Mentally impaired and guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
What Cos said is true, but in NY it's a "may if the choose to" issue state, They can pull your permit and not even give a reason.
It would be a sure thing that the shooting of someone in her position would be grounds for an investigation, I would be suprised if it was not done immediatlly, They don't know anything about this kind of shooting when it happens.
The first thin they do is pull the guns and carry permit. then investigate and after the results "if you are cleared" you get it back.
I don't know what they do in her state
 
Part of me thinks people with REAL mental problems should not be allowed to own guns, the problem is the line may start with people that hear voices in the heads telling them to hurt people, or that have a history of violent outbreaks and will quickly lead to people that are having trouble sleeping loosing their gun rights.
 
Not an easy topic.

Locally, a pastor was murdered on the steps of his church by his wife. She shot him. At trial, she claimed she was bi-polar and that diagnosis was enough to declare her innocent of murder. She does not have a conviction on her record and she is out and about.

I think if you are suffering from a mental condition that if you kill people, you don’t go to jail or the electric chair, then in my opinion, you should not have any guns.

Maybe we should include people who are on anti depressants and anti psychotics . That will disarm most of the women over 50!
 
A violent mental case should not be allowed to own a gun-period!!

Read the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. States are supposed input the names of adjudicated mental cases into NICS. Problem is that few states are doing that.

How are the terms "adjudicated as a mental defective" and "committed to a mental institution" defined?
Section 922(g)(4), Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by an individual who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." Regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, define these terms as follows:
Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(2) The term shall include —

A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
Click to expand...

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49

CNN has a good piece on NICS and the failure of states to furnish input. CNN used the example of a long time OK violent mental case who legally bought guns, murdered his mother, cut her body up and froze the parts.

He didn't steal his guns or borrow them. He bought them.

"He bought them like any normal person would -- he got them at Walmart," said Oklahoma City Police Capt. Dexter Nelson.

Hume bought the rifles at the Walmart in Moore, Oklahoma, on September 25. The next day he bought the Glock at Gun World in the nearby town of Dell City, according to Nelson. Both are federally licensed gun dealers that conduct background checks. The checks, in theory, are supposed to stop certain people -- including the mentally ill with a history of violence -- from buying them.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/
 
Last edited:
I don't know about other states, but here in NC if the police respond to a domestic call they confiscate all the guns in the house. I don't know what the process is to get your guns back.
 
I don't really expect this idea to be popular, but here it goes.
Firearms are already restricted to persons on schedule 1 and 2 drugs. Why not include ones that have been identified by their manufacturers to have violent side effects, particularly when NOT taking them. Just add a line in the 4473 right after line 11e that says, "Are you taking or have you ever been prescribed anti depressants, or anti psychotics?
 
The fact is, within a draconian agenda, the authorities could label almost anyone mentally ill based on their willingness to accept their agenda or not. Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, all played this card.

And, they ALL took weapons away from the people so they couldn't defend themselves.
 
Edit: furthermore, do you know how many people in America fantasize about hurting their bosses or pushing them off a roof or something? That doesn't mean that they are actually going to act on those fantasies. I mean there's a pretty clear distinction between fantasizing about doing something illegal, and actually doing it.
Click to expand...

I know with 100% certainty that in California, this is not the case.


Firearms are already restricted to persons on schedule 1 and 2 drugs.
Click to expand...

Please explain.
 
Last edited:
It is the warning signs of already known people with a diagnosis that needs more monitoring ala cho, Laughter, and Conn nut job, not G I Joe or depressed housewives
 
It would be simple enough to include RX's for certain anti-psychotics as a prohibiting factor. Enforcement is tricky given federal and state privacy issues.

My own tolerance for the crazed murderers is getting less and less. Reviving the asylums seems like a potential solution as well. At least for the violently insane who are a threat to others if off meds. I'd be happy to pay an excise tax on firearms to help pay for their lifetime housing at a secured facility.
 
alsaqr said:
A violent mental case should not be allowed to own a gun-period!!

Read the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. States are supposed input the names of adjudicated mental cases into NICS. Problem is that few states are doing that.



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49

CNN has a good piece on NICS and the failure of states to furnish input. CNN used the example of a long time OK violent mental case who legally bought guns, murdered his mother, cut her body up and froze the parts.



http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/
Click to expand...
And at what point is someone considered "non-violent" if they have been rehabilitated? It's such a terrible slippery slope to not allow ex-criminals and people with a history of mental illness to own firearms. If anything, this will only make people not want to seek mental help. A mental health check is counter-productive.
 
cluck said:
People who illegally use controlled substances are restricted persons. (Line 11e on 4473)
Click to expand...
You know, let's get into that illegal drug arguement (even though you are talking about the abuse of legal substances) and tie it in: in some states people become felons just for possessing a tiny amount of marijuana. You think the criminal justice system won't be expanded and abused simply to push an anti-gun agenda? Anyone who thinks it won't is delusional. If you give them an inch, they take a mile.
 
The standard should be

1) convicted felon
2) mental adjudication

Anything else is a violation of the 4th amendment, imho.
 
The standard should be

1) convicted felon
2) mental adjudication

Anything else is a violation of the 4th amendment, imho.
Click to expand...

My point exactly,cho and laughtner were in the process and the system worked too slow.
 
It's true californians who smoke pot may not be under the states firearm disabilty laws, but they are definatley under a federal disability, see gun control act of 1968 and controlled substance act: is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)
 
"It would be simple enough to include RX's for certain anti-psychotics as a prohibiting factor."

Easy, but inaccurate. They aren't always prescribed for psychosis. A great many drugs are prescribed off-schedule/off-label - iow, for conditions other than what they were approved for. Doctors can legally do this and they do.

Not to mention all of the folks who would refuse to take the first dose if they knew that there was a 2nd Amendment penalty. Unintended consequences and all that.

John
 
JohnBT said:
"It would be simple enough to include RX's for certain anti-psychotics as a prohibiting factor."

Easy, but inaccurate. They aren't always prescribed for psychosis. A great many drugs are prescribed off-schedule/off-label - iow, for conditions other than what they were approved for. Doctors can legally do this and they do.

Not to mention all of the folks who would refuse to take the first dose if they knew that there was a 2nd Amendment penalty. Unintended consequences and all that.

John
Click to expand...
I actually pointed that out earlier in regards to the mental health check. If anything, it's only going to cause people with mental issues to not seek help. It's counterproductive.
 
In my opinion, even if we did find a way that truly did stop the "crazies" from obtaining firearms, we still will never stop the "crazies" from commiting crimes.

Therefore it falls back to the great words of Wayne LaPierre, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". You could change that to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a knife, is a good guy with a gun" or "bad guy with a bat" or "bad guy with a tire iron". See where I'm going with this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
Gun control and the mentally ill
Replies
5
Views
480
JohnBT
J
H
  • Locked
Mental health record submissions for gun checks on the rise
Replies
1
Views
436
Jeff White
J
45223
  • Locked
What do people mean by mental illness?
2 3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
7K
Cee Zee
C
B
  • Locked
Conversion to auto fallacy or truth
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
centurion20000
C
N
  • Locked
Be careful what you wish for - the problem with the "mental health" issue
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
BryanDavis
BryanDavis
Back
Top