Better Mental Health Screening

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we are saying it should be part of the NICS check. Obviously they would have to fund it. That is what we are saying the problem is. They passed the law but aren't funding or supporting it so it can't work.
 
It is already part of the NICS check, if the states would send in all of the required info. Some do, some don't. How many years has it been that they've been working on getting all of the info together?

At least since "In January 2008, Congress signed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), "

Look at the last section: NICS Index on the Rise

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-link/march-2012/nics-hits-record-days-as-index-continues-to-rise

"One of the biggest hurdles to states submitting records to the NICS Index is state laws that prohibit sharing mental health information. However, states are required to make this information available if they wish to obtain grant funding through the NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP). "
 
JohnBT ... thanks for the great linklink. This is precisely the kind of information I was hoping would surface in the course of our discussions. My complaint would now be that states can in effect "opt-out" by not accepting the funding. That needs to change. The funding must be automatically available and every state shall comply with the requirement to provide the information.

As for Congress not adequately funding BATFE and DOJ, I can't speak to that specifically, but given the way they throw money around, I should think funds are available. If not, then it needs to be made available. I'm mostly concerned that the agencies are not properly allocating their resources or not working with sufficient dedication (the top echelons, not the boots on the ground). I say again ... just do your jobs.

Jon in wv ... thanks to you too. I should have not thought in terms of sensitive medical information, but considered it the way you phrased it, its a matter of record with the court. Of course, no need to know "why" you are disqualified ... just that you "are".

I believe we're really on the same page here. We just need to be using the same hymnal. I can't thank you enough. This discussion we've been having has been very interesting and most enlightening ... hope there can be more input. THANKS!
 
I am a psychologist. As I've said many times in conversations on this topic, the key questions (and likewise the key problems) are:

1. What is considered a mental health condition that would prevent someone from owning a gun?

2. Who gets to determine the criteria for a mental health condition that would prevent someone from owning a gun?

3. Who makes the diagnosis?

4. How do we enforce such restrictions?

I can tell you there is an alarming variation in quality of psychological professionals out there. Not to mention many of them are liberals and they do not like guns. There are people with PhD's, masters-level counseling degrees, and PsyD's out there who were at the top of their class and are great at what they do. But there are many more that were average grad students or were simply terrible and scraped by at the bare minimum. I even know one or two in my own community who got their PhD's at diploma mills in California that don't even require an entrance exam.

Would you want that sort of person being the one who decided whether you get to own a gun, for the rest of your life?
 
Thanks Dr.B ... more of what I was looking for. Unlike an action like adjudication or involuntary committment which are facts, what you've brought up is in that "opinion" arena, an area I am troubled with. That and speculating about the side effects of various drugs (not that I'm saying there aren't problems associated with them, it's just difficult to sort out fact from opinion) are areas where I have grave concerns.

That's why I had difficulty with the EO dealing with requiring mental health providers to be required to report certain patients under penalty of prosecution and making them civilly liable if they don't. Wouldn't this lead these very providers to over-reach to cover themselves? Or make those voluntarily seeking help to elect not to do so? It almost seems to be an avenue toward gross abuses and counter-productive behavior.

I can see some benefits of the having to report side of this, but also the possibility/probability that a number of people will be deprived of exercising an individual, fundamental right for no other reason than someone's opinion ... good, bad or indifferentand. I don't feel that is an acceptable trade-off of rights. What recourse does the individual have, if any?

Hey, if we can't have a voter photo ID bill on the grounds that it MIGHT disenfranchise a small number of voters (exactly how, I can't see), why should this disenfranchisement be any less repugnant?
 
A person shall be disqualified from owning/possessing firearms in the case of: Involuntary, court-ordered committment where the patient is represented by legal counsel, with some sort of mechanism whereby the patient can have his rights restored when it has been determined he is no longer a danger to himself or others.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the premise a person should have to "prove" their civil rights should be restored. The burden of proof should be on the government to prove the necessity of oppressing your rights not on you to prove you should have them restored. I think anyone whose rights have been oppressed should be subject to periodic review where the government either proves the necessity to extend it or it is automatically restored.

I'm really disappointed by Obamas effort to get he medical community involved in this issue. It is a matter of court adjudication not medical opinion that determines if a person is going to be prohibited. How many doctors think you are crazy just for owning a firearm? Some think you are a danger just for having it. Give them the ability to make a phone call to take them away and that system will overflow with abuse.
 
I take PROZAC everyday and have been since June of 1994. I take a very high dose of 80mg a day. I have been diagnosed with chronic depression and moderate to severe obsessive compulsive disorder. I see a psychiatrist every 3 months.

