Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton - True, there is little consensus about treatments for mental illness but the diagnosis of psychopathology is fairly straight-forward and noncontroversial.

What is your point, that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership at all, every adult should have the right to own a gun regardless of mental competence or criminal background?

GE Morton wrote:

Fooloso4 wrote:

(Nested quote removed.)


I do not know the specifics.

The 5th Amendment declares that ". . . no person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . "

"Due process of law" means, conviction of a crime by a jury, consistently with all provisions of the 5th and 6th Amendments. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional liberty right. Hence any process which does not satisfy those provisions if not "due process."

You are overstating your competence in Constitutional law. Whole sections of legal scholarship by national experts debate these definitions.

Felix wrote:. . . the diagnosis of psychopathology is fairly straight-forward and noncontroversial.

The DSM is revised every year, primarily by adding new "disorders." Occasionally one is removed, such as the classification of homosexuality as a "disorder."

What is your point, that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership at all, every adult should have the right to own a gun regardless of mental competence or criminal background?

Not at all. Persons who have been convicted of a crime involving violence should be barred from owning or possessing firearms, at least for a time (perhaps 7-10 years after release). Persons who have been committed to a mental institution for a condition involving violence should likewise be barred, until that condition is remedied. The point is to limit that prohibition to persons who have demonstrated unlawful violent behavior, and not infringe the rights of persons merely because someone thinks they might cause problems.

GE Morton:

The question remains: If the judge decides, based on guesswork, that Alfie is a danger to the public, why not just preemptively lock him up?

The judge can order a psych evaluation. If Alfie is detained and not allowed to leave he is in effect being preemptively locked up. He cannot, however, simply be thrown in a jail cell and treated like a criminal because, as you correctly pointed out, he has not committed a crime.

Methinks you don't understand what "probable cause" means. It means that there is reason to believe a a crime has been committed, and that Alfie was involved in it. It does not mean that it is probable that Alfie will commit a crime.

There is a distinction between criminal and civil court. This falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court since no crime has been committed:

Civil cases can deprive a person of property, but they cannot deprive a person of liberty. In civil court a plaintiff must possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... ble+cause)

Is the right of free speech sacrosanct?

No, there are laws against libel. Revealing state secrets may be treason. National security takes precedence over free speech.

The right to practice religion?

There are restrictions regarding what one can and cannot do in the name of religion.

The right to counsel if accused of a crime?

I know of no reason why the right to counsel can be or should be legally denied.

Your examples show why each right and each potential violation of that right must be decided on the merits of the case in question.

Fooloso4 wrote:
The judge can order a psych evaluation. If Alfie is detained and not allowed to leave he is in effect being preemptively locked up. He cannot, however, simply be thrown in a jail cell and treated like a criminal because, as you correctly pointed out, he has not committed a crime.

A temporary detention, yes. Every arrest involves a temporary detention. A permanent detention, or a permanent prohibition on possessing a firearm, is a different matter. In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior. The subject may present counter arguments and evidence, and must be provided with counsel at State expense, if he cannot afford counsel. Commitment orders must be reviewed periodically, to determine if the danger continues.

There is a distinction between criminal and civil court. This falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court since no crime has been committed:

Civil cases can deprive a person of property, but they cannot deprive a person of liberty. In civil court a plaintiff must possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... ble+cause)

Yes indeed. As with criminal cases, the plaintiff must show probable cause that the defendant has committed a tortious act against the plaintiff. He cannot bring a suit based on speculation that the defendant might injure him.

No, there are laws against libel. Revealing state secrets may be treason. National security takes precedence over free speech.

Yes, there are. Libel laws and State secrets laws take effect after those abuses of free speech have occurred. They do not restrict speech preemptively, as your gun restriction would do.That would be a "prior restraint," of which the Supreme Court takes a very dim view. That parallel is exactly on point: you may be punished for damaging speech, but you may not be prevented from speaking. A court may not forbid a writer from owning a typewriter or word processor because he might libel someone.

There are restrictions regarding what one can and cannot do in the name of religion.

Of course. The First Amendment does not allow you to violate or threaten others' rights in the name of religion. Nor does the 2nd allow you to shoot people at will.

Whether there are limits to the exercise of constitutional rights is not the issue here. Of course there are. The issue is whether one of those rights may be restricted preemptively, in the absence of any abuse of it by the citizen.

Your examples show why each right and each potential violation of that right must be decided on the merits of the case in question.

In every case you need to show actual violations, not "potential" violations.

GE Morton:

In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior.

This is exactly what is required in the case of taking someone’s gun away.

… probable cause …

You are right. I used the term incorrectly. I should have said something like - when deem to be justified by a judge based on circumstances and evidence.

Whether there are limits to the exercise of constitutional rights is not the issue here. Of course there are. The issue is whether one of those rights may be restricted preemptively, in the absence of any abuse of it by the citizen.

See what you are quoted saying above, first paragraph.

