Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
Japan has a full on bans handguns, which has been ruled unconstitutional in the US. It is also likely their system wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it places an undo burden on citizens.
I didn't say "fully implement all of Japan's gun laws", so don't put argument in my mouth that I didn't make. What I said was, that Japan's legal requirement that their citizens bear the burden of proof for establishing their mental state prior to having any gun, is viable here. That our laws would necessarily include handguns in the scope of allowable guns, is not in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
Please remember we're talking about a right not a privilege.
"A well regulated militia".
I wouldn't keep repeating that, if it didn't bear repeating. The right is not a "regulatory free" right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
Do you understand that nearly 1 in 5 Americans suffer from some form of mental illness in any given year?
Hmmm...lemme see....my wife is a licensed and practicing MFT and Associate Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy at an R1 university. I would have no idea of the scope of U.S populace that has some form of mental illness in any given year, because mental health is never a discussion in our household or among our cohort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
Your proposal is to ban anyone and everyone who has ever had mental health therapy from owning a gun?
No, that's not what I said. Again, you can stop putting words and arguments in my mouth. "Has ever had mental health therapy" =! "is mentally ill".
But frankly, if you have BPD, or schizophrenia, or are severely bipolar, or have one of a certain class of severe mental illnesses, then yes, you should not ever be allowed to own a gun. That number is nowhere near 1 in 5 Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
Why the **** would anyone who wishes to own guns go to a psychologist? Do you really think we would be better off if gun owners or would be owners didn't seek any form of therapy when they needed it? We do have a procedure in place to remove a persons right to own a weapon if they have mental issues. There are judges all over the country who rule whether a person has diminished capacity due to mental illness. Due process is generally the way we remove peoples constitutional rights.
It's not lack of due process to have to, for example, pass tests to obtain a driver's license. It is not lack of due process to have to undergo a psych evaluation in order to hold certain types of law enforcement jobs.
It is also not "lack of due process" to require an applicant for something, to have the burden of proof of establishing their fitness for that thing.
It would not be lack of due process to require a basic mental health examination in order to allow purchase and possession of an inherently lethal weapon. You can argue that it wouldn't be the right thing to do, but you can't argue it would lack due process. Due process doesn't mean "legal free for all, no legal requirements in order to do something".
Due process is:
Quote:
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
Simply saying assault weapon is stupid. It is a meaningless term. Once again, my AR-15 is an assault weapon as it sits, if I take off the barrel shroud it is no longer an assault weapon. If you went further and attempted to ban an entire class of rifles (not merely the cosmetics) you'd face a constitutional challenge. Personally I welcome such a challenge, gun nuts have already won three major victories in the past few years, I wouldn't mind a few more.
So your position is that any type of firearm, in and of itself, is a legal type of firearm to be owned by any individual, am I understanding that correctly?
.50 cal machine guns? Gatling guns? No? I mean, you could in fact kill a dear with either of those, as well. So you'd argue they have a legitimate hunting purpose?
If not, what is your cutoff?