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

[JCF]

So what was Cho's diagnosis from what you know of his case?

I haven't a clue.

How does it meet the level that you say is nessesary to be disqualified?

I don't know that it did.

The ATF and the Brady Campaign disagree with you. They say it only takes an involuntary order for commitment.....and that's why it's vague.

The criteria I provided you are, generally, the criteria used for involuntary commitment.

With no diagnosis of illness and danger that commitment is meaningless.

People are not typically committed in the absence of a diagnosis of mental illness and imminent danger to self or others. It is popular to claim that people are committed to psychiatric facilities due to medical conditions which result in temporary psychosis, but this is not typically the case in actual practice. Psychiatric facilities usually require a medical screening and clearnace prior to admission in order to rule out issues such as DKA, elevated calcium, head injury, stroke, etc.

Your definition is fine but that's not the way it is and I will never trust a government agent to protect my rights.

Nor should you necessarily. But many people other than you expect them to protect their safety. And the initiatives that we are discussing are part of that expectation for many.... like it or not.

And where pray tell do you appeal this diagnosis if you do get it and you don't agree?

Anyone in this country is free to obtain a second and conflicting medical opinion at will. Mental health commitment is an adversarial process, as has been noted in this thread previously.

You know what they say about opinons.......everyone's got one and that includes doctors and judges that can mis-diagnosis just as easily as anyone that's ever made a mistake.

That doesn't mean we've quit going to the doctor though does it.

 

[River Wraith]

The one thing that worries me about all this is simple logic. If we own guns and take responsibility for our safety and that of our family, then there is a small chance that one day we may actually defend our family with a firearm. If that happens, there's a little thing called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which is natural and difficult to avoid. I'm worried that one day PTSD will be used as a criteria to disarm us.

 

[Superpsy]

JohnBT & CFriesen have it right. Very good description of the mental health system I think...

What'll really blow your socks off is the push for mental health in public schools (school psychologist here). Not always a bad thing but can sometimes be taken too far. Like CFriesen said, "no system is perfect."

The rise in diagnoses is NOT a response to increasing job security...I'd love to work myself out of a job BUT it just ain't happening. I think most mental health workers would LOVE to make less diagnoses but I think our society is making sick people. (a simplification of a complex issue but just my $0.02)

 

[Speer]

I'm worried that one day PTSD will be used as a criteria to disarm us.

Good point.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Seriously, some of you are arguing over issues that are well covered in the NCIDS Commitment link I posted earlier. They even list court cases showing what has been found sufficient under 922(g) and what has not. You might check it out just because it would probably help both sides present a more informed debate.

 

[JCF]

If they had a 72 hr. emergency commitment for evaluation form signed by the police, a doctor or a judge, ALL of them according to the BATFE and the Brady Campaign. All you guys saying, "well that's just not the way it is", have just started trusting the federal government and the ATF to do something right?

First of all, the determination that someone meets the evaluative criteria for commitment, etc. is not made by the Federal Government. It is made by private physicians, mental health clinicians, local law enforcement, Judges, etc.

Secondly, the issue as to whether or not to trust the decision making ability and judgment of the various agents and branches of the Federal Government (or any other government for that matter) is not one of choice but of necessity in a society where there is an expectation of social order through regulatory law and governance.

You don’t trust the government to do something right?

Do you support the death penalty? Because if you do, you are suggesting that the government is capable of doing enough right to take the lives of your fellow citizens.

Do you support the maintenance of our criminal justice system? Because if you do, you are suggesting that the government is capable of doing enough right to appropriately administer billions of dollars of taxpayer funds and restrict the civil rights of millions of your countrymen.

Do you support the maintenance of our military? Because if you do, you are suggesting that the government is capable of doing enough right to appropriately administer trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds and sacrifice the lives of thousands of your countrymen.

Or is it a situation where the government cannot be trusted to do something right when it is an issue and an agency that you don’t like?

