Actually, no. :smile:

He has been adjudged legally insane by a jury of his peers and thus was never convicted of a felony.

It would be up to a court to adjudicate whether he has progressed to the point where his Second Amendment Rights could be restored.

However, that is really a moot point, since there is zero likelihood that he will SEEK to have such rights restored.

Would a governor’s pardon effectively restore his rights?

No, because a pardon is effectively an act of grace.

Because a determination of insanity is not a criminal determination, there can be no grace given, thus no pardon.

Not all mental illness results in violent actions. Should it be looked at?
Definitely, but, not everyone with say PTSD is a danger to themselves or others and that should be the criteria, is the individual a danger to themselves or others.

Ah, you’re right.

I think so.

If January 6 commission has taught us anything, voting is much more dangerous than firearms.

3 Likes

He should not have been released.

I agree, since he apparently can’t be trusted with a firearm.

I don’t even care about that. He shot the president. Insane but guilty, he should never be free again.

I think shooting the President should put someone in the same category as a non-uniformed enemy combatant. If we can summarily execute an insurgent… :person_shrugging:

2 Likes

Works for me.

1 Like

Worked for Lee Harvey Oswald.

1 Like

Too bad they never got the other shooter though. lol

3 Likes

Yeah, so no.

Where is the “mental disability” here?

He was never diagnosed by a licensed professional with anything.

This denial of Santucci’s Second Amendment Right is nothing more than Hawaiien libbie

:nauseated_face::face_vomiting:

1 Like

As I originally said, this subject is walking a fine line and I don’t know what the answer is? I also do not want to hand over something as important as a Constitutional right into the hands of our corrupt government to be used against “we the people”. It’s a conundrum that needs to be addressed but I do not know what entity I’d trust with such a responsibility?

…or all of them.

1 Like

There are two sides to this coin, be cognizant of that and that’s all I said.

I want to add something additional in this thread; when I was in high school, it was ok to bring a shotgun to school but I had to leave it locked up in the trunk of my vehicle. It was permitted because after school, I was going duck hunting. No one shot anyone and around the country, prior to this time, there were not the many examples of school shootings taking place.

Our country is not as sane as it once was with a gun. Divorce, children being raised in a broken home or born into a fatherless family has greatly increased since this time. My point is that when raised without the balance of a loving mother and father designating the lanes of life that guide a child into adulthood, has created the mental imbalance that has matured to where “we” are today.

When the Constitution was written, each had to provide for their own existence and maintaining it required a gun as a necessary tool. That is not where “we” are today. The fine line is where “we the people” must be armed so that our government can not become a dictatorship but now “we” must recognize the level of maturity among us has significantly declined and some…to the degree of not being mentally responsible to have a gun. There’s truth to both sides of this coin and it must be addressed soon IMO.

2 Likes