{"id":29254,"date":"2016-09-16T15:46:20","date_gmt":"2016-09-16T19:46:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=29254"},"modified":"2016-09-16T15:46:20","modified_gmt":"2016-09-16T19:46:20","slug":"what-youll-get-if-you-vote-for-gary-johnson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=29254","title":{"rendered":"What you’ll get if you vote for Gary Johnson"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eugene Volokh is a law professor who professes “libertarianism.<\/a>” I’ve mocked this, um, not philosophy exactly, not political party exactly, but… an extension of the Koch Brothers Neu Wannsee Conference, i.e., the Final Solution to Democracy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In a nutshell–a deliberate pun–this Volokh article will give you far too many words about why you should never vote for anyone who declares himself a Libertarian.<\/p>\n

The nutshell? Volokh is cheered to know that certain federal courts could re-award the right to own weapons to people who have been committed to but have now been released from institutions for mental illness.<\/p>\n

Translation: libertarians feel strongly that even violent mentally ill people should have the right to own guns. Oh yeah, sure, only after<\/em> their violent mental illness has gone away. (A bit of news: mental illness does not go away. Violent characters do not become non-violent. Violence and mental illness can be mitigated to an extent with medication, but it only works if the patient continues voluntarily to take the meds. Mentally ill patients are notorious for stopping their prescribed meds.)<\/p>\n

One paragraph and a following phrase (I’ve indented them below) will give you the essence of the case. I’m bolding particular phrases which I’d call euphemisms, except that’s far too gentle a word. I’d call them deplorable disingenuity.<\/p>\n

And take a look at Volokh’s last paragraph which I have also bolded. You’ll get a glimpse of why we voters cannot put a Republican–no matter which one–in the White House. It’s the courts, stupid.<\/a><\/p>\n

As you read this, think about whether you’d appreciate having Clifford Tyler living next to you, having “regained” his Second Amendment “rights.” I.e., he owns a lot of guns.<\/p>\n

Clifford Tyler, now age 74, \u201cwas involuntarily committed thirty years ago following an emotional divorce,\u201d<\/strong> and stayed at the mental hospital for two to four weeks. He has since then apparently not had any mental-health problems<\/strong>. But federal law<\/a> bans gun possession by anyone \u201cwho has been committed to a mental institution,\u201d and Tyler remains covered by that.<\/em><\/p>\n

From 1986 to 1992, such people could apply to the Justice Department for relief from such a disability…<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Right. Keeping guns out of the hands of a man who had “an emotional divorce” is a “disability.”<\/p>\n

Get why I despise “libertarian” constructs? And why I want you to understand what you’ll be voting for if you vote for Gary Johnson.<\/p>\n

[Eugene Volokh] Man who was involuntarily committed 30 years ago might regain Second Amendment rights<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Posted: 15 Sep 2016 03:58 PM PDT<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/p>\n

(Paul Buck\/European Pressphoto Agency)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

This morning\u2019s 10-to-6 decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff\u2019s Department<\/a>, concludes that people who were committed because of mental illness many years ago might regain their Second Amendment rights. Like last week\u2019s 3rd Circuit decision related to the Second Amendment rights of people who had felony convictions decades ago<\/a>, this is a narrow decision, but an important one.<\/em><\/p>\n

1. Clifford Tyler, now age 74, \u201cwas involuntarily committed thirty years ago following an emotional divorce,\u201d and stayed at the mental hospital for two to four weeks. He has since then apparently not had any mental-health problems. But federal law<\/a> bans gun possession by anyone \u201cwho has been committed to a mental institution,\u201d and Tyler remains covered by that.<\/em><\/p>\n

From 1986 to 1992, such people could apply to the Justice Department for relief from such a disability, but in 1992 Congress \u201cdefunded this program, noting that reviewing applications was a \u2018very difficult and subjective task which could have devastating consequences for innocent citizens if the wrong decision is made.’\u201d In 2008, Congress did give states a financial incentive to create state rights-restoration systems, and a state restoration would lift the federal disability. But while about 30 states have implemented such systems, Michigan, where Clifford Tyler lives, lacks such a system.<\/em><\/p>\n

2. In D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court majority opinion recognized that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, but said that this doesn\u2019t forbid \u201cpresumptively lawful\u201d and \u201clongstanding\u201d bans on gun possession by \u201cfelons and the mentally ill.\u201d But 11 judges on the 6th Circuit held that \u201cprior involuntary commitment is not coextensive with current mental illness,\u201d so that Heller doesn\u2019t justify a ban on gun possession by anyone who had ever been mentally ill.<\/em><\/p>\n

At this point the those 11 6th Circuit judges split into three groups.<\/em><\/p>\n

a. Five judges (Judges Julia Smith Gibbons, Eugene Siler, Deborah Cook, Helene White and Bernice Donald) took the view that the restriction could still be upheld if it passed \u201cintermediate scrutiny,\u201d which here meant that it was a \u201creasonable fit\u201d to the government interests in preventing crime and suicide. But they concluded that the government hadn\u2019t shown enough of a reasonable fit: The government did introduce studies that people with mental-health problems generally had greater risk of committing crime or suicide, but those studies didn\u2019t focus on people who had brief mental-health episodes many decades ago. Because of this, Tyler would be entitled to regain his Second Amendment rights, unless on remand the government can show either that (a) Tyler indeed \u201cwould be a risk to himself or others were he allowed to possess a firearm,\u201d or (b) there are more studies that generally show the enduring dangerousness of people with long-ago commitments for mental illness.<\/em><\/p>\n

None of the government\u2019s evidence squarely answers the key question at the heart of this case: Is it reasonably necessary to forever bar all previously institutionalized persons from owning a firearm? But perhaps the biggest problem for the government is Congress\u2019s most recent answer to this very question: No, it is not.<\/p>\n

From 1986 to 1992, federal law provided a relief-from-disabilities program whereby individuals prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms could \u201cappl[y] to the Attorney General for relief from [their] disabilities.\u201d In 1992, Congress defunded this program, noting that reviewing applications was a \u201cvery difficult and subjective task which could have devastating consequences for innocent citizens if the wrong decision is made.\u201d In 2008, Congress changed its mind. It authorized federal grants to the states for their help in shoring up the NICS instant background check system after a gunman with \u201ca proven history of mental illness\u201d killed dozens at Virginia Tech\u2026. [This] is a clear indication that Congress does not believe that previously committed persons are sufficiently dangerous as a class to permanently deprive all such persons of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

b. Five judges (Judges Danny Boggs, Alice Batchelder, Jeffrey Sutton, David McKeague and Raymond Kethledge) took the view that \u2014 once someone is found to longer be \u201cmentally ill\u201d in the sense of being a continuing danger to himself or others \u2014 a ban on that person\u2019s gun possession is unconstitutional, with no need for \u201cintermediate scrutiny\u201d (or should at least be subjected to strict scrutiny, in Judge Boggs\u2019s separate opinion). Some of these judges also joined Judge Gibbons\u2019s opinion in concluding that the law would indeed likely fail intermediate scrutiny as applied to Tyler. To quote Judge Sutton\u2019s opinion,<\/em><\/p>\n

No government may permanently deny rights based on generalizations stemming from classifications about any individual who once was institutionalized.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

c. One judge (Judge John Rogers) concluded that, though the Heller \u201cmentally ill\u201d exception didn\u2019t apply to all people with past mental commitments, the prohibition on gun possession by such people did indeed pass intermediate scrutiny.<\/em><\/p>\n

d. Five judges (Judge Karen Nelson Moore, Chief Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., and Judges Eric Clay, Richard Allen Griffin and Jane Branstetter Stranch) concluded that the \u201cmentally ill\u201d exception categorically validates the \u00a7 922(g)(4) prohibition:<\/em><\/p>\n

In recognizing \u201clongstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by \u2026 the mentally ill,\u201d the Heller<\/i> Court was almost certainly referring to \u00a7 922(g)(4).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And even if intermediate scrutiny had to be applied, these judges concluded, the law passes intermediate scrutiny:<\/em><\/p>\n

The government has also established that the permanent nature of the disability is substantially related to its compelling interests. In its motion to dismiss, the government presented evidence to the district court regarding the high rate of relapse for individuals who have previously been involuntarily committed. Given the strong potential for relapse, and the difficulty in determining which previously committed individuals will pose further danger to themselves or others, Congress permissibly chose a broad prohibition. The rationale behind this policy choice is illustrated by Congress\u2019s experience administering \u00a7 925(c)\u2019s federal relief-from-disabilities program. Congress found that, under the program, \u201cATF officials [were] required to guess whether \u2026 a person committed to a mental institution can be entrusted with a firearm,\u201d and after \u201cspend[ing] many hours investigating \u2026 there [was] no way to know with any certainty whether the applicant [was] still a danger to public safety.\u201d \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And that Congress has allowed some discretionary relief in states that participate in the new program \u201cdoes not undermine [the] conclusion\u201d that \u201cthe government has provided evidence demonstrating that \u00a7 922(g)(4), as enacted, is substantially related to achieving the government\u2019s compelling interest in preventing violence and suicide.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

3. I suspect that, if the federal government asks the Supreme Court to review the case, the court will indeed agree to hear it; but I\u2019m not sure whether the federal government will indeed ask for review here.<\/em><\/p>\n

4. For those who keep track of such things, the five judges who signed on to the most Second-Amendment-protective position (see 2.b above) were 5-0 Republican appointees. The five judges in the middle (see 2.a above) were 4-1 Republican appointees. And the six judges who voted against the claimant (see 2.c and 2.d above) were 4-2 Democratic appointees.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eugene Volokh is a law professor who professes “libertarianism.” I’ve mocked this, um, not philosophy exactly, not political party exactly, but… an extension of the Koch Brothers Neu Wannsee Conference, i.e., the Final Solution to Democracy. In a nutshell–a deliberate … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[636,337],"tags":[1007,652,618,531],"class_list":["post-29254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-koch-bros-final-solution-to-democracy","category-legal-news","tag-federal-appellate-courts","tag-libertarianism","tag-neu-wannsee-conference","tag-second-amendment"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t