Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
Not saying I agree with this, but I was Army National Guard and active duty overseas for a year, and I would say that about 15% of the people I deployed with should never ever ever handle a firearm  . If someone is diagnosed as crazy (veteran or not), I don't have a problem with it. I think we would all agree that there should be background checks and not allow people with a history of mental illness to purchase certain weapons. This piece doesn't really say much, it lacks some serious information. |
Current law is that those who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent may not own or possess firearms. This means that the status of mentally incompetent must be decided by a court and the person facing designation as mentally incompetent (thus losing many rights and autonomy) must have representation and the ability to present evidence on his own behalf.
Anything less is a dangerous practice fraught with peril. Remember that we have the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of law. The adjudication process meets this definition. Designation by a doctor or other medical professional is not due process.
Determinations made by a doctor, maybe even a doctor who has not even seen the person in question, should not have the power to restrict any right regarding life, liberty, or property. Opinions of doctors on the government payroll should be especially suspect.
Remember that all sorts of things are classified as mental health issues now: drinking, drugs, sexual addictions, depression. Does everyone who has ever had an antidepressant prescribed have a "mental health history" worthy of firearms prohibition?