• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

2A may preclude lifetime ban on possession by people committed to mental institution

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,113
Likes
762
Location
Just North of Boston
So says a federal magistrate in Iowa:

...
In Tuesday’s United States v. Johnson (N.D. Iowa), a federal magistrate judge concluded that,

[A] statute that operates to deprive Johnson of a fundamental constitutional right for the rest of his life, based solely on brief mental health commitments two decades ago, does not appear to be “narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”...

A crack in the door maybe?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-committed-to-a-mental-institution-long-ago/


 

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,145
Likes
620
If someone's too dangerous to handle a firearm, then what are they doing walking around?

The mental-health provisions of GCA68 result in lifetime PP status regardless of whether the person ever sought help or has gotten better with appropriate therapy and medication. To be fair, GCA68 reflects the state of mental-health treatment at that point in history. Science has made considerable advances in the last half-century.

OTOH a lot of bona-fide violent nutcases are not PPs because they've never had any documented contact with the mental-health system, so GCA68 performs rather poorly at its ostensible objective of keeping guns out of the hands of the unstable and violent.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
5,080
Likes
708
Location
Somerset, Ma
If someone's too dangerous to handle a firearm, then what are they doing walking around?

The mental-health provisions of GCA68 result in lifetime PP status regardless of whether the person ever sought help or has gotten better with appropriate therapy and medication. To be fair, GCA68 reflects the state of mental-health treatment at that point in history. Science has made considerable advances in the last half-century.

OTOH a lot of bona-fide violent nutcases are not PPs because they've never had any documented contact with the mental-health system, so GCA68 performs rather poorly at its ostensible objective of keeping guns out of the hands of the unstable and violent.

Problem is that I feel the same way about criminal convictions. If the person is to dangerous to be allowed to defend themselves, why are they forced to live with out protection of 24/7 armed guards (aka prison)?
Not to mention it destroys the whole concept of rehabilitation
 
Top Bottom