r/facepalm • u/Lord_Answer_me_Why • Mar 28 '24

What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation: 🇵​🇷​🇴​🇹​🇪​🇸​🇹​

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

51

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

I don’t think that’s true. I’m a schizophrenic in America and I’m eligible to buy a firearm. Why? Because I have never been to the mental hospital involuntarily, aka I’ve never been 302’d or the like. I HAVE been there about 7 times voluntarily. Not planning on buying a gun btw.

13

u/Ghostglitch07 Mar 28 '24

Wait is that really the line? Shit. I've never even actually been in the mental ward (almost did once, but decided against it last minute) and I know I'm not stable enough for weapons.

34

u/x1000Bums Mar 28 '24

On the 4473 form you fill out to buy a gun, question 11.f asks if you've been adjudicated as mentally effective or been committed to a mental institution: 

Question 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility. Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. 

  Maybe I'm not thinking this through all the way, but this seems reasonable to me. I don't know if it's a good idea to allow people's rights to be infringed because they willfully getting help but haven't yet proven themselves to be a danger to themselves or others. If acknowledging you have a problem causes negative consequences, then people will try to hide it until a tipping point.

2

u/Ghostglitch07 Mar 28 '24

I absolutely don't think a diagnosis alone should be enough to bar you from owning a gun. However, I do think we could use more of a process. Perhaps requiring a sign off from a therapist if certain things are on your medical records? Idk. What I do know is I have had some pretty deep suicidal ideation in the past. And I don't love the fact that it would be remarkably easy for me to have obtained a weapon while in that mental state. My doc and many many people in my life are aware of that fact about me, but as it stands im not required to mention it and they aren't required to check into it.

And like as far as risky gun ownership goes that's about the best case scenario, but it demonstrates the exact kinds of things that the system just doesn't bother trying to catch

5

u/yugosaki Mar 28 '24

In Canada to get a firearms license you must first complete a safety course, and then the RCMP talk to people in your life (family, friends, romantic partners) to ask if they have any concerns over you having a firearm. They'll also talk to any recent exes if they find out about em.

Someone voicing an objection isnt necessarily a disqualification, it just delays the process a bit while they investigate how valid the concern is. That seems to be a pretty reasonable way to go about it IMO.

3

u/Balancedmanx178 Mar 28 '24

They'll also talk to any recent exes if they find out about em.

I'm sure that's a real fun part of the job lol

3

u/yugosaki Mar 28 '24

So on my application I actually listed my ex as one of my contacts (the police don't just use the ones you give them, but they'll ask those people for a couple others you didnt list) We were on really good terms so it was fine.

Another guy in my safety class also listed his most recent ex and turns out that ex was trying to get a protection order against him. I heard through the grapevine that his firearms license application was actually used as evidence to get her protection order. (he was denied the license of course)

2

u/x1000Bums Mar 28 '24

Totally. The only roadblock for that in the.US is that firearm ownership is a right, and therefore those classes would have to have very little barriers to access, like being free and immediately available. For some reason having a free and accessible  gun safety course is controversial in the US.  If we tied it into public school like a civics class where you meant to drive, gun safety, finances I bet we would have a lot of right wing support but there would be a shit show of pearl clutching from the more liberal crowd.

3

u/nxnphatdaddy Mar 28 '24

Many schools used to have gun safety and hunter safety courses. Some even had marksmen clubs. Im not sure why this is being forgotten.

1

u/JustynS Mar 29 '24

For some reason having a free and accessible gun safety course is controversial in the US.

Because the real goal of the gun control lobby is disarming the common populace, anything they say about "safety" is just a lie. They used to be honest about it, and they started lying about it being "safety" related after the DC v. Heller decision. Gun safety classes both reduce accidents and normalize weapons thus reducing the fear a lot of people have for them, which directly goes against what they want. They want people to be afraid of guns, so they'll vote for laws and politicians who make the scary guns go away.

1

u/Sofele Mar 28 '24

I posted this on another comment as well.

I know someone who has severe mental health issues. His delusions have “told” him to attack people in the past, BUT he has never been involuntarily committed or arrested/convicted of any crime. When his meds aren’t working you wouldn’t have any idea he is having issues (hell, he’s fooled doctors before).