How dangerous am I to society? You tell me.

I bet some of you reading this right now would be scared to death to let me have a gun.

I have no criminal felony convictions, none.

I have never been arrested or taken to jail.

Got caught speeding doing 58mph in a 40mph zone one time. Cost me lots of money. Learned my lesson.

Do I own any guns? No

Do I expect to ever be allowed to own a gun? Not now I don't!

Why am I here on this board? Because I believe in the 2nd Amendment; the Bill Of Rights; and the United States Constitution.
 
DUE PROCESS
in order to remove a civil liberty, you need due process with access to remedies

Do you REALLY want a rabid anitgunner, to be the guy on the otherside of the table, when your SOON to be Ex-wife has you committed in order to extract a 'history' of your violence, right before she hits you with with EPO's (emergency protective orders)

you are now in a locked psych ward, because your wife has lied, with her poisoning the pool... and OH yeah, btw, the cops took all your guns and now you are banned for life...

ONCE AGAIN
lets Fix the system, giving an inch, is not an option, rather point at the system and try to fix it, not add more ways to be screwed.
 
Layers, and layers, and layers ... of control.

Thats what I see in some of these proposals (always worded vaguely - its the thousands of pages of regulations that come afterward that we should be concerned about).

There are all sorts of ways the 'mental health system' can be abused as a way to take peoples rights. Just do a little historical research on that. (And wonder of wonders - theyve got their government Obamacare enacted.)

One area where I haven't seen any proposals from the antis is on investigating how much psychotropic drugs are prescribed in this country, under what justifications (especially with young children), and the impact of that - - - especially regarding such drugs that have been linked to possible increases in suicidal and violent behavior.

Big Pharma has deep pockets. They spend a lot on advertising. They donate a lot to politicians. And there are a lot of people taking these medications, prescribing them, and making a living off them. So only the alternate media will go into this in any depth.
 
Dr. B has it pretty well summed up. I worked as counselor in the private sector and in the prison system. Lots of reckless individuals diagnosing this and that because they can. Most are all to happy to treat symptoms with meds. The risks of misdiagnosing children is very real and especially troublesome not to mention the lifelong label they just stuck on them. When you're the hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
Do you REALLY want a rabid anitgunner, to be the guy on the otherside of the table, when your SOON to be Ex-wife has you committed in order to extract a 'history' of your violence, right before she hits you with with EPO's (emergency protective orders)
Click to expand...


Laugh all you want, had this happen to me. Had one gun in the house, wasn't even mine, bought it for her, taught her to use it. Until court I hadn't even thought about the gun. Boy, was I niave.

Sat through the hearing, wanting to say, come on, if I wanted her dead, she would already be there.

To the anti-americans, having a gun, is proof you want to shoot someone.
 
I worry a lot about all the soldiers I know who are dealing with issues like PTSD, or even just anxiety and depression. I've had soldiers tell me that they won't get counseling because they're afraid of losing their gun rights. BTW, PTSD, anxiety, and depression are a MUCH bigger problem in the military than most people realize, and very little is being done other than labeling these soldiers and medicating the daylights out of them, while the chain of command pursues separation. Its a shame, and the only folks in uniform who have the power to address this, are too busy climbing the ladder to a position where they can let their un-treated narcissism run rampant.
 
Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Nidal Hasan and Seung-Hui Cho had, by many accounts, given plenty of warning. Unfortunately, political correctness and laws that were supposed to protect the mentally ill prevented effective action to prevent the massacres.
Click to expand...

Apparently in the case of Mr. Holmes, - contrary to previous claims - advance notice DID include a legally required report filed by his psychiatrist with the campus police.

That report was filed on June 12 fully 5 weeks prior to the July 20 shooting. There was no mention of why the police did not - or weren't able to - act on that formal report. But if that report was not enough for the police to initiate some sort of contact with Holmes, then why is there a requirement for the report to be filed?

From the link below:
In one of the search warrant documents, Holmes' psychiatrist Dr. Lynne Fenton described Holmes as having "homicidal thoughts and also stated that Jame E. Holmes had threatened and harassed her via email/text messages."

On June 12, 2012, Holmes' CU Denver medical campus ID was deactivated due to that complaint.

In the days after the attack, campus police said they had never had contact with Holmes, who was a graduate student at the university.

But campus police Officer Lynn Whitten told investigators after the shooting that Fenton had contacted her. Whitten said Fenton was following her legal requirement to report threats to authorities, according to a search warrant affidavit.
Click to expand...

http://www.9news.com/news/article/328521/71/Arrest-affidavits-records-to-be-released-in-Holmes-case
 
Surprise, surprise. He was threatening, stalking and law enforcement did not act on people asking for help.

