ATF letter to state AG's re Mental Health prohibitions

[JohnBT]

I know he had a lawyer at his commitment hearing. He was named on another thread.

"(This applies more to the private mental health and substance abuse facilities than the public sector.)"

Sounds like voluntary commitments to me, based on what goes on around here.

"It is really bad with rich/insured parents dumping/commiting their adoloscent kids everytime they go on vacation. One lady would bring in her teenage girl whenever her husband was out of town for the weekend so she could party and bring men home!"

Does NOT sound at all like an involuntary commitment. Sure, the kid didn't want to be there, but the mother did it, not the government.

"The new Form 4473 will make it clear, for example, that any person who has been found by a court, board, or other lawful authority to be a danger to self or others is prohibited from purchasing a firearm or ammunition."

John

 

[RealGun]

that any person who has been found by a court, board, or other lawful authority to be a danger to self or others is prohibited from purchasing a firearm or ammunition."

My sister is a county social worker, who commits people on a regular basis, and I can't imagine a court not following her recommendation. I might have a bias to trust her judgment, but with others I would assume that "stuff" happens.

I once had the audacity to contest a traffic violation and learned a life lesson that the JoP would take the officer's word for it, never mind my evidence, photographs and all. The hearing was over in about two minutes.

Both of those things make me real uneasy about any assumption that the system would provide justice and would not be abused. The citizen becomes second class, trust me. It's all about power and trying to have a nice day.

Couple that with being real wary of going back on medication in hopes that it might make me more productive and return to interests I used to enjoy. If one isn't very dynamic, no joie de vive, stuck in a rut, does that mean they should not own a gun? You can tell all you like that, no the regulations don't cover that, but I don't trust it.

 

[JohnBT]

"My sister is a county social worker, who commits people on a regular basis, and I can't imagine a court not following her recommendation."

I can't imagine anyone being commited without a psychiatrist or maybe psychologist signing off on the social worker's recommendation.

John

 

[MrDig]

The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a mental institution.

Seems pretty clear to me but I am just reading the black part not trying to read between the lines.

 

[makarova]

I have three times filed FOIA requests to the VA,seeking clarification about their policy of sending vet info to the FBI for inclusion as prohibited persons on the BATFE list. These vets are declared mentally incompetent by a VA medical board and not adjudicated by a judge as required by law. To date, no answer, and that too is illegal.

 

[RealGun]

I can't imagine anyone being commited without a psychiatrist or maybe psychologist signing off on the social worker's recommendation.

Agreed, but as an LCSW, she IS a phsychologist as well as an agent of the county government.

 

[JohnBT]

Social workers are not psychologists or psychiatrists.

LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) requires a Masters and that not the same as being a psychologist with a Ph.D. or a psychiatrist with an M.D.

John

 

[RealGun]

Social workers are not psychologists or psychiatrists.

LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) requires a Masters and that not the same as being a psychologist with a Ph.D. or a psychiatrist with an M.D. - JohnBT

The bulk of the counseling work is done by LCSWs, both public and private professionals. If medication is believed indicated, a client is referred to a psychiatrist, who as an MD, does the determination of which drug is indicated and provides the initial prescription. In my experience, a doctor of psychology was not part of the process. I think of a PhD in Psychology as more likely to be a college professor or an overqualified counselor.

I think to accept your point about requiring the certification of a "psychologist" is overkill and fails to respect the real world role of the LCSW. It might also create a staffing issue, because there aren't that many good reasons to have a PhD in Psychology. Organizationally, it might make one a staff manager, but not necessarily the better analyst.

 

[Geister]

I can't imagine anyone being commited without a psychiatrist or maybe psychologist signing off on the social worker's recommendation.

In Texas all you need is a court order, THEN the psychiastrist at the place makes an examination to determine whether to keep somebody or not.

 

[JCF]

I could be a jackass.

Thank heavens you've matured so Arfin.

No worries... the residual effect is scarcely discernable.

 

[JCF]

In Texas all you need is a court order, THEN the psychiastrist at the place makes an examination to determine whether to keep somebody or not.

In Texas, by law, one does not even require a Court order to do an emergency detention (EDO); technically a peace officer may swear out the statement and sign the order (although it is open to interpretation in many jurisdictions, and many require differing processes).

This is NOT however a "commitment", nor is it an "adjudication", etc..., nor is it a determination of mental incapacity, disability, etc...

It is the process by which individuals are detained for mental health evaluation, treatment, and possible subsequent adjudication if necessary.

It roughly parallels the concepts of arrest and conviction/incarceration.

 

[armoredman]

This part caught my eye...

Moreover, a voluntary stay that is by itself not disabling could be later converted into a formal commitment and therefore be disabling.

You go get checked out for depression, stay a few days, feel better, go away, X number of days/weeks/months/years go by, and BATFE says you were formally committted due to a change in definition?
Yikes. When do they start saying everyone who is prescribed Wellbutrin is "disabled"? I can see this coming, like an out of control freight train.

 

[JohnBT]

"In Texas all you need is a court order, THEN the psychiastrist at the place makes an examination to determine whether to keep somebody or not."

