Legal question about guns (not a troll on guns, srsly)

[Sava]

Hi,

Would the Americans with Disabilities Act prevent the government from using "mental illness" as a reason for restricting gun ownership to people with "mental illness"?

Or rather, could the NRA (or another special interest group/concerned party) mount a successful challenge to laws aimed at preventing someone with a "mental illness" from owning a gun using the Americans with Disabilities Act (or an 'anti-discrimination' argument)?

This is not a question/discussion about the morality of allowing people (mentally ill or not) to own guns.

I just want to know if a successful anti-discrimination case could be made that would limit the government's ability to restrict gun ownership via "mental illness".

Love,
Sava

[rah]

Somehow I doubt even the NRA would want to be behind that. But they are crazy sometimes.

[Lorizael]

The NRA would have the stats on their side. Most people with mental illnesses pose no greater risk of violent behavior than your average schmuck. It's only the rare and serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, that confer a greater propensity toward violence.

[Ben Kenobi]

Would the Americans with Disabilities Act prevent the government from using "mental illness" as a reason for restricting gun ownership to people with "mental illness"?

Ask yourself if people with mental illnesses are still permitted to exercise their other constitutional rights.

Or rather, could the NRA (or another special interest group/concerned party) mount a successful challenge to laws aimed at preventing someone with a "mental illness" from owning a gun using the Americans with Disabilities Act (or an 'anti-discrimination' argument)?

Would you argue that claiming mental illness meant that the government could take away the speech rights of those they deemed to have a 'mental illness'. Be careful here - it's been done before and is still done in places like North Korea.

I just want to know if a successful anti-discrimination case could be made that would limit the government's ability to restrict gun ownership via "mental illness".

It's been tried and has failed in the past.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, the government would be subject to strict scrutiny in restricting a Constitutional right - that would mean the government would have to have a compelling governmental interest which and the law would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest. The government may be able to win even under such a standard.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, the government would be subject to strict scrutiny in restricting a Constitutional right - that would mean the government would have to have a compelling governmental interest which and the law would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest. The government may be able to win even under such a standard.

Without prior indication of violent behavior, under which cases, there are laws already on the books to take care of these. Crafting mental illness regulations (while at the same time controlling the said definitions of mental illnesses, strikes me as a poor way to regulate constitutional rights, and more of an end-around to remove the right altogether.

You'd cry foul if you had to prove to the government 'soundness of mental health' in order to vote. Why should it be different for gun ownership?

[BlackCat]

Since it's mainly "sane" noncriminal americans that kill people, it wouldn't make much sense to prevent insane people to have guns

[regexcellent]

At present I believe in all 50 states if you have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution you are prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms until such time as the state decides to restore your firearm rights. I think this is a federal law, specifically the 1968 Gun Control Act, but I'm not sure.

[-Jrabbit]

I am shocked that our 2nd Amendment constitutionalists do not have a firm and ready answer for this question.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am shocked that our 2nd Amendment constitutionalists do not have a firm and ready answer for this question.

Apparently I don't count as one?

[Berzerker]

Well, the government would be subject to strict scrutiny in restricting a Constitutional right - that would mean the government would have to have a compelling governmental interest which and the law would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest. The government may be able to win even under such a standard.

where's all that in the Constitution?

[Wiglaf]

NOWHERE NOWHERE NOWHERE WHILE IMRAN HAS SUCCESSFULLY PARROTED WHAT HE LEARNED AT THE SOCIALIST LAW SCHOOL HE ATTENDED, IT IS CLEAR THAT STRICT SCRUTINY, ALONG WITH USING A PIZZA CUTTER TO PREPARE OMELET INGREDIENTS OR EATING A TEASPOON OF SUGAR TO QUICKLY NEUTRALIZE UNCOMFORTABLY SPICY FOODS, IS ONE OF THE MANY CONVENIENT "LIBERAL LIFE HACKS" USED TO AVOID CONFRONTING THE REALITY THAT THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN IS LEGALLY AND EMPIRICALLY PERFECT, E.G. SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED BY ANY COURTS OR LIMITED IN ANY WAY BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHOSE NAME IS NOT JESUS H. CHRIST HIMSELF

[Sava]

is that a yes?

[molly bloom]

Somehow I doubt even the NRA would want to be behind that. But they are crazy sometimes.

That made me chortle.