Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the mentally retarded?

Im sorry anon, no you can not have a firearm

>>63959860
I'm trans, not retarded

>>63959866
Same difference.

>>63959856 (OP)
There are blind people with guns in this country

If they're mentally proficient enough to live on their own then sure. If they can't, then it's up to whoever's taking care of them

>>63959856 (OP)
Ofc it should
The marine corps has a hard enough time recruiting as it is.

What part of SHALL is hard to understand?

>>63959947
The fact that it is infringed frequently for good reason
>no, being a violent felon does not entitle you to guns

>>63959856 (OP)
Shall not be infringed etc etc.

>>63959856 (OP)
Policitians should be the only social class that can't have guns

>>63959856 (OP)
I should be the only one who is allowed to own guns. So yes

>>63960033
why

>>63959856 (OP)
Ask /arg/ majority of them are retarded.

>>63960051
So they fear the populace

>>63960033
>Rules for thee, not for me
Same with their guard details

>>63959856 (OP)
What a retarded question.

>>63959856 (OP)
Most people on this board have one so it must do

>>63959856 (OP)

>>63959856 (OP)
Depends on the exact degree of retardation.

Mental disorders span a very broad spectrum from slight autism to severe psychosis. In the extreme cases like advanced paranoid schizophrenia where the person is or needs to be institutionalized because they are straight up not living in reality 2A rights don't exist. A person like that doesn't understand what is going on and can't be trusted with a firearm. In advanced cases of retardation such as downs syndrome the individual needs to be under the care of a caretaker or family member. They are a ward, legally like a child. That person may not be hallucinating but they don't have the ability to comprehend things that a fully functional adult needs to understand in order to do things like signing a contract or deciding if and when to shoot a potential threat. Therefore, no 2A rights.

In lesser mental diseases it can get murky. Basically the legal threshold is if the person is so messed up that they are a ward or need to be institutionalized they don't have 2A, but anything short of that is fine. If it should be is a matter of some debate. People with sub 80 IQ or low functioning autism could be very unsafe with a firearm, but the slope is very slippery here. If the doctrine is that ANYBODY with ANY signs of even the slightest mental issue can't have guns then effectively 2A cases to exist as a right. At that point anyone trying to buy a gun would have to positively prove pure sanity, which is subjective.
Mental health issues can also come and go over time. People grow out of things or learn to manage them, get depressed, feel better. It's not set in stone or well understood. That's why the bar for 2A rights ending from mental issues is relatively high.
>>63959908
Being blind doesn't make somebody mentally defective. That's a completely different matter.
There are also varying degrees of legal blindness.

>>63959856 (OP)
Fuck ya
mudda

>>63960283
SHALL
NOT

>>63960325
So somebody who is hallucinating people around them as monsters that want to eat him or somebody with the mental maturity of a 5 year old who might shoot somebody purely for funsies should absolutely be allowed to own a recreational McNuke?

>ITT: americans invent gun licensing and mental health checks

>>63960339
What does the 2nd Amendment say about that, retard?

>>63960339
Most cities have specific bans on owning nukes.
Try it and see how long it is before the Feds turn up.

>>63960339
just say you don't want trans owning guns. We're all okay with the mentally ill that prey on children not having weapons or even breathing air.

>>63960339
If he has one, are you gonna try to take it from him and put yourself in the epicenter of the blast zone?

>>63960360
That isn't how the legal system and by extension the constitution works.

Rights enumerated in the constitution are not unlimited. 1A doesn't permit you to shout fire in a theater, besides which slander/libel laws exist. 2A doesn't allow a person to own guns while incarcerated. 4A does allow search and seize under exigent circumstances.

The constitution provides a framework for how the federal government is organized and what principles it is supposed to stand for. But that is still subject to legislation and that legislation in turn is subject to judicial review. You can scream "SHALL" all you want but that's just delusional. There's no real debate that some limits and boundaries do and should exist.

>>63960386
Right, but in that thought experiment such a law would be unconstitutional. Anyone no matter how sick should be allowed to own any weapon, including an atomic bomb.
>>63960408
Inevitably somebody would use the nuke anyway. Hence the dilemma. There wouldn't be any city in pretty short order.
>>63960400
Trans people aren't legally considered mentally defective per se. They aren't institutionalized or wards of the state. Now if one of them makes a suicide attempt and gets thrown in the nut house that's a different matter, but the issue in question is that person being an imminent threat to themselves and those around them from the suicide attempt rather than being transgender.

Preying on kids is a crime, in which case prosecute, prove, convict, sentence and now that person is incarcerated. 2A rights gone during the period of incarceration for sure. What to do after release when a person is theoretically supposed to be "reformed" is still a matter of some debate.

>>63959856 (OP)
>look at 4473
>"have you ever been adjudicated mentally deficient?"
basically, only if a jury has confirmed you retardation is too retarded for your own - and others' safety.
wew, that sure was hard to figure out.

