Mental Illness and Guns

[kengrubb]

Assuming Naveed Afzal Haq, the Seattle Jewish Federation shooter, does have a valid Washington Concealed Pistol License, the issue then emerges about mental health and whether existing laws are tough enough.

My first and only question would be how tough is tough enough? Put another way, to what degree do we use the argument of a "history of mental illness" to deny someone the right to own, use, possess and carry a gun?

Anyone seen "Minority Report" and interested in a Department of Pre-Crime?

What if someone sees a shrink twice a week? How about twice a month? What if someone has ever been on a psychiatrist's couch (for counseling) for any reason?

Does calling in to discuss your problems with Dr. Laura count--although she's not a psychiatrist.

Do psychologists and licensed counselors count or only if it's a psychiatrist?

Some folks discuss their problems with their M.D., pastor, rabbi, accountant, bartender, etc.

Suppose one were involuntarily committed by family members, but the psychiatrist observes you and releases you? What if they only keep one for a week? How about two?

I suppose, much like art and pornography, "mental illness" often depends upon it's beholder.

 

[Zero_DgZ]

I was "observed" for a week and summarily denied "ownership or posession," but insofar as I know only one state. And there are generally appeals processess for that sort of thing, for instance you can be declared "safe and sane" and thusly be cleared, but the hoops to jump through are tedious and it's tough to get anyone to cooperate (mention the magic "G" word and see if your doctor will do it... I bet he won't).

 

[whm1974]

I suppose, much like art and pornography, "mental illness" often depends upon it's beholder.

And like the term "Assuslt weapon" lawmakers can "define" mental illness anyway they see fit. God talks to you? Since you hear voices you must be crazy.

Here in IL if you sign yourself in a mental factily, the ISP will revoke your FOID. Other states that require a permit to own guns have revoked or refuse to issue them to those that are seeing a shrink or are taking medication.

Given the above among other issues, it is not a good idea to amitte you are getting treatment or taking "medication". Even getting counciling for stest or for the death of a love one have been grounds to deny gun ownership to people.

-Bill

 

[DMF]

You can be treated with meds, check yourself into a mental hospital for several months, etc, etc, and not be a "prohibited person" under federal law. State laws can and do vary.

To be a prohibited person under 18USC922(g) the person must have been adjudicated a mental defective, or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Neither one of those is an easy task to accomplish. Therefore there is a VERY high burden the government must overcome to say a person is a prohibited person for a mental defect.

However, if this is more than a hypothetical, and you are concerned you may be prohibited under 18USC922 for a mental defect, I suggest you consult with an attorney who is competent in federal firearms laws, and/or contact the ATF directly for a clarification.

 

[whm1974]

You can be treated with meds, check yourself into a mental hospital for several months, etc, etc, and not be a "prohibited person" under federal law. State laws can and do vary.

Laws can and do change overnight. Here in IL if you been in a mental institution in the last five years, then no FOID. It was you had to be
involuntarily committed, but they change this a few years ago.

-Bill

 

[joab]

When I was 29 I suffered an injury to complicated to describe here, but the muscle or sac around my heart was bruised and caused a lot of chest pain
I went in for an EKG, but since I was going through a very messy divorce and severe job change I was sent to a shrink instead.
They did find the injury later but I still am recorded as having been shrunk for anxiety.

Many years later I wanted to quit smoking
Insurance would not cover Zyban, the miracle stop smoking drug for those with weak will power, but it would cover Wellbutrin the anti depressant drug, which just happens to also be Zyban
I winked and told my doctor I was depressed because I couldn't quit smoking.
He laughed and gave me a prescription for Wellbutrin.
Now I am a recorded medicated depressive

In a perfect anti-world I should be prohibited for being anxiously depressed

 

[kengrubb]

if this is more than a hypothetical, and you are concerned you may be prohibited under 18USC922 for a mental defect, I suggest you consult with an attorney who is competent in federal firearms laws

Clarifying, this is simply a hypothetical--although it does seem like an area which is quite gray and ripe for the Forces of Darkness to try and expand restrictions.

Here in Washington state, one can be prohibited from owning and using firearms if one has been "involuntarily committed for mental health treatment". As DMF noted, it is a fairly high standard the gumint must meet.

I posted the question on WA-CCW today, and Joe Waldron (CCRKBA) provided a very good, very detailed response.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wa-ccw/message/38987

 

[XavierBreath]

I am a health care professional. I do not think any health care professional, including psychiatrists and other doctors, should be given the authority to remove a person's constitutional rights. I have seen too many questionable, and poor decisions over the course of my career.

