For those who want to stop the "mentally ill" from firearms

[MikeFL86]

Anonymous Coward, do you support background checks at gun shows and between private individuals?

 

[Blakenzy]

If the person is too dangerous to buy a gun, why are they even out on the street at all?

Exactly. That should be the essence of "gun control", better put, "criminal people control"

 

[Cosmoline]

The definition of mental illness is so broad, and they've included such an array of ailments in the DSMV-IV, that most of us are probably classed as mentally ill. It's a way of ensuring full employment for the shrinks.

 

[Cosmoline]

As CFriesen pointed out, there IS a legal definition for mentally ill.

There is no one legal definition of mental illness. The concept of adjudicated "mentally incompetent or defective" is different from a diagnosis of mental illness. You can be adjudicated incompetent without suffering from any mental illness. A good blow to the head can do it. Or a medical disorder. I've deposed enough psychs to know how fuzzy their "science" is, and it would been extremely stupid to give them the power to strip people of rights. What's needed is a means by which the court system can find a particular person to be so dangerous that they cannot own firearms, among other things. This system exists in most states in crude form, but it could use tuning up and it needs to be better linked to the NICS criteria.

 

[obxned]

This is great for LEO - if involved in a shooting incident they are required to see a psycho-ologist. Therefore, they can never own guns again, can no longer do their jobs because of a job related injury, and so get a full pension!!!

Same with the armed forces. Gonna be a lot of people with diabled vet status now!!

 

[Derek Zeanah]

As CFriesen pointed out, there IS a legal definition for mentally ill.

Which means all you need to do to limit firearm ownership in the future is modify the definition for mentally ill, which has a good chance of not sounding any warning bells in the pro-gun camp prior to passage. Correct?

You can take that argument a little farther and say rather than restrict gun ownership to non-felons, we might as well stop enforcing the law against felons possessing firearms, because it doesn't eliminate the problem altogether.

Or just do away with prohibitions, 4473's, NICS, and the rest.

However, Cho didn't have the right to ownership either, yet some would argue his documented mental state was nobody's business. His ownership of a weapon, unlike those of felons passing back stolen goods, DOES threaten my right to own one, because he's one of us: A legal gun owner.

Ah! You think we need good PR right now, and this is an appropriate move in that direction?

A false positive isn't going to get anyone killed. A false negative will.

And here we get to the point of your argument: "if that gun store hadn't sold him that weapon, then no-one would have died that day." This assumes that none of the following would have happened:

• He would have found someone else to sell him a gun. Felons have no problem with this, it seems.
• He would have stolen a gun. Then "we" would look bad because one of "us" provided Cho with his gun.
• He would have chained up the building and gotten creative with the application of gasoline.
• Can we assume he had an understanding of high school level chemistry, as he was going to Virginia Tech? If so, nitroglycerin is pretty easy to make, if you've got access to materials you can steal from the chemistry department...

That's off the top of my head. There's no way to be "safe" from nutjobs like this.

Then it's our business to offer restrictions that are workable and livable, otherwise they will be imposed upon us.

Face it; this is the common-sense restriction anyone can think of.

"If we don't lobby for more gun control, then the antis will. It's better if we do it to ourselves, in the hope that they'll ask for less later."

Please understand that some of us might not find this a terribly compelling argument.

Really? So if you have a valid CCW permit they won't check if you've been convicted of a felony since it was issued? Or do they revoke your CCW if you've been jailed?

Depends on the state.

 

[Sistema1927]

Anyone who is too dangerous to walk among us should be locked up (or executed as warranted).

Everyone else should be free to buy, own, utilize, and enjoy guns, cars, matches, slurpies, funny hats, and anything else that they can afford without having to ask permission from anyone, especially the government.

Freedom, it is a wonderful thing.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Freedom, it is a wonderful thing.

Yep. Unfortunately for many, it's a scary thing as well.

 

[JWarren]

This discussion is out of my league in a lot of ways.

However, as has been pointed out, I don't really care for a lot of the criteria in the DSMV-IV from the small about of perusing I've had the chance to do.

While no one wants a seriously disturbed person having access to firearms, there will always be the concern of who and how determines what the "cut-off" criteria is.

It is extemely important to always watch the "gate-keepers" to your rights. Abuses and manipulations are easily concievable and care must be taken to prevent them.

My only anadoctal evidence of this is my sister. She's a college professor and a psychologist. PLEASE do not take this example and apply it to all psychologist-- there are many good ones and I know some.

My sister changed her major to psychology from accounting after going into treatment for anyrexia. After coming out of treatment, she is now convinced that EVERYONE has chronic disorders that they either are aware of and fight to overcome, or are in denial of them and are toxically controlled by them. Taking that viewpoint, 100% of the population has some type of mental disorder. It would then be up to the experts to determine which are benign and which are not.

