• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

FriskyCanuck

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,063
Toronto, Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/donald-trump-gun-mentally-ill-rule-1.4538963

In February 2017, Trump repealed an Obama-era rule to strengthen the federal gun background check system after the 2012 shooting of 20 young students and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary Schoolin Newtown, Conn.

There are laws in the United States regarding the sale of weapons to some mentally ill individuals. It is unlawful to sell a firearm to a person who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective" or "has been committed to any mental institution."

Obama's regulation would also have required the Social Security Administration to send the names of some people unable to manage their disability benefits because of mental impairments to the criminal background check system database.
Those opposed, not surprisingly, included the gun lobby group the National Rifle Association. But on this particular issue, Trump also had backing from an organization usually highly critical of him: The American Civil Liberties Union.

In a blog post last year, the ACLU said that while it does not oppose gun control laws, those laws need to be be fair and not based on prejudice and stereotype.

Thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget, the ACLU wrote.

"But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular," the ACLU said.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness said the rule "may deter individuals from applying for these benefits for fear that their names will be added to a public database maintained by the FBI."

Meanwhile, the American Association of People with Disabilities argued that the rule sends an "extraordinarily damaging message" that "people with mental impairments could should be feared and shunned."

Still, some gun control advocates were upset with the decision to rescind Obama's regulation. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Associated Press at the time that scrapping the regulation was "heartless."

Do regulations like this negatively color people's perception of those suffering from mental illness?
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,988
Their legal reasoning for opposing the Obama regulation was some weak shit that actually doesn't jive with past arguments they've made on other enumerated rights. It was truly an odd memo to read.
 

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
Do regulations like this negatively color people's perception of those suffering from mental illness?
Right wing politicians and talking heads calling every white mass shooter as mentally ill already does that job perfectly. I doubt most people even knew what the actual details of the Obama regulation was. But Fox News screaming at the top of the lungs that the shooters are mentally ill has more impact on public perception of the mentally ill.
 

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,682
USA USA USA
The praise of the ACLU in the past year or so has always been kind of weird to me. A lot of people praise them when I know they would otherwise disagree with tons of stuff they've done. They literally defend Nazis marching. And it's not like they try to hide that.
 

Min

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,073
While restrictions on gun ownership may create a stigma of mental-health and potentially cause those suffering not to seek help, I would also argue that stigma already exists in America without restriction to guns. While mentally ill individuals may not be prone to violence, there is data showing that the most common form of suicide is with the use of firearms. Restriction is not just for public safety but individual safety. I'd probably also argue restriction of access to firearms would increase systemic liberty that has been infringed upon due to the paranoia of mass shootings.
 

ArkhamFantasy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,545
If this law saved 1 life it would be worth a million people complaining about their loss pf gun ownership.

I suspect this law would have saved alot more than 1 life.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,988
Now, I remember why I found their reasoning so flawed. Here's the letter they sent to Congress:

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

And, here's the part that makes no sense (at least in terms of the ACLU's past stance):

ACLU said:
We recognize that enacting new regulations relating to firearms can raise difficult questions. The ACLU believes that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation, since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. We do not oppose regulation of firearms as long as it is reasonably related to these legitimate government interests.

What they are doing here is applying a "rational basis" test to a specifically enumerated right. Now this makes sense, in so far as the ACLU's past stances, because they support stricter gun regulations and thus think that the Second Amendment should be analyzed under the very lenient "rational basis" standard. However, since D.C. v. Heller, we know that rational basis is insufficient when analyzing the Second Amendment. In fact, the Sixth Circuit after Heller, in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department, stated that any gun regulation had to pass "strict scrutiny" in order to be constitutional. The highest standard with which the government must meet when enacting new regulations. So, the ACLU writes this weird memo where they want to oppose this regulation that they believe "prejudices" mentally ill people, but also don't want to support the notion that the Second Amendment should be analyzed under strict scrutiny. Thus, they stick to a rational basis stance and state that the Obama regulation fails to meet the very low burden of rational basis. But, anyone with a legal brain knows that if you viewed the regulation under rational basis then the government easily wins.

Their entire letter/memo is just crackpot reasoning.
 

