Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News)   Alaska court finds mental illness is not cause for revoking concealed handgun permit   ( divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

2035 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2002 at 9:32 AM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

66 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-01-17 09:34:47 AM  
I can't think of a better reasaon to revoke someone's concealed handgun permit.

Let the flame wars begin.
2002-01-17 09:36:04 AM  
This is Alaska. They'd have to disarm everyone.
2002-01-17 09:40:02 AM  
If you didnt have mad people with guns who would carry out all the school shootings?
2002-01-17 09:47:29 AM  
My neighbors dog Sam said I should carry a gun.
2002-01-17 09:49:17 AM  
"People committed involuntarily to mental hospitals in 33 states and people convicted of domestic abuse in 15 states can buy guns undetected by a national background check system because of a lack of computerized records, a new study says."


The FBI estimates as many as 200,000 others with criminal convictions improperly bought guns because of incomplete or missing state records, USA TODAY reported in March.

Taken from:
2002-01-17 09:50:15 AM  
Scrotar: IF mad crazy Alaska citizens can't carry weapons then.....everybody now...
2002-01-17 09:57:15 AM  
"But Nancy Hwa, spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, complained: 'They are taking away the discretion of local law enforcement to make these decisions in the best interest of public safety.'"

That's exactly why 'shall-issue' prmit laws are good. If you live in a state that 'may issue', then all it takes is one anti-gun police chief to deny every single request for a concealed carry permit. The simple fact that you have to 'request' to be able to exercise a right guaranteed in the Constitution doesn't sit too well with me. What's next? Free-speech permits? Vermont is the only state that knows how to do it right. As long as you are legally allowed to own guns, you can carry concealed without a permit.
2002-01-17 10:10:12 AM  
It's O.K. for the mentally ill to have a concealed carry in Alaska but it is illegal to mess with a moose. For example:

Moose may not be viewed from an airplane.
It is considered an offense to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.
It is considered an offense to feed alcoholic beverages to a moose.

Dont get me started about Wisonsin. ugh
2002-01-17 10:22:20 AM  
the voices in my head tell me this is wrong......but the green, fuzzy bear standing next to me keeps saying "its o.k., really, its o.k."
2002-01-17 10:23:16 AM  
Well, we certainly should not penalize the mentally disadvantage by taking away their right to own handguns. I can see the very real advantages of this ruling, now many people will think twice and maybe three times before calling another person a 'feeb' or other non PC explitive.

As for school shootings, we have the advantage of having 'dem dam furniners' to take over for our extremely smart and slightly gothic trench coat mafia, (who are so last century, dude.)

But my views may be an aberration, I would arm bag ladies in the inner city if I thought it would make for a kinder and gentler society (stole that line off a president.)

So, give them the guns, give them training, hell, even give them the right size bullets.
2002-01-17 10:25:41 AM  
Guns don't kill people, a good aim kills people.
2002-01-17 10:30:27 AM  
I am this morning mentally disadvantage and should proofreeeed waaaaaay gooooder.
2002-01-17 10:38:42 AM  
I can only hope this will hold up in MI as well. (just got CCW)
2002-01-17 11:00:47 AM  
Now that one is scary.
2002-01-17 11:10:11 AM  
Mentally ill people with guns don't scare me. What scares me are those floating, fully automatic, explosive sperm guns. They float around and kill children with no human intervention at all. Now that is scary!

[image from too old to be available]
2002-01-17 11:29:07 AM  
Random-Nothing wrong with it as long as you made a big profit.
2002-01-17 11:34:28 AM  
Look, this guy has never been committed to a mental hospital, and has never been found mentally incompetent by a court.

He may be a little wacko, but it isn't the job of the police to decide who can and who can't exercise their rights.

The next step would be to limit freedom of speech because you are speaking nonsensical babble about "rights" and "search warrants".

Come along peacefully and nobody will get hurt.
2002-01-17 11:46:00 AM  
GunBoy: The fallacy in your argument is that I've never heard of an incoherent person's babble blowing a hole in anyone's head. Has that happened and I missed it?
2002-01-17 11:49:21 AM  
I am just glad that the NRA are out there protecting the rights of people, crazy or otherwise, to kill one another at a moments notice without provocation.
2002-01-17 11:52:34 AM  
"Psycho buys gun. Psycho thinks wife is plotting his death and shoots at her. Psycho misses wife and hits moose in front yard accidentally. Game warden arrest Psycho and he does 15 years for poaching." Ya see Timmy, the gun control protestor failed to see how it could all work out alright and that's why Lasse defecated on her shoe.
2002-01-17 11:52:34 AM  
Ah, but if he *was* committed and/or found mentally incompetent, then that would be a disability.

Therefore, the ADA (disabilities act) would prohibit discrimination against him, and he would be able to get a gun.
2002-01-17 12:01:07 PM  
Dr. Benway: yes, it has many times. one extreme example: Hitler. many others. the pen is mightier than the sword.

