
House OKs Bill Allowing 'Mentally Incapacitated' Veterans to Buy Guns - happy-go-lucky
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/17/520510426/house-oks-bill-allowing-mentally-incapacitated-veterans-to-buy-guns
======
bko
Not sure if I'm reading this right, but it appears that the legislation adds a
requirement that veterans deemed unfit require a court hearing before being
blocked access to a firearm. If so, this seems like due process.

People who don't like guns want to prevent people from owning them. Those
people usually go for the low hanging fruit that appeals to most people like
preventing the mentally ill to buy firearms. However it is important to note
some unpleasant facts like the fact that 11% of Americans are on some
antidepressant and probably many more were on some anti depression medication
in the past [0]. Preventing access to those seemed mentally unfit (by some
standards) would prevent a significant portion of the us population from
owning a firearm. Whether that's right or wrong, I can't say.

[http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken-
depr...](http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken-depressed-
majority-users-have-no-disorder-327940)

~~~
Nrsolis
This process has been abused by anti-gun localities to strip people of their
gun collections for the most MINOR of prescription drug use.

[http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-
guns](http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns)

~~~
liotier
Also, mentally incapacitated people (including drug users) are a vulnerable
population - they are easy prey to criminals, so it would be unfair to deprive
them of their means of self-defense. /s

------
GrinningFool
"In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and
benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed
mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall
not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or
(g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge,
magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such
person is a danger to himself or herself or others.".

So now a magistrate must make determination of "mental defective[ness] from
the facts at hand before records can be updated to say the person is not
competent enough to safely own a firearm. Objectively this sounds like adding
due process where there was none before.

That's a little different from the headline of the article which suggests that
mentally unstable veterans previously unable to buy guns can now nip on down
to the nearest firearms dealer and buy their weapon of choice.

The headline also suggests (to me) a context of "now they can go shoot
everyone up!" But the actual concern is around suicide.

The article does cover this (sort-of objectively [1]), but I'm surprised and
offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR.

[1] In that sort-of objective way that doesn't involve directly criticizing,
yet still comes across as subtly opinionated based on the ordering of content
and quotes.

~~~
douche
> I'm surprised and offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR.

Seems to be their MO of late.

------
ctdonath
The headline misrepresents the issue.

The US Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to possess
weapons for self-defense. Yes, there is a proper process of disarming the
"mentally incapacitated" which terminates that right thru adjudication.

The problem with the headline is the wanton failure to note that designating
many veterans (and others) as "mentally incapacitated" is usually done as a
bureaucratic step, checking off the appropriate box on a form - with
absolutely no requirement to justify the designation, much less prove it to a
judge for that particular individual affected. Many are simply marked as
"mentally incapacitated", and thus deprived of their right & tools for self-
defense, simply because of age, vague circumstance, irrelevant history, or
other weak reasons (if any reason at all).

The bill restores the standard of having to actually demonstrate, in court,
that _this_ person, for _these_ reasons, really does pose a threat to self or
others if continuing to exercise his own right to own tools for self-defense.

TL;DR - the term "mentally incapacitated" in the headline is in scare-quotes
for a reason: a great many so designated aren't; it should take more than a
box on a form checked by a random bureaucrat to end one's enumerated right to
self-defense.

~~~
rabboRubble
Incorrect. The personal right to bear arms was rooted in the need for domestic
state security. There is no mention of personal defense. A quick Wikipedia
search also indicates that the exact text of this amendment is not exactly the
same between all original copies of the Constitution. Sort of an interesting
read [0]. The version authenticated by Thomas Jefferson has the exact quote
of:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

People keep forgetting the well regulated militia part of the amendment, and
what that phrase ought permit the state for the maintenance of state security.