Nacho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,114
NYC
Aclus point seems fair enough until you realize there's no data on anything related to this that's reliable because the government and the NRA make sure research doesn't get funded or there's shit biased research to obscure facts.

Honestly it's sad, but we have to start there to take effective actions otherwise it's just shooting from the hip.
 

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,938
The ACLU's logic here is sound, the Obama policy was a band-aid that would have had very little, if any, effect on the type of mass casualty events that it was supposed to target. The types of people that the regulation targeted are not people capable of planning and executing mass murders. Background checks need to be stronger and more rigorous for everyone, not simply people who are already heavily marginalized and unlikely to commit violence. Due to the GOP's complete inaction, it was the best thing Obama could do that might actually have had any effect whatsoever but it was still a 99% symbolic move.
 

Min

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,073
IMO, lives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owning a lethal weapon

I would extend this even further (because America don't care about lives) and say that the liberties lost to attempt to ensure public safety from mass shootings are greater than the liberty of owning a firearm.
 

plagiarize

It's not a loop. It's a spiral.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,552
Cape Cod, MA
I did, and do, agree with this being thrown out.

Regulation like this needs to be based on sound studies, not just knee jerk reactions. There is absolutely no evidence that correlates people unable to manage their own finances with a higher likelihood of using a gun to commit a crime that I've ever seen.

I don't disagree with the idea of preventing dangerous people from getting guns, but you need a legal standard or test that actually does that, not one that just singles out a group that isn't proven to be any more likely to take a fire arm and start killing innocent people with it.
 

lorddarkflare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,258
I mean, they are correct. And the law is bad. But the republicans never bothered to put in a version of the law that is sound.
 
Oct 27, 2017
42,700
I did, and do, agree with this being thrown out.

Regulation like this needs to be based on sound studies, not just knee jerk reactions. There is absolutely no evidence that correlates people unable to manage their own finances with a higher likelihood of using a gun to commit a crime that I've ever seen.

I don't disagree with the idea of preventing dangerous people from getting guns, but you need a legal standard or test that actually does that, not one that just singles out a group that isn't proven to be any more likely to take a fire arm and start killing innocent people with it.

There won't ever be sound studies in the US thanks to the NRA.
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
It sounds like they were going after people with intellectual disabilities and not, like crazy people. Those would be the people that have problems managing their disability benefits. Which does seem wrong.
 

Advance_Alarm

Banned
Dec 4, 2017
316
The praise of the ACLU in the past year or so has always been kind of weird to me. A lot of people praise them when I know they would otherwise disagree with tons of stuff they've done. They literally defend Nazis marching. And it's not like they try to hide that.

They are open about their dedication to civil liberties. I think that sometimes at the moment what the ACLU can defend seems wrong but it is really more about the long term. Nazism is wrong and unpopular with a large amount of people, but why would that exclude it from 1st amendment protection? It doesn't mean any coverage of Nazi marches has to be positive. I can also see the point of fringe groups, whether they are shitty Nazis are just weirdos needing speech protection regardless of public opinion.

Also, aren't most restrictions on constitutional rights only made after a court order/ judges decision? Example, voting rights restricted after felony convictions or after a judge rules a mentally ill/ disabled person incompetent or incapacitated and unable to vote. Similarly, felony convictions restricting gun ownership or court orders restricting gun ownership after findings of mental illness. If it has been left to judges in the past, but now there is a move to constitutional rights being restricted by an agency I can see why people balk.
 

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,682
USA USA USA
They are open about their dedication to civil liberties. I think that sometimes at the moment what the ACLU can defend seems wrong but it is really more about the long term. Nazism is wrong and unpopular with a large amount of people, but why would that exclude it from 1st amendment protection? It doesn't mean any coverage of Nazi marches has to be positive. I can also see the point of fringe groups, whether they are shitty Nazis are just weirdos needing speech protection regardless of public opinion.
I'm not saying it's wrong or right. Just that I know plenty that were praising them when I think they'd be at odds with plenty of the ALCU's other actions that they're unaware of. Just thought it was kind of odd.
 

Advance_Alarm

Banned
Dec 4, 2017
316
I'm not saying it's wrong or right. Just that I know plenty that were praising them when I think they'd be at odds with plenty of the ALCU's other actions that they're unaware of. Just thought it was kind of odd.

