• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

PBS - Open carry movement stands tall after Arizona madman attacks crowd

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Okay they were talking about Mentally ill, when I was 17 I attempted Suicide for Attn. I was not serious about going through with it, and have no desire to try now, when I was 17 I had a lot on my plate, and was a virtual outcast at the time. I am not even so much as depressed at this point in my life, I am seen as mentally healthy, and not a danger to myself or other, and never will be.

Yet in this case they far left would do their best to ban me from having a gun because of my choice to get attn. when I was 17 years old. I have had 7 mental evals almost all from the Military when I was in to get my Security Clearance, not once was I seen as unstable, or depressed.

none of the 7 evals was in any way negative but one, and after the many piles of events in my life, and the emotional trauma, I was told I may be Slightly depressed, but they do not think it needs drugs, and at the most may need counseling. However that is also up for debate, and they are giving me even further evals to see if I am even depressed because I do not even present as one.

I wonder how I can go through all the Trauma of the Army, be fully active in my community, and have nothing slowing me down, and yet they would want to take my guns away because I had one issue when I was an emotional teen, and may be a mildly depressed person.

I have no criminal record, no desire to harm any one, and have shown a disposition to help others. So I wonder how it would not be violating my rights to take them away.

Screw the far left for their assumption that just because you may have some mild illness that you should be barred from self protection.

qft
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Who defines mental illness? How can "they" tell who will go on a rampage?

According to the law, folks who are "adjudicated" as mentally ill cannot lawfully possess firearms. That means that a court makes the decision on who is mentally ill. That decision will be based on what the law says on the subject and the testimony of experts who have examined the person facing adjudication.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
According to the law, folks who are "adjudicated" as mentally ill cannot lawfully possess firearms. That means that a court makes the decision on who is mentally ill. That decision will be based on what the law says on the subject and the testimony of experts who have examined the person facing adjudication.

That assumes that the proper avenues are followed ... which evidently DIDN'T happen in the VA Tech shooting ... it was so evident that the shooter was unbalanced that one female student changed her seat to nearest the door just in case he started shooting one day http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/prevail/docs/April16ReportRev20091204.pdf

In addition to what eye states, in some instances, the diagnosis/treatment for certain mental illnesses (suicide, clinical depression, etc) and/or the prescription of particular drugs precludes someone from owning a firearm - without court intervention.

I don't know how many of you have family members who are chronic drug addicts or have mental health issues and have tried to intervene or get an appropriate agency to intervene with them, but you will find that it is very difficult to deal with mental health on behalf of another, and if they are closely associated with providing state-mandated services, even harder to deal with.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The federal law specifically (and only) says about mental illness that anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution" is barred from possession of firearms. Commitment is a legal proceeding in court.

I won't speak to State laws. They vary widely, and may set other standards. I am only speaking of the federal standard which requires a court to make a ruling before the prohibition can kick in. Any standard that removes the RKBA without due process would, IMO, be unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
eye95, yes, there is a difference between the Fed and State wording, but voluntary commitment to a mental health facility is one way that someone can loose their RKBA and not have been ajudicated through the courts.
 
Top