Admittedly, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as rooted in
English Law's self-defense right. But the amendment itself makes no mention of
it, rather leading the personal right with the state need for security. This
ties into the other state needs (national defense, anti-insurrection, self-
defense, etc.) at the time of drafting.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text)

------
root_axis
> _A guardian makes legal decisions for them, and their names go on an FBI
> list so they can 't purchase guns._

That about sums it up in my view. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility
and if the mental health challenges of an individual prevent them from being
able to make their own legal decisions, it seems reasonable to limit their
access to deadly weapons.

~~~
simias
Given how powerful the US military is, doesn't it mean that only a coup by the
army could overthrow the government? And if that happens, well, they already
have all the weapons they need, don't they? If the army remains loyal to the
government I can't see how a bunch of civilians could overthrow anything, no
matter how many guns they own.

That being said I've never been to the USA in my life so I won't pretend I
understand the culture over there.

~~~
ctdonath
American deer hunters alone constitute the largest military on Earth (save
perhaps just behind China). That's 18 million well-equipped snipers (never
mind the other 50M armed citizens). ...and a very large fraction of the
military would likely be on the side of the deer hunters (complex cultural
explanation omitted), so the assumption of the army remaining loyal to the
government under such circumstances is in grave doubt.

BUT...

The issue at hand isn't overthrowing the government, it's denying the weak
their tools for defending themselves from violent assault. We have due process
for doing so; the bill being disparaged in the lead article ensures doing so
is in fact via due process, and not simply a faceless bureaucrat checking off
a box on a form for some trivial reason (which _is_ a serious problem).

~~~
maxerickson
Chain of command and training and logistics are at least as important to a
military as rifles.

US hunters constitute a population armed with rifles, not a military.

~~~
ctdonath
Go look up the Swiss aphorism "shoot twice and go home".

~~~
maxerickson
Those words were uttered at a time when the Swiss militia had been called up
and organized.

------
fapjacks
For what it's worth, I'm a veteran that spends some time at the VA, and I have
lots of friends that spend time at the VA, and I want you to know that the VA
applies this label very liberally and sometimes without justification. I think
crazy people should not have access to firearms, but I also want you to
understand very carefully that the VA is not very accurate as an organization.
There are no second opinions in the VA's decision-making process, the decision
can be made by any "clinician" (including PAs), and once the label is applied
-- regardless of the accuracy of the label -- it can literally take years to
appeal this decision. I am currently waiting for an appeal for an unrelated,
relatively minor condition, and I've now been waiting three years for a
decision on my appeal, and this isn't an unusual amount of time to wait.
There's a running joke that the VA's got a saying about veterans: "Delay and
deny until they die". I think the VA should not be making the decision, and
that the "mentally incapacitated" label should be applied only by _doctors_
external to the organization (or at the very least a _doctor_ ), and there
should be more than one doctor that participates in the decision. At the end
of the day, regardless of what non-Americans think of our Constitution, we're
talking about taking someone's fundamental rights away, and that should be an
_extremely_ careful and efficient and accurate decision-making process (with a
timely appeal system!).

------
travisby
For... various interpretations of mentally incapacitated. Like not running
your own finances?

~~~
StavrosK
Are guns that essential to everyday life in the US that you have to carefully
consider exactly how incapacitated someone is? I would think that even the
slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a
gun.

~~~
colechristensen
We take our rights seriously.

A car is much more dangerous than a gun and I doubt you'd suggest that the
"slightest hint of incapacitation" should be enough for someone to be denied a
driver's license.

~~~
deutronium
Isn't the whole point of a gun to kill people though, unlike a car?

~~~
ctdonath
If someone is trying to rob/assault/rape/kill you, when you otherwise are
unable to defend yourself against a superior-strength assailant, you may find
a gun much more useful than a car. Hard to drive when you've been beaten to
death.