However, even though we find some speech to be dangerous, we need to enforce freedom of all speech. That's why I support the right of the KKK to speak, even though I find everything that they have to say to be incredibly abhorent.

So, since the constitution contains the right to bear arms, and it contains the right of free speach...then both rights should be defended with equal fervor.

Unless, of course, you have the politcal cojones to do the right thing, and modify the second amendment (rather than slowly deteriorate the constituion through litigation and legislation).

How 'bout: "The privilege of bearing arms shall be determined by the lcoal state and/or municipality as they see fit." or "The privilege of bearing arms shall be limited to those men and women in a federal or state-sponsored militia."

That's pretty much how it is interpeted these days, anyway.

--cold, dead fingers
2002-01-17 12:18:55 PM  
DrBenway: Incoherent babble has certainly killed many, many, many people in our history. Hitler, Jones, Ladin, the books are full of madmen able to shape opinion with their words.

More to the point, you have a RIGHT to have a gun. Like other rights, even your freedom of speech, this can be limited by a court of law. However, the gentleman in the story had not been judicated by any court to be incompetent.

It is NOT the job of the police to decide who can exercise their rights and who can't. It doesn't matter if every policeman in the city thinks I'm stark raving mad. As long as I can convince the courts that I am sane, I keep my guns.
2002-01-17 12:19:48 PM  
You know the debate is dead when a Hitler analogy is presented.
(the only thing I hate about the CCW is that I can't bring a gun in bars. What's the point? I can't show it off to the ladies and can't accept drunken bets to shoot objects off my friend's heads)
2002-01-17 12:32:14 PM  
Folixo, if your gun is CONCEALED, you DON'T show it off to the ladies.

When I am packing heat, there are only two people who might know other than myself. My girlfriend when she puts her arms around me, and my best friend who also has a CCW because sometimes we coordinate who is going to be wearing iron.
2002-01-17 12:43:07 PM  
Jon_Boy, The constitution does not give us "the right to bear arms" What the amendments says, if I remember correctly, is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There is nothing in there about people "bearing arms" for any of the normal reasons, self protection, sport hunting, self mutilation. They say it is for a milita, as in defending the country form invasion. If Cuba tries to invade Florida then hand all the nuts and wakos a shotgun and sa GIT EM! But untill then I say we keep a tight leash on the shotin' irons.
2002-01-17 12:45:52 PM  
Gunboy, well I don't pull it out and wave it around. I pretend it just falls out and hits the ground and say:

"Whoops-a-daisy! Well look at that, it's my .357 magnum! Let me just pick that up and put in back in my coat. What's that? Well yes it is very big. And very powerful. What? You would like to touch it? Well I guess. Nice eh? You want to shoot it? Ok, lets go in the parking lot and try it out. And maybe after that we can go back to my place."

Oh yeah, I'm smooth.
2002-01-17 01:04:10 PM  
They say it is for a milita

Subtitle A - General Military Law

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

That means all men of this age group are already in the milita, so keep you farking gun grabbing hands off my farking "shotin' irons".
2002-01-17 01:04:24 PM  
Right now, I am SO f(u)cking glad that i live in Canada, not Alaska, where all the crazies are. I mean, you'd have to be crazy to live where it's winter 11 months of the year and everyone lives in an igloo and acts like retards... eh? anyone agree with me?
2002-01-17 01:05:38 PM  
farking HTML
2002-01-17 01:07:32 PM  
We have very liberal gun laws here.
2002-01-17 01:11:13 PM  
Mother farker - you are killing me. My Igloo is 3 stories and I have a stretch snowmachine.
2002-01-17 01:12:10 PM  
You can have my guns when you can pry them from my cold stiff...

Quiet Harvey I'm talkin' here.
2002-01-17 01:12:53 PM  
"That means all men of this age group are already in the milita, so keep you farking gun grabbing hands off my farking "shotin' irons"."

Here we go again. Who regulates you? If it's self-regulating, who's in charge? Why should the rest of the militia follow who you nominate, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

2002-01-17 01:29:40 PM  

You are arguing my point. The text, which you acurately quoted: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I read the text as two clauses, the first one stating that a well regulated militia is a cool idea, and the second stating that the right of "the people" (whether "militia" or not) to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You read it differently, extending the definition of the militia to the next clause to restrict the definition of "the people."

How about the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It may sound to me that freedom of speech only applies to religous speech, and the freedom to assemble applies only to religous assemblies.

If I allow you to twist (by litigation, legislation, and regulation) archaic grammar around to suit your purposes, then that opens the door to someone else doing it on another part of the constitution.
2002-01-17 01:30:03 PM  
Henchman, yawn, the old "well regulated" myth again.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, "well regulated" meant "well functioning" not "well legislated". As in, a well regulated clock functions correctly.

