“What difference does it make?”
—
Well, there is a difference in being judged insane by a court action and being judged insane by the scribble of an admitting nurse. California has used the latter and it is clearly unconstitutional.
Now, you really do not want an insane person to have a gun do you? But it is important that a jury of our peers are involved in making that determination, not a bureaucrap.
I would far rather have an insane person have access to firearms than have the government determining who can have one. I'd rather take my chances with the occasional wack job than surrender my rights to the government. If you have to ask the government's permission to do something then it is NOT a right. It's a privilege. The possibility of an inppropriate person being armed is the price of freedom, a freedom that a nation of bedwetters threw away with the passage of the so-called "Brady bill." You don't see criminals being discommoded by gun laws do you?
The question is irrelevant because if an insane person (or a felon, or an illegal alien or any other barred class) really wants a gun, and they have the cash, they can and will quickly and easily get one on the street. Simple law of supply and demand, if there is a demand, there WILL be a supplier (see illegal drugs).
Doctors and courts are a poor determiner of mental stability.
It’s an eye opening experience to see the inconsistent results of people Baker Acted in Florida. Both extremes of error.
Good intentions aside, the legal process of determining the quality of a person’s mental health can be a political process with all sorts of problems. At the very best, it is a maze of bureaucratic errors and incompetency. Scary.
When I was young and naive I might have believed that the state could determine if a person was mentally competent to do many things, including owning weapons BEFORE they actually committed some offense. I do not think that now. Now, particularly with those running this country, I know that it would not be much different than in places like the USSR. Current and potential political dissidents and non PC individuals (TEA Party??) would be tagged as mentally ill and firearms confiscated. Eventually they will start incarcerating those same people, saying their potential “danger” to the state is too great for them to be left free.
Don’t doubt me on this.
If preventing them also means denying a sane person his rights, then yes, I can deal with a crazy person with a gun.
I'd rather take my chances with an individual misusing freedom than a giant bureaucracy misusing power.
Yes. I do. There are varying levels of crazy.
As for those acting up in public, that’s why I AM ARMED!
I’ll take of them my damn self.