• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

The K-Var ArmoryThe K-Var Armory

The Largest Supplier of Firearms, Gun Parts, & Accessories Online

  • Shop K-Var
  • News
    • Industry
    • Politics
    • Second Amendment
    • Self Defense
    • Comics
  • Reviews
    • Anything AK
    • Anything AR
    • Gear
    • Pistols
    • Rifles
    • Shotguns
  • Newsletter

Mass Shootings: Firearms Rights vs. Mental Illness

July 25, 2018 by David Dolbee 6 Comments

At the root, you will find mental illness. Look back to any of the mass-shooting tragedies and, at the heart of the matter, you will find mental illness. That is why, if there is a single gun control-related issue that has a majority of support, it would be a measure related to restricting access to, and ownership of, firearms from certain mentally ill individuals. In fact, according to the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Chicago: “More than 8 in 10 Americans favor a federal law preventing mentally ill people from purchasing guns,” the AP reported March 23.

US flag patterned handgun with Second Amendment banner questioning firearms and mental illness
“Where would you draw the line between mental illness where an individual has been evaluated to be a danger to themselves or others, and the right to firearm ownership?”

It would be easy enough to dispute many of the claims and reported statistics made in the AP article, but that is not my point. I would simply be preaching to the choir. Instead, let me pose my first question, “Where would you draw the line between mental illness where an individual has been evaluated to be a danger to themselves or others, and the right to firearm ownership?”

We can look to Florida’s latest round of gun control laws to see where it drew the lines. For Florida, in the 14-page law that was enacted following the Parkland shooting is a measure to temporarily prevent people “at high risk of harming themselves or others from accessing firearms.” So, that is interesting. It is a restriction. However, due to the word “temporarily” being placed in the language, we can deduce that there must be some limits or path to regaining rights. As always, I am sure the devil is in the details. Again, I ask you, the reader, for your opinion on this. Do, or would you, support such a law?

Pitfalls and Consequences

Next, drilling a little deeper but still along the same lines, how exactly is it determined (before an event) that a person is a danger to themselves or others? Is this by their own admission or a culmination of events or behaviors? What is the danger of a mental health professional with an agenda, or the government, going overboard and using such laws as a back door to gun control? After all, not so long ago under the Obama Administration, there were threats to the gun rights of individuals collecting government services.

Then there is the question of whether such policies would cause those who would otherwise seek treatment to shy away from it due to a fear of losing their Second Amendment rights. So I’ll pose the next question, “If the person is able to recognize their problems to the extent that they voluntarily reach out for help, should they still be precluded from firearm ownership or possession, or should a voluntary temporary surrender be all that is necessary?”

Read the following account and then comment.

At a hearing in St. Lucie County, Florida, Adam Fetterman, attorney for the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office, got Circuit Judge Janet Croom, who handles mental health matters, to issue such an order to seize a man’s firearms after the man was arrested for brandishing a gun while walking half-naked and acting unusually in a parking lot.

That seems pretty cut and dry, but neither the suspect, nor an attorney for him, was in court to potentially fight the order. Why hasn’t there been a lawsuit fighting such actions? Perhaps because it was in the public’s best interest? Maybe the individuals affected recognized the issue and have not sought to fight such orders. Sheriff’s officials have received cooperation from families in the other cases, so there have been no protracted legal battles.

Though Florida law does not require the accused to be present in court or have representation present, do you think civil rights groups should get involved in a case such as this proactively, or was the system’s actions appropriate in the interest of public safety?

Here is another case that is even more difficult for most.

On April 2, a circuit judge in Orlando lifted a temporary restriction on firearm possession against a student at the University of Central Florida.

Law enforcement initiated an investigation of the 21-year-old student after he went on social media to praise the alleged murderers in Parkland and Las Vegas as heroes. The student then went on to allegedly tell police he would probably shoot up the middle or high schools where he had been bullied if provoked by a tragic life event, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

The attorney for the student made the argument that the admission was protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

“She argued (the student) had not done anything to suggest he would act on the comments,” the Sentinel reported. “He had not purchased a weapon, and he did not have a criminal record… He would have voluntarily relinquished his gun rights had he been given the option.”

The student didn’t even have a gun, which begs the question, “After such an admission, should the student be placed on a watch list that prevents firearm ownership or requires additional scrutiny before legally purchasing a firearm?” Personally, I feel this still blames the firearm more than the individual. To a degree, it accounts for legally purchased firearms, but it does little to nothing against illegal purchases.

I have heard the counterargument that we should control the things we can, and react as best we can to minimize the things we cannot prevent. How does this affect your opinion or decision-making? Should the legal system have placed a restriction on firearms ownership by the student due to an exercise of free speech that may have been threatening? If no, how does that balance after an event where people look back and say all of the signs were there but no one acted upon them? If yes, what crime was committed that warrants the loss of a constitutional right?

Conclusion

I am not sure a heading of “conclusion” is appropriate here. The topic has so many variables, I do not think there is a simple answer or conclusion. The language of the Second Amendment is very clear to me, but we have placed limits on the First Amendment (yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater). There are situations when individuals have given up their Fourth Amendment protections against certain search and seizure, but that was after a “mentally competent person” signed a voluntary agreement. I do not equate that with most of the questions posed here regarding Second Amendment rights.

Let’s hear your opinion. As a community, let’s listen to the perspectives, opinions, ideas, and solutions of others. Sound off in the comment section with your opinion or any answers you have to the questions posed in the article regarding firearms rights and mental illness.


Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.

Filed Under: Op-ed, Second Amendment Tagged With: Mass Shooting, Mental Illness

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Dave says

    July 27, 2018 at 10:10 pm

    This whole issue is a very difficult thing. Yes, it would be great if shootings could be stopped before they happen, but there can also be great abuses of rights with the possibility of the government taking away someone’s gun rights (and possibly other right in the process, maybe like a prohibition for a person to also own other weapons or perhaps body armor). Having worked for a government regulatory agency for years, I know bad things happen because government agencies are made up of people who do not become saints nor wise men upon being hired into the government. Some get the power craze and let their self love take over their judgment. Some let their own personal agendas govern how they do their work and some liberal anti-gun person could use this as a way to gradually take away every gun right they encounter.

    Another thing we all know that some use the government to get revenge on their enemies. I could easily see someone, say in a divorce, making up some claim about their estranged spouse being a great danger.

    I recently had a business dispute with the management of a company that I knew was violating several ordinances and also was doing fraud on unemployment insurance. I did some complaints and am sure they had some rough times over that. I found out they now are telling people they are afraid I will come in and shoot the place up. This is exactly an example of what can happen when the government looks at taking away gun rights. People will use false claims as a means of getting revenge on their enemies. And who knows what government idiot will gladly go along with it to feel “proactive” and “conservative”.

    Reply
  2. Clark Wilder says

    July 30, 2018 at 2:38 pm

    The simple prob is the mentally ill are just released back into the public. What do people expect? Worrying about their rights! Who’s worrying about mine? Keep the whack jobs locked up!

    Reply
  3. Matt says

    July 30, 2018 at 9:03 pm

    As you stated several times this is a very complex issue. Mental Illness is too broadly defined right now. If it could be possible to use it to prevent it would have to have severe and strict criteria before ever being used but again I think it would be a failure. No way to really know how it would work. The best way to help prevent school shootings is to help prevent bullying. I was bullied growing up and I got suspended repeatedly for defending myself while the bully received nothing. The solution is a more caring populace and bring punishment back into the homes and having parents actually allowed to parent.

    Reply
  4. Mark Wagner says

    July 31, 2018 at 6:07 am

    The biggest problem is that you can’t fix crazy/mental illness no matter how much money you throw at the problem, best we can hope for in our post – institution society is hoping that those afflicted will continue to take their meds. Personal experience leads me to believe that many will not.

    Reply
  5. Unit says

    July 31, 2018 at 9:55 am

    The March for your Lives movement was ready to go on a moments notice, I always look at who stands to gain.

    Reply
  6. josh dillard says

    August 1, 2018 at 7:03 am

    The hard part is the people who admit they are ill and seek help and are getting help are the ones we would put on the list. It is the ones facing mental breakdowns and hiding it that won’t and they are the ones without an outlet that are most likely to be the harm. We had here a biology teacher run at an officer naked after recklessly driving and the officer tazed him with no results and ending up opening fire and taking the man’s life sadly. I say this because the tox screen showed nothing in his system and he was not on any alert so if he had a firearm the alert system would not have mattered as much. I think they should get help and not lose their right but be forthcoming to their psych evaluator who can make some sort of a call on it such as have them lock the firearm away till cleared or something just not taking away their rights.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to the Muzzle Flash – The K-Var Armory Official Newsletter!








Marketing permission: I give my consent to K-Var to be in touch with me via email using the information I have provided in this form for the purpose of news, updates and marketing.

What to expect: If you wish to withdraw your consent and stop hearing from us, simply click the unsubscribe link at the bottom of every email we send or contact us at news@k-var.com. We value and respect your personal data and privacy. To view our privacy policy, please visit our website. By submitting this form, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms.


Recent Posts

  • Understanding Squib Loads
  • ATF’s “New Era of Reform” – What Does it Mean?
  • Exploring the FIME Group FM-VZ61-01 VZ61 Parts Kit: A Gem for Collectors and Enthusiasts
  • The Vitality of Replacing Parts like Springs and Firing Pins
  • Trump’s 50% Tariff Threat: Impact on Imported Firearm Prices
Gun Broker Auctions

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017

Categories

  • 1911
  • Accessories
  • Ammunition
  • Anything AK
  • Anything AR
  • Arex
  • Arsenal
  • Blades
  • Browning
  • Cartridges
  • Charter Arms
  • Colt
  • Comics
  • Conservation
  • Dan Wesson
  • Deer
  • Derringer
  • Gear
  • Glock
  • Hearing Protection
  • Holsters
  • How To
  • How-To
  • Hunting
  • Industry
  • Kahr
  • Kel-Tec
  • Lasers
  • News
  • NFA
  • Night Vision
  • North American Arms
  • Op-ed
  • Optics
  • Optics
  • Pistols
  • Politics
  • Predator
  • Product Recall Notice
  • Red Dot
  • Reloading
  • Reviews
  • Revolvers
  • Rifles
  • Rimfire
  • Rock Island Armory
  • Rossi
  • Ruger
  • Ruger
  • Savage
  • Second Amendment
  • Self Defense
  • Shotguns
  • SIG Sauer
  • Small Game
  • Smith and Wesson
  • Springfield
  • Tactics
  • Taurus
  • Thermal
  • Turkey
  • Uncategorized
  • Video
  • Walther
  • Waterfowling
  • Comics
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • About
  • Newsletter

Copyright © 2025 · K-Var Corp · Log in