! The Constitution IS a suicide pact!!!
PKBites - fair enough on booze. I was trying to think of places in the law where rights/privileges are limited based on different identification factors.
Limiting firearms ownership based on mental illness sounds like a good thing to maintain, but perhaps a watchful eye on the definition is in order. At one time being homosexual was considered a mental illness after all.
Of course, my arguement might mean I suffer from paranoid delusions and should be declared mentally ill. 
Finally - if we agree that mental illness is a legit reason to limit someone’s rights - should we also look at other rights we might not want to grant to mentally ill?
Its the adjudicated part that makes it ok. They had due process before their rights were truncated, they are treated as incompetent. Basically like children.
Well, driving a car ought to be taken into account… More seriously, I believe that legal incompetence can mean the loss of the right to vote. Here is a list of U.S. states and their laws.
No.
Yes, I know, but please don’t correct them on the point; they’re enough trouble as it is.
Anybody can be deprived of liberty or property through due process, it isn’t any different for arms than it is for voting or walking out the front door. The criteria is different for different contexts, but the legal authority is no different than taking a drunk drivers license away.
By historical convention (and IMO it is unconstitutional) psychiatrists, who are medical doctors, are considered to be objective and benignly concerned and otherwise disinterested parties who impose treatment and confine & otherwise restrict and restrain the mentally ill, NOT as punishment but “for their own good” and “for the general good”.
That logic has been used to defend involuntary psychiatric incarceration as well as for keeping people with a psych diagnosis from practicing in certain professions or holding certain licenses, being allowed to vote, operate a motor vehicle, or possess firearms.
Generally speaking, you get your privileges and freedoms revoked only for something you DO, and get your day in court to try to refute the allegations, so yes I consider it to be unconstitutional. But it’s how it’s been done historically and it’s sort of grandfathered in and most folks don’t question the idea.
But this is not done without judicial review in the US, right? At least, most jurisdictions that I know of have a provision that involuntary commitment due to danger to self or others can only occur for some limited period (like 72 hours). Commitment occurring longer than that requires a court order.
Also, there seems to be a growing trend towards special mental health courts, where legal matters involving people with mental illness are the focus.
You left out Common Law. The U.S. Constitution was written with a societal understanding that English Common Law was already the underpinning of most Law. (Lousiana avoided that on the state level by incorporating Napoleonic Law prior to the sale of that region to the U.S. I do not know what Napoleonic Law says in regards to competence, but on the national level, English Common Law sets the standards of definition.)
To the extent that English Common Law recognizes that rights may be modified on the basis of personal competence, such determinations do not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution.
AHunter3 presents a challenge to the assumptions and manner under which such competence is determined, but the simple act of including (mental) competence within the framework of Law is not a violation of U.S. legal theory.