In a recent episode of Four Boxes Diner, constitutional attorney and gun rights advocate Mark W. Smith reported that former President Donald Trump has issued an executive order aimed at reviving mental institutions across the country. Smith explained that Trump’s directive would make it easier for states and local governments to place homeless people with severe mental illness or drug addictions into long-term institutional care.
Why Smith Calls It “Great News”
Smith, speaking directly to his audience, said this policy shift is “great news for the Second Amendment.” According to him, the main reason is simple: keeping unstable and violent individuals off the streets reduces the risk of mass shootings. “The single greatest threat to our Second Amendment rights,” Smith said, “comes from a whackadoodle nut job who should have been locked up but isn’t – and then uses a gun in a tragedy that gives anti-gunners ammunition to push for bans.”
Mass Shootings and Their Political Fallout
Smith drew a connection between mass shootings and the way gun control laws are passed in the aftermath. He explained that one violent incident can give anti-gun activists the leverage they need to strip away rights. “You saw this in Australia and in Europe,” Smith said, warning that every high-profile shooting becomes a rallying cry for those who want to limit gun ownership.
Bringing Back Involuntary Commitment
The plan, as Smith laid it out, involves using the civil commitment process – a legal system that allows courts to order treatment for those who pose a threat to themselves or others. Smith explained that these institutions were common until the 1960s and 1970s, when changes in law and public perception closed many of them. That led to more people with untreated mental illnesses living on the streets.
A Focus on Safety
For Smith, the central issue isn’t just the safety of the public, but also the political consequences that follow these tragedies. He argued that by institutionalizing those who are clearly dangerous, society protects innocent lives and avoids the emotional spikes that fuel gun control pushes. “If you’re too dangerous to be out on the street with a gun,” Smith said, “you’re probably too dangerous to be out on the street at all.”
Lessons From the Past
Smith took viewers back to a time when mental hospitals played a larger role. He noted that changes in the 1970s, like the influence of the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and concerns about civil liberties, created a wave of closures. According to Smith, that decision might have been well-intentioned, but it created a problem that has never been fully addressed.
Red Flag Laws Enter the Debate
One of the more surprising parts of Smith’s analysis is how this move intersects with red flag laws. In his view, red flag laws are unnecessary if dangerous individuals are already removed from society through a structured legal process. “If you’re too dangerous to own a gun, you’re too dangerous to be free,” Smith emphasized. “The correct answer is institutionalization with full due process, not a red flag order.”
Why Due Process Matters
Smith spent a significant part of his analysis talking about due process protections. He described the safeguards built into involuntary commitment: trials, lawyers, evidence standards, and expert witnesses. He argued that these protections should also be applied to any case where someone’s gun rights are at risk. “The rights are equal,” he said. “The standard to lock you up should be the same as the standard to take away your guns.”
Unexpected Benefits for Gun Owners
According to Smith, one of the indirect benefits of Trump’s proposal will be a national discussion about how much due process is required before someone can be institutionalized. He predicted that legal battles over these standards will lead to stronger protections that gun owners can later use to challenge red flag laws. “We will be able to turn those precedents around and use them to defend gun owners,” he said.
A Political Ripple Effect
This approach also highlights how deeply intertwined public safety policy and Second Amendment rights have become. Smith suggested that fewer mass shootings mean fewer opportunities for anti-gun legislators to pass restrictive laws. “Anti-gunners need those tragedies,” he said. “They use those moments when emotions run high to argue that guns are bad.” By preventing them, Smith believes, gun owners can protect their rights.
A Complex Solution
There’s something fascinating about this strategy. It blends public safety with constitutional law in a way we rarely hear. Whether or not one agrees with reopening mental institutions, the connection Smith makes is clear: when a violent tragedy happens, gun owners pay a price. This proposal aims to reduce those tragedies before they happen. It’s an old idea coming back in a very modern context.
A Balancing Act
Still, this idea raises questions about how to balance freedom and safety. It’s easy to see why Smith calls it “great news,” but it’s also a reminder that protecting rights isn’t simple. Locking people up based on mental illness must come with extraordinary safeguards, or the same system that protects could be abused. In the end, the fight over these institutions may be just as much about personal liberty as it is about public safety.
Looking Ahead
Smith closed his report by predicting fierce political battles ahead. If Trump’s plan moves forward, he expects strong opposition from groups concerned about civil liberties. Yet, Smith sees an opportunity for the Second Amendment community. “These fights will strengthen the legal framework around due process,” he said. “And that will help us in the battles to come.”
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
The article Trump Wants Mental Institutions Back – What Does That Mean for Gun Rights? first appeared on Survival World.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