~~~
deutronium
Are you indicating everyone should be able to own a weapon then? Despite being
incapacitated in some way, which may lead to injury of themself or others.

~~~
ctdonath
Interesting tell for cognitive dissonance there.

The baseline is that, as the Constitution enumerates, armament of self for
defense of self, family, and state is a natural right. The well-established &
well-understood caveat is that any right may be curtailed for a _particular_
individual _IF_ adjudicated, _in court_ , for good and established _specific_
cause.

The problem being addressed by the law in question is that veterans are being
denied that right by faceless bureaucrats routinely checking "mentally
incapacitated" checkbox for decades-old never-recurring cases of mild
depression or other irrelevant trivialities. If you're going to deny someone
the right of self-defense, at least do it in court with articulable & relevant
cause.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
I feel like the gun debate has been so muddied here in the United States. The
Constitution allows us to have guns so we can overthrow a tyrannical
government. Evidence from other countries shows us that if we decreased the
amount of guns, we would probably expect less violence/murder. So then the
question is, how much violence do we put up with in society so that we can
preserve our ability to make a meaningful stand against the government?

If we can settle that we can have a better guide when trying to draw these
lines in the sand.

~~~
ctdonath
Faulty premise. The most violent areas in the USA have practically banned guns
outright; areas which have liberalized gun possession by the law-abiding have
seen violence plummet.

I know this sounds silly at first, but it's not if _you_ are the one involved:
the right to be armed allows you to protect 1/300,000,000th of the USA -
_you_. That's pretty serious if you're being attacked and in fear of your
life.

About 15 years ago, the US government started showing signs of wanting to
ratchet up violent assault against dissidents of a certain stripe, executing
SWAT/commando-type raids against citizens for paperwork violations (failure to
document & pay a $200 tax). In two high-profile instances of such raids, the
citizens fought back; many died, but the government agents suffered such
losses that in the decades since, such "Gestapo tactics" have _not_ been used.
As such, armed citizens took a meaningful stand against the government,
teaching it to use its police powers tactfully & sparingly,

What you, and many like you, fail to discern is the difference between armed
_law-abiding_ citizens vs armed _criminals_. The former aren't a problem,
proven by the fact they have >200,000,000 firearms + trillions of bullets yet
aren't a problem above statistical noise. The latter ARE a well-documented
problem, and are by-definition quick to violate ANY law to obtain & retain the
ability to kill as they see fit. The "line in the sand" is between those two
groups; disarming the former only enables the latter by presenting no
resistance.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
I know I've done well when I've got both sides mad at me. Here is where I see
the similarity between you and those guys on the other side who are also
arguing with me: you want a perfect solution. My initial comment poses gun
rights as a tradeoff between violence and the limitations on governmental
power. This makes your side start commenting about how guns are a perfect
solution, they'll lower violence. And it causes the gun-controllers to start
talking about how gun control is a perfect solution because it will lower
violence and it's pointless to try to overthrow the government.

Now it's hard to have a fact-based debate about guns considering the polarized
discourse. I ask three things.

1) Consider that just maybe, access to a device which allows you to kill
quickly, cleanly and with lessened emotional involvement (versus say a knife)
leads to more people murdering.

2) Consider that people are not cleanly seperated into law-abiders and
criminals, people move back and forth all the time and there are various
degrees of law-breaking and criminality. When you turn people who commit gun
crimes into an other, it's a lot easier to seperate yourself from their
actions. I would also say that saying that criminals are all these extreme
monsters who will violate ANY law to be able to kill however they want is just
a complete mischaracterization.

3) Consider that I support the bill this thread is about and reread my initial
comment.

------
ctdonath
All the bill does is require due process for labelling someone "mentally
incapacitated".

It does _not_ , regardless of headline phrasing & implication, deliberately
allow crazy people to get guns.

------
ehosca
On another point, I've never understood the fascination with the ease of being
able to own guns in the US.

------
Entangled
Politician A: "Let a couple of nutjobs buy guns and we will use their killing
sprees to ban guns"

Politician B: "You're a genius!"

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
Except we've had multiple nutjobs go on massive killing sprees in schools,
movie theaters, and every open space you can think of, yet so far we have
failed to get anything banned.

~~~
ctdonath
Interestingly, practically all of those "open spaces" were clearly marked
"gun-free zone". Some such nutjobs have been clearly documented as choosing
those areas over "more desirable" targets precisely because of the signage. Of
the few cases not so designated, many have been stopped by other armed
citizens before the intended massive killing spree proceeded past the first
couple shots.

ETA: Yesterday, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-
shoo...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-shooting-
grasse)

