National BRADLEY BEERS v. USA 2nd Amendment violation?

[RicInOR]

BRADLEY BRADLEY BEERS; JOSEPH DIVITA; JOSEPH DIVITA -v- USA

• In 2005, Bucks County, Pa. man is involuntarily hospitalized after threatening suicide, putting a gun in his mouth. He's had no mental health treatment since 2006, and, in 2013, a doctor said he could safely handle firearms. Does the federal ban on gun possession by anyone who has previously been committed to a mental institution violate the man's Second Amendment rights? The Third Circuit says no.

Read More

 

[Talos32]

I've got a few problems with this ruling:

First, the concept that "once a part of a prohibited class, always a part of a prohibited class" does not jive with the idea that mental illness is a disease. If it is a disease, and it can be treated and cured, once someone is cured there is no longer a reason to deprive them of their rights. If this logic were applied to the rest of medicine, you would be quarantine forever if you've ever had a communicable disease regardless of whether or not you have it today.

Second, the court said that it is ill-equipped to determine somebody's mental fitness, but they apparently don't feel that way when it's time to commit somebody. In this individual's case, the court was involved multiple times in determining to commit him and to keep him committed at various stages in his treatment. they also conveniently ignore that a medical professional said that he was not a risk. Apparently they are not qualified to determine mental fitness, nor do they have to listen to someone who is.

Finally, in this case, the reliance on historical practices in tradition to determine what infringement are permissible is entirely misplaced. Historically, blacks were denied access to firearms of any sort, and being homosexual was enough to have you committed. Both of which are now protected classes, and if you tried to use the fact that someone was black or gay as justification for stripping their second amendment rights you would last 30 seconds in the courtroom. Historical context is important, but it seems like judges take it and leave it as they see fit. When it supports their position historical context is super important, but when it doesn't, it's simply considered an artifact of a less enlightened time.

 

[bbbass]

BRADLEY BRADLEY BEERS; JOSEPH DIVITA; JOSEPH DIVITA -v- USA

• In 2005, Bucks County, Pa. man is involuntarily hospitalized after threatening suicide, putting a gun in his mouth. He's had no mental health treatment since 2006, and, in 2013, a doctor said he could safely handle firearms. Does the federal ban on gun possession by anyone who has previously been committed to a mental institution violate the man's Second Amendment rights? The Third Circuit says no.

1. I don't believe mental health professionals can accurately determine someones "safe" status. Nor do they have a good history of being able to do so.

2. I also don't believe in protecting a person from themselves. Let them go. If they wish to harm their families by depriving them of their own company/association, who does the gov think it is to interfere? They no more belong a part of that matter than they belong in our bedrooms!!