Document Type
Working Paper
Publication Date
9-15-2012
SSRN Discipline
PSN Subject Matter eJournals; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy eJournals; Health Economics Network; Legal Scholarship Network; Social Insurance Research Network; Law School Research Papers - Legal Studies; Law & Society eJournals; Law & Society: Public Law eJournals; Law School Research Papers - Public Law & Legal Theory; Cognitive Science Network; Political Institutions eJournals; Political Science Network; Health Law eJournals
Abstract
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
Recommended Citation
Fredrick E. Vars & Amanda E. Adcock,
Do the Mentally Ill Have a Right to Bear Arms?,
(2012).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_working_papers/1