• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Legal question about guns (NO RANTING PLEASE)

M

myputer

Golden Member
Alaska court finds mental illness not cause for revoking concealed handgun permit


ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) ? Judge Natalie Finn took away Timothy Wagner's gun permit after he claimed someone had implanted a computer chip in his head and injected him with deadly chemicals.

A state appeals court, though, ruled that Finn erred, saying Alaska's concealed-carry law does not allow general concerns about mental illness to play a role in deciding whether someone should have a gun.



Link


Here is another example why people rant and rave about gun control laws. Now I would think EVERYONE would agree there is something wrong with this. And please don't turn this into a ranting and raving thread about how no one should have guns, or how everyone is trying to take away your rights of owning a gun.

I was just curious to see if there is at least one issue about guns that everyone can agree on😉
 
That is wrong...no one with diagnosed mental illness should be allowed to own a gun much less legally carry it concealed.
 
Guns are not illegal in Sweden. However to get a license to carry a concealed weapon you have to work in security or military or something. Getting a license to carry a handgun as a private person would be extremely difficult. Rifles on the other hand are readily available if you have completed a hunting exam. Assault weapons are impossible to get hold of legally.

A couple of years ago there was a documentary on Swedish television (TV4) about how a lot of mentally ill people had weapon licenses that couldn't be revoked because the government had no right to look at medical files for weapons owners if they had no reason to do so other than just checking people up randomly. The only way was if a doctor reported to the authorities that a mental ill person had a weapon license, which not many did. So you shouldn't feel to safe in Sweden either. On the other hand most gun killings are done with illegal weapons anyway (in Sweden, that is).
 


<< Legal question about guns >>



You didn't ask a legal question. You asked a moral question. The legality has been decided by Alaska's state appeals court. What you are asking is if this decision is right or wrong. That's a moral question, not a legal one. You're asking to see if people have a common code of right and wrong. That's really easy. No.
 


<< A state appeals court, though, ruled that Finn erred, saying Alaska's concealed-carry law does not allow general concerns about mental illness to play a role in deciding whether someone should have a gun. >>



The court is correct. Someone can have a mental illness, and still not represent a danger to themselves or others, which would represent a valid reason for limiting their rights. You can be cuckoo like cocoa puffs, and still not be dangerous in any way. The reason of a mental illness rendering one a threat to self or others, along with a criminal/violent background represents the only is the only justifiable reason for revoking a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights, IMHO. Otherwise, with the concealing rationale of a person being "mentally ill" and protecting the citizen from himself, what's to keep the state from taking away ALL the constitutional rights of a person claimed to be mentally ill, and not just the right to keep and bear arms?

If qualified medical professionals judge him to be a danger to himself or others, then by all means, his 2nd Amendment rights are suitable to be curtailed. But in that case, he should likely be receiving inpatient therapy in an institution anyway, in which case the issue of him carrying a concealed weapon becomes pretty much moot.

 
You are comfortable with the thought of someone having a gun that believes there is a computer chip planted in his brain and who also thinks someone has injected him with chemicals? What if he decided I injected him ? I certainly wouldn't want him to have a gun:Q
 
So would you wan't him to have a car? power tools? a knife? If he is not deemed dangerous by medical doctors or has made threats and stuff like that I see no reason why the authorities should infringe on his rights.
 


<< Wagner had no prior convictions, according to court documents. After his arrest, police took him to a state mental hospital. Wagner testified that he was released after being interviewed. >>


while i agree that it appears that Alaska has some rather narrow guidelines surrounding mental illness; it also appears that this fellow was never diagnosed for mental illness. there should be some written history or diagnosis or documents regarding previous commitment to a mental institution before you can just say "well, he's crazy so let's take his gun away".
 
They shouldnt drive a motor vehicle either...but they can and do. Under medication thats loaded with side effects of course. :|
 


<< You are comfortable with the thought of someone having a gun that believes there is a computer chip planted in his brain and who also thinks someone has injected him with chemicals? What if he decided I injected him ? I certainly wouldn't want him to have a gun >>



Are you comfortable with the idea that by your logic, i could claim you to be mentally ill and remove your rights, how about your right to drive? Or free speech? Maybe we ought to force you to wear a mask like Hannibal Lechter so you don't bite someone to death.

Your general unease about someone possessing a gun is not reason to revoke their right to have one.
 


<<

<< A state appeals court, though, ruled that Finn erred, saying Alaska's concealed-carry law does not allow general concerns about mental illness to play a role in deciding whether someone should have a gun. >>



The court is correct. Someone can have a mental illness, and still not represent a danger to themselves or others, which would represent a valid reason for limiting their rights. You can be cuckoo like cocoa puffs, and still not be dangerous in any way. The reason of a mental illness rendering one a threat to self or others, along with a criminal/violent background represents the only is the only justifiable reason for revoking a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights, IMHO. Otherwise, with the concealing rationale of a person being "mentally ill" and protecting the citizen from himself, what's to keep the state from taking away ALL the constitutional rights of a person claimed to be mentally ill, and not just the right to keep and bear arms?

If qualified medical professionals judge him to be a danger to himself or others, then by all means, his 2nd Amendment rights are suitable to be curtailed. But in that case, he should likely be receiving inpatient therapy in an institution anyway, in which case the issue of him carrying a concealed weapon becomes pretty much moot. >>





youre gonna catch hell for this, but you made a very very good point. I agree with you 100%.
 
I agree with Kgraeme, you did not ask a legal question. You are asking a moral one because the Law has already decided the answer.

If the State has decided that you must be clinically diagnosed as a threat to others and not simply sound crazy...that is fine by me. They are people too.
 