Oh wait… it is the BATFE?

I’ve recently read a number of threads, and posts therein, which posit that the BATFE’s existence in itself should be abolished given the unconstitutional and oppressive nature of the work that the organization does. Perhaps it is this agency which cannot be trusted to do right?

Let us peruse some of the oppression and wrongdoing visited upon society by the BATFE… from their “Most Wanted List”:

Harry Maxley: wanted on an outstanding warrant pursuant to an indictment for felony possession of a firearm (Booooo!!!! Oppression!!! Wrongdoing). Ooops, wait: hmmm… seems Mr. Maxley has two prior convictions for possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of distribution and obstruction of justice for attempting to have a witness killed. Seems he is an affiliate of an outlaw motorcycle gang. Well, I don’t know about this one. Maybe the NRA can launch a legal defense.

Juan (Ghost) Juarez, Jr.: two-time convicted felon and ranking member of the Insane Deuces street gang. Wanted on Federal charges stemming from his involvement in a conspiracy to commit violent crimes and distribute illegal drugs. Juarez is charged, along with his co-conspirators, with conspiracy to commit multiple shootings, homicides and other firearms-related violent crimes during a gang war with rival gangs in the summer of 2002. Maybe it wasn’t really a gang war. Maybe Ghost was really one of the “300”. And maybe that tat doesn’t really say “Insane Deuces” but actually “Molon Labe”.

Miguel (Fat Mike) Martinez: two-time convicted felon and ranking member of the Insane Deuces street gang. Wanted on Federal charges stemming from his involvement in a conspiracy to commit violent crimes and distribute illegal drugs. Martinez is charged, along with his co-conspirators, with conspiracy to commit multiple shootings, homicides and other firearms-related violent crimes during a gang war with rival gangs in the summer of 2002. Another persecuted and misunderstood member of the “300” no doubt.

Stephen Craig Campbell: Wanted for attempted first degree murder and possession and manufacture of a destructive device. Has been spotted In Virgin Islands. Maybe using an alias and possible in the Houston/New Orleans area. A Federal Warrant was issued on April 25, 1983, in Wyoming, charging him with manufacture and possession of a bomb. Probably just a Minuteman trying to scare illegals with some Tannerite.

Paul Merle Eischeid: Hell’s Angel, wanted for murder, criminal drug history. Probably just protecting his ride from thieves.

Paolo Enrique Lopez-Garcia: Robbed a Denver pawnshop stealing a bunch of guns and jewelry, and assaulted staff in the process. Suspect in a string of nationwide carjackings, home invasions, armed robberies, burglaries. Wanted for questioning in connection with two murders. Probably in the wrong place at the wrong time… just looking for a trap gun at the pawnshop and got caught up in the frenzy.

George Orfanos: Burnt down a 4.5 million dollar home. Wanted for arson, mail fraud, conspiracy, interstate transport of fraudulently obtained property. Probably just a reloading mishap.

Israel Rodriguez: Wanted for conspiracy to distribute narcotics and use of handguns during narcotics trafficking. Rodriguez possessed a short barreled shotgun, 2 handguns and 2 kilo's of crack cocaine on his last arrest. Well, he has a right to protect himself doesn’t he???

Randy Yager: Yager is the regional president of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club and is wanted for violation of federal RICO Laws. Outlaws huh? Probably just his local SASS club.

Yep, not a clue about what it means to live free, these BATFE guys.

 

[antsi]

"adjudicated mentally defective"

A commonly used response in this thread has been "define mentally ill."

The way the law currently reads, it says "adjudicated mentally defective." This means that a judge, with supporting medical opinion, has declared the individual to be not responsible for his/her actions, and likely a danger to him/herself and others.

Throwing in "what ifs" about people who seek treatment for depression or who feel stressed after a self-defense shooting is not relevant because these don't meet the standard.

