Mental Illness Impacts Gun Ownership in Ways You Never Imagined

There are definite restrictions in the law for who can possess a firearm. While gun owners should know them to stay out of jail, do they really understand all the nuances? Maybe not…

For example, let’s take the situation of someone who is deemed mentally ill…can they possess a firearm legally? Most would answer “no” based on the current possession laws. Seems pretty straightforward and makes complete sense. But what about their spouse?

How would you respond if your husband was undergoing some psychiatric evaluations? Would you be thinking your firearms would be at risk because of this kind of testing? If you answered no, you would be wrong…

Take the case of Lori Rodriquez where the city of San Jose seized her firearms because her husband was forced to undergo a psychiatric exam. An article in Fox News called, “California city seizes woman’s guns over husband’s mental health,” tells a different story you might want to be aware of as a gun owner. In this case, Lori’s 12 firearms were seized back in 2013 because her husband was locked up for 72 hours for a psychiatric evaluation. The city was acting based on their belief it was an issue of public safety.

After fighting this in court for the past couple of years, the city of San Jose prevailed when the seizure was challenged in court. Did it violate her 2nd Amendment rights? Did it violate her right to bear arms and possess firearms even though she was not the one in question? These are all the questions her attorney is claiming and trying to fight for in the courts. But it is deemed to be a threat to public safety so they can act according to the law.

What do you think? Is this a situation you feel is justified based on the desire to keep the public safe or is it going overboard and restricting her 2nd Amendment rights? Share your thoughts if you want in the comments section below. I’m sure this isn’t over yet and there are lots of people interested to see just what the reach of the law might really be. But if this stands, does it mean that anyone supposedly living with or exposed to a “person of threat” has to surrender their firearms? Lots to discuss and I’m sure there is more to come.

If you are in a situation where this might pertain to you, it is advisable to seek the counsel of an attorney before something happens…if for no other reason than to understand your options and a potential plan for the future.

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.