I know it isn't that simple-- there ARE people you KNOW you don't want wandering freely among society. The problem is that you often don't know who they are until it's too late.

Frankly, is this that much of a problem? Sure, there are incidents. However, whenever anything happens in this country, lawmakers seek to legislate in such a way that this event (whatever it may be) NEVER happens again.

That is impossible-- whether it is a child getting scalded by water in the home, someone gets killed in a car accident, or someone gets shot. Bad things DO happen-- but not in such frequency or magnitude that we must take drastic measures that would still likely make little difference.

My take on it.


-- John

 

[Johnnybgood]

I am a registered Nurse working in the pshyciatric division of a local hospital. I can tell you without a doubt that using the DSMV-IV guidlines, the book to define mental illnesses, A doctor could diagnose just about anybody with a mental illness. Case in point. Intermittant Explosive Disorder. Have a bad week and let your temper get the best of you, yelling swearing and make a statement, I could kill you! You are now verifyably mentally ill. Even though you said what you did out of frustration and anger, you could be committed involuntarily to a mental health facility. There goes your right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Johnnybgood]

Okay, let's look at this from another viewpoint. If as the 2nd amendment says you could keep and bear arms and defend yourself wherever you were, there would not be so many problems with these mass killings. Those who are mentally ill, or just like to kill would eventually wind up on the wrong end of a bullet and problem solved. Over a period of time, crime would become almost negligeble compared to today because those inclined to commit crimes would either be dead, incarcerated, or learned their lesson and decided to flip burgers for a living. A cold way of looking at it, but isn't that what we need?

 

[MikeHaas]

NRA is very careful about whose records would be opened to the Instant Check system. They have always supported preventing those who have been adjucated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun. That's common sense and nothing new. It's ALSO very specific, not including most with "mental illness" - those who see a doctor or even act like "Brittney Spears" in public. (Unless they get themselves adjucated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others).

And Dems are actually NOT looking at attacking gun-owners - do you want them to? Remember what it was like after Columbine in 1999?

Remember, it was Clinton, not NRA, that prohibited 90,000 veterans with "post-traumatic stress syndrome" from owning guns. NRA is still trying to straighten that out, but clearly NRA is the reason that the Democrat Party is no longer attacking gun-rights like that, having been convinced that tact only leads to elective defeat - Gore, Kerry, again and again. I suspect that, after 2006, where they did NOT attack gun-rights and won (and in fact elected many pro-gun dems) - THEY'VE LEARNED THAT THEY LIKE WINNING.

I hope NRA is involved with this kind of effort so that we stay protected. Dems may not want to attack gun-rights right now, but elections have a way of changing things.

IMO, the big danger to gun-owners here is coming from GOA and JPFO who, predictably, are already disagreeing with NRA's position. Anyone surprised? As often happens, our worst enemies are on our own side. These tiny groups will stop at nothing to fundraise, even adopting positions that make gun-owners look like neandrethals. Remember, their goal is to support themselves by convincing fellow neandrethals that NRA is betraying them. If they can convince .01% of NRA members to send them money instead of nRA, it's a financial boon for them!

Mike Haas

PS. And remember that, in free America, the Instant Check system does not even apply to private-party transfers.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First of all, the law doesn't say that mentally ill people can't own firearms. 922(g) says that people "adjudicated mentally defective" or "committed to a mental institution" cannot own firearms.

These terms have specific legal meanings:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) 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:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) 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.

Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

Second, this is already the law. It has been the law since 1968. During that time, there have been several cases examining this issue:

In U.S. v. Hansel, 474 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir. 1973), Hansel had been committed to a mental institution for up to 60 days after the County Mental Health Board found him mentally ill and in need of hospitalization. After two weeks, the superintendent of the hospital determined he did not have a serious mental disorder and released him. This did not count as involuntary commitment under 922(g)

However, if the County Mental Health Board had made a formal finding that Hansel was "a danger to himself or others" in the commitment, this would have placed Hansel in the "adjudicated as a mental defective" category.

Likewise, in U.S. v. Giardina, 861 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1988), a man was committed to a mental hospital for 14 days based on the order of a doctor finding that he was a danger to himself or others. However, because Louisiana law required the hospital to hold judicial commitment hearings after 15 days, the hospital released him instead. The Fifth Circuit held that this was not enough to deny him the right to purchase a firearm under 922(g).

You can find more case law and discussion of firearms and mental health at:
http://www.ncids.org/Commitment Manual/Appendix E.pdf

Cosmoline has an excellent point (and so does the link above). Once you have been "adjudicated mental defective", you are trapped there forever regardless of the accuracy of the diagnosis because Congress does not fund the relief from disabilities in 18 USC 925(c). This might be a good time for the NRA to team up with mental health professionals and get funding for this section restored so that peacable citizens who had lived good, responsible lives for decades after a silly mistake could once again exercise their Second Amendment rights.

 

[JCF]

I am a registered Nurse working in the pshyciatric division of a local hospital. I can tell you without a doubt that using the DSMV-IV guidlines, the book to define mental illnesses, A doctor could diagnose just about anybody with a mental illness. Case in point. Intermittant Explosive Disorder. Have a bad week and let your temper get the best of you, yelling swearing and make a statement, I could kill you! You are now verifyably mentally ill. Even though you said what you did out of frustration and anger, you could be committed involuntarily to a mental health facility. There goes your right to keep and bear arms.

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

I will assume, given your professional status, that you have an understanding of the diagnostic criteria then? I will assume that you have a fairly developed understanding of the diagnostic trends?

So... in your professional capacity, have you ever seen anyone diagnosed with IED for yelling, swearing and saying "I could kill you"?

Without the necessary accompanying little tidbits of punching out windows, spitting at people, etc., and having the whole thing occur in response to the fact that the folks at McDonalds forgot to put napkins in the bag at the drive-thru I mean???

And without the necessary component of it being a pervasive occurence that, like all diagnoses of mental health disorders, meets the criteria of impinging upon one's ability to function appropriately in context, or resulting in significant social distress to self or others???

Because I suppose that, if we are free to speak in hypotheticals and potentialities, and we are not concerned with actual pragmatic plausability, there are several other serious threats to our 2A rights.

For instance, if you put a blank and unused withdrawl slip in your pocket during your next visit to your financial institution, you could be charged with the federal crime of bank robbery. And the next shirtless photograph of your infant daughter that you post to Flickr could result in your detention for production and distribution of child pornography.

It could, but it won't. And if anyone suggested the adaptation of laws around these potentialities we'd call them a fool.

The wanton, and often convenient, misinformation and misadaptation of truth that occurs in this forum is sometimes staggering.

 

[JCF]

It's a way of ensuring full employment for the shrinks.

This, in and of itself, is as compelling a demonstration of your misunderstanding of the state of the mental health system in this country as could be anticipated.

If you honestly think the MH system needs to create work for itself, you need to do some serious, and I mean serious, homework.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I can tell you without a doubt that using the DSMV-IV guidlines, the book to define mental illnesses, A doctor could diagnose just about anybody with a mental illness. Case in point. Intermittant Explosive Disorder. Have a bad week and let your temper get the best of you, yelling swearing and make a statement, I could kill you! You are now verifyably mentally ill.

You know, I get really tired of all of the misinformation surrounding the DSM-IV. For those of you who have actually read it, did you actually read it?

Page xi, under Cautionary Statement it reads, in part:

"The purpose of the DSM-IV is to provide clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study, and treat people with various mental disorders. It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as Pathological Gambling or Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other nonmedical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder, or mental disability. The clinical and scientific considerations involved in categorization of these conditions as mental disorders may not be wholly relevant to legal judgements, for example, that take into account such issues as individual responsibility, disability determination, and competency."

I unfortunately only own the DSM-IV, not the revised edition, but on page 269 of the desk reference copy under 312.34 Intermittent Explosive Disorder (since that was one example given in this thread) it says:

"A. Several discrete episodes of failure to resist aggressive impulses that result in serious assaultive acts or destruction of property.
B. The degree of aggressiveness expressed during the episodes is grossly out of proportion to any precipitating psycholosical stressors.
C. The aggressive episodes are not better accounted for by another mental disorder [snip list of examples] and are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition."

And since this one comes up fairly regularly on THR as well, under 296.7 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Unspecified it says:

"B. There has previously been at least one Manic Episode (see p. 163) or Mixed Episode (see p. 165).
C. The mood symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

In other words, just having "a bad week" doesn't cut it. Saying "I'll kill you!" doesn't cut it. Being depressed because your uncle died last week, or you are having trouble functioning at work because you just got a divorce, doesn't necessarily rise to the level of serious impairment.

Good Lord, how come it's so hard to understand that it's the totality of circumstances that help define a person's level of functioning, or mental illness and NOT just a "little from column A and a little of column B" when it comes to the DSM-IV?

And that's exactly why involuntary committment is an adversarial procedure. You get to have your own shrinks testify on your behalf; you get to force the state to prove that you are mentally ill -- this is all so you can't just get railroaded into the loony bin.