Judges don't just wander around knocking on people's doors and adjudicating them mentally defective on their doorsteps just for kicks. This kind of process occurs when someone has done something illegal, and it is determined that court ordered psychiatric treatment is more appropriate than criminal punishment.

 

[F4GIB]

Can anyone answer this simple question?

WHO was Mr. Chu's legal representative (competent, as required by the lawyer's Rules of Professional Responsibility, in mental health issues) at the hearing before the part-time judge (a lawyer with no more mental health training than I have - zero) at which it was determined that he was a "mental defective" ???

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

WHO was Mr. Chu's legal representative (competent, as required by the lawyer's Rules of Professional Responsibility, in mental health issues) at the hearing before the part-time judge (a lawyer with no more mental health training than I have - zero) at which it was determined that he was a "mental defective" ???

After reading some of the caselaw on the subject, all of that assumes that the regulatory definition of "adjudicated mental defective" offered by ATF would hold up in court. It might not, for example, courts have repeatedly held that temporary observation (even after being found a danger to yourself or others by a physician) doesn't meet 922(g).

However, as far as I know the government never argued in those cases that the defendant fit under the category of "adjudicated mental defective" like Cho did. I think you could make a good argument though that if Cho didn't have a legal representative then the hearing was not sufficient to make him ineligible under 922(g).

The other thing is under Virginia law, they weren't trying to disqualify Cho from firearms ownership or create a future stigma. I think in the ABC News the judge specifically said he was trying to avoid that situation with his court order - so it isn't a surprise that the safeguards the Virginia court had in place are less than what we would expect when being deprived of a lifelong right.

 

[Geister]

Being depressed or bipolar does NOT make you an automatic, potential serial killer.

Instead of worrying about the 0.1% of the population like Cho who might buy a firearm to kill, we need to focus instead on allowing the vast majority of decent, non-violent Americans the ability to carry firearms wherever they go to protect themselves.

 

[pcosmar]

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

I would rather stop the Mentally Ill from passing laws.

 

[Geister]

Hahahaha!!!

 

[F4GIB]

I think you could make a good argument though that if Cho didn't have a legal representative then the hearing was not sufficient to make him ineligible under 922(g).

My point is that a "good argument" isn't good enough when NRA is compromising away our rights.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My point is that a "good argument" isn't good enough when NRA is compromising away our rights.

Whether or not Cho's experience was sufficient to disqualify him under 922(g) has nothing to do with HR297 or the NRA. It is existing law that was passed in 1968.

Even assuming that the NRA opposed the bill, nothing would stop Virginia from deciding to report this kind of hearing to NICS (Virginia leads the states in reporting mental defective to NICS ironically enough).

 

[F4GIB]

Oh, now I understand. HR 297 is a bill to make the trains to the camps run on time not to fix the destination of the trains.

So why would we want to make a bad system more efficient?

 

[Autolycus]

And when this new law is proved non-effective and someone who is mentally ill buys a gun and uses it illegally they will call for tighter controls. What if a depressed person, a PTSD does the shooting, or someone with seasonal depression? Then we will continue to erode our rights away because it is to save lives.

How about using the laws we have now?

 

[Autolycus]

Wanted to say this as well...

that we need more background checks because a felon had a gun in some state or another. We need a longer waiting period because someone is going to buy a gun and misuse it. I am sure that a gun was bought at a gunshow somewhere and used to murder someone so we need to close the gunshow loophole.

We as gunowners should not be asking for more gun control. It really is a bad idea and will only bite us in the butt in the end.

 

[dave_pro2a]

You realize that the next "reasonable restriction' that the NRA will agree to is closing the private sale loophole

Accurate, speedy, and free NICS checks are meaningless so long as private sales are allowed without any FFL paperwork!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That is what the gun-grabbers will cry next, just you watch. We give up now, and that means we'll lose later.

 

[Geister]

I agree with you 100%, Techumseh.

