|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
LA: Should the mentally ill be barred from owning guns?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
House Republicans overturned an Obama-era rule requiring the Social Security Administration to report anyone unable to manage their own finances to the FBI's background check database. It was deemed that the ability to manage one's own finances was a suitable proxy to identify the severely mentally ill. Supporters of the rule say it helped to plug holes in the background check system. Critics say the rule infringed on a person's constitutional rights without due process. What do you think? |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(2/4/2017)
|
| "Should the mentally ill be barred from owning guns?" Yes and they are under present background checks. If I'm to be declared mentally ill and denied rights, the govt dang sure better have a basis for doing so and a repeal procedure in place. Taking lists of names and equating it to a more severe definition doesn't cut it. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
