The Second Amendment (2A) and Psychiatric approval to purchase

CBPO Jon A. Underwood, CBP, (Ret.)

 

The right to keep and bear arms is Law. It is the Second Amendment (2A).

 It is part of the Bill of Rights within the US Constitution as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

 Any change of that status must be accomplished as any other amendment of the US Constitution has been in the past. It must be done in a Constitutional Congress with a vote for or against the amendment by the American People in each state. The American people, so blessed by our creator with common sense, can decide via the Constitutional process, better than any pundit, or political hack on either side of the gun rights/gun control issue.

 The liberal left has for a long time wanted to insert itself into the purchase process of the gun issue and create as part of the ownership process some Psychiatric approval step that “should” be placed into effect. I have no reason to disagree with stopping anyone that is mentally ill from having weapons and it does seem proper to stop those that are a danger to others from having such weapons. I think everyone agrees with this single point. But that is where that agreement ends and dramatically so.

Here is the danger: The unspoken and often denied desire of the left to prevent ANYONE from having weapons except the Military and Police. The left does not see that as a Police State, yet the right and I dare say, most citizens would!

 The big question of course is should the country create a system that includes, along with the present system of FBI criminal checks, a Psychiatric or mental health step, to receive governmental approval to purchase and possess weapons, ammunition and other accessories?  

 On the face of it, that seems a reasonable step, but of course, the Devil is in the details. Such as high capacity magazines and other items that have come into vogue. Every step that is placed into effect by the government is one more violation of the concept of “…. Shall not be infringed.”

 It is widely known that liberal governments have installed long and laborious requirements for a person to purchase and possess firearms, Washington DC and Chicago are two cities where their policy has been struck down by the US Supreme court (SCOTUS) as intended to prevent a law abiding person from obtaining a weapons permit. These two cities are of course, heavily dominated by the liberal left.

 Also, one should not consider the SCOTUS ruling a final word on the subject. I am sure that it be brought up for future consideration. Just consider the placement of one more liberal Justice on the court,) which is a real possibility under the Obama administration) and the most recent ruling, 5 to 4 in support of the 2A would vanish like dust into history.

 Who determines the standard that a prospective gun owner must meet or exceed to be granted the ability to own and possess firearms? The Psychiatric field is inundated, dominated, if you will, by those Educated in liberal institutions and those instructors or Professor’s are overwhelmingly liberal in nature and belief. When a person places his entire life into the hands of such a person for treatment, which “can be” quite therapeutic when truly needed, it is fine and Millions of persons have done so.

 But, when a purchaser does so, with the intention of obtaining the permission to own a weapon and its needed accessories, their US Constitutional rights are in the hands of someone that not only, by Education and Training, may be diametrically opposed to weapons and the use of force in anyway, but also can deny said rights in one lone action, without redress. The intention of the Founding Fathers has always been to insure that personal freedoms be paramount and any action that limits them be done so in a court of law or by Constitutional means.

 There is a place for Psychiatric intervention, but not as a pre-emptive action, prior to any misconduct on the part of the person in question. The protection of personal rights, should take priority in support of the hundreds of millions of Americans that have no history of criminal activity or mental disability. The left does not want an actual, by number of weapons in ownership VS illegal use of force comparison made, because it will, by a huge number, indicate an armed society Such as the United States, is a polite and law abiding society.

 No other right in the US Constitution must be so qualified for and smacks of the now discredited and illegal practice of land ownership to vote.

 When you install a qualifying step to speak your opinion, or a qualifying step to not incriminate yourself when questioned by authorities, (two ludicrous examples to be sure) then the 2A and the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms would be just one more lamentable example of the loss of our freedoms envisioned and enjoyed by our Founding Fathers, as well as, generations of Americans.

 By banning weapons, we wound be cutting off our nose to spite our face and allowing ourselves to be a disarmed populace, rife for external invasion by an aggressor nation and the control, oppression and manipulation of the American people for years to come.

 

JON A. UNDERWOOD

CBPO, CBP, (RET.)

YUMA, ARIZONA

Comments

[R.J. Godlewski]

I find it so amazing that those who want to fingerprint, scan, photograph, and psychoanalyze gun purchasers are also the same lot that want to remove ALL restrictions from those who vote.

Should we not also evaluate potential voters to ensure that they remain mentally stable?

[Debbie]

It seems that gun sales have been up each year, more than the previous year, for several years now. Even after this tragedy, numbers were higher than ever at gun shows.

These people who are anti-gun keep saying that there is no need for any of these guns (other than a hunting gun so they say).

I happen to know several people who have closets full of guns, all kinds of guns. They are collectors, have no intention of ever actually using the guns against a human or an animal. They also have ammo for those guns.

However, should they ever need to protect themselves, their families, from any enemy, foreign or domestic, they are prepared. It is their right under the Constitution to own every one of those guns.

If the Grouch and I ever find ourselves in a situation where we need to protect ourselves from harm, whether it is from a vicious dog or human, we have our personal weapons and the legal right to carry them.

The Left is now talking confiscation, which means taking any legally purchased guns, which also means leaving other guns in the hands of bad guys, who always get them one way or the other.

[(Rhino!) CBPO Jon A Underwood, CBP, Ret.]

RJ,

Might be a good idea, but as with the 2A, there are too many people to do that.

The problem of a mental eval prior to buying a gun is who determines what is good and what is bad.

Hopefully, the gun grabber in chief wont get our guns before everyone can buy one... they are flying from the shelves.

[Debbie]

R.J. Good idea, but it would never fly. The Left doesn't even want voter ID. It would spoil all their dead people from voting, also all the duplicate votes.

[R.J. Godlewski]

@Jon,

Perhaps, but here in Michigan, for instance, our state constitution says that individuals have a right to bear arms for the protection of himself AND the state. At what point can the Left employ the "anti-gun" militia argument without empowering the various state constitutions that permit carry?

What I have not detected from the Libs -- yet -- is the connection between home schooling and guns. I cannot wait until they ban home schooled people from possessing ANY form of firearm. :(

[R.J. Godlewski]

@Debbie,

I have ~ 15 firearms within arm's reach at the moment and several thousand rounds of ammunition. I bet you that the Libs would say that I have no need for so many "weapons". Pffft.

[(Rhino!) CBPO Jon A Underwood, CBP, Ret.]

RJ,

Prepper, Birther, American.