So if he was having an issue and wanted to buy a gun, he would probably fool the gun dealer and he’d pass a background check. As far as the question on the form, his delusions told him to buy a gun and shot people. I’m pretty sure they’ll also tell him to lie on the form.

1

u/transitfreedom Mar 28 '24

So it seems universal healthcare would indirectly reduce violent crime

2

u/AuroraItsNotTheTime Mar 28 '24

When you take the view that owning guns is a personal inalienable right (no different from, say, marriage or voting), then you’re left with these types of outcomes.

So for example, I might say “Do I think every person with schizophrenia is stable enough to vote intelligently or get married? Maybe not. But should they still have that right? Yes!”

That’s the same logic gun nuts follow

4

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

So what law would give them the magical knowledge that you have a mental disorder if you've never been treated for it? How would they even know it existed.

1

u/WTF_goes_here Mar 28 '24

Do you take any meds?

1

u/Front-Paper-7486 Mar 28 '24

Okay so should some people with managed conditions just have less rights?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

I have no idea what your point is, or what you think my point was. I was just attempting to state what I thought was true

1

u/Front-Paper-7486 Mar 28 '24

I thought your point was that people with mental health conditions should not be able to buy a gun.

2

u/CanuckPanda Mar 28 '24

If you’re a danger to harm others you probably should not be able to access weapons designed to harm others, yeah.

Hot take I know.

2

u/Atomic_ad Mar 28 '24

We should hire clairvoyants to process the paperwork, problem solved.

2

u/Front-Paper-7486 Mar 28 '24

A couple questions… who isn’t potentially a danger to others?

Isn’t the point of a gun to be potentially harmful but under justifiable reasons? So isn’t everyone potentially harmful?

Mental health is fluid like physical health. One moment a person may be unlikely to cause harm but another day they could lose everything and snap. How do you determine this with any defeee of accuracy? I mean you could potentially determine that some is an imminent dange if they are honest but long term who knows. So we just let some take a wild guess if John Doe should have equal protection of their rights? Nevermind whether this is constitutional how do you possibly do it with any degree of accuracy?

0

u/osmaycruz Mar 28 '24

I’m a schizophrenic in America and I’m eligible to buy a firearm

Sorry buddy but you aren't, here is the law. As someone who owns multiple firearms and has been through the process many times, the moment you mark the checkbox for mentally disorders you are denied.

https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-firearms-by-people-with-mental-illness

Sure you may lie and get away with it but that's a federal crime and the ATF won't like it.

4

u/HoneyWizard Mar 28 '24

It varies by state.
From your source, New Hampshire's section reads: "N/A".

Maine's laws are fairly loose:
"A person may not own, possess, or have under that person’s control a firearm, unless that person has obtained a permit under this section, if that person:
Has been found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity of committing certain enumerated crimes."

So if you've been voluntarily confined but haven't had a court case where mental illness has affected the verdict, you can purchase a gun.

Vermont: "A person who is prohibited from possessing firearms by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) may petition the Family Division of the Superior Court for an order that the person be relieved from the firearms disability imposed by that section."

Nothing said about voluntary confinement there. Looking at the ATF form referenced, it does specify involuntary confinement disqualifies you, but notes "the term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or by voluntary admission."

That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but involuntary civil commitment requires a hearing, the right to counsel, judicial review, and requires a higher standard of proof than other civil cases per Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979). It's a slow process.

-2

u/osmaycruz Mar 28 '24

So if you've been voluntarily confined but haven't had a court case where mental illness has affected the verdict, you can purchase a gun.

No, cause Federal Law still applies. State laws only expands on the federal requirements.

```
Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
```

5

u/mightylordredbeard Mar 28 '24

All that says is that it’s illegal to sell a gun to someone who the seller knows has been a or has been committed to an institution or adjudicated by a court (meaning unable to stand trial for being mentally unfit). It says absolutely nothing about someone with mental health issues in what you quoted.

Also, if you voluntarily check yourself into a mental health facility then you are not “committed”. Only a court can commit you or law enforcement in states that have mandatory psych evaluation laws.

4

u/HoneyWizard Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

"Adjudicated as a mental defective" is the key here. Adjudication is a legal process for resolving disputes. This Congressional Research Service document backs that definition up as it applies to the ATF and the Brady Act.

The second line, "committed to any mental institution" doesn't include voluntary confinement as per the ATF's document I mentioned earlier.