I have to agree with Glenn1. That is what the App. court was trying to convey. The guy is a loon, but under current mental eval's--harmless. Sorry, that is the correct "LEGAL" ruling.
Emotionally, well, I can understand the hesitation.......
 
glenn 1 is right,

"We wanted to remove the potential for arbitrary and capricious decision making on the part of the issuing agency," said Brian Judy, Alaska liaison for the National Rifle Association.

Wagner had no prior convictions, according to court documents. After his arrest, police took him to a state mental hospital. Wagner testified that he was released after being interviewed. (No-one from the state mental hospital showed up? Having worked @ a psych facility in the past, I can promise you a state employee sort of enjoys a day in court, it usually includes a free lunch).

The point where the psychiatric professional says "yea" or "nay" about being a danger to self or others is what the law cares about, he was deemed not to be a danger to self or others & released.

The arbitrary & capricious part is where the the mental health professional is second guessed by laypeople. Maybe the law should read "If someone is ever suspected by anyone to have or have had any mental illness."
 
I love the 2nd Ammendment. It allows people to draw awesome similarities. Like: "Oh if he loses his right to bear arms, what next?! FREEDOM OF SPEECH?!?". Like those are even similar. No one should ever lose their right to freedom of speech, but the right to bear a weapon only created for the soul purpose of killing is quite different. Its not like a gun is a fvckin utencil. You don't eat your pork with a gun, you don't repair your car with a gun, and you won't lose any weight by carrying a gun around 24/7 (believe it or not!). The only reason this man has a gun is to feel safer and defend himself (most likely), now the question is, does he even know what he is defending himself against?

Personally, any dude that thinks he has a computer chip in his brain and has been injected with deadly chemicals shouldn't even be allowed to own a fvcking spork, let alone a gun. They should round the edges off his furniture and dull all his knives. Give the dude a rubber padded cell and a little foam duck to play with. You people won't be happy until the guy shoots 50 people that he thought were giant talking ants so that you could claim he had the freedom to own a gun and those 50 people had the freedom to die. <-- okay, don't take this too seriously, venting.

At the very least he needs 1 of the following:
A: His gun right suspended and mental help
B: A chip removed from his brain and a major detox

You tell me which but don't tell me neither. My psych teacher taught me that anyone who honestly believes something that is false, is insane to a degree. Now if he honestly believes that he has the chip/etc and they prove that he doesn't but he continues to believe otherwise, then isn't he insane? Why did he get off after an interview? I guess the thing that would change my opinion is what they found out in the interview that deemed him sane.

And for the people that like to bring up baseball bats and cars etc. Theres something that always gets overlooked. First, baseball bats, crowbars, knives, etc never accidently go off. You've never heard of an incident where a kid found a baseball bat in his dads closet and the baseball bat accidently beat him to death. No, you have to have intent to kill. Guns accidently go off, guns kill without a second thought. I hope you understand the difference. Now for the car argument, yes cars cause lots of accidents but cars, unlike guns, are a necessity to everyday living. You can argue that everyone can walk 4 miles to a bus stop or call a taxi every single day, but the fact is that isn't very practical, cars are a requirement in this day and age. Plus you cannot conceal a car. So there, stop grouping those freaking items together because they arnt the same. (Side rant based on the fact that everytime people mention suspending guns, someone else has to mention suspending all sharp objects, cars, ANYTHING).

<- hates guns in all their grand uselessness.

*edited to explain myself better
 


<< Its not like a gun is a fvckin utencil. >>


well, a gun is a utensil; it is a tool. sometimes it is an object for collectors such as stamp collectors. whether that tool is used for hunting or self-defense, it is still a tool. whether that object is a stamp or a gun, it is still just something to be collected for those with that interest. that's what anti-gun people just don't seem to realize, that folks who own guns generally tend to see them as tools or collector's items; objects that fulfill a specific need whether it is hunting, self-defense or just collecting. i'm not a carpenter but that doesn't mean i can't see the value of a hammer in the hands of someone that is a carpenter or can't understand the interest someone might have in collecting old hammers.
 
Yea well, if you collected ears I wouldn't trust you either. I mean just because you collect something doesn't mean it is comparable with a stamp. What if I collected live grenades and land mines, would you want to walk in my yard?

I too can appreciate a hammer in anyones hands, because it is a useful tool that everyone should have in the house. Chances are you will need to use a hammer at one point in your life or another, possibly many times a year. I used a hammer last week to rip some nails out, good deal. I guess if I had a gun I could have tried shooting them out of the wall, but perhaps I didn't want the bullets to ricochet and kill my neighbor's children. Also, if my son (I don't have a son, but say I did) finds my hammer, he may mash his thumb, but the chances of killing himself are pretty damn slim.

Nevertheless, your collector scenario is completely different. If my neighbor owned 50 pistols and was a collector, I would probably be impressed. Especially if he didn't own the ammo to any of the guns. I don't know any gun collectors, but I'm assuming they probably wouldn't keep their collection loaded and concealed. They would probably have the guns stripped of their ammo and in an encasement or what not. But if my neighbor was always talking about the lethal chemicals in his body and the computer chip in his head and walked around with a concealed weapon, I don't think I'd feel very safe at all.
 


<< But if my neighbor was always talking about the lethal chemicals in his body and the computer chip in his head and walked around with a concealed weapon, I don't think I'd feel very safe at all. >>



Thankfully, we have a Constitution to protect the rest of us from people like you, who think it's okay to strip rights away from others as a crutch to assist you in dealing with your insecurities and fears. That Constitution is pretty neat, you ought to try reading it sometime.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top