3 ms·
The headline misrepresents the issue. The US Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to possess weapons for self-defense. Yes, there is a p
by ctdonath 10y ago
The headline misrepresents the issue.
The US Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to possess weapons for self-defense. Yes, there is a proper process of disarming the "mentally incapacitated" which terminates that right thru adjudication.
The problem with the headline is the wanton failure to note that designating many veterans (and others) as "mentally incapacitated" is usually done as a bureaucratic step, checking off the appropriate box on a form - with absolutely no requirement to justify the designation, much less prove it to a judge for that particular individual affected. Many are simply marked as "mentally incapacitated", and thus deprived of their right & tools for self-defense, simply because of age, vague circumstance, irrelevant history, or other weak reasons (if any reason at all).
The bill restores the standard of having to actually demonstrate, in court, that this person, for these reasons, really does pose a threat to self or others if continuing to exercise his own right to own tools for self-defense.
TL;DR - the term "mentally incapacitated" in the headline is in scare-quotes for a reason: a great many so designated aren't; it should take more than a box on a form checked by a random bureaucrat to end one's enumerated right to self-defense.
- rabboRubble 10y agoIncorrect. The personal right to bear arms was rooted in the need for domestic state security. There is no mention of personal defense. A quick Wikipedia search also indicates that the exact text of this amendment is not exactly the same between all original copies of the Constitution. Sort of an interesting read [0]. The version authenticated by Thomas Jefferson has the exact quote of: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People keep forgetting the well regulated militia part of the amendment, and what that phrase ought permit the state for the maintenance of state security. Admittedly, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as rooted in English Law's self-defense right. But the amendment itself makes no mention of it, rather leading the personal right with the state need for security. This ties into the other state needs (national defense, anti-insurrection, self-defense, etc.) at the time of drafting. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...