Fooloso4 wrote:
See what you are quoted saying above, first paragraph.

What I said in that paragraph was, "In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior.

GE Morton:

What I said in that paragraph was, "In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior.

Of course it is based on evidence of past behavior. It is the change in behavior that leads others to be concerned that the person in question may be a threat. You call this guesswork, but it is the same kind of guesswork that serves as the basis for having someone committed as it is for having their gun taken away.

Fooloso4 wrote:GE Morton:

What I said in that paragraph was, "In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior.

Of course it is based on evidence of past behavior. It is the change in behavior that leads others to be concerned that the person in question may be a threat. You call this guesswork, but it is the same kind of guesswork that serves as the basis for having someone committed as it is for having their gun taken away.

If the past behavior includes violence against another person or threatening someone with a weapon I'll agree with you.

G E Morton's central point in this discussion seems to be that depriving a person of their freedom or property should only be done on the basis of their past explicitly criminal behaviour. The key point seems to be whether that behaviour was legally recognized as being criminal - i.e. they were convicted of a crime.

Clearly the primary purpose of legally depriving any person of their freedom or property is to prevent something bad from happening in the future. That always involves looking at a person's past behaviour and extrapolating to possible future behaviour - basic Inductive reasoning. Where Fooloso4 appears to differ from G E Morton is in thinking that this past behaviour does not actually necessarily need to have resulted in a past criminal conviction. G E Morton seems to draw a parallel with "prior restraint" and points out that, in the US at least, this has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

So it seems that the crux of the disagreement here is whether a psychological assessment based on past behaviour is enough in itself to limit firearms possession or whether the person in question has to have actually committed a violent crime and been found guilty of that crime in a court of law.

Another issue is the type of firearms that people should be allowed to possess. As a general matter of principle, should people who have not previously broken any laws still be required to justify the reason why they wish to own a particular type of weapon? Should it be demonstrably true that the weapon is made for self defense? Or, alternatively, if I wish to own a weapon of mass destruction with no obvious self-defensive use is that my business and nothing to do with the government? Are my reasons for wanting to own such a weapon entirely a private matter?

When a US citizen is shown to have been radicalised, but has not broken any laws so far. Does this mean that he should be able to buy military grade weapons en masse, just to appease the NRA?

Steve3007 wrote:G E Morton's central point in this discussion seems to be that depriving a person of their freedom or property should only be done on the basis of their past explicitly criminal behaviour. The key point seems to be whether that behaviour was legally recognized as being criminal - i.e. they were convicted of a crime.

Not necessarily. While a conviction for crime involving violence is prima facie evidence of violent tendencies and a firm ground for forbidding possession of firearms, it is not the only possible ground. Evidence of certain behavioral disorders, plus evidence that the subject has exhibited violence tendencies, such as attacking or threatening another person, especially with a firearm, may also be grounds, even if no criminal charges were filed. What is not sufficient is the mere opinion of a shrink that the subject is dangerous, without any evidence that he has actually injured or threatened anyone.

Another issue is the type of firearms that people should be allowed to possess. As a general matter of principle, should people who have not previously broken any laws still be required to justify the reason why they wish to own a particular type of weapon?

Should we be required to "justify" why we should be allowed free speech? In general, behaviors that violate or threaten no one else's rights require no justification. What requires justification is restricting those behaviors, the presumption (in free countries) being that persons may live their lives in any way they choose, may do anything they wish to do, as long as they violate no one else's rights.

Or, alternatively, if I wish to own a weapon of mass destruction with no obvious self-defensive use is that my business and nothing to do with the government? Are my reasons for wanting to own such a weapon entirely a private matter?

No. Unlike personal firearms, weapons of mass destruction, if ever used, by definition pose risks to others.

-- Updated April 18th, 2017, 10:26 am to add the following --

Rederic wrote:When a US citizen is shown to have been radicalised, but has not broken any laws so far. Does this mean that he should be able to buy military grade weapons en masse, just to appease the NRA?

I'd love to hear what you would count as evidence that someone has been "radicalized." Have passionate, strident demonstrators against Trump been "radicalized"?

What is a "military grade weapon"? An M1 carbine? A .45 cal. automatic pistol?

Persons should be allowed to buy and possess weapons because they have a natural and constitutional right to do so, not to "appease the NRA."

I'm sorry, but you're so hung up about your rights, that you've lost your common sense.

An alternative question you Americans might ask yourselves is why with a gun in every household, Switzerland has so little violent gun crime.

An alternative question you Americans might ask yourselves is why with a gun in every household, Switzerland has so little violent gun crime.

Hardly "every household," but Swiss gun laws are much stricter than ours:

"Switzerland has strict gun ownership, registration, carry, and transport rules. Guns must be registered, you need a permit to buy them, you need a permit to transport them (unloaded only, and only from home to the shooting range, armory, etc, no carrying it around freely) and you need a special, hard to get permit to publicly carry them."