Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,567 posts)
Wed Mar 1, 2017, 02:12 PM Mar 2017

ACLU: the rule reinforced a stereotype that people with mental disabilities are violent

...
Using the Congressional Review Act -- which allows Congress to roll back regulations imposed by the executive branch -- the Republican-controlled House and Senate voted to send the bill to Trump's desk.

...those who would have been reported by the agency had to meet two main criteria: a) They were receiving full disability benefits because of a mental illness and couldn't work and b) they were unable to manage their own benefits, thus needing the help of a third party to do so.

...
Interestingly, the rule had opponents across a wide spectrum. Both the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union spoke out against it.
The ACLU, which advocates for people with mental health struggles, said the rule reinforced a stereotype that people with mental disabilities are violent. The organization argued in a letter to members of Congress that there's no data to support a connection between receiving disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/guns-mental-health-rule/


Any thoughts?
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ACLU: the rule reinforced a stereotype that people with mental disabilities are violent (Original Post) discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2017 OP
They're right. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #1
If someone can't manage basic Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #2
I mean HAB911 Mar 2017 #3
In your opinion, are there any other legal restrictions they should be subject to? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2017 #7
Do you always answer a question with a question? HAB911 Mar 2017 #11
I do when I run across deliberately vague allusions- but because you asked again: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2017 #14
Should they be allowed to vote? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2017 #4
I think your question will probably go unanswered, as will mine in post #7 friendly_iconoclast Mar 2017 #6
That sort?! HAB911 Mar 2017 #12
In point of fact, you *didn't* answer his question. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2017 #15
There are many reasons someone can't manage their affairs kudzu22 Mar 2017 #5
For SSI there are not a lot of reasons for a payee Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #8
Are there any other restrictions that you feel such persons ought to be subject to? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2017 #9
Sure, lots of things. Lock them up. yagotme Mar 2017 #17
Being bad at math should not result in felony-class penalties. benEzra Mar 2017 #16
I supported revoking the rule. TupperHappy Mar 2017 #10
I don't like the idea of stereotyping any group of people. Throck Mar 2017 #13

Phoenix61

(17,570 posts)
2. If someone can't manage basic
Wed Mar 1, 2017, 02:59 PM
Mar 2017

adult life skills, I'm not comfortable putting a gun in their hands. For their safety as well as everyone else's.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
14. I do when I run across deliberately vague allusions- but because you asked again:
Thu Mar 2, 2017, 10:18 PM
Mar 2017

Someone would now have to actually pursue revocation in a court of law, with the allegedly incompetent person
able to challenge the proceedings, all while having the right to counsel- IOW, they couldn't be unilaterally stripped
of the right to possess firearms.

I could see how this would be problematic for those of a controlling mindset...

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
6. I think your question will probably go unanswered, as will mine in post #7
Wed Mar 1, 2017, 05:41 PM
Mar 2017

That sort don't care for awkward questions, as they raise uncomfortable issues...

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
5. There are many reasons someone can't manage their affairs
Wed Mar 1, 2017, 04:29 PM
Mar 2017

that don't make them a danger to society. Let's not curtail anyone's rights nor perpetuate stereotypes.

Phoenix61

(17,570 posts)
8. For SSI there are not a lot of reasons for a payee
Wed Mar 1, 2017, 05:46 PM
Mar 2017

There has to be documentation from a medical professional that the individual is incapable of managing their affairs. Most often it is due to mental retardation. I think those individuals are at greater danger of hurting themselves or when law inforcement gets involved with them being hurt. No, I don't think they are mass shooters or inherently violent but I also am not comfortable with someone with the cognitive ability of a 10-12 year old buying a gun.

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
17. Sure, lots of things. Lock them up.
Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:06 PM
Mar 2017

After all, they COULD be a danger to themselves, or others. Good enough reason for some, it seems.

Now where did I put that sarcasm thingy again?

benEzra

(12,148 posts)
16. Being bad at math should not result in felony-class penalties.
Fri Mar 10, 2017, 08:16 PM
Mar 2017

Revoking the rights of everyone with any sort of mental disability as if they were a danger to themselves or others is fundamentally unjust. People with nonviolent disabilities are more likely to be *victims* of violence, and less likely to perpetrate it, than the average citizen, as the ACLU pointed out.

TupperHappy

(166 posts)
10. I supported revoking the rule.
Wed Mar 1, 2017, 06:38 PM
Mar 2017

We already have judicial hearings to determine whether a person is considered mentally incompetant, and therefore should not be allowed to own guns. In these the defendant enjoys all the protections of due process, right to examine evidence and question witnesses, and the burden of proof falls on the govt. to justify revoking the right. Note that this process remains unaltered by the rule revokation.

This rule would have completely side-stepped that process, no due process, no judicial hearing. All 75K of affected folks would be lumped together with no distinction among degrees of mental handicap, and their rights revoked with the scrawl of a pen. They would have to beg and grovel before the govt. to get their rights restored after the fact. It was a horrible policy and I'm glad it's gone.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»ACLU: the rule reinforced...