2A Infringement, Required Safety Courses, Mentally Ill, etc.

2A Infringement, Required Safety Courses, Mentally Ill, etc.

This is a discussion on 2A Infringement, Required Safety Courses, Mentally Ill, etc. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I've searched the forums and found a few helpful threads, but would like to find more discussion and sources for the topic of 2A infringement, ...

Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By peckman28
  • 1 Post By OldVet

Thread: 2A Infringement, Required Safety Courses, Mentally Ill, etc.

  1. #1
    Member Array yemenmocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    44

    2A Infringement, Required Safety Courses, Mentally Ill, etc.

    I've searched the forums and found a few helpful threads, but would like to find more discussion and sources for the topic of 2A infringement, especially with regard to what counts as infringement.

    For practical/safety purposes I can see why we may not want criminals and mentally ill persons owning guns, but constitution-wise why is this acceptable? What's the legal case, jargon, etc. for this view? Or, is the 2A some sort of individual right that should not be infringed upon at all? (former criminals should not be allowed to defend themselves?). I'm worried that the justification for not allowing mentally ill or criminals to have guns because of safety of others could lend itself to justifying the requiring of safety courses before gun ownership and/or carrying in public (safety of other people).

    I think many of us see required safety gun courses for ownership as infringement. But why does it seem like there isn't a lot of visible outrage over the safety course requirement for concealed carry in some states? Is a safety course an instance of infringement or not?

    Links & sources appreciated for further reading.
    Thanks in advance


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,108
    As far as I'm concerned, the 2A is written in plain English. State-level infringements may have passed constitutional muster (at least federally) prior to passage of the 14A, but after that, no. The closest to being in line with the Constitution on this issue are states like Vermont, where there are no permits and thus, no training requirement. The only laws that could even relate to guns that should be allowed are those that involve using them to victimize others. All prior restraints are a clear violation, and it speaks volumes to how far we've sunk in terms of our respect for the rule of law that we have so many thousands of pages of gun laws and regulations on the books. There is no authority whatsoever for "assault weapons bans", bans on real assault rifles or any other type of gun, "one gun a month" laws, forcing you to only buy guns through FFL dealers, or bans or regulation on the carry of weapons in public...just to name a few. The ONLY area where the governments of the several states have any business concerning themselves is when those weapons are used to kill others in acts of aggression.
    BigStick likes this.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,244
    A couple of books:

    • Supreme Court Gun Cases: Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed, by Kopel. It contains text and interpretation from every gun-related case in the history of this country, up to just the last few years.
    • That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, by Halbrook. It analyzes the 2A, where it came from, the debates in the original Congress, and it seeks to make sense of it all. This book blasts many myths out of the water.


    The DC v Heller case, ruling and precedent.

    Older precedent cases, such as US v Cruikshank.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,563
    "For practical/safety purposes I can see why we may not want criminals and mentally ill persons owning guns, but constitution-wise why is this acceptable?"

    For the same reasons we object to drunk driving--because people get killed that way? All civilized societies have rules to live by, Constitutions or not.
    skysoldier29 likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array Stevew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,512
    A criminal forfiets their rights when they infringe on others rights.
    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws. Plato

  6. #6
    Member Array Nicegy525's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    50
    I have been doing some research of late pertaining to restoration of rights to former convicted felons. The federal program is called "relief from disability" It is delegated from the attorney general to the ATF. In 1992 Congress introduced language barring the ATF from using any of its annual funding to process relief applications, effectively defunding the program. Congress must, and has continually, defund the program every year.

    The only other options are to petition the state (for state offenses) for a restoration of civil rights

    In my case, (federal offense) my only options are to apply for executive clemency (presidential pardon) or try to take my case to a federal court for judicial review. Judicial cases have gone both ways, with some district courts ruling to restore firearm rights, and other courts to rule against the individual, citing an unanswered application to the ATF does not constitute a denial and therefore is inelligible for judicial review.

    It seems I am an anomaly. I am one of very few who make it back to society and make a full recovery. However, thanks to those lawmakers who want to make generalized opinons and lump individuals into one whole group, I get to fall between the cracks of being genuinely deserving of a restoration of rights, but unable to receive such.

    Perhaps, my best chance at a presidential pardon would be to wait until the end of our president's term, (the lame duck phase), where typically presidents are more disposed to granting such requests...

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

mentally ill and gun safety

Click on a term to search for related topics.