Each jurisdiction has its own criteria...
Many of which adhere to the standard that you cannot use mental defect as a defense unless you can prove to the Court that you are unable to participate in your own defense. Or..that at the time of the crime you were unable to distinguish right from wrong and not able to control your own behavior, to successfully achieve a verdict of 'Not guilty by reason of insanity'. Temporary insanity is not a defense... Although it has been used as a mitigating factor during sentencing (I may be off on a few of these points.... and I am sure lilith will correct me if I am.)
Given that a crime was committed? That makes sense.

As I understand it.. It takes a considerable amount of resources and time to convince a court of this.

What you are talking about is reducing someones rights on the chance they will commit a crime.

Then comparing it to someone that has either committed a crime or is suspect of committing a crime and standing trial.

So... in this effort? In order to qualify for owning a weapon? Should we all be tested for mental defect? Or just those who have been previously diagnosed cannot own weapons? How are we going to monitor this? Since the gun laws regarding licensure are illegal? Since, according to those that think gun laws are unconstitutional.. That the Government has no right to maintain records of who owns a gun and who does not.

Not to mention... I've heard you and others maintain that you support mandatory gun training... to own a weapon, and training in public schools... Which would be gun laws.

Those laws would be unconstitutional too.

What gives you the right to say who can and cannot own a gun if gun laws are unconstitutional?

It certainly sounds like some of you want your cake and eat it too.

That somehow.. By self proclamation.. You deserve the right to keep and carry in the literal expression of the term... Yet others do not. You support laws that back that end.. Any law that stands in your way? Hell no.

in actuality we all probably have a mental defect of some sort

there should be no test

put once you are diagnosed then it goes into effect

and the mental defect is one of high risk such as multiple personality or violent tendency related defect

not oh my my wife left i am so depressed type mental defect

and it should be hard to use mental defect as a reason to ban their gun ownership just as it is hard to use it in a court case

you do not have a mental defect till it is diagnosed just as you are not a felon until you are convicted

Adj4u....
I have prior and current experience with the mentally ill, and I understand the NGRI and Competency standards in Ohio quite well. The actual findings of NGRI in comparison to the referrals are stunningly low. I can find you some statistics, if you like.

I can say that here, a mentally ill person arrested with a firearm is an F-3 felony, called Having Weapons Under Disability. Any intoxicated person gets the same charge, same exact charge.

If you are okay with regulating gun ownership for law abiding citizens.... why are you then, by proxy, implicitly saying that the MI are not law abiding?

Jistme... not bad on the explanations of the two defenses.

I will add that people found NGRI do serve time, just not in prison. The time they spend, in a locked MH facility is usually longer than in prison. Individuals found incompetent to stand trial are sent for treatment to restore competency and then stand trial after being found restored to competency. They also end up spending more time incarcerated than others charged and convicted of the same offense who did not use or have access to this "defense". In other words, people you say are law abiding citizens.

you missed the last post obviously lilith

Adj~~~ I disagree with this. Here is an interesting thought....

If you look at the numbers of teenagers diagnosed as bipolar in 1994, it was about 20,000 across the nation. Those numbers have increased to over 800,000 (from 2004). That is an increase of over over FORTY percent of teenagers diagnosed in the past ten years. (These were related to me this past week by a current forensic psychologist who actively examines/testifies in junveile competency and NGRI cases)
Don't you find that a bit disturbing, not to mention highly unlikely to be true?

So you are saying you trust the medical profession to effectively diagnose the mentally ill, and then report it to the government, and they are then subject to regulation. Which you condone.

My position is, obviously..... I believe people are wildly overdiagnosed and misdiagnosed. Most of these folks have a personailty disorder, which is not a mental illness in regards to the law regulation criteria.

1 in 100 people are schizophrenic. There are 7 types of schizophrenia. Many of them you'd never know. Also, people with mental illnesses are no more ilkely to be violent than those without a DX. In fact, I'd say they are less likely as they usually keep to themselves.

Finally... how about people charged with felonies and plead to a misdemeanor? How about people who are wrongly convicted?

Why do you not have a problem with some regulations but not others?

interesting post lilith but

it is better to have some high risk area regulated

than it is to outlaw guns completely as you appear to want do

why is it you want total regulation or no regulation

and did you not see the violent tendancy line in the post you picked and chose to reply to

there are wrongly convicted people in prisons all over the world
is it right -- no

but untill they over turn the onviction they are a convict

I am sorry....

I meant to say an increase in teenagers diagnosed as bipolar over forty times higher within ten years, not forty percent higher.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." (Sigmund Freud)

i find it kind of amusing you can understand my posts

unless they disprove something you said or show a contradiction

in something you said

I have always said I have difficulty...not total incomprehension. In the last few pages I am trying very hard and going over them line by line.

