This video, by a Civil Rights Attorney in West Virginia, I think, discusses a SCOTUS opinion of about a year ago, so I am not offering it here as news, although it would be news to anyone who wasn't already aware of it. The video discusses a number of issues, but it's not necessary to view it to participate in this question. Mostly, I am posting it because it suggests a problem that has been bothering me for quite some time now. While I was a paramedic instructor, I was also certified as a PTSD counselor, which is something that can be helpful for people dealing with various types of trauma, not just war veterans. A whole lot of people were not willing to see a mental health professional for PTSD, depression, or anything else because, while they might acknowledge that counseling might be of some help to them, they did not consider themselves to be mentally ill, and seeing a mental health professional, even for the treatment of PTSD or depression, could, under some circumstances, lead to a denial of a person's 2nd Amendment protections. There are other reasons as well, I am sure, but, while we've come a long way toward reducing the stigma of various mental health problems, because of the gun-banning lobby, any possible reason is used to deny someone the right to own or possess a firearm. The reason I became a PTSD counselor was that, although I was certified as a counselor, it wasn't a mental health position, so I was not required to keep a list or make reports on people who sought help. Of course, the help that I could provide was considerably less than they might be able to get from a mental health professional. This video isn't wholly about that, but I am including it because it was while watching this video that the subject came to mind, and it's an interesting video, anyhow. I live in a state, similar to several other states, where a whole lot of people have guns. Maine doesn't show up on a lot of lists of states with large gun ownership because gun ownership is often determined by gun registrations, and we don't register our guns here in Maine. People with various problems here, including drug addiction, are often unwilling to seek help from mental health professionals because they are likely to lose their constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment, so they might attend AA, SMART Recovery, or another mutual help program, but they won't enroll in a mental health program. Now, you might argue that you don't think that drug addicts should be allowed to own a firearm, and there is some sense in that argument. Many of them are not allowed to legally own a firearm because they've been convicted of felonies associated with their addiction, but that's not the case with all of them, by any means. Those who are inclined to violence will probably have guns anyhow. So, the real question isn't whether people with non-violent mental health disorders should be covered under the 2nd Amendment, but whether we wanted treated or untreated people to have a firearm.
The initial diagnosis of PTSD was centered around soldiers post combat but now, it is a blanket diagnosis that is used to describe the mental condition of anyone who has been through a traumatic experience. Yes, every combat soldier has PTSD but those surviving a major car wreck or a house fire or tornado, etc all have mental issues that have to be attended to and the blanket diagnosis of PTSD applies to them also. With that said, if merely being diagnosed with PTSD is the preventative element needed to deny one the right to own a firearm, then upon whom does that diagnosis rest? in truth, soldiers being treated for PTSD is generally centered around keeping the individual from hurting themselves, not someone else. It is also a fact that Every soldier coming out of combat has some form of mental trauma but yet, until that soldier is discharged from the military, he or she is still issued a weapon. To think upon it a bit further, every cop that has been through a combative experience whereby a firearm has to be used can be diagnosed with PTSD but yet, they still carry a weapon. They may have to seek some sort of departmental mental health professional, but most will return to duty wearing their firearm.
The crux of the matter lies in the hands of the psychiatrist. They are the ones that must make the judgment call if one's PTSD is such that it would cause one to be either suicidal or homicidal. I suffer from PTSD and can tell you in my case that it doesn't affect my ability to be a responsible gun owner. If one with PTSD has sleepwalking or related problems, then a loaded handgun easy to reach might not be a good idea, but any responsible owner knowing they have such a disorder should keep their guns locked up. I have known several with bad PTSD that had their guns locked in a safe with their spouse the only one knowing the combination. This eliminated any chance that they might act recklessly during a flashback. The problem is that a psychiatrist might misuse their role as medical professionals and let politics rule their decision that a court would enforce.
If a person has any kind of mental problem that might endanger themselves or others, I think they should be treated and pronounced mentally well before they can buy guns. For their safety and the safety of the public.
Then, if they want to be able to retain their rights to hunt and own firearms, they will have to avoid treatment.
But don't you agree that it would be better to get them into treatment than let them be a danger to themselves and others?
To begin with, in the world of psychology, there is no such thing as “normal” and depending on whom the psychologist/psychiatrist is and where he or she studied and practiced, to them, we all need therapy for something we may or may not be totally conscious of. Psychology is not even close to being an exact science if in fact, it is recognized as being a science at all and to place a psychologist or psychiatrist in charge of whom gets what right and who doesn’t is totally absurd. Might just as well take away the 2nd amendment rights and pill up Anyone whom has said YES when the nurse asks them if they’ve ever wanted to hurt themselves or others. (Notably, we have all been asked that question many times now). I mean, that’s what it is all coming down to……. Note: I do recognize that there are some extreme cases of PTSD and yes, they should be treated and yes, maybe they shouldn’t own a firearm but to me, the final determining factor shouldn’t be in the hands of a single entity. To think that one of the initial bills stated that ALL combat soldiers should be denied our second amendment rights was the beginning of my own dislike for the field of psychology in the hands of politicians.
"Anyone who has said YES when the nurse asks them if they’ve ever wanted to hurt themselves or others." Sounds like a warning sign to me.
I will agree, but I think many would avoid treatment unless court ordered, knowing that a pronouncement of treatment completion would be in the hands of mental health pros. Treatment might be a lifelong thing. The big problem is mental health places are overburdened. Another thing is each individual would require special evaluation but laws are designed more generic and might state anyone that who seeks PTSD treatment would automatically have to turn in their guns and couldn't get them back until treatment completion. I fear it would be used for confiscation. Almost everyone has some kind of mental disorder. OCD is considered a mental disorder but it poses no threat to anyone. If just mental illness is mentioned, then I would have to question that it wouldn't be used in a generic way to confiscate guns. I don't trust any gun laws that the Democrats come up with.
I do, but, as with other mental health issues, we need to remove the stigma, and having a Constitutional right removed is one heck of a stigma. I personally know people who could probably use some professional help, although I wouldn't consider them to be dangerous, they don't want to turn up on a list of people who have sought mental health treatment.
Rights have limitations. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. If you are a danger to yourself and others, your right to own a killing weapon may be limited. When you are no longer a danger, it should be restored.
However, once you seek mental health treatment, your rights are in the hands of someone who might not think anyone should be able to own a firearm, or who might decide that disallowing it is the safest course.
It wouldn't be up to me, but if treatment is indicated, it would be best for the person to get treatment, but, unless he exhibits a clear danger to himself or someone else, he's not likely to seek treatment if that could mean that he's on a list of people who cannot hunt or own a firearm. I presented this because there are no perfect answers, but I think the best way to encourage those who need treatment to seek treatment would be to remove the stigma. Otherwise, they'll be to own a weapon and be without treatment.