>>63960386
>Most cities have specific bans on owning nukes
You got a source for that besides your ass?

>>63960410
>1A doesn't permit you to shout fire in a theater
next you'll say that 2A doesn't permit you to own a cannon. what an ignorant retard

>>63960478
But you can own a black powder cannon with no paperwork at all and you can absolutely own a modern cartridge firing artillery gun if you get a DD tax stamp.

>>63960410
> 1A doesn't permit you to shout fire in a theater
Yes, it actually does

>>63960509
If you shout fire in a crowded theater, where you know there is no fire, and it causes a panic, and people get hurt or killed, your candy ass is going to prison and arguing that the 1st amendment protects your right to pull sick pranks won't save you.

>>63960439
>that sure was hard to figure out.
And you still got it wrong. Jury has nothing to do with it. A judge issues the finding, after hearing opinions from medical professionals.

>>63960650
>A judge issues the finding, after hearing opinions from medical professionals.
how do things like this even get put in front of judges anyway?

>>63959856 (OP)
The second amendment is a restriction on the federal government, not the people. So, yes it does apply to the mentally retarded.

>>63960478
The second amendment doesn't permit anything, it tells the federal government they can't ban private citizens from owning firearms.

>>63960628
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Basically unless they can prove that you were doing it as a prank it is not a crime, even if there was no fire.

>>63960283

Honestly the current system where a person adjudicated by a judge as being incompetent being barred from owning firearms is probably the best. Although I wish they'd be a bit more lenient on people who were 5150'd since they might be suffering a temporary break from reality, not a permanent one.

>>63960798
If your argument is correct, then the 1st amendment would be an affirmative defense even if it was blatantly done as a prank and people die.

The point being that the 1st amendment does have limits. It does not protect all speech in all circumstances. That is universally accepted in standing case law and unlikely to change in the future.
>>63960806
There's no good way to really deal with the problem that is fair and can be applied universally. Only bad and worse.
Keeping people who are going through things from having easy access to guns is broadly a good idea, but shouldn't be permanent and often isn't. But the mental healthcare system doesn't really have good guard rails in terms of civil rights because the objective isn't punishment but rather care and safety.

There is however a history of countries abusing "mental health" as a way to imprison and strip rights away from people arbitrarily.
There are definitely at least some people who are currently not allowed to own or be around guns even though they aren't any less sane than anyone else, but happened to say the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time and now there's no real way to present their case to the contrary.

>>63959856 (OP)
why wouldn't it?
>>63959866
then no gun for you. retards are people, troons are not

>>63960432
>What to do after release when a person is theoretically supposed to be "reformed" is still a matter of some debate.
Nah. Sex offenders' home address is easy to find and they can't legally own weapons. In times of economic uncertainty, we might need that resource.

>>63959856 (OP)
On a fundamental level it applies to retards, children, and even the blind. The actual implementation or societal execution is harder to codify, yes. But the 2nd amendment is an extension of your natural innate right to pursue your own existence over that of another. Every living thing in the universe has a baseline goal of continuing to exist.

When that goal isn't there, we call it depression or suicidal tendencies. The child who is scared of falling off of an elevator is subconsciously expressing this. You cannot ever compel someone to act against their own self interest. You can drag a condemned man to the gallows but he has every baseline right to try and escape. An 80 year old grandma facing down a home intruder, SS Charlemagne at the Reichstag, the British at Roarke's Drift, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc. all demonstrate that you will fight to the death, ironically, to keep existing.

Now in the societal execution of that, we can't have kids or retards running around mass firing into people. But IMO, anyone incapable of being judged of mature and sound mind should have some sort of guardian figure who does act in their best interest including self defense. I would also posit that blah blah blah social contract whatever, but the rest of society has a moral obligation to protect anyone incapable of literally wielding a firearm themselves. They, and every American (citizen) (and arguably everyone on earth but OP is only asking about the US) are afforded the right to self defense and the innate desire to continue existing and a healthy society should make sure all of its members either can do that themselves, or are looked out for as much as can be done.

>>63960360
>>63960976
>>63961129
I have no problem with restricting the ability of felons or mentally unstable people to commit offensive actions, but I think it has to be a 2-way street. Unless we are treating felons like Outlaws in the old sense of the protection of the law literally not applying to them, the current system leaves anyone truly attempting to fit in with the law at a severe disadvantage for their own self defense. On some level, the rights and privileges of being an American include a base level of protection and if we are going to strip their ability to execute this themselves, I think they are still otherwise owed that security if they have paid their debts and served that time.

