"Do the Mentally Ill Have a Right to Bear Arms?" ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146767 ) Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2012 ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/PIP_Journal.cfm?pip_jrnl=213302 ) U of Alabama Public Law Research Paper No. 2146767 ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/PIP_Journal.cfm?pip_jrnl=530981 ) FREDRICK E. VARS ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=72937 ), University of Alabama - School of Law Email: [email protected] AMANDA E. ADCOCK ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1897133 ), affiliation not provided to SSRN
In the same opinion in which it recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court suggested that the mentally ill are excluded. This article rejects that suggestion and considers three possible levels of constitutional scrutiny. At the lowest level of scrutiny, all current laws restricting gun possession by the mentally ill are likely constitutional; at the highest level, none. The action is in the middle. Such laws are generally grounded on a perception that the mentally ill are dangerous to others. Most are not, but virtually all are at significantly higher risk of suicide. In the end, suicide, not violence, prevention is the rationale most likely to provide adequate constitutional footing for present policies.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