EDITED TO ADD: Darn. Too slow yet again... +1 to CFriesen

 

[Johnnybgood]

You should read some of the involuntary papers I've read. We get people admitted by family and friends on the flimsiests writeups. I could kill you ,is considered a threat i.e. a danger to others (yeah, I know, flimsey at best) but they get admitted. Children are the worst affected, cause their is no such thing as an involuntary, and to be truthfull most of the parents doing the admitting need to be evaluated and the children sent home.
I agree there is supposed to be some protections in place. But like a lot of things with our government and where big money is concerned they a lot of times fail. I see it alot.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

You should read some of the involuntary papers I've read. We get people admitted by family and friends on the flimsiests writeups. I could kill you ,is considered a threat i.e. a danger to others (yeah, I know, flimsey at best) but they get admitted.

Okay, they're admitted on flimsy writeups. How many of them have been involuntarily committed on those same flimsy writeups where the psychologist has to interview the person and give compelling evidence that the person needs to be committed first?

And please don't misunderstand, Johnnybgood, I wasn't trying to pick on you or make it personal. I just happened to grab your example first. You have more first-hand experience working in such a setting than I do. I'm just relating my own personal experiences regarding involuntary committment and the DSM-IV.

I feel pretty confident in the adversarial system to help curb any mental-health related abuses and so I don't have a problem with simply making communication between the states and the fedgov better.

 

[JohnBT]

You're obviously seeing people sent in for evaluation based on testimony - what Virginia calls a Temporary Detention Order, but us old folks call them green warrants. They have nothing to do with a formal diagnosis.

As soon as you said admitted by family and friends I knew what the deal was. Family and friends don't admit people on involuntary anything. Doctors admit people based on testimony of family and friends. You can't get a decent diagnosis until AFTER the evaluation. Even then it isn't always accurate. (Side discussion: What's the largest number of different diagnoses you've ever seen given over the years to one person with Borderline Personality Disorder? I've seen 8 in 15 years, all different, but that's probably not a record.)

You need to spend a lot more time understanding the system and stop jumping to conclusions.

John

 

[Shrinkmd]

Warms my heart

It's a way of ensuring full employment for the shrinks.

What's wrong with that? My children gotta eat. And I have guns to feed.

But seriously, now that the entire forum is turning into armchair forensic psychiatrists, I can recommend some more books and articles so people can know what they are talking about before spouting off.

Check out the book by Dr. Paul Applebaum called "Almost a Revolution - Mental Health Law and the Limits of Change" It is a wonderful review of how our current system came into creation.

It is one thing to get put on a temporary order (green, pink, whatever, pick your state, pick your color) from an emergency room, which looks like it wouldn't count toward this law. It is an entirely different matter to be committed against your will. Of course no system is perfect, but lots of people, usually two physicians as well as a judge, need to agree that someone is at imminent risk of danger to self or other (or here in PRNJ property as well)

Mental illness (with a capital M, not every silly disorder in the DSM) like Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are real. There are lots of frequent fliers who get readmitted over and over in the community, and eventually they get committed to a state facility. They stop their meds, they get sick, they really are a danger to self and others.

It is a societal decision on whether there should be a restriction on them legally purchasing firearms, but I wish people would get off the whole Tom Cruise "mental illness is bogus thing."

 

[gotarheels03]

Anonymous Coward - Yes, there is a definition of "mentally ill" but the moment its tied to civilian gun ownership the government will try to change and expand the definition. The definition certainly isn't static With government involvement it could change considerably over the years. Tie it to gun ownership and you've created yet another "slippery slope" that the government can use to deny rights.

 

[gc70]

For instance, if you put a blank and unused withdrawl slip in your pocket during your next visit to your financial institution, you could be charged with the federal crime of bank robbery.

Can you cite the relevant statute or regulation?

The wanton, and often convenient, misinformation and misadaptation of truth that occurs in this forum is sometimes staggering.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

now that the entire forum is turning into armchair forensic psychiatrists

Hey, thanks for reminding me. I just got my PhD from Harverd in the mail today, rush delivery. I think I'll hang it up next to my plaque I received for Meritorious Conduct during my stint with the 101st Chairborne Division.

 

[JCF]

Can you cite the relevant statute or regulation?

Good Lord

But if you insist... yes, as a matter of fact I can:

US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 103, Section 2113(b).

Whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any other thing of value exceeding $1,000 belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; or

Whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any other thing of value not exceeding $1,000 belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Goodnight.

 

[Phaetos]

Yep, everyone tells me I'm crazier than they are And I am legally by all definitions ADD and perviously on medication. This actually came into play when I applied for my CCW. I didn't report on the application that I had been treated by a state mental health facility. This had been more than 9 years previous to my application and didn't think it applied. No problems, wrote a note and got is signed by the facility and now I am up for renewal on my CCW.