Warner Todd Huston
August 15, 2012

We all know that Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. is a huge anti-gun activist. It is also public knowledge in Illinois that he is a holder of an Illinois Firearms Owner ID (a FOID card). This state-issued ID that allows Illinois residents to legally purchase firearms and ammunition is supposed to be revoked for people that have been admitted to a mental health facility. So, will the state revoke Jackson’s FOID card?

Rep. Jackson was admitted to a mental health facility last month claiming “exhaustion” but it has since been learned he suffers from a more serious mental condition such as depression. His own wife said that he’s been “completely debilitated by depression.”

In fact, on August 13 it was reported that Jackson is suffering from a bipolar disorder.”

Now, many anti-gun, anti-Constitution activists like Jackson are fond of saying that mental patients should have all their rights to self protection instantly removed once they are identified with any sort of disorder. The Brady Campaign against guns, for one, has since it began said that anyone with a mental problem should be prevented from access to guns.

The relevant portion of the state FOID law is section 8 and 8E:
Sec. 8. The Department of State Police has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card previously issued under this Act only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance:

(e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution within the past 5 years or has been adjudicated as a mental defective;

So, the big question is, will there be calls from the left to have Jackson’s rights to his firearms removed in accordance both with the law in his state and city but in accordance to his left-wing ideals?

if thats the law, thats the law

A right that can be revoked is not a right, but is only a privilege that can be rescinded by the grantor.

A right can never be revoked by ANYONE, because no one has the authority to revoke it.

Anyone who does not recognize a right has no right to claim that right for himself.

Only an unreasonable man can have a minimum of his rights suspended for the good of himself and others if he presents what is reasonably determined to be a danger to self or others. His right(s) should then be entrusted to a trustee, who is responsible, to safeguard those rights for him while acting on his behalf.

I think if it was on his own recognizance than it doesn't count. I believe if only forced to be admitted.

msharmony of course has nothing to say. Any law is a good law I guess as far as she is concerned.

nope, but laws should be enforced equally, as far as I am concerned

if people dont agree with the law, they should work to change it
I understand and agree with the idea that the mentally ill (although I would define it further as those mentally ill who pose threat to themself and others, suicidal or overtly aggressive etc,,) should not have access to tools of death,,,

Why are you attacking msharmony, she merely states her opinions as we all do.

What made it an attack?

Id call it an observation based off of her nonsense answer.

Do you agree with her that if its a law it must be right? Because she either meant that, or said nothing at all except to state the obvious.

So which is it? Say nothing, or believe that laws are always right?

an inaccurate paraphrase again

nowhere did I mention something being 'right'

I simply said if thats the law , thats the law

laws should be enforced equally, regardless of occupation,,,


whether I agree with them or not, ( and this one I happen to, even t hough I dont agree with all laws), is not at issue for me here

at issue is, if others have theirs revoked for this reason, the senator should be no different,,,

So you said nothing at all then. Thanks for contributing!

Yes, the law is the law msharmony thanks for noticing!

(REVISED to exclude my personal thoughts,,,,lol)

I said plenty, though it wasnt what you believe so its 'nothing'

Without being psychic we all can only guess, unless you actually explain those kinds of comments.

So after all of that, do you think the law is just? Do you think it is effective?

I dont know the specifics of the law you are asking about.

I also dont know enough about Jacksons mental health.

I do believe those diagnosed with a propensity to harm themself or others should not have guns.
'
I also believe that their occupation should have nothing to do with enforcement of such a law,,

Hahahaha, sure sounds like you have no opinion.

Now we see the point of my comment.

When frustrated it is hard not to "attack" (by whatever means). Some, as shooters, bombers, carry it to an extreme, and that will ALWAYS continue to happen despite ANY law on ANY book, even the Quran or the Bible!

You can't legislate human emotion! I blunder at times, we all do, and thank whatever god you worship that this is only social media here!

Attack the opinion, the post, the law, and you have defended a right, attacking the messenger (and most of us are guilty at one time or another despite our best efforts) and you have violated one.

We can't have it both ways, and I apologize to any I have offended in my frustrations...... but does that mean it won't happen again? Only I, the individual, can prevent that....NOT gov't!

Therein will ALWAYS lay the problem! Too many laws will always restrict growth, freedom and liberties, continuing to cause frustration among the masses subject to them!

really so 'I believe' isnt precursor to an opinion?

I guess my school books got it all wrong,,,

Two rules gov't could solve most of our problems by following....

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

2. Keep it simple stupid!

You said: "I do believe those diagnosed with a propensity to harm themself or others should not have guns. "

But without knowing the law, and without knowing the situation how can you have an opinion on this topic, which was about the law, and about the situation.

Instead your opinion is on something not the situation, not the law, but something else that you decided was relevant without stating what, I guess you thought we would all read your mind and know what it was that you were talking about not knowing the situation and not knowing the law.