You dont think if a doctor evaluation deemed you unfit that the courts wouldn't be involved? I'm not sure why you think that.
Earlier in the thread another poster and I had a couple replies to each other, where's it's obvious that we k ow this is new angle to work the problem from, and details are to be worked out.
We already have the ability via state laws that allow us to order emergency or involuntary commitment with reasonable cause. It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals if the criteria as provided for in the law is met. There must be evidence that the person possibly is a danger to themselves or others. If found mentally ill enough to possibly warrant losing their 2A rights they go before a judge and are affording due process in a court of law. We don't need any new laws for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment_internationally#United_States
"State law governs involuntary commitment, and procedures vary from state to state. In some
jurisdictions, laws regarding the commitment of
juveniles may vary, with what is the
de facto involuntary commitment of a juvenile perhaps
de jure defined as "voluntary" if his parents agree, though he may still have a right to protest and attempt to get released. However, there is a body of case law governing the civil commitment of individuals under the
Fourteenth Amendment through
Supreme Court rulings beginning in 1975 with the ruling that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's
civil rightsin
O'Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must exhibit behavior that poses a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only, and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the U.S.
[17] In the U.S. the specifics of the relevant statutes vary from state to state.
[18]
In 1979,
Addington v. Texas set the bar for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the
burden of proof required to commit persons from the usual civil burden of proof of "
preponderance of the evidence" to the higher standard of "
clear and convincing evidence".
[19]"
What I object to, and you should to, is ordering folks to undergo a psychiatric exam with no probable cause before they can exercise their 2A rights. If we allow that it would be almost immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional. Due process is one of our fundamental rights in the country, as is being innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention our privacy rights that it would violate. Nobody would stand for having that burden placed on folks exercising any other Constitutional rights, but for the 2A is okay?
We can't toss the baby out with the bath water to make ourselves feel safer. And if you understand all of this, then what are you actually proposing?