Concerns About Possible New Mental Health Legislation


PDA






tmg19103
April 24, 2007, 04:42 PM
No doubt Cho was insane and never should have been able to buy a gun.

However, I am concerned about where this could go if the government just decides it does not like you. The below link is chilling and should have us all concerned. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the likes of Cho, but aparently the system is already being abused.

Makes me afraid to ever see a psychiatrist if I ever were to need one.

http://psychrights.org/Education/4-24-04Speech.pdf

If you enjoyed reading about "Concerns About Possible New Mental Health Legislation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Neo-Luddite
April 24, 2007, 09:34 PM
There is good reason to tread lightly--LOTS of vets get psych services and meds--will their freedoms be abridged lightly?

rkh
April 24, 2007, 09:51 PM
My concern is that generally reasonable people who could benefit from mental health counseling will decline treatment for fear of losing their rights.

Barbara
April 24, 2007, 09:57 PM
I was at a meeting with two NRA directors tonight and we talked about the bill. One of the sponsors is anti-gun, one is pro-gun.

The bill administratively cleans up what already exists: There is a NICS checks and states are asked to report those who have been adjudicated to NICS, but many do not (Virginia being one of them.) This bill, as I understand it, would withhold funds from states who do not voluntarily comply with this reporting.

Autolite
April 24, 2007, 11:27 PM
It's going to be interesting to see how this "mental illness" issue is going to play out. If the government determines that someone is too "psychotic" to be permitted to own a firearm, how could they justify permitting the same person to continue to hold a driver's license???

Steelcore
April 25, 2007, 08:35 AM
So what will the antis attach to this bill?The devil is in the details......

JohnBT
April 25, 2007, 10:41 AM
"There is a NICS checks and states are asked to report those who have been adjudicated to NICS, but many do not (Virginia being one of them.)"

I've always read that Virginia leads the nation (of the 22 states that report) in reporting adjudicated individuals.

For instance, from today's Richmond Times-Dispatch, in an article that begins on the front page:

"Coincidently, Virginia, unlike the majority of states, is active in reporting mental health information, Kaine said."

Maybe the Governor is wrong. :)

tmg19103
April 25, 2007, 12:46 PM
I think in the VA case the judge checked a box that while Cho was a danger to himself and others, and mentally ill, he could get voluntary treatment. Since he was not involuntarily committed, it was not reported to NICS under VA law.

However, under Federal law it should have been reported to NICS just because Cho was declared a danger to himself and others. This is my concern, though no doubt Cho should have been committed in retrospect. The Federal law is specific that you just don't have to have been involuntarily commited, but if you are adjudicated a danger to yourself or others, you lose your firearms rights forever.

That is what we need to be careful about - the fact that any judge, based on the testimony of some liberal, anti-gun shrink, can take away your rights forever.

Quotes from the link in my post that started this thread about involuntary commitment:

"a system in which (1) dishonest testimony is often regularly (and unthinkably) accepted; (2) statutory and case law standards are frequently subverted; (3) insurmountable barriers are raised to ensure that the allegedly 'theraputically correct' social end is met".

"In other words, psychiatrists often commit perjury because they won't allow such things as the pesky constitution to get in the way of what they think is right".

"Anything the defendant says is deemed a symptom of their 'illness'. In fact, denying one has mental illness is deemed a symptom of mental illness".

"I had a client who refused to talk to the psychiatrist because she quite legitimately felt he was just talking to her to make a case against [her]. That became a justification for a diagnosis fo paranoid schizophrenia".

"It is a stacked deck; it is a sham that is hurting people".

Now, this is before Cho. Think how bad things could get? Be very, very careful about what you say and how you act. The more chilling aspect is that because people might be concerned about being called a nut, they won't aggressively petition the government.

JohnBT
April 25, 2007, 12:48 PM
Part II. I just read the Washington Post while I ate lunch.

From a page one article "Kaine May Seek More Data..."

"But the Brady system relies on the states to send criminal and mental health records to the FBI database. As a result of lawsuits, the federal government cannot mandate that the states do so."

"In 2003 Virginia began voluntarily reporting mental health records..." "Only 22 states provide such records."

"Since then, Virginia has reported more than 80,000 mental health records to the FBI, more than any other state."

So it appears there's no penalty for not sending Cho's record because there's no requirement to send any info.

If you enjoyed reading about "Concerns About Possible New Mental Health Legislation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!