Adj~~ My point is that there seems to be sense that some are okay with some regulaton but not others... as long as it does not effect their perceived rights. And at the same time, many people within this thread have indicated there should be no regulation, and then say it should be a requirement to have education and training first, which is a regulation. I say that is a contradiction.

I actually have not at all posted my opinion on gun laws.

well i must say everyone (except maybe rob) in this thread has posted a contradiction to something they posted earlier

and if someone has not been proven a threat to society

convicted felon -- diagnosed mental patient (threat to society in diagnosis)

then there should not be a regulation infringing their right to bear arms

and said regulations listed above are regulations to a segment of society not a gun regulation per say

at least two different issues must be meet for the issue to take effect

convicted felon and wanting a gun (nothing wrong with wanting the gun -- until they become a convicted felon)

***thus it is a regulation for convicted felons not guns***

Yes... but I believe there is no proof that mentally ill people are a danger to society, in regards to the real, tru major mental illnesses. Ther eal dangers to society are those hiding behing that that are really just Antisocials. To me, that is just a clinical name fo A-hole. It is also not a major mental illness.

Oh, and by the way alcoholism is an Axis I diagnosis, which is a criteria for the inability to own a gun. Axis I diagnoses are...as is marijuana dependence, cocaine dependence, and so on.

The diagnosis should not mean they are dangerous. But somewhere, somehow, the states decided that it did.

I am not sure I understand your post... although I'm working on it. Are you saying felons and the MI should be able to bear arms? Or no?

Sure..It is better! There is no doubt it is better to have some areas regulated. Just as it is a wise idea to have weapons illegal on airplanes and in courtrooms... Or someone who has a standing protective order not having access to firearms... Or weapons training before ownership...
But..The entire point is, if we deem all gun control unconstitutional, those laws will be unconstitutional. What I want, or what lilith wants..or your perception of those things..which neither of us has actually revealed is entirely beside the point.

Uh-huh...

and Freud also said 'America is a mistake, a giant mistake.' and 'America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success.'

Didn't Freud use and recommend cocaine as part of his treatment?

for these issues....
as a mental stimulant
as a possible treatment for digestive disorders
as an appetite stimulant in case of wasting diseases
as a treatment of morphine and alcohol addiction
as a treatment for asthma
as an aphrodisiac
as a local anaesthetic


Is that incorrect?

Dang.. I knew I should have checked into that Freudian Treatment facility!

When convicted of a felony in this country..you become less then a citizen. While not removing any human rights.. you lose a great deal of civil rights as a collateral consequence of being a convict. So yes.. I repeat... It is not so much a gun law as it is a law regarding convicted criminals.

The last time I checked? Mental illness is not a crime, it is a condition. The laws regarding possessing guns and disability are gun laws.

So.. if you get your wish and gun laws are deemed unconstitutional... You also will make it unconstitutional to control access for the disabled.

not sure what you are trying to say here

could you post in a more understandable manner



are you saying the disabled should not be permitted guns

if so i never said that

Ummmm... OK?

If you are convicted of a felony. You lose your right to vote. Your right to have weapons, your right to freedom for a time.. right to live in some cases... unable to qualify for certain license and bonding.. In some States it is grounds for an uncontested divorce.... The only way around these things are expungement or pardon.
So.. in essense you are less then a citizen. The Bill of Rights does not apply to them because of their conviction.

What you are saying in regards to the mentally ill.. is you support treating them as less then a citizen.... Even though you seem to promote the notion that all gun laws are unconstitutional.

In todays world... With the current standing that gun laws in some cases are necessary but need to be subjected to a higher standard then other laws... Restricting access to firearms by someone who is substantially mentally ill is a reasonable gun law. As is forbiding them on planes or in court rooms.

If all of a sudden the Supreme Court made gun laws of any sort unconstitutional... Then all gun laws would be repealed. Including those restricting access by the mentally ill.

The law is under United States code title 18 part 1 crimes. Chapter 44 - firearms. Or '18 U.S.C. 922'
(B) a statement that the transferee -
(i) is not under indictment for, and has not been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, and has not been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;
(ii) is not a fugitive from justice;
(iii) is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act);
(iv) has not been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution;
(v) is not an alien who -
(I) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(II) subject to subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(vi) has not been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; and
(vii) is not a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced such citizenship;

That all goes away.. along with every other provision in that section. Which includes the Brady bill.

****** Also.. notice that the section also includes the Federal limits to felons as well.. So that might be held in question too.*******

Apparently.. You want to keep the provision regarding the mentally ill, yet lose much of the rest of that section regarding fire arms control.

Is that better?
Are there any other components you want to keep?