I firmly believe that a constitutional right should only be removed by a judge and or jury.

 

[FTF]

I'm on Wellbutrin and I can't conceive of the possibility that it could ever be held against me.

Hell, if that is going to be the case, I want my cigarettes back now!

Honestly, I did help me quit for over 3 months now and still going. I really doubt I'm part of some kind of registry because I got an anti-depressant prescribed. I didn't even ask for it, the doc just gave it to me.

You know what, though? I wouldn't be surprised if that was another move they made. It would be a good way to nix another few million people from buying firearms.

 

[whm1974]

I have seen too many questionable, and poor decisions over the course of my career.

Given the history of psychiatry, and the fact that quite a few psychiatrists simply made stuff up, maybe we should consider psychiatry to quack medicine.

You know what, though? I wouldn't be surprised if that was another move they made. It would be a good way to nix another few million people from buying firearms.

The domesttic clause did catch people by supprise. Historicly "mental illness" has been define in a way to control people that those in power didn't like.

-Bill

 

[TallPine]

[involuntary commission] is a fairly high standard the gumint must meet.

not in michigan

the "judge" in the hearing is one of them, a former MH worker

IOW, a kangaroo court


i don't know why this should be so different from someone who is unconcious from a physical injury such as a car wreck... they don't become wards of the state just because they were unable to sign papers at the moment of hospital admission

 

[Phenom]

If you're not judged legally insane then there shouldn't be any problems unless you're in a blue state. I have a whole list of mental illness' and no case manager, case worker, mental health professional cares about what I own.

 

[Erebus]

As far as I am concerned if you are not dangerous enough to yourself or others to be confined to an institution than you are not dangerous enough to be deprived your right to defend yourself. If you are out on the streets and can be trusted to not run people over with your car...

The law on the other hand loves to establish double standards based on inanimate objects.

 

[Bubbles]

Until last month I'd have agreed with most of you.

I have a friend who is bipolar, though I didn't know it until last month until after he decided to stop taking his meds. He got into his van and went kayaking on the Potomac (with a carbine, but no ammo thank God)... lost said kayak, ended up swimming, got out of river, stole a car, led the cops on high-speed chase through two counties, attacked a deputy, broke the rear window out of deputy's car, attacked several inmates in jail (self-defense from what I understand), threatened the judge... and is now downstate in the mental hospital. He hasn't been adjudicated mentally incompetent yet, and I've heard he'll be gone anywhere from three months to two years.

This is a long-time member of the local GOP, big gun rights supporter, successful businessman, homeowner, etc. None of us know why he decided to stop taking his meds, and its left his friends and family with a huge legal and financial mess to clean up. This also isn't his first "incident" , though it's by far the worst.

Unfortunately most here like to think of our RKBA as universal, but there are some people who, for whatever reason, just shouldn't own firearms.

 

[Phenom]

That's true!!! I personally know several people that shouldn't own firearms whether or not they're a criminal or mentally ill.

 

[buzz_knox]

Unfortunately most here like to think of our RKBA as universal, but there are some people who, for whatever reason, just shouldn't own firearms.

There are some people who shouldn't be breathing. But, like the RKBA, it's hard to take away the universal right to breath from those who shouldn't be, without making it incredibly easy to take said right from the rest of us.

Universal means universal, runtil the moment they do something to "give up" the right.

 

[Erebus]

Unfortunately most here like to think of our RKBA as universal, but there are some people who, for whatever reason, just shouldn't own firearms.

There are people out there that firmly believe that no one should have the right to own a firearm no matter what. They believe no one can be trusted with one.

So therefore,I stand by my original statement. If you are safe enough to be loose in public you should not be denied the right to defend yourself by the best means available. There should be no "second class" citizens that can be easily targeted and exploited by a criminal. If they can be trusted to have knives, baseball bats, motor vehicles, etc then why not a gun?

If someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun why would you allow them access to a vehicle? It's like the level 3 sex offenders that they release. WHY release them if you EXPECT them to to do it again?! If they are that dangerous lock them up for life. Prisons overcrowded? Cut loose some of the pot smokers you are locking up. I ain't worried about them raping and killing my mother.

It's not about the person, it's about the system. If they have committed a crime and are fully expected to re-offend they shouldn't be released, period. If they have not committed a crime and are judged safe enough to not be institutionalized then they should not be discriminated against. They deserve to be able to protect themselves just as much as they next guy/gal.