CFriesen, when you start trusting the government too much, it turns into one big cluster****. We shouldn't trust the government more than they trust us.

I don't care how many generally bad people the ATF puts away; the organization is unconstitutional to begin with. All the good that they do does not make up the fact that they shouldn't exist anyway.

On the extreme end I'm sure the Nazis did away with a lot of really bad people as well but that doesn't justify their existance or their persecution of other people who didn't agree with their agenda.

 

[TheOld Man]

From an old geezer: Anybody remember Sirhan Sirhan? Convicted assassin of Robert Kennedy? Los Angeles had/has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. Sirhan was an Alien with a criminal record. Under the laws in effect in Los Angeles County at that time, Sirhan could not legally possess as much as a BB gun or even a slingshot. The laws somehow failed, Sirhan somehow got a gun and did his evil deed. There was a great hue and cry in the land..."SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! The Lawmakers worked on it, tweaked the law that was in effect in Los Angeles at the time, presented it almost word for word, as the TA-DAH! NATIONAL GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968.
Does anybody but me see where this is headed?

 

[Geister]

That's a very, very good point, The Old Man, not considering any sort of conspiracy.

The Kennedys did more harm than good when you include the GCA of '68 as a result of Bobby's assassination. I always figured JFK was crooked due to the huge conspiracy surrounding his assassination.

 

[Trifler]

It's not about prohibiting anyone with a mental illness. It's about prohibiting anyone with severe mental illness. Someone with OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is not in the same boat as someone with Bipolar Disorder (used to be known as Manic-Depressive Disorder).

 

[F4GIB]

I went and read the report Bartholomew Roberts directs us to. I read the whole thing. And this is what I learned on page 6.

To preserve your federal gun rights, you have two choices:

1. Avoid the mental health system and treatment at all costs, or

2. Insure the treatment is voluntary from start to finish.

http://www.ncids.org/Commitment Manual/Appendix E.pdf

This is the scary statement:

"Discharge by the court at commitment hearing ....... Maybe."

Which means, in ordinary English, that after the Doctors play around with your mind and the Judge finds that you are OK, you are still prohibited from possessing firearms, ... maybe.

HR 297 makes the trains to the camps run on time. It brings EFFICIENCY to a BAD system. That's not a good idea.

Don't forget, both the Nazis and the Stalinists used false accusations of mental illness to justify imprisonment or worse. Why, because no one knows what "mental illness" is. It is whatever the psychiatrists in charge say it is.

So consider this earlier posting:

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.

P. S. NICS was not the Brady Campaign's idea. It was Wayne LaPierre's idea and NRA sold it to Congress (as part of a failed campaign to stop the Brady bill from passage). NRA has mucho "face" invested in NICS.

 

[Mumwaldee]

It's not about prohibiting anyone with a mental illness. It's about prohibiting anyone with severe mental illness. Someone with OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is not in the same boat as someone with Bipolar Disorder (used to be known as Manic-Depressive Disorder).

I am bipolar. I have been a law abiding gun owner since 1987. Just because some days I feel like superman and other days I feel like dirt means I can't defend my home? The way bipolar disorder affects someone varies from person to person. I guess I'll have to get a note from a psychologist (I'm sure they'll be lining up to sign their name). Let me fix your post.

It's not about prohibiting anyone with a mental illness. It's about prohibiting anyone with severe mental illness. Someone with Bipolar Disorder (formerly known as Manic-Depressive Disorder) is not in the same boat as someone with Psychotic Schizophrenia.

 

[JCF]

I am bipolar. I have been a law abiding gun owner since 1987.

Congratulations.

Once again... for the purpose of firearms restriction, the same general criteria that is used to determine necessity of involuntary hospitalization: an individual diagnosed with uncontrolled (or persistent transient uncontrollability of) schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or depressive disorder, and accompanying and compelling acts and/or expressions of imminent risk of causing greivous physical injury or death to themselves or another person.