There's also the issue of people who really want guns always being able to get them, felon or not. The only idea I think would be worth trying is something like allowing felons to own firearms since they can get them anyways but if they are used in a 2nd plus offensive crime (EG buying a gun and robbing someone) it is life w/ no parole for demonstrating a continued intent to cause harm. Or the reverse where if a convicted felon used an illegally obtained gun in justifiable self defense, they would not be prosecuted and it would be looked the other way (with the above on offensive usage still applying), sort of like a dont ask dont tell. Don't get me wrong there are some sick fucks and dangerous people out there but the prison industrial complex, lobbyists incentivizing harsher prosecution of non violent felonies, and the societal stigma of having done any sort of crime is a really fucked up system. Either you are being punished or you aren't and if you aren't there needs to be an effort made to reintegrate you into society as much as possible instead of trapping you in a recursive loop of societal alienation and crime as if you have the mark of the beast on your forehead.

>>63959908
you're ngmi if you cant navigate the night with echolocation
nods fags on suicide watch

>>63959856 (OP)
Yes, it does unfortunately apply to most americans

>>63961190
That's a lot of words to say you want troons/pedophiles to own guns.

>>63959856 (OP)
If it didn't this entire board would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

>>63959952
Felons who are allowed back out on the street should have access to firearms again. You don’t just get to pick and choose. Either they’re trustworthy enough to walk free on the streets again and should have all their rights back, or if not, they should not be out.

>>63961204
No, I said if we are going to deny them their ability to defend their right to existence on equal grounds while still making them pay taxes and obey the laws, then we owe them something that approaches the same level of protection anyone else would receive. If you are a felon in a state or federal jail, you are more protected than when you are out of it thanks to this. Deny them their guns as part of their sentencing if you want, sure, but the current system is all but slavery and I'm not even talking about Lincolns retarded 'slavery is bad unless its a punishment in which case its cool.'

Fuck it, just amend the legal code to say 'first offending pedos and troons are executed' and I would begrudgingly agree with you on broad principle. My issue is with an unequal distribution of rights or people who are ostensibly not being punished and yet are treated as the slave caste. Make pedos go to jail for life, that's fine in theory, now I can argue for the restoration of rights for everyone else. The immediate jump to 'very bad things that I can accuse anyone of being with no real room to argue against it so i can have a safe target to demonstrate how pro violence and edgy I am' shit is getting old though. Maybe post a black and white photo of a Russian guy with an AK and a balaclava with a caption like 'MOSQUITOES SHOULD BE KILLED' next time just to shake it up?

>>63960339
where does a mentally invalid person get the money and resources to buy and maintain a McNuke?

>>63961396
A lot of fire alarms. It's been done before.

>>63960705
Family or the government petitions the court

>>63961260
This is another thing where the existing set of laws and loopholes works out reasonably well. A reformed felon in most states can legally acquire a black powder revolver with which to defend himself. This is a lesser weapon than what is available to non-felons, but provides a credible capability of home- and self-defense while being generally unsuitable for criminal use.

>>63961190
I think an affirmative process for right restoration should exist, where there are legal standards that need to be met in order to justify NOT restoring rights for somebody who has been released from prison.

IE an ex con can petition for rights restoration (gun ownership, voting, etc ) after release and after clearing parole. The court has a burden of proof or needs to show some viable reason to delay or deny the request.
Likewise, a person who has mental issues in the past should have some way to petition for their rings to be restored. Maybe they were involuntarily committed but genuinely did recover from their mental illness.

There are some protections to keep people from losing their rights in the first place but not really anything solid in place for getting them back. Lifetime prohibition with no appeal seems to be the default.
>>63961235
Well, there's parole, which is an intermediate step to ease people back into society while keeping tabs on them to make sure they are following the rules. But once that's over I don't see why somebody who either made a mistake or genuinely reformed shouldn't be able to vote ever again.
>>63961396
Suppose they win the lottery or get lucky with some shitcoin investment. Timothy Dexter is a good case study for a drooling retard who got blessed by RNJesus and failed upwards his whole life.

The point isn't how, but what happens if.

>>63959856 (OP)
>mentally retarded
The court already ruled on that. Please refer to United States v. Carbajal Flores, No. 19-3100 (D.C. Cir. 2021)

>>63961204
The Feds will just put that on your hard drive, convict you and then take away your guns.

>>63962724
That's about an illegal immigrant's right to bear arms. Did you even read the case?

>>63962786
>mentally retarded
>illegal immigrant
What's the difference?

>>63962818
My dad's not a retard

>>63962836
So you have your mom to blame for your 'gift'?

>>63962852
FUCK YOU MY MOM SAYS I'M SPECIAL

>>63959856 (OP)
If you can vote you can get a gun. This should be how it works.

>>63959856 (OP)
>Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the mentally retarded?
Given that 90% of Americans can be classified as being worthy of a free ride in the little shorty yellow bus at this point due to decades of corn syrup, fluoride, RoundUp℠, and vapid social media consumption the answer is yes.
Plain and simple, Shall Not Be Infringed.

>>63960348
>>ITT: americans invent gun licensing and mental health checks
^ Would automatically get shot down in the Supreme Court because of this.

>>63959856 (OP)
SCHELL