US COURT: MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT DOESN’T END RIGHTS OF GUN OWNERS
- Thread starter Dr. Evil
- Start date
Of course it shouldn't. No more than all the other Rights!!!
7.62x51FMJ
9mm
FUAC !!!!!!!
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Oh...right....the article refers to the United States. We, however, live in New York. I'd like to visit the U.S. someday.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
5th Ammendment just ever so clear like the 2nd.
5th Ammendment just ever so clear like the 2nd.
US District Court
Yes, in PA but the ruling is solid and can be used elsewhere. Is important to note that it calls out "due process" which seems to be a very important part of this policy/aministrative function that can remove a person's "Right" without having their ability to to be heard by the courts.
As always, I'll say it again, "Strict Scrutiny" must be applied to the 2nd, as it is to all... If it were, this would not be possible (loss of Rights without a conviction or process by courts). Even with a conviction, the SCOTUS has noted (Thomas I believe) that once released from prison a person's Right(s) should be absolute, that Gov't be restrained in removing a person's "Rights".
So it will go on & on, and on... PA one way, CA/NY other ways, there's the left, the right, the middle... Everyone fucking around with citizens so called "Rights" when the intended purpose of the Constitution was exactly the opposite, that Gov't "NOT" become what it is today...
Yes, in PA but the ruling is solid and can be used elsewhere. Is important to note that it calls out "due process" which seems to be a very important part of this policy/aministrative function that can remove a person's "Right" without having their ability to to be heard by the courts.
As always, I'll say it again, "Strict Scrutiny" must be applied to the 2nd, as it is to all... If it were, this would not be possible (loss of Rights without a conviction or process by courts). Even with a conviction, the SCOTUS has noted (Thomas I believe) that once released from prison a person's Right(s) should be absolute, that Gov't be restrained in removing a person's "Rights".
So it will go on & on, and on... PA one way, CA/NY other ways, there's the left, the right, the middle... Everyone fucking around with citizens so called "Rights" when the intended purpose of the Constitution was exactly the opposite, that Gov't "NOT" become what it is today...
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You need a sleeping pill in this state, your doctor rats you out to the cumo state police and poof, all your gun problems are over, you have none. FUNY, isn't it.
Robin
Robin
timboy
.44 mag
Wait until Dandy Andy's storm Troopers get ahold of all of our pistol permit info and start data mining against medical health record,it's going to be a shit show of epic proportions,there are going to be allot of gun owners dragged through the system fighting it.
Catskillkid
.450/400 Nitro Ex
We keep hearing about there needs to be no stigma attached to mental illness. Well if you're going to lose your property for seeking treatment I'd say that's one hell of a stigma.
What it comes down to is simple, imo: due process. If you're that much of a risk then bring that person to court and present evidence that they are a clear and present danger to themselves or others and let a jury decide if they should stripped of their property and/or liberty. And for what it's worth, I strongly believe (assuming not other evidence to the contrary) that someone seeking mental health counseling or popping a few pills for anxiety or depression does not warrant their firearms being taken from them.
What it comes down to is simple, imo: due process. If you're that much of a risk then bring that person to court and present evidence that they are a clear and present danger to themselves or others and let a jury decide if they should stripped of their property and/or liberty. And for what it's worth, I strongly believe (assuming not other evidence to the contrary) that someone seeking mental health counseling or popping a few pills for anxiety or depression does not warrant their firearms being taken from them.
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
FIFY
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Hmm. I wonder if the Montgomery case could actually get some movement based on this. It only took A YEAR AND A HALF FOR A FRIGGIN' TEXT CHANGE ACCORDING TO THIS LINK!!!
Montgomery v. Cuomo et al (6:14-cv-06709), New York Western District Court
Montgomery v. Cuomo et al (6:14-cv-06709), New York Western District Court
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Mental health was never the issue, hell the at our governor, look a governor Moonbeam out in Cala-la-fornia!
Robin
Robin
7.62x51FMJ
9mm
Yes, I know that. Was commenting on the FUBAR laws we have here that are designed to get every firearm one piece at a time.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I think Andy's going to have a heart attack.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Ha! We should be so lucky.
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Now what about magazines holding over 10 rounds or when people have handguns confiscated because of failing to recertify.
Now what about magazines holding over 10 rounds or when people have handguns confiscated because of failing to recertify.