Posted on 12/19/2014 7:51:53 AM PST by Rusty0604
On December 18, a three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a ban on gun purchases for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of a Michigan man who was denied a gun purchase because of a mental institution commitment in 1986.
According to The Wall Street Journal, 73-year-old Clifford Charles Taylor “recently attempted to buy a gun but was denied on the grounds that he had been committed by a court to a mental institution in 1986 after emotional problems associated with a divorce.”
Judge Danny Boggs wrote the majority opinion for the panel: “The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
1986 was a long time ago.
If modern psychiatry can’t get him past his issues over a divorce from that far back they may as well close-up shop.
I tell them they are violating my privacy when they ask government spy questions. I have no problem lying to them in these situations either.
Same thing here in Maine. Not only my primary but hospitals and specialists as well. Always answer in the negative with a shoulder shrug. No details.
Hmmm. According to eric the red, you can’t be dis-criminated against now because you wear fringe. Who knew THAT was going on?
This is the result of a program the JUSTUS Dept started back around 2010. They have been mining the old databases of state and local law enforcement looking for any possible reason to deny a purchase.
As can be expected, many old hand written and typed records have errors and omissions and are not complete. This can easily occur during transfer of information from paper documents and microfiche to computer databases. Any areas with even the slightest doubt, an easily recognizable error or incongruence with verbiage or interpretation of a local, state or Federal law will trigger the reason to deny.
Even if you have passed background checks and purchased firearms lawfully for decades you will now find yourself being denied. JUSTUS will not research court records or follow-up with anyone, so the burden falls on you to clear your name. Your rights are denied without due process and you are considered a prohibited person.
The appeal process is very slow and intimidating and appears to be so by design. Since you are considered a prohibited person it also carries with it the potential, even though unlikely, that you will be subject to a friendly visit by the ATF. Should this happen, they can destroy any firearm and ammo they confiscate within 90 days. Unfortunately, even if the process goes smoothly it can easily take 12 to 15 months to clear your name. If you have to hire an attorney it can $2000 to $3000 or more, but many people would not know how to handle this on your own.
What the definition of a certified lunatic? And where is that clause in the 2nd Amendment?
Much of psychology is highly subjective and it’s results questionable in nature......not sure why people have such confidence it will not be used against them.
and just because someone has been treated for a bout of depression in the past does not mean he is unstable... i am surprised at this ruling, but pleasantly so...
There should be ZERO gun laws. Yes Zero.
Anyone who commits a crime with a gun should be locked up for a long time or executed. If you are walking the streets and yet cannot be trusted to own a gun, they WHY are you walking the streets?
when i boys were younger, i would take them to the pediatrician for check-ups and the paperwork would include the question regarding firearms in the house... i would always answer, “i do not want anyone to know if i do not have firearms in my home, nor do i want anyone to know if i do have firearms in my home.”
My firearms own me. At least that's what they've been telling me.
Doesn't mean we are going to shoot up a school or a movie theater.
That was a great response!
That is essentially the present condition nationwide.
The actually mentally impaired are the bureaucrats, who don't have to prove anything, ever.
Just issue a regulation and Voila" it's the law, constitutional or not.
That already happens every day.
In the same chapter that says that any illiterate bastard of a certain age and a pulse can be elected to Congress and the Senate...
A prisoner in jail has no right to a gun for instance.
The question is, what limits are constitutional, no whether their should be any.
Agreed. Apparently the mental health professionals felt he wasn't a danger to the public because they let him out on the streets again. I can see not letting someone buy WHILE they're under an adjudication of mental illness, but not far into the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.