So, amendmendment 2 states that a well functioning armed populace is neccessary to preserve freedom. Then it says that the right of the people to store and use their weapons will not be messed with.

It has nothing to do with serving in the Army or the National Guard. The "militia" means everybody.
2002-01-17 01:33:14 PM  
I've always wondered why the ACLU (who I usually agree with) rabidly defends the civil liberties of everyone, regardless of their views but I've never heard them come out with a position on this constitutional ammendment. I believe Aipaloovik debunked the whole 'it's only for the militia' argument. Just curious.
2002-01-17 01:33:41 PM  
Oh beautiful for spacious skys, for amber waves of grain...
2002-01-17 01:42:55 PM  
Hey, without his gun, how is he going to stop people from putting more computer chips in his head? Duhh!!
2002-01-17 01:45:17 PM  
"I mean, you'd have to be crazy to live where it's winter 11 months of the year and everyone lives in an igloo and acts like retards... eh? anyone agree with me?"

Motherfarker: I thought that's how all the Americans in the 48 states felt about Canada!
2002-01-17 02:03:33 PM  
I love guns. they make me feel like my penis is larger than it is.
2002-01-17 02:36:17 PM  
Many are ignoring the idea that "mental illness" does not mean "crazy" or "incapable of sound judgement." If someone has social anxiety disorder, mild depression, or even *gasp* ADD does not necessarily more at risk of committing violent or illegal acts then anyone else. Prejudging and immediately disqualifying someone on the basis of one simple and easily misconstrued question is very unfair. Besides, what are we gonna do when the aliens come and all the people with chips in their heads have no way to protect themselves from the grays? :-)
2002-01-17 02:36:37 PM  
Aipaloovik, this raises some interesting questions. Assuming of course that this refference to "military powers" applys at all times. That means that all men are subject to the UCMJ at all times? Since we are constant parts of the US military? Why are men of this age group still tried in civilian courts? Probably because that "power" is something GRANTED to the military during a time of national emergency, as defined I would say by the President or Congress. It further raises the question of what an "able bodied" man is.

And Jon_Boy, I think you make MY point. You simply want to "cut and past" taking the parts of the constitution that suit your own agenda and not consider the context. You refer to achaic grammer used by the former of the constitution and do not consider the archaic times in which they lived. Times are different now and deadly force may be less acceptable. I am not saying that is a reason to outlaw weapons, but it speaks to the point of your saying that because the grammer was "archaic" we should read it the way you want us to.
2002-01-17 02:44:04 PM  
If retards Kills Somebody Because they dont Understand the Conspet of Killing People How are you going to Get Retards to stop carring guns Altogether if they dont even understand the consept of Laws for Concealing Weapons.
2002-01-17 02:44:28 PM  
"As in, a well regulated clock functions correctly."

Yet if you got your average group of people together for some kind of "militia" activity, it'd probably have all the grace and precision of a prison riot. "Well regulated" seems only achievable with training and a command structure. In other words, owning a helmet doesn't make you a part of a football team.

I'm sorry, but if gun proponents aren't willing to acknowledge the stance that the founders had no concept of what gun technology would someday be like, you can't start claming other parts of the amendment are antiquated without sounding like a hypocrite.
2002-01-17 03:42:31 PM  
Zoomtown: I think the issue isn't that people with mental disorders understand the law, it's that no one sells them guns. After all, one would think that most of them (the dangerous ones at least) aren't crafty or organized enough to find them on the black market.
2002-01-17 03:44:58 PM  
The founders made it clear of their stance, I find the advancement in gun technology to be irrelevant. The founders have made it clear that the purpose of not restricting firearm ownership was to defend the US from attack from forign or domestic forces. Using their reasoning that means that we should have firearms comprable to military forces. Now we all know they probably did not have much concept of Missle launchers, tanks, gatling guns and the like, and as such we have already made legislation restricting or barring their ownership. These types of weapons of mass destruction are not suited to general ownership and again we have already taken steps to restrict them. Accusations of potential mental ilness are not grounds to revoke rights, even Alaskas definition would preclude many compitent people from getting Concealed carry permit, many inpatient alcohol rehab centers are considered "Mental Health Hospitals" Likewise depression, or other minor disorders that almost anyone could be diagnosed with can be treated with inpatient care. I think it is a safe guideline, when we start punishing people or removing rights without due process we do exactly what our founding fathers created the second ammendment to protect us against.
2002-01-17 03:51:31 PM  
Guns. Mental Illness. Exceedingly high rate of alcoholism. Sounds like Alaska is one great party waiting to happen.
2002-01-17 03:53:06 PM  
"The founders made it clear of their stance, I find the advancement in gun technology to be irrelevant."

My point wasn't that it was/wasn't a valid stance. My point was that one can't claim one part to be antiquated while ignoring the possiblity for the remainder.
2002-01-17 04:01:13 PM  
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.