Quick, rush to pass more laws that they won't enforce, so that we will need to ban more guns. So they won't enforce those laws and have to take away more of our rights.
 
Mental health screening is a slippery slope as we all are aware. Quite often we say we are going to kill someone. Yet when the chips fall an amicable resolution is reached. There are millions of people who are mentally ill that have carried a weapon all their life. Yet they have never drawn a weapon of any kind on another human being.

Lets define mentally ill. Does depression, anxiety or paranoia constitute mentally ill? If so anyone who has applied for social security or veterans disability would be considered mentally ill. In both cases if you are not anxious or a little paranoid you are certainly mentally ill. Virtually all social security applications are rejected the first time and dealing with the VA is a PITA. If you are a veteran you know many people who are obviously disabled that have been rejected for disability or only received partial disability. Everyone gets depressed, bad things happen in life and quite often a family doctor will prescribe a sleep aid or antidepressant. Does a rough patch in life make one mentally ill?

The current standard of one being involuntarily committed or cannot handle their own financial affairs is a high enough standard.
 
In one of the search warrant documents, Holmes' psychiatrist Dr. Lynne Fenton described Holmes as having "homicidal thoughts and also stated that Jame E. Holmes had threatened and harassed her via email/text messages."
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong, this would have constituted a 72 hour hold. If you are at the hospital and confess to a doctor a desire to harm yourself or others, they under law are required under law to put you on this hold for evaluation. I do not know why it would be any different confessing to a psychiatrist. Lack of process or communication?

I have circled this issue in my head multiple times and it always comes back to this. I would not trust any politician to hold the ability of stripping rights from the unconvicted, rather we share political affiliation or not. Some things you hold so dear that you just have to say," Sorry, but no, you can't have that." The ability to redefine mental ability, and what constitutes a danger, is not something I'm willing to give a politician or governing body. We have current standards of determining a dangerous mental state, and it needs to be enforced long before we start to endorse broadening it.
In all, when you separate the emotion from this and look at it, from an all things considered angle, there is simply not sufficient need to justify giving this sort of authority to a governing body. Power is like energy. It can not be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. If power is granted to a governing body, it is equally taken from the governed.
The only effective means I can justify to prevent these horrible acts is to meet that force with equal force when it arrives.
 
"Virtually all social security applications are rejected the first time"

Completely false. About 26% to 37% (by state) are approved at the initial level and additional claims are approved at the reconsideration level (that's the relatively quick first appeal step where they have a different determiner look at the file.)

There are a variety of sites from Soc.Sec. to privately owned that publish extensive stats on the entire process from the initial application to the hearing level.

The final award rate, initial claim through hearing level, nationwide runs about 45%.

A doctor's diagnosis isn't enough; there must be supporting evidence that meets the Soc.Sec. 'listings'. The biggest problem from I've seen over the decades is that claimants trust their doctors to send the needed info. The doctors typically pay a clerk to copy files and office notes. If, for example, you have 6 doctors and only 3 send info, you just might get denied because needed info is missing. It's better to get the copies. and take it to Soc.Sec. yourself.
 
How we screen the mentally ill, and whether we come up with a better system of standards, is moot. If John or Sally is adjudicated dangerously mentally incompetent and still walks the streets, he or she can still get a gun if he or she really wants one.

Why can't we admit that he key to keeping such people from killing others is keeping such people off the streets?
 
A dangerous mental problem would be one where a person believes that redistribution of wealth, nonchalantly killing babies in or out of the womb because babies are too, too inconvenient, exerting as much control as possible over others' lives because of what they might do [to name only a few elements of the problem] is morally correct, virtuous, or remotely Constitutional.

People with this problem should be removed from society so the rest of us can live freely.

I do not want government at any level being allowed or encouraged to further enchain an American's Liberty based on the fantasy of mental health. Any definition of what constitutes "mental health" is as volatile as authority's use of it to further whatever agenda is afire at the moment in its groin. I seem to recall a more experienced marxist country away out on the east side of Europe restraining people's liberty on the basis of the well-known mental health issue named Dissent. As we all know, dissent can be such a crippling disease.

Mental screening as a gateway to exercise a natural right is just insane.
 
Any comrades not supporting the party are mentally ill and unift to own firearms. :evil:

See how it works?

Sorry, that was the old USSR.
:banghead:
 
Wow, looks like this very issue may have blown up in NY over the past few days in the wake of the state's recently passed SAFE Act.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. "The struggle is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north may bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!"
 
the sad truth is in this regard republicans in new york and connecticut have been just as complicit as the Democrats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top