They are filling the prisons with petty drug offenders and are releasing the people that really are a threat to make room for more petty drug offenders. If someone wants to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home who are we to tell them they can't, who are they endangering except maybe themselves? It's more nanny state, we will tell you what's good for you, BS. Now if they get in a car and drive impaired that's different. Now they are endangering others.

 

[Wiley]

To me the question is how far may the govenment, reasonably, go in denying someone their right to self defense because of a physical or mental defect?

Many physical defects are correctable by surgery, physical therapy or, prosthetics. Many mental defects are correctable by surgery, medication or, scientologyrolleyes: ).

Where does the right of the individual fade into the right of society?

 

[Sistema1927]

The missing point in these discussions is the fact that even if you could somehow "perfect" gun control laws so that only the "right people" had access to them (fat chance), a deranged person has access to a huge assortment of other weapons with which to perform mayhem:

Pick-up truck driven onto a crowded sidewalk.

Meat cleavers, kitchen knives, baseball bats, crowbars, large rocks, barrels of AnFo, scissors, bottles of gasoline, etc., etc. etc.

Yes, firearms are lethal, but so is a fully fueled 757. The weapon isn't as important as the person using it.

Laws that restrict access to firearms are Polyannish at the least, and criminal at their worst. We would be better protected if all of that misdirected effort went to actually stopping the criminal acts of criminals.

 

[TallPine]

all members of the opposition party are mentally ill, of course

 

[Erebus]

Sistema1927 I agree with everything you said except this.

We would be better protected if all of that misdirected effort went to actually stopping the criminal acts of criminals.

There are only some crimes that Law Enforcement can actually stop. Those are crimes that are preplanned and traceable.

Most street level crimes, such as a random murder, rape, robbery and such the police would have to get VERY lucky and more or less stumble upon early to actually prevent. Otherwise it's up to regular people to stop them. Running from a machete wielding maniac does not a crime prevent. It merely makes said maniac select a new victim, perhaps one that can't run away. Yea call 911 and see how quickly they arrive.

Unfortunately nowadays most people think that only LEOs should be involved in stopping crime.

 

[whm1974]

here are only some crimes that Law Enforcement can actually stop. Those are crimes that are preplanned and traceable.

But after the fact we can put the perp away for a long time. He can't commit crimes if he is locked up, or dead.

-Bill

 

[Phenom]

Everyone here acts like firearms are the only means of self-defense. Firearms can be used for self-defense, but so can other dangerous items. The real question should be why isn't the Government restricting those other items too? The problem is there's just too many rediculous laws.

 

[Erebus]

But after the fact we can put the perp away for a long time. He can't commit crimes if he is locked up, or dead.

Tell that to Imette Saint Guillen, oh no wait she's dead, tell her mother. Imette's accused killer, Darryl Littlejohn, is now being investigated for 2 or 3 other rapes as well. If any of these victims had been armed maybe Imette would be alive. Littlejohn has five priors, and was in violation of his parole merely being outside his home at that time. He had been previously incarcerated but apparently didn't learn anything. Except maybe to be sure there are no witnesses left alive.

Dylan and Kleibold may have been stopped prior to or shortly after beginning killing people if any of those teachers had been armed. Armed teachers may not have helped but if I was a teacher huddling students under a desk waiting for these two nuts to come into the classroom and start executing people I would at least like to have a chance. If we can trust these people with our children for 7 or so hours a day I thing we can trust them with a gun.

I'm sure Gratia Hupp was just giddy with anticipation that this guy was gonna do lots of time while she watched him execute her parents.

I'm not trying to bash what LEOs do. I have the utmost respect for what LEOs go through day in and day out trying their best to protect people. But they can't be everywhere all the time. The police aren't the problem, reality is. I would MUCH rather see the crime prevented and punishment be secondary. I don't care how much time someone gets after the fact. It solves nothing except MAYBE preventing him/her from committing another crime.

Some people(Mayor Bloomberg for instance) live in a mythical world where the police are always 5 seconds away to protect you. So they don't need to protect themselves. And when someone goes to jail they come out choir boys and girls. And when a law is passed everyone including the criminals unwaveringly obeys it. These are the people who think no one needs to carry a gun.

What you said is true however it is little comfort to those who's lives have been devastated or snuffed out.

 

[whm1974]

The problem is there's just too many rediculous laws.

Yes there is. Here in IL waiting periods apply to private sales. Almost impossible to enforce, the reason behide waiting periods is silly, