RicodJour wrote:

I told her that in those cases where the patient is suffering from an
obviously temporary incapacity, such as depression over losing a
job, she might consider telling him that if he declines to switch
the admission from 'court ordered' to 'voluntary' he risks forever
being unable to own a gun.

If, however, he's a schizophrenic who won't stay on his meds, mum's
the word.

Good point. Without a gun their life wouldn't be worth living, eh?
This is _just_ the advice mentally disturbed people need to hear -
play the system so they can still get a gun. What a paragon you are.
Let me ask you a question, Sparky - I know you believe it's everyone's
right to own a gun, but do you also believe everyone should own a gun?


Note I said "obviously temporary incapacity" not raving loon. I do believe
people should be warned of the consequences of their actions so they can
make an informed choice. There are MANY mental disorders that don't bother
anybody but the afflicted. The law, however, paints with such a broad brush
that ANY person committed for observation or treatment may lose their
rights.

Folks with catatonic schizophrenia, sleep or eating disorders,
obsessive-compulsive disorder, gender identity disorder, hypochondria,
agoraphobia, homosexual tendencies, or, in fact, MOST mental problems, may
fit the definition of "mental disease or defect," yet not be a threat to
anyone, including themselves.

I have yet to see anyone in a catatonic state fire a gun.

But the way the laws are written, if involuntarily committed, they're
screwed.

The same screwing holds true for "boiler plate" orders of separation in most
divorce cases. The language on such orders almost always includes
prohibitions of gun ownership. The defendant needs to contest such
boiler-plate, but the problem is, he seldom knows about it!

Another egregious example is "domestic violence." Over the years, many
people have pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence as a plea-bargin
deal to avoid a trial on shotgunning the goddamn lawnmower because it
wouldn't start or for biting the heads off squirrels stealing the bird seed!
Then came the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibited ANYBODY with ANY
conviction for domestic violence at ANY time from owning a gun. Hundreds of
police officers lost their jobs (and the law did nothing to protect the
squirrels).

As to your final question do I believe that everybody should own a gun? No,
I do not.

Such would require a law mandating same. I'd be opposed to that as much as a
law mandating that no one should own a gun.

I do hold that everybody has a "right" to own a gun, but of course all
"rights" have limits.

I hope the above answers your questions.

Thanks for providing a "teaching moment."