Because somehow, Hawaii gets to rummage through your medical records in order for you to disprove a negative.
This is why seeking “mental healthcare” is a pathetic joke. It’s nothing but a weapon against you.
Requiring medical clearance to exercise one’s rights, with a cost that comes out of pocket? 
So now being homesick is depression??
Hell the majority of our military gets homesick at some point. Just one more way the anti-gun nuts will use to deny a constitutional right.
“Men need to seek more therapy and we all need to stop stigmatizing it!”
“Let’s use their mental health records as a weapon against their inherent rights!”
Such cases are why some people won’t seek treatment.
IMHO…this subject is walking a very fine line. We don’t need guns in the hands of those with mental disabilities and yet, we don’t need government overreach wrongly applying this thought and going against our Constitutional rights. In this instance, it appears to be government overreach.
Being homesick is NOT a mental disability.
Being homesick is a mental illness?
Also, precluding them being an actual danger to anyone, it’s pretty horrifying to strip their right to defend theirselves.
Prove you aren’t crazy to get a license for a right. Great.
I tried to be clear but evidently, I wasn’t?
That said, if the individual did have a recognizable mental illness, should they have legal access to a gun?
great… using mental illness to restrict rights… everyone who thinks government is their savior has a mental illness… restricting their right to vote is paramount…
John Hinckley Jr., who will be performing in concert in New York City on July 8th, got more consideration than the Sailor. He has been deemed no longer a threat and freed from all controls.
Meanwhile the Sailor is debarred of a Constitutional Right for feeling homesick.
Definitely ■■■■■■ up.
■■■■■■ up beyond all repair.
I have long advocated that only a court can debar a person of the Second Amendment Right and ONLY if the State proves that the person’s illness makes him an actual threat to society, with the burden of proof being on the State and the person in question allowed to fight the determination in open court.
And if a person is so determined, that person would, at regular intervals, have the right to go to court to reassert his Second Amendment Right, with the burden of proof on the State to show that he remains an actual threat to society.
It should be absolutely impossible to administratively debar a person of their Second Amendment Rights.
Additionally, the person should be able to subpoena military witnesses that could be in his favor and force them to testify or produce evidence that could be in his favor.
Bureaucritically
Strange how Hinckley is considered “no longer a threat” while also being barred from owning firearms. 
Hinckley was adjudicated mentally insane by a jury of his peers. It would be very difficult to have a jury adjudication overturned and I doubt he will seek to do so.
If he’s not a danger, why can’t he have a gun?
And adjudication of insanity by a jury is pretty much the same as adjudication of a felony by a jury. It is a much harder bar to overcome. It could be overcome, but much harder.
But he’s a felon. A violent felon. Do you think he should be able to have a gun?
If they’re too violent to be on the streets, they need to be permanently off the streets.
Otherwise, their rights need to be fully restored upon completion of their sentence.
Should he be able to vote?
