Supreme court’s “error” in Heller
Ok, then:
The issue the court assessed was an individual’s Second Amendment rights, but by using this careless language -by writing “the mentally ill” – the justices did a disservice to people living with mental illness.
They lumped them together with felons. Sadly, this was not challenged in the dissent.
The Supreme Court erred and needs to correct that error, because it affects the way our society perceives and treats people living with mental illness.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Agreed. Used to be, people deemed mentally ill were seriously dysfunctional–unable to perform basic, essential life tasks, unable to navigate personal relationships, unable to consistently generalize and reason.
Now, we do understand mental illnesses better but we have also broadened the range and scope of behavior and conditions designated mentally ill.
And once tagged, does the government have the right to take away your constitutional rights forever?
They were a little to wishy-washy with the whole “reasonable restrictions” loophole.
Still–having grown up under the Gun Control Act of 68, and the Warren court’s legacy, I am still basking in the warm glow of Heller and McD–and our own Tennessee liberties.
December 6th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
With the caveat that I agree about the over-expansion of what constitutes “mental illness”:
Heller was a start, not the final word. First, we dismantle the existing major infringements (gun bans, registration, etc.), then we clean up the loose ends (felons, “mentally ill”, concealed carry permits, etc.).
Let’s get the simple stuff dealt with first.* Then we can address the issues that will generate greater public resistance more easily.
*Always with the understanding that if there’s a good opportunity to deal with a more difficult issue early, it should be attempted.
December 6th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
From Heller: […] nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill […]
It takes a strange sort of mind (though not an ill one!) to read that and take it as a slight upon the mentally ill rather than a commentary on existing traditional grounds of denial of the right to keep arms.
18 USC 922(d)(4), after all, lists “ […] adjudicated as a mental defective or […] committed to any mental institution” as being prohibitory conditions.
(As my bipolar friend would say, these crazies need to get their priorities straight.)