I'm not American, and I'm not really a fan of the second amendment for that matter either. Still, I can't help but notice the lack of discussion about a certai

I'm not American, and I'm not really a fan of the second amendment for that matter either. Still, I can't help but notice the lack of discussion about a certain angle to this. While the article talks about how such a law might "stigmatize" mentally ill people, the fact that it denies the exercise of an explicit constitutional right to mentally ill people without a judicial process seems to be an angle largely ignored. Not just in this article, but in others I've read about the topic, too. If your constitutional rights can be permanently denied by a doctor signing a form, or even just the police arresting and admitting you to a hospital (it isn't too clear just when this loss of civil rights is triggered) -- then there is actually a serious problem, in my opinion. A much bigger potential loophole than the kind they're talking about in the article. Up here in Canada, if the Charter were silly enough to have a right to own firearms provision explicitly listed, I know that a law blanket-restricting the mentally ill from ownership would die in the courts immediately. (We don't actually have such a blanket ban here -- though it's certainly hard in practice if something like that shows up on your background check. And there have been Charter discrimination-based arguments made.) There has been one US appellate court ruling on the topic: https://www.jurist.org/news/2016/09/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-mental-health-prohibition-on-gun-ownership/ https://www.jurist.org/news/2016/09/federal-appeals-court-st... that I can find, which got little media coverage apparently. Given it's the Second Amendment I guess I understand the reluctance, but it's in the text of the law, it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean a right to self defence, and that right can't be denied to an entire class of people indiscriminately, just because it's awkward.