I assume good intent, no big deal. I agree though, ACLU has come in clutch for a lot of the early things in Trump's admin but like you said they can also be be somewhat frustrating to liberals in their commitment to the minutiae of civil liberty.
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
12,772
Obama's regulation would also have required the Social Security Administration to send the names of some people unable to manage their disability benefits because of mental impairments to the criminal background check system database.
Uh, am I missing something here? Proposing a link between an inability to manage finances and a propensity towards violence seems dubious at best, so putting these people under increased scrutiny seems kinda ableist.
 

Cocaloch

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
4,562
Where the Fenians Sleep
The issue here isn't limiting gun ownership, it's the inherently discriminatory and poorly thought out way in which that is done.

I'm all for gun control, but I'm not for doing it in such a way.
 

Starlight Glimmer

User banned for use of an alt account.
Banned
Dec 30, 2017
265
I remember this debate as well, was very tricky to navigate. Of course there should be restrictions and regulations for those that aren't mentally well but to do it without a negative label.

They should have let this one slide and not support Trump on it.
 

plagiarize

It's not a loop. It's a spiral.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,552
Cape Cod, MA
Well, i guess i didnt think about it like that.
And that's kind of the point. If you're going to deny a group guns, you need sound fact based reasons to do so. Like they're an abusive spouse, or a violent criminal, not that they've got some kind of mental disability that means they can't manage their finances, unless you've demonstrated a link between that and violent behavior.
 

Deleted member 19003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,809
Would this law have prevented the latest massacre? Cruz purchased the gun legally and he had a history of mental illness.
 
Oct 29, 2017
5,354
Nah they're just really committed to civil liberties. I think they're wrong in this case, but I still highly respect their dedication.

Defending shit like Nazis marching deserves no respect. It's less principled and more of a blind, almost fundamentalist adherence to dogma that willfully ignores context. Not unlike a 14-year-old's idea of libertarianism.
 

captive

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,998
Houston
I did, and do, agree with this being thrown out.

Regulation like this needs to be based on sound studies, not just knee jerk reactions. There is absolutely no evidence that correlates people unable to manage their own finances with a higher likelihood of using a gun to commit a crime that I've ever seen.

I don't disagree with the idea of preventing dangerous people from getting guns, but you need a legal standard or test that actually does that, not one that just singles out a group that isn't proven to be any more likely to take a fire arm and start killing innocent people with it.
What does someone who can't manage their own finances need a gun for?

Anyway the law should target anyone who's been in a literal psychiatric hospital in say the last 5 years, anyone with a history of domestic violence etc.
 

Deleted member 29676

User Requested Account Closure
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
1,804
Yea I think mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. But I see the aclus reasoning. If someone said "people with mental health issues should have fewer rights" I would disagree but "people with mental health issues shouldn't own guns" is less upsetting.
 

blinky

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,329
If there was a law that barred black people from owning guns would you be ok with that?
I'm pro-ACLU and generally pro-2nd amendment, but I am fine with barring mentally impaired people from owning guns. Black people are not mentally impaired, so I am fine with black people owning guns. Unless of course we're talking about a mentally impaired person who also happens to be black, in which case we're back to no-guns-for-you.
 

duckroll

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,202
Singapore
I don't think anyone needs to be discriminated against in the ownership of firearms. I don't think any civilian should own firearms. :)
 

Akira86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,589
yeah sometimes the aclu is a little too aclu for their own good. but on the whole the aclu is the aclu for a reason, and it is a good reason.
 

Shabutaro

Member
Oct 27, 2017
127
Call me ableist and discriminatory, but maybe it's okay if people with Down syndrome aren't running around with guns.
Is there there any evidence that people with Down syndrome commit more gun crimes than the general populace or is your opinion pulled from your ass based on what you think a person with Down syndrome is capable of doing?

I agree with the ACLU here, if the ban had stayed in place it's not like any of the recent shootings would have been prevented.
 

Shabutaro

Member
Oct 27, 2017
127
You really think a law making it harder for people with mental illness from having guns is comparable to a law banning a racial group from having guns? Really?
The law doesn't require a hearing, a doctors opinion or any sort of evidence that the person is unfit to have a gun. It just lumps together people with mental illness, disabilities and those who can't manage their benefts based on stereotypes. It's a discriminatory law.