I didn't say a thing about my wants or being afraid to go out. Was trying to bring up a different point but there is always someone on here who thinks if you don't agree with me your wrong and they are always right. God forbid someone should have a different point of view.

Legally define mentally ill. And do it in a way that separates the harmless mentally ill from those who would do harm.

You're going to find it difficult, or impossible.

The framers of the Constitution understood that. It's one of the reasons the 2A exists. No law will protect you from anyone bent on doing harm. Laws only provide consequences once the crime is committed. A lot of mass shooters kill themselves as their last act... What consequences do you think will dissuade someone who is that mentally unstable?

None.

It's also why mass shooters or criminals prefer gun free zones or other soft targets... They can inflict massive damage with little risk of someone responding with equal or greater force. They know if they attack a police station they'll have the drop at first and get a few shots off. But they'll be met with overwhelming force very quickly.

Now, do I agree with the "spirit" of your statement? Absolutely. Anyone who is mentally ill enough to be a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to possess firearms. We used to lock those people up in rubber rooms. But translating spirit to letter of the law is difficult to do in a way that can't be misinterpreted or twisted and abused.

No law will stop someone who is determined or crazy enough to commit a crime. The best you can do is be prepared as much as possible to preserve what is dear to you. That is the entire basis of the 2A.

Mike

Good post Mike!

Not sure the Baldwin case is a good example. As much as I dislike Baldwin I don't think he shot those people on purpose. No "malice" or "forethought" involved. Gross negligence? Absolutely.

The question would be, "Will he kill again?" Probably not.

So I WOULD punish him for gross negligence that resulted in one dead and one injured. But after his sentence was served I don't think stripping him of all rights forever is the best thing.

I'm not defending what he did. But I realize that whatever cup is used to measure out justice on him, could be the same cup used to measure out mine one day. And I would want a fair assessment.

Mike

I guess this gets to my original point, if their argument is that of higher police presence means less need why didn't the opposing side counter with the courts own precedent of " No Duty to Protect"?

My other question has always been is there anywhere else in the constitution that the words "the people" didn't mean the individual ?

How about in my county .... You get just "Charged" with a crime and put on Bond supervision.... They tell you "Cannot Own a Firearm"... Its Guilty Until Proven Innocent..

Seems like a Direct violation of the 2nd Amendment rights here. What are you gonna do though, Its the Government.

We need to bring back mental institutions so that guy Rex knows talking to a box can be kept in one. The "mentally ill" should absolutely be allowed to own a gun. But people like that probably shouldn't be on the street period. Someone like that is probably more likely to kill someone with a knife, broken bottle, or brick than they are to be sane enough to buy and keep track of a gun.

By the definition of mental illness today, few people probably wouldn't be considered mentally ill. Drink a few too many beers on the weekend? Now you're an alcoholic, and mentally ill. Having a hard time getting over a breakup or the loss of a loved one? Now you're depressed, and mentally ill. Suffer something traumatic (like someone shooting an AR-15 near you...remember that?) now you have PTSD and are mentally ill. Your kid don't like sitting in school all day because he'd rather be outside and is fidgety? Soon the school says he is ADHD and now he's labeled mentally ill before he's even old enough to legally purchase his first gun.

Be REAL careful what you wish for when wanting to take away the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.

Most people I think are mentally ill don’t Like guns anyway.

I don't think it is safe to read anything into their questions. The things Roberts asked were "encouraging" but I still can't trust the guy. He did vote with the majority in Heller & MacDonald so I wonder if he now feels he must support the plaintiffs in order to be consistent with his own record ??

I am a little nervous about Barret even though she authored a dissent in an earlier case when the decision went against our side. She still strikes me as a squish that is mostly concerned "for the children".

My best hope is that we will prevail with a 5/4 decision. We already know how Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor will vote...........on everything..........

It's possible that we will get a 6/3 decision but I hope not. I would prefer that Roberts vote with the other liberals. If that happens then Thomas will decide who writes the decision for the majority. Hopefully he will write it.
I think that if Roberts votes with the majority he will assign the task of writing the decision to himself. If that happens, he will be able to include all sorts of ambiguities and loopholes........weasel words that will still allow liberals to pick away at 2A. We do not want a Roberts' Court status quo decision..... that essentially means nothing changes...........IMO

If alec is dangerous and allowed to be free no law will stop him from buying or stealing or building a firearm

Laws only apply to people who obey them. Its why people go to prison. To protect society from them

I agree Ken,, ya can't read much into it but I did like the questions except for the one asking about places there shouldn't be carry.

Yes but those TYPES of places are already called out in Heller.

We can hope for the best but I suspect Roberts will control this and make a very narrow ruling that affects no other states and very few people in NY. In fact, I suspect he will just require that NY change a few words in their permitting process and not address the issue of carrying outside the home at all. I have no doubt he would like to kick this down the road for another 30 years

I'm a glass half empty kind of guy