Supreme Court Asked To Correct Precedent That This Diagnosis Could Strip Individuals Of 2A Rights Forever

(Liberty Bell) – One of the most critically important rights that we have from God is that of self-defense. Not only does the Lord grant us all the right to protect our lives, our families, and our property, but He also gives us the right to own weapons that will ensure we are able to protect and defend our liberty from tyrannical government.

The federal government, infected with progressives and radical left-wing thought, have been seeking every opportunity that comes their way to try and push for gun control measures that will eventually result in the repeal of the Second Amendment and will bring about the loss of our right to bear arms.

If you don’t have the Second Amendment, you can’t protect the rest of your rights from an out of control government that wants desperately to force you to follow its programming.

This is what makes the case being reported on by WND about a man who has had his Second Amendment rights completely stripped away from him due to something that happened 20 years ago so very important.

According to the report, the Supreme Court is being asked to revisit a case that was decided by a lower court that used the “once sick, always sick” concept to remove the right to bear arms for Washington state resident, Duy T. Mai.

The reason for the lower court’s ruling is that Mai experienced a mental crisis as a young man, more than 20 years ago, which required him to spend some time institutionalized. However, since then, the court has made the determination that he is no longer a danger to himself or to others.

The court stated that the symptoms that led to Mai being committed “are not reasonably likely to reoccur” and under the law of the state of Washington he is “free to own a firearm.”

But then the 9th Circuit comes into the picture and insists that federal law prohibits anyone who has “been adjudicated as a mental defective or [have] been committed to a mental institution” from ever owning a firearm.

The William J. Olsen law firm, representing pro-Second Amendment groups like Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and the Heller Foundation, have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.

They are all arguing that after two decades have passed since the incident, Dai “has led an exemplary life.” The brief goes on to draw attention to the fact that the 9th Circuit has a rich history of not doing its part to protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, exhibiting a “dislike of things that go bang.”

With this ruling from the 9th Circuit, veterans who return from military service with PTSD and maybe even senior citizens “who occasionally forget where they left their car keys” would not be allowed to exercise their right to own a gun.

The 9th Circuit has responded by stating that they do not subscribe to the idea that “once mentally ill, always so,” but their ruling says otherwise.

The brief goes on to say that the ban against Mai “is not because he committed a crime or because he is too young to exercise his right, but rather merely because at one point in his life he suffered from a mental illness and was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”

“Petitioner does not currently suffer from a mental illness, but suffered from mental health problems,” the lawyers stated.

Featured image credit: Fibonacci Blue –

Copyright 2021.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here