Good, you agree with me that the determination, the involuntary commitment decision, is made by a psychiatrist. The detention order is not an involuntary commitment.

"... think to accept your point about requiring the certification of a "psychologist" is overkill and fails to respect the real world role of the LCSW."

Regarding Virginia, note that it says psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, and then physician or psychologist:

"The involuntary commitment criteria specified in § 37.167.3, and the evidence required to support a finding that the criteria have been met, ensure compliance with constitutional requirements. Before finding that the person meets commitment criteria, the judge must obtain positive certification from a Virginia-licensed psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, or if either is not available, a Virginia-licensed physician or psychologist qualified to diagnose mental illness, that the person (1) is so seriously mentally ill as to be unable to care for himself, or (2) presents an imminent danger to himself or others, and (3) requires involuntary hospitalization or treatment.8The judge may accept written certification of the examiner's findings if such examination has been made personally within five days preceding the hearing.9In addition, the judge also must require the community services board in the jurisdiction where the person resides to provide a prescreening report stating, among other things, whether there is any less restrictive alternative to institutional confinement and what the recommendations are for the person's care and treatment"

I agree that LCSWs do counseling and write reports.

John
I have a counseling M.S. of my own.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Quote:Moreover, a voluntary stay that is by itself not disabling could be later converted into a formal commitment and therefore be disabling.

You go get checked out for depression, stay a few days, feel better, go away, X number of days/weeks/months/years go by, and BATFE says you were formally committted due to a change in definition?

I think the quote you're reading means to say that a person could go into the psych ward voluntarily, stay for a few days or whatever, then the docs determine that he/she is a danger to self or others and then hold the person INvoluntarily. I don't believe that that particular quote has anything to do with a mere definition change.

But if you think about it . . . and slowly read what they've written . . . the conclusion is pretty simple: the people making the rules believe that mental illness is incurable.

And, Arfin, this is what scares me the most. One example could be that a person does NOT commit a crime and is railroaded through the criminal justice system anyway, does no time but now has a permanent felony conviction on his record. It may be rare, but it DOES happen. There are also statutory rules in place to eventually have his record expunged or overruled or to at least have his rights restored.

Now, let's say someone was NOT mentally ill, was railroaded through the mental health system, was determined to eventually be "well" enough to be released (even though he was never "ill" enough to be a danger to self or others in the first place), and now has an involuntary committment on his record.

It's now permanent. Sorry, guy, but s**t happens. Even a Cho Blow (generic mass murderer) has a chance of getting all of his rights restored (no matter how slim); okay, no chance realistically, but the statutes and rules are still there for Cho Blow but not for Ima Saneman.

 

[Dallas239]

I have a counseling M.S. of my own.

Help me out with something. Twin brothers with bi-polar disorder. Both unsuccesfully attempt suicide. Twin A is found by the police on a park bench and after a hearing is involuntarily commited because he is "a danger to himself or others." Twin B attempted in his apartment, and after he sleeps it off he checks himself in Greenbriar.

Ten years later, both are taking the exact same dose of the exact same medicine. They have been stable productive members of society for seven years. They have the same disease, the same DX, the TX, the same status. But one can own a gun and one can't. What's just about that?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Af few questions,

1) If I read the ATF release correctly (and I'm not certain abut that I am not fluent in administratese) the perpatrator of the VT-Massacre ( I refuse to give him the fame he wanted and the media gave him ) the legally he could own a gun because the committment that was done did not have due process.

Is the above summary correct?

2) Did anyone else notice the underlined portion of the release?

In order for a particular commitment order to qualify as a prohibiting commitment, ATF historically has required that traditional protections of due process be present, including adequate notice, an opportunity to respond, and a right to counsel.

I can think of several interpetations of the above from the innocus to really alarming.

The VT perp was accorded due process. The point of contention is that he was not "committed," he was ordered to undergo outpatient treatment. The Commonwealth of Virginia read the law as it is written and said he had not been "committed" and therefore he was not legally barred from firearms ownership. The BATFE is now engaged in attempting to redefine their definitions, without bothering to change the law. I hope the vartous State AG's tell the BATFE to pound sand.

----------------------

On another note, this discussion reminds me that a couple of months back someone here posted the suggestion that anyone seeking mental health assistance should do so in a city other than their city of residence, use an assumed name, and pay cash. That suggestion was widely ridiculed by most respondants.

I think I'll keep the suggestion in mind ...

 

[Geister]

I find it ridiculous that some of you are so worried about the slim, slim chance that some nutcase is going to get a gun and mow you down.

Some of you want some fancy government database in place to tell us which ones are sane enough to purchase a legal firearm. If some nutcase has enough intent to break the law and KILL, gun laws are not going to stop him.

We ought to check to see who's sane enough to run our country, not to purchase firearms.

I'm worried more about the government infringements on our freedom because IT HAPPENS FAR MORE OFTEN. That's my bottom line.

 

[JohnBT]

Sorry you find the discussion ridiculous. Don't let us keep you from pursuing your interest in national politics.

John