quote:
Originally posted by The Lack
Rob is the one that has issues with people having guns for protection not me. I have an issue with the permitting process. After owning a rifle for over fifty years forty two of them here in Hawaii I now am facing the possibility of having it taken away from me forever. Also now if this sticks I will never be allowed to obtain a permit to BUY a gun of any type until my wife passes away.
Hey folks, this is the laws that so many here are saying is just and dose not infringe on my second amendment right.
You do raise an interesting argument, but it is not a second amendment issue, it's a judicial review of a claim of state infringement. The Supreme Court said you have a right against a prohibition but they also said that constitutional restrictions are not a prohibition and thus restrictions are not unconstitutional. You have to remember that after the ruling, sweeping away the initial claims of win and loss, neither side emerged victorious in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Hawaii is not prohibiting you from owning a firearm, they have set a restriction that may or may not be proper after a judicial review of that restriction. But from the standpoint of the 2nd Amendment, Hawaii’s gun laws are constitutional under the Supreme Courts ruling. If the basis of the restriction imposed disappears today, you would have the right to possess the firearm without delay. That is not prohibition. The 2nd Amendment dealt with a prohibition or a restriction that in essence amounts to prohibition.
Unfortunately, there are few respectable 2nd Amendment advocates that are willing to fight for a lessening of States mental illness restrictions. There are some that may look at your situation and say that the restriction can be mitigated through conditions, but they will not advocate in any meaningful way to lessen states mental illness requirements. They do not believe they have any chance (especially in light of the conservative, pro gun majority opinion in Heller on mental illness) to every get the Supreme Court, Congress or the People to ever grant gun ownership rights to the mentally ill.
Since your issue is not a violation of your 2nd Amendment rights, why do I think you raise an interesting argument? Simply put, the mental illness restrictions are not about a diagnosis of mental illness. It includes mental illness but also includes other items that are lumped together because of mental capacity. But who is making the determination of decreased mental capacity based on the circumstances?
Is it a licensed mental health professional who after examination of the subject believes their situation warrants firearm ownership restrictions? No, it's a generic written restriction that if A and B and C or D along with either E, F, & G exist, that person MAY or COULD or POSSIBLY have a condition that reduces their mental capacity to own a firearm. But there is no competent, qualified or authoritative medical professional that said that is the case for that person.
Technically, under that reasoning, anyone who is prescribed any pain killer by a physician falls under the mental illness restriction. For that matter a Police Officer who takes a prescribed pain killer even if for a routine tooth extraction is now unqualified due to mental illness from being certified and authorized to carry a firearm. By their application of mental illness in firearm cases, one can say that a person who wears eye glasses is blind and the driver’s license of any family member living with them should be immediately revoked and their cars confiscated to prevent the “blind” person from driving the car.
Understand, arguing 2nd Amendment rights is meaningless because the Supreme Court has already established what your rights are. You situation is if a restriction being imposed by Hawaii meets any competent medical professional determination. This places you in a Catch-22. In order to prove your point you need to show others who are legally carrying a firearm also fall under the mental restriction and their ability to possess and/or carry a firearm needs to be rescinded. But it’s not rescinded because they are not mentally ill or they are being allowed to possess a firearm until someone competently states they are mentally ill. I guess it’s a due process argument.
][