Constitutional Rights, Mental Illness, and Gun Control

Folks, no doubt you've been hearing about and reading about and indeed discussing proposals as well as actual legislation concerning gun control... particularly as such legislation fits in with mental health policies and implementation of same.

U.S. News on NBC News has come out with some commentary regarding these interrelated issues which bears thought and indeed contemplation, questions, and commentary from you and... yours truly:

If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it’s that mentally ill people should not have access to firearms.

Question: If our legal system - operating under Constitutional principles - deems an individual incapable of exercising his or her 2nd Amendment Rights...

(*PAUSE*)

...then what about his or her other Constitutional Rights?

Let's lay aside for a moment questions such as "If they can't be trusted with a gun, such a person be trusted with a car... with a knife... with arms and hands that could be used to push someone off a subway platform into the path of an oncoming train...?

How'about matches? Access to gasoline, empty bottles, rags, and perhaps a lighter?

Via the internet... via public libraries... via a decent high school education most Americans could produce a crude poisonous gas or explosive device with a modicum of effort using parts and materials available at your local Home Depot.

But, hey... put all that aside...

ALL Constitutional Rights are equal. The 1st Amendment... the 2nd Amendment... they're equal. Amendments 1 thru 10 - the Bill of Rights - all equal. Amendments 1 thru 27 - all equal folks!

So... we're talking about taking away an individual's Constitutional Right to bear arms pursuant to legal judgment that said individual is not "mentally competent" to avail himself or herself of said 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

Well... do we want "mentally incompetent" individuals voting? I don't!

Voting aside... how'bout legal contracting? If one has been deemed "mentally incompetent" to exercise one's 2nd Amendment Rights... how then does this "mental incompetence" not carry over into every facet of legal responsibilities and protections - both those of the individual in question and those of other individuals and parties dealing with this individual within a legal framework?

Do you see what I'm getting at here, folks...? "Mentally incompetent" to exercise a specific Constitutional Right means... well... what else? How'about "mentally incompetent" to marry... to serve as legal guardian to a child... to be a parent at all?! If one is "mentally incompetent" and thus prevented by government from exercising a basic Constitutional Right... a Bill of Rights Right... then what other Rights can and/or should be taken from this "second-class" citizen?

But as lawmakers rush to restrict that access in the wake of recent mass shootings, mental health experts warn of unintended consequences: from gun owners avoiding mental health treatment to therapists feeling compelled to report every patient who expresses a violent thought.

Yep... the law of unintended consequences...

“Many patients express some idea of harm to other people, everything from, ‘I wish I could rip my boss limb from limb,’ to, ‘I have a gun and want to blow that guy away,’” said Paul Applebaum, director of the Division of Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. Therapists usually interpret this sort of talk as part of the treatment process, experts say. But under a new law in New York, one of the strongest to be passed to date, therapists may feel compelled to report every instance of violent talk, lest they face legal consequences if something happens. And some say ordinary patients may wind up suffering the most.

“There’s one group of people who are gun owners who may reasonably or unreasonably think, ‘I’m not going anywhere near a mental health person, because if they misinterpret something I say as an indication I’m going to hurt myself or someone else, they’re going to report me and take away my guns,’” Applebaum said.

"...who may reasonably or unreasonably think...?" Seriously, folks, there's nothing "unreasonable" about the scenario being highlighted here.

Several polls conducted since the shooting in Newtown, Conn., have found widespread support for new legislation that would restrict the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, as well as for increased government spending on mental health.

Again, folks, I know this sounds reasonable... but we're talking a Constitutional Right. Mere "laws" - statutes - cannot supplant Constitutional Rights. Any law that restricts - denies - the Constitutional Right to bear arms (which can pass Constitutional muster) would therefore - at least so it seems to me - allow the next logical step of denying... let's say... the Right to vote.

And folks... if you're not mentally fit to exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights then by God you shouldn't have the Right to vote. (And from there... what else shouldn't you be allowed to do? Be a party to a legally binding contract...? How can you be a party to a legally binding contract... if you're mentally incompetent that is?)

Federal law already bars the sale or transfer of firearms to a person who is known or thought to have been “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

Does it make sense to you that a person "adjudicated as a mental defective" should be allowed to vote... or enter into contracts? (Or be a parent or guardian in the legal sense...???)

In addition, at least 44 states currently have their own laws regulating possession of firearm by mentally ill individuals, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But not enough states report their mental health data to the federal government, rendering the federal law largely toothless.

I know that several attorneys read my blog regularly. You must have some thoughts regarding the points I'm bringing up. I'd love to have you post these thoughts to the blog! (And in line with that... back to state laws... state laws can't contravene the Constitution - correct?)

New York’s expanded gun law signed by Cuomo on January 15 goes further than most state laws in that it requires mental health professionals to report any person considered “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others” to local health officials. Those officials would be authorized to report that person to law enforcement, which could seize the person’s firearms.

So... the Bureau of Future Crimes becomes a reality... one's Constitutional Rights are stripped (or just certain Constitutional Rights are stripped) based not upon action but upon thought?

Again... folks... I'm not saying there shouldn't be a legal remedy for dealing with the mentally ill; I'm simply raising the point that if a person is "adjudicated as a mental defective" for the purpose of limiting his or her 2nd Amendment Rights... then logically what Constitutional Rights are safe... which Constitutional Rights should such individuals maintain and under what justification?

Again... how does one justify "allowing" a "mental defective" to vote... or hold office? (Should it be possible for someone "adjudicated as a mental defective" in order to strip him or her of his or her 2nd Amendment Rights to serve as a public official - elected or appointed? Should someone deemed ineligible to exercise his or her 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right be allowed to get a pilot's license... pilot a jetliner with hundreds of passengers... even drive a hazardous materials laden vehicle? Think about it, folks... how many jobs by their very nature provide jobholders with the "tools" to commit mass murder?)

Again, folks... just some points to ponder...