You Woke Up This Morning, Got Yourself a Gun
June 20, 2007 by Alicia Sparks, Mental Health Notes
Filed under Diseases & Conditions
Or…not.
Carrying on with yesterday’s discussion of “mental defectives” and carrying concealed deadly weapons laws (OK, the topic was more about the ignorant use of the term “mental defective” in a 2007 American society that usually prides itself in being over-the-top politically correct), I found some information to help you get up-to-date with gun laws and the mentally ill.
From NAMI Take Action:
On June 13th, the US House passed a bill to provide more funding and incentives to states to report people to the National Instant Background Check System. NAMI supports the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals; however, the bill does nothing to correct the vague and stigmatizing language around mental illness that makes it unclear who should be included in the background check system. Moreover, there is no time limit on how long someone stays in the system after an involuntary commitment. Finally, there need to be clearer protections to keep private the medical records of people with mental illness. For more information on the bill, CLICK HERE (Help Push for Improvements to Gun Reporting Law!).
I think that blurb effectively covers most – if not all – problems with gun laws and their relationships with the mentally ill.
Mental Health Notes reader Bowrag does his part to sum it up in layman’s terms:
So, if I am an 18 year old kid and hit some serious depression because I kick the habit of smoking, drinking, and lost my girlfriend to another guy at the same time Mommy was put in hospital because Daddy hit her too hard and I get placed in a mental home because I want to die? This means I can’t carry a weapon in Kentucky when I’m 35, married, successful, member of the NRA?
It seems so.
It seems that many of us who fall into one category once may fall into it for the rest of our lives – whether or not we’ve changed, grown up, entered a completely new life stage, etc.
So, right now it doesn’t matter that I’m on the perfect bipolar disorder treatment regimen for me. It doesn’t matter that I’ve only had two severe manic episodes in my adult life – neither of which were violent. It doesn’t matter than none of my depressive episodes have been violent…well, fatally – or even potentially fatally – violent.
All that matters, right now, is that I’m a “mental defective.”
I’m interested in knowing…
Is this a matter of protecting everyone, or just protecting those people who may become the target of a mentally ill person carrying a gun? If it’s the former – as it should be – wouldn’t it also make sense to limit the amount of sugar and other potentially deadly foods diabetics are allowed to purchase? Shouldn’t we just go all the way and ban cancer patients from tobacco purchases and exposure to UV rays?
This is just another method of gun control… Start creating reasons why certain people should not have guns – eventually, they stumble on an “accepted” group. Pretty soon it will expand to include people who work so hard that they don’t get the recommended 8 hours of sleep per night making you mentally unfit… Then it will be all people with undue stress in their lives, like having children, or being human. Before long, your 2nd amendment rights are gone… Remember what Hitler did just before WW2. Disarmed Germany… 2nd amendment is there to protect YOU from your GOVERNMENT. Don’t let them tell you what you can or can’t do, or you will give them the power to tell you EVERYTHING you can and can’t do. Jefferson knew this, but we are getting complacent just like we did pre-9/11.
Very well-thought perspective.
Various mental health organizations are fighting like hell on this one, hoping for, at the very least, a much tighter set of criteria that determines who is considered too mentally “ill” to own a gun and who is not.
I personally have a problem with the arbitrary way mental illness is defined in legislation and agree with your previous assessment on the term “mentally defective.”
Would that include the many law students I know who have, during the stressful 1L, suffered anxiety attacks or collapsed from panic episodes? The same would apply to the two medical residents I know, who after 40 hours of study suffered from acute anxiety. Are they too “defective” to practice law or handle trauma? No.
Though, I must say from a legal scholar standpoint, Mr. Funk’s intepretation of the 2nd Amendment and the agenda to regulate firearms is incorrect and misleading. I highly doubt that the hidden agenda of vaguely defining mental illness is for that of ‘gun control.
For example, to say Hitler took away the guns – so we are headed down a fascist path is really bad reasoning. Britain has strict regulations on firearms and has not headed down that path.
This coined term of “pre-9/11 complacency” is another word for giving up the liberties that “having guns” supposedly protects. For instance, actions after the 11th of September are much more akin towards loss of liberty and down a Nazi Germany path than stricter gun control (such as the patriot act, the suspending of habeas corpus, etc…) Those should be the primary concerns. Plus, the 2nd Amendment isn’t as simply defined as the rights of private citisens to have guns. It’s not black-and-white and easily debateable. The problem lies in that when the 2nd Amendment is quoted, it is not quoted entirely.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The crux often being the term “A well regulated militia”
I, however, agree with Sparks and whichever other organisations are fighting this one for a better and more specific criteria of what fits as “mentally ill”. There’s no positive outcome for leaving this intentionally vague.