This is a discussion on Florida Bill Would Require CCW Applicants Undergo Mental Evaluation within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I guess I don’t how imposing a requirement to be mentally sound is a “punishment”. You lost me there. I expect an evaluation would necessitate ...
I guess I don’t how imposing a requirement to be mentally sound is a “punishment”. You lost me there.
I expect an evaluation would necessitate an expense for those who want to carry with a CCW permit. That could be construed as a "punishment", I suppose.
My complaint with the proposal would be that such a scheme is likely to impose a regressive fee on those who might not be able to afford an evaluation. That would be inherently undemocratic and inegalitarian. But "punishment" sounds like hyperbole to me.
Fees are a part of life, often a part of getting a CCW in the first place. Most firearms and ammunition isn’t free. So, there are inherent expenses in deciding to carry.
I don’t feel "punished" for having to pay to get for an annual car registration or driver's license renewal—not that I like the expense. Are these fees unreasonable for drivers to bear?
In order to get a CDL (Commercial Driver's License), a driver must get a medical examination. I don’t see the requirement or it’s associated fess as being a punishment.
Are you in favor of waiving medical requirements for commercial drivers to spare them feeling "punished"?
Similarly, in the USA, an aircraft pilot must have a recurring medical examination to be licensed and fly. This doesn’t seem unduly burdensome to me and does seem prudent.
Would you be OK flying on a commercial flight where the pilot did not have to be medically certified? Where he or she could be a demented alcoholic with a history of schizophrenia?
My point being that there is precedent for screening people’s health (to include mental health) prior to their undertaking potentially dangerous activities. Some of these precedents seem reasonable to me, and do not seem to constitute an unreasonable burden or infringement.
My biggest gripe would be the expense to the individual and it's regressive nature.
Currently, carrying firearms is a right, whereas driving or flying is a privilege. Limiting an individual’s rights through financial burdens does not sit well with me. However, the principle does not offend me or seem like a “punishment.” Actually seems like a good idea.
Implementation of said idea is another matter.
U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars
I guess I don't feels as threatened by the idea of an exam as that. (Maybe I should!)
My experience with mental health professionals is that they are professional and not whimsical. (Granted my experience is limited.) Moreover, I think the burden of proof would be on a mental health practitioner to demonstrate the presence of a mental illness that would preclude issuing a CCW. It would tough to declare someone 'mentally ill' to the point where they could not have a CCW. That is a relatively high bar to clear. And any whimsy could be addressed through the courts.
I see two things happening here:
1. People seeking a CCW would figure out which professionals did n to have an anti-CCW bias, and
2. Someone would be wrongfully denied a CCW based on a biased exam. That would result in a lawsuit, perhaps a civil suit, and a malpractice suit. Examiners would get into shape quite quickly.
I think there are a couple of strategies in protecting our 2A rights (not mutually exclusive): one is to protest ANY perceived restriction or infringement, another would be to police ourselves to ensure that we as gun owners do not get the negative attention and consequences of a very few miscreants.
The first strategy hasn't really worked all that well. True, we've had some successes in the courts in recent years, but my sense is that we are still vulnerable to the consequences of another El Paso, another Las Vegas.
For that reason, I think a little of the second strategy is worth considering. It's my belief that to better protect our rights we will need to find ways to prevent additional incidents an dmake the general public less concerned about gun-ownership and concealed carry.
The data about public perception that I've seen is against us. That's concerning to me. And I worry that telling dissenters to "Stuff it" because the 2A guarantees my right to carry is not going to be sufficient in the future. Am I alone in having this concern?
I think the flexible branch is the one that doesn't get snapped in the storm.
Thinking that a new restriction on the right to bear arms makes some kind of sense means that new restriction is already halfway to becoming reality inside your own head.
Never ever entertain any idea or plan that adds another hoop to jump through in order to be allowed to exercise your right. Once the idea is in your head as somehow being reasonable then the only thing left is to find ways to validate it as acceptable. And then you will convince yourself to either not oppose it or downright vote for it.
Doesn't matter how those hoops are painted to look pretty they are still just another infringement.
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts