NC SB 2081 - revoke gun rights of ALL mental patients (even OUTPATIENT!)


PDA






Green Lantern
June 18, 2008, 07:41 PM
From GOA:

Why Is The Tarheel State Trying To Be More Anti-gun Than The Federal
Government?
-- NICS reporting bill flawed in numerous ways

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, June 18, 2008


Dear North Carolina gun rights supporter,

You probably recall the long fight in Congress last year over the Veteran's
Disarmament Act. Although GOA -- thanks to its very active members -- was
able to substantially improve that legislation, it still represents the most
significant gun control passed at the federal level in the last decade.

In essence, large numbers of mental health records are now being sent by the
states to the federal NICS system for purposes of gun purchase background
checks. And so states are implementing procedures as to how they are going
to do this.

To no one's great surprise, the politicians in Raleigh are screwing up the
process big-time.

SB 2081 will potentially disarm large numbers of North Carolinians who pose
no danger to themselves or others... probably even in violation of federal
law! You read it right. SB 2081 goes beyond what is legally permissable
under federal law in many cases.

First, some background: In a letter dated May 9, 2007, the BATFE made it
clear that it is now going to treat a simple OUTPATIENT mental health
referral as though it were a "commitment to a mental
institution" -- and
thus a reason to prohibit a citizen from purchasing guns. In the same nutty
letter, BATFE opined that as long as there is even a *miniscule* chance of
persons being a danger to themselves or others (or being unable to handle
the vagaries of their affairs), the prohibition will stand. And what
psychiatrist is going to bet his or her professional reputation that a given
individual will never be a miniscule danger?

However, this letter is not a regulation, it is just BATFE's opinion. And
therein lies the rub. Even though federal interpretations are anti-gun, they
do require at least a tiny risk or some incompetence to be demonstrated.
There is no requirement in federal law that such outpatient records must be
delivered to NICS by the states.

When SB 2081 bans "outpatients" from owning firearms, it is
banning a class
of citizens, which BY STATUTORY DEFINITION poses no danger! None. NC General
Statute 122C-263(d)(1) permits commitment to outpatient treatment only for
people "capable of surviving safely in the community" whereas
dangerous
people, by law, have to be committed to an inpatient facility.

That doesn't seem to matter to anti-gun politicians like Attorney General
Roy Cooper, who has literally bragged that outpatient reporting has disarmed
80,000 people in Virginia... apparently he hopes the Tarheel State can
better that record.

This is a very dangerous precedent and a poorly-drafted bill at best. We've
seen veterans being disarmed for life merely for seeking treatment for
nightmares. And now Raleigh wants to notify the feds when sometimes we're
talking about no more than a stressed-out person being sent home by a shrink
with a prescription and orders to get some needed rest?

Unfortunately, it gets worse -- SB 2081 violates federal law. You see,
probably the only reason that the federal Veteran's Disarmament Act managed
to pass was that it included a provision for people being able to get their
rights restored once they have recovered from their mental trauma. In fact,
states are MANDATED to provide a "relief from disabilities"
process -- or
lose large amounts of federal money. Once you have been "fully
released or
discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or
monitoring" you are
no longer a prohibited person, period.

So how have the anti-gunners in the state capital chosen to do this? By
stating that:

The burden is on the petitioner to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that the petitioner no longer suffers from the condition that
resulted in commitment and no longer poses a danger to self or others for
purposes of the purchase, possession, or transfer of firearms....

And just in case you might be able to afford the time and money to hire an
attorney and go to court, they further direct that "The district
attorney
shall present any and all relevant information to the contrary."

But there's still a tiny chance you might prevail, so they're not done yet!
Guess what? That anti-gun DA gets statutory access to ALL of your records --
you are required to sign a waiver to that effect. Further, the judge can, in
his sole discretion, decide that the "public interest" would
be better
served if all proceedings (and all of those records) were made completely
public. And just to rub a little more salt into the wound, should an
anti-gun judge deny your petition, you are barred from trying again for a
full year.

It is a truism that PTSD has become a catch-all diagnosis for returning
military personnel. Sure, some people need legitimate help. But others are
only trying to get a decent night's sleep and are no danger to their
community. Certainly they don't deserve to lose their gun rights forever
just because war is hell.

In a state with a large number of active duty and veteran military
personnel, it is important that North Carolina not create a program which
will go even further than the anti-veteran program recently enacted by the
federal government.


ACTION:

This is probably going to be a long battle. Gun owners need to contact their
elected officials in Raleigh "early and often." A full Senate
contact roster
is appended below, as well as a pre-written letter to help direct your
comments. The easiest way to help is to simply copy/paste the pre-written
letter into an an e-mail to your Senator. If you don't know who your Senator
is, you can plug in your zipcode at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/ to identify
him or her.


--- Suggested pre-written letter --

Dear Senator:

SB 2081 goes beyond federal law -- and quite possibly violates it.More
than 100,000 veterans have been disarmed for life, often due to nothing
more than the nightmares one would expect after returning from combat. Those
fine people are no danger to our communities.

I am greatly disturbed by many aspects of SB 2081, especially the following:

1. Disarmament (for life) for simple OUTPATIENT treatment... which makes no
sense, as under current NC law, a person committed to outpatient treatment is
by definition "capable of surviving safely in the community"
and thus shouldn't be stripped of their constitutional rights;

2. A smoke-and-mirrors "process" for regaining those lost
rights that sets
standards which are almost impossible to meet; and,

3. The very fact that my state, with its numerous active duty and veteran
military personnel, would be willing to go far beyond the bounds of federal
requirements in disarming large segments of its populace.

Please vote against SB 2081. I also urge you to bring the problems with the
bill to the attention of your colleagues.

This really is the "worst case scenario" come to life, is it not?

Your kid has ADHD - no guns for him!
You are a little stressed and need a little something to help you sleep - no guns for you!
Your wife gets a little jittery at times, needs a little something to help with that - no guns for her!

I wonder if these miserable [unable to come up with a High Road adjective at the moment ;) ] that wrote this bill can begin to FATHOM how many people in the state - and the NATION - receive "outpatient" mental treatment?!?!

If you enjoyed reading about "NC SB 2081 - revoke gun rights of ALL mental patients (even OUTPATIENT!)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
lazyeye
June 18, 2008, 07:52 PM
They want to disarm ex-military personnel (and the rest of us).

Remember the bonus army? Picture them with ar-15s, demo knowledge and knowledge in insurgency fighting.

*warning, the above may be overly-reactionary and at least a little bit tongue in cheek. take with .5gr salt.

HIcarry
June 18, 2008, 08:41 PM
Hawaii has a "similar" provison that allows access to mental health records prior to obtaining the required permit to aquire a firearm...there have been many, many stories about people being turned down for such things as bedwetting as a child, "depression" after the death of a family member or a divorce, and, I believe, PTSD.
Do everything you can to prevent it's passage...

B.D. Turner
June 18, 2008, 08:58 PM
NC has another law that prohibits persons convicted of domestic violence from owning/possessing firearms. This could be as simple as making a minor threat and the victim taking out a warrant. Have a spat with your wife, girlfriend, x wife, x girlfriend, You could loose your gun rights.
NC has a declining mental health program and is wanting all mental health to be private. The back lash is thousands of mental patients filling the county jails. These people do not need firearms no doubt.

Thernlund
June 18, 2008, 09:02 PM
NC has another law that prohibits persons convicted of domestic violence from owning/possessing firearms.

That's a federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban


-T.

B.D. Turner
June 18, 2008, 09:17 PM
The NC General Statute is 50b. The North Carolina law goes a bit more than just banning those convicted. If you are served with a warrant for domestic violence you cannot possess a firearm even if you are not convicted until you go to court. I know of several people who had to surrender their firearms to the sheriff until their case was settled.

The scary thing about the firearms/ mental health bill is how mentally ill is too ill? Who draws the line? Taking paxal for mild depression? Could be over the line, but is it?

Huddog
June 18, 2008, 09:47 PM
I lived in NC for the first 35 years of my life and for the first time I am happy I no longer live there. I believe NCIS providing this info is in itself a violation of HIPPA laws and may be a way to attack this. Personally I do think the NC statute is in violation of Federal law.

B.D. Turner
June 18, 2008, 10:36 PM
So where would you draw the line for gun ownership with the mental patient?

Green Lantern
June 18, 2008, 10:49 PM
Ahhh...how I cursed HIPAA when I first heard the dire predictions of how IT could destroy our medical system with red tape...

Now, though...? :)

Then again - I'm not positive, but way back when I applied for my CCW license, seems I recall having to check a box that gives the sheriff access to my medical (or was it specifically mental health) records?

I got the permit, but as I said it was some time back..

So where would you draw the line for gun ownership with the mental patient?

Me? No guns for anyone while in a mental hospital. Once they get OUT of said hospital, they're good to go. Because if they're still too dangerous to be trusted with a gun - why the heck are they being RELEASED???? Same answer for prisoners, btw.

The State? Sounds like they're on BATFEs page - ANYONE who sees a psychiatrist/therapist/psychologist and is treated for something - "no soup for YOU!"

Standing Wolf
June 18, 2008, 11:18 PM
This really is the "worst case scenario" come to life, is it not?

Never takes long.

So where would you draw the line for gun ownership with the mental patient?

At the Second Amendment.

NC-Mike
June 25, 2008, 03:36 PM
Did anyone READ the bill...

SECTION 1. G.S. 122C‑54 is amended by adding the following new subsection to read:

"(d1) After a judicial determination that an individual shall be involuntarily committed for either inpatient or outpatient mental health treatment pursuant to Article 5 of this Chapter, the clerk of court shall, as soon as practicable, transmit a report of the commitment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The clerk shall also report a record where an individual is found not guilty by reason of insanity or found mentally incompetent to proceed to trial. The Clerk, upon receipt of documentation that an affected individual has received a relief from disabilities pursuant to G.S. 122C‑54.1 (18. § U.S.C. 925(c),) shall update the person's record in the NICS This record of involuntary commitment shall be accessible only by an entity having proper access to NICS and shall remain otherwise confidential as provided by this Article. The Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Health and Human Services shall establish protocols to facilitate the transmission of this information to NICS."

SECTION 2. Article 3 of Chapter 122C of the General Statutes is amended by adding the following new section to read:

"§ 122C‑54.1. Restoration of right to purchase firearm.

(a) Any individual over the age of 18 may apply for the restoration of the right to purchase, possess, or transfer a firearm when the individual no longer requires treatment or medication for a condition which resulted in the individual's involuntary commitment for either inpatient or outpatient mental health treatment pursuant to Article 5 of this Chapter. No individual who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity may petition a court for restoration of the right to purchase, possess, or transport a firearm.

(b) Subsequent to a judicial determination that an individual is subject to the commitment procedures in Article 5 of this Chapter, and ordered to undergo either inpatient or outpatient treatment, the individual, if over the age of 18, and upon the expiration of any current inpatient or outpatient commitment, may file a petition for an adjudication by the district court judge that the petitioner is no longer undergoing treatment or medication for a condition that resulted in commitment and is no longer a danger to himself or others for purposes of the purchase, possession, or transfer of firearms pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 922 and G.S. 14‑404 and G.S. 14‑415.12.

(c) The petition must be filed in the district court of the county where the respondent was the subject of the most recent judicial determination that either inpatient or outpatient treatment was appropriate. An individual disqualified from firearms possession due to a comparable out‑of‑State mental commitment shall make application in the county of residence. The clerk of court upon receipt of the petition shall schedule a hearing using the regularly scheduled commitment court time and provide notice of the hearing to the petitioner, the district attorney, and designated representative for the North Carolina Attorney General's office. Copies of the petition must be served on the director of the inpatient and outpatient treatment facility, in-State or out‑of‑State, the district attorney in the petitioner's current county of residence, and a designated representative for the North Carolina Attorney General's office.

(d) Contemporaneous with the petition, the petitioner must file an affidavit by a psychiatrist or eligible psychologist that the petitioner is no longer undergoing treatment or medication for a condition resulting in commitment and is no longer a danger to himself or others for purposes of the purchase, possession, or transfer of firearms. The burden is on the petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner's possession of firearms no longer poses a danger to himself or others. The district attorney or designated representative from the North Carolina Attorney General's office shall present any and all relevant information which may establish that the petitioner's possession of firearms would pose an undue risk of harm to the petitioner or the public. For these purposes, the district attorney or designated representative from the North Carolina Attorney General's office may access and use any and all mental health records, juvenile records, and criminal history of the petitioner wherever maintained. The applicant must sign a release for the district attorney or designated representative from the North Carolina Attorney General's office to receive any mental health records of the applicant. The proceeding shall be open to the public. The decision of the district court may be appealed to the superior court for a hearing de novo. After a denial by the superior court, the applicant must wait a minimum of one year before reapplying.

(e) Upon a judicial determination that a petitioner's possession of firearms is no longer a danger to the petitioner or the public, the clerk of superior court shall forward the order to the NICS for updating of the respondent's record."

SECTION 3.(a) G.S. 14‑404 is amended by adding the following new subsection to read:

"(g) The sheriff shall issue a license or permit for the purchase of a firearm under this section to an individual denied a permit under subdivision (4) of subsection (c) of this section if the individual's rights to purchase a firearm have been restored under G.S. 122C‑54.1.

SECTION 3.(b) G.S. 14‑415.12(b) is amended by adding the following new subsection to read:

"(c) The sheriff shall issue a permit for the purchase or possession of a firearm under this section to an individual denied a permit under subdivision (6) of subsection (b) of this section if the individual's rights to purchase or possess a firearm have been restored under G.S. 122C‑54.1."

SECTION 4. There is appropriated from the General Fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts the sum of twenty‑five thousand dollars ($25,000) for the 2008‑2009 fiscal year to carry out the provisions of this act.

SECTION 5. Sections 1 through 3 of this act become effective December 1, 2008. Section 4 of this act becomes effective July 1, 2008. The remainder of this act is effective when it becomes law.

ArmedBear
June 25, 2008, 03:46 PM
Here's the problem: the more we do to mess with "mental patients", the less likely people are to go get any help they need to avoid having a paper trail.

If we took away gun rights (and various other rights) from diabetics, we'd have lots of people dying from untreated diabetes. Someone with acute hypoglycemia can be dangerous, so this is not something that couldn't happen, either.

gripper
June 25, 2008, 03:54 PM
I wonder if this bill was inspired by th einfamous "Eppley Memo" within th eVA medical system from 99 or 2000...that was where a VA adminstrator thought it a good idea to breach the confidentiality of treatment records in order to help the Clinton-Reno D of J disqualify many veterans WITHOUT any interaction with th ecriminal justice system...some guy goes to get some help with difficulties and suddenly finds himelf dfisqualified at the point of NICS with no explanation or elaboration.

MiddleAgedKen
June 25, 2008, 04:13 PM
So where would you draw the line for gun ownership with the mental patient?

Anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a custodian.

NC-Mike
June 25, 2008, 05:51 PM
Its a GOOD bill...

The key to the bill is INVOLUNTARILY committed. If a person is involuntarily committed they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm till all is well with them.

Take careful attention as to what the bill does; the clerk of the court updates the NICS system and the individual will not be allowed to purchase a firearm till they can prove they are mentally competent.

I don't see the problem and its what I call true "common sense gun law"

The way the opposition will frame any argument against this bill is:

NRA DEMANDS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED MENTAL PATIENTS BE ALLOWED TO BUY FIREARMS! :what:

Green Lantern
June 25, 2008, 11:25 PM
So, what the devil constitutes being "involuntarily committed" for OUTPATIENT mental treatment exactly???

Attorney General
Roy Cooper, who has literally bragged that outpatient reporting has disarmed
80,000 people in Virginia... apparently he hopes the Tarheel State can
better that record.

NC-Mike
June 25, 2008, 11:45 PM
So, what the devil constitutes being "involuntarily committed" for OUTPATIENT mental treatment exactly???


Obviously a Doctor would have to commit you to treatment against your wishes. You can also sue that Doctor if he does so I imagine this will be done only when circumstances warrant it. There would have to be a significant event to prompt that kind of medical intervention.

Do you really want people that have been involuntarily committed to mental health services passing a NICS check and buying firearms? That's exactly what could have been prevented in the VT shootings and gives the RTKABA a bum rap.

pyle
June 26, 2008, 12:22 AM
The problem with these kind of laws has everything to do with the definition of "mental illness". A "phobia" is a type of mental illness. So, you could say that a person who has sought help to overcome the fear of speaking in public (a type of social phobia called glossophobia) has been treated for mental illness.....

Obviously, this particular law is talking about "involuntary" treatment...However, what's the next step? The person who has sought help for overcoming the fear of speaking in public?

Social Phobia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_phobia

Green Lantern
June 26, 2008, 12:35 AM
Mike - wouldn't OUTPATIENT "involuntary commitment" be kind of an oxymoron?

How is a doctor going to see that a patient takes a treatment he does not want when he's not under supervision inside a hospital - which would be an "INpatient" situation, no?

And why do you NOT want someone who's been involuntarily committed before buying firearms? After all, if s/he's a free person now and no longer being confined to the hospital/asylum/whatever - they're no longer a danger, right?

Well, that's how it SHOULD be...

Am I that far off in my med terminology? Is "outpatient" treatment NOT a situation where a doc gives someone a prescription and sends the patient on their way???

EOTechRulesAll
June 26, 2008, 01:08 AM
NC-Mike
Its a GOOD bill...

The key to the bill is INVOLUNTARILY committed. If a person is involuntarily committed they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm till all is well with them.

Take careful attention as to what the bill does; the clerk of the court updates the NICS system and the individual will not be allowed to purchase a firearm till they can prove they are mentally competent.

I don't see the problem and its what I call true "common sense gun law"

The way the opposition will frame any argument against this bill is:

NRA DEMANDS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED MENTAL PATIENTS BE ALLOWED TO BUY FIREARMS!



It's a bad bill. If somebody is deemed fit to be outside of a prison or an asylum, that means society (in the case of prisons) or doctors (in the case of asylums) has stamped an approval on that person being able to have a presence within the community. If somebody is fit to be in a community of fellow citizens, then that person is fit to bear arms.


If somebody is released from prison (even for armed robbery) but is not allowed to have a firearm, then it means they should not have been released to begin with as they are not deserving of trust.

I've gone on the record before, in debates and discussions, as stating that it is my belief that ex-cons should be allowed to keep and bear arms. If they're fit to be outside of prison, they're fit to bear arms. If not, then they should still be in prison.

paintballdude902
June 26, 2008, 02:21 AM
I wonder if these miserable [unable to come up with a High Road adjective at the moment ] that wrote this bill can begin to FATHOM how many people in the state - and the NATION - receive "outpatient" mental treatment?!?!


maybe they do and that is exactly what they want

jrpbullrider
June 26, 2008, 02:44 AM
(d1) After a judicial determination that an individual shall be involuntarily committed for either inpatient or outpatient mental health treatment pursuant to Article 5 of this Chapter,

Please some one tell me how can someone be involuntary commitment for outpatient mental health treatment?

Any individual over the age of 18 may apply for the restoration of the right to purchase, possess, or transfer a firearm when the individual no longer requires treatment or medication for a condition which resulted in the individual's involuntary commitment for either inpatient or outpatient mental health treatment pursuant to Article 5 of this Chapter.



What I would like to know how hard will it be to get their right back?

I know others have asked but no one said how it can be.
Thanks
John

NC Dave
June 26, 2008, 07:47 AM
Green Lantern -

Yes, you authorized your mental health records to be available for review when you applied for your North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit.

NC Dave
June 26, 2008, 07:52 AM
The way the opposition will frame any argument against this bill is:

NRA DEMANDS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED MENTAL PATIENTS BE ALLOWED TO BUY FIREARMS!

I agree that this is a key point to consider.

For the record, this is what the NRA Institute for Legislative Action has to say on the issue:

North Carolina: Important Bill Needs Your Attention Today!

Friday, June 13, 2008

The North Carolina General Assembly is in full swing for its 2008 session and NRA has been working with legislators in Raleigh on an important bill. Senate Bill 2081 would make critical changes to North Carolina law in order to get the Tar Heel State in compliance with the federal “NICS Improvement Act,” which was signed into law in January of this year. This federal law provides financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the National Instant Check System (NICS). As it relates to S 2081 in North Carolina, “The NICS Improvement Act” requires states to establish a system that would allow individuals who have been involuntarily committed, by a court, to a mental health treatment program to have their commitment reported to NICS. Individuals with such commitments are already prohibited under federal law from purchasing or possessing a firearm, but not all applicable commitments are currently reported to NICS.

“The NICS Improvement Act” also requires states to establish “relief from disability” programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. S 2081 seeks to bring North Carolina into compliance with these standards.

NRA is currently neutral on S 2081, but we have been working closely with State Senator Tony Rand’s (D-19) office, as well as other interested parties, to ensure the legislation is crafted appropriately. The bill has already been amended to address several areas of concern raised by NRA, and we will continue to work with Senator Rand and others to make sure S 2081 has no significant problems for law-abiding gun owners.

Please contact your State Senator and urge him to work with NRA to make sure S 2081 does not adversely affect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Please also take the time to contact your State Representative with the same message. Both can be reached by phone at 919-733-7928.

The House of Representatives introduced House Bill 2747, which mirrors S 2081 as originally introduced, so please urge your State Representative to follow the lead of the Senate in working with NRA to improve its own legislation.

B.D. Turner
June 26, 2008, 08:25 AM
Some on here believe that if you are released by a mental hospital that you are well to live a normal life in society. This would be a better world if this were true however it is not. Mental health is a revolving door. Jails across america are full of people who should be in mental hospitals rather than local lock ups. We house folks for months who scream and beat the walls day and night. Some of these people have been to a mental hospital but many have never been treated anywhere by anyone.

NC-Mike
June 26, 2008, 11:06 AM
It is a good bill and it is necessary to bring NC into compliance with the Improved NICS Act.

What is Involuntary commitment in NC?

Legal Requirements for Involuntary Commitment

Chapter 122C of the North Carolina General Statutes requires that the respondent be mentally ill and a danger to himself or others or in need of treatment in order to prevent further disability or deterioration that would predictably result in dangerousness.

Definitions

"Dangerous to himself" means that within the relevant past the respondent has acted in such a way as to show that he would be unable, without care, supervision, and the continued assistance of others not otherwise available, to exercise self-control, judgment, and discretion in the conduct of his daily responsibilities and social relations, or to satisfy his need for nourishment, personal or medical care, shelter, or self-protection and safety; and that there is a reasonable probability of his suffering serious physical debilitation within the near future unless adequate treatment is given. (A showing of behavior that is grossly irrational, of actions that the individual is unable to control, of behavior that is grossly inappropriate to the situation, or of other evidence of severely impaired insight and judgment creates a prima facie inference that the individual is unable to care for himself) or
The individual has attempted suicide or threatened suicide and that there is a reasonable probability of suicide unless adequate treatment is given or
The individual has mutilated himself or attempted to mutilate himself and that there is a reasonable probability of serious self-mutilation unless adequate treatment is given.

"Dangerous to others" means that within the relevant past, the individual has inflicted or attempted to inflict or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm on another, or has acted in such a way as to create a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to another, or has engaged in extreme destruction of property; and that there is a reasonable probability that this conduct will be repeated. NCGS 122C-3(11)(B)

Note that involuntary commitment and court-ordered treatment should only be used as a last resort and only when it is believed to be in the best interests of the individual.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:TNJ7s0an0gUJ:www.aoc.state.nc.us/magistrate/commitments.htm+%22involuntary+commitment%22+%2BNC&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en


Citizens who have been subject to an involuntary commitment should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. I fail to see any argument that disputes that simple fact.

Green Lantern
June 26, 2008, 06:51 PM
And yet again I ask...

How can someone be "involuntarily committed" for OUTPATIENT treatment??????

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm having shades of the McCarthy "barrel shroud" debacle when I see that statement in the bill.

That the NRA is "neutral" on it does nothing to quell my worries either.

NC-Mike
June 26, 2008, 09:59 PM
And yet again I ask...

How can someone be "involuntarily committed" for OUTPATIENT treatment??????

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm having shades of the McCarthy "barrel shroud" debacle when I see that statement in the bill.

That the NRA is "neutral" on it does nothing to quell my worries either.


Just look at the requirements of involuntary commitment I posted. The obvious answer is it is very unlikely that someone would be involuntarily committed to out-patient treatment.

The exceptions may be spousal-abuse cases, drug abuse cases or some freakish outburst at work or some other public place but the individual would still have a court date and an examination by a doctor who would make the call. Bottom line is you first have to have committed a criminal offense or be deemed a danger to yourself or others by a physician to be involuntarily committed.

There is nothing to fear in this legislation unless you support involuntarily committed mental-heath patients passing a NICS check and obtaining firearms legally.

gau5
June 26, 2008, 11:48 PM
I think this is directed at a situation such as the Va. Tech shooter, Cho, who was ordered to get Psyc. counseling at some point prior to the shootings. So involuntary committment to OUTPATIENT treatment ordered by a judge would apply with this bill, where under the current laws, it would not.
I dont have a problem with this so long as the definition (legal requirments for comittment) posted above strictly applies
It does not sound like it applies if you go see a doc yourself for treatment.

hso
June 27, 2008, 01:59 PM
Sorry to be so late getting back with a closing note.

Debates on a particular piece of legislation are not what the Activism subforum is for. If the debate is of value to the participants it there are other sections of THR that it can be opening in.

If you enjoyed reading about "NC SB 2081 - revoke gun rights of ALL mental patients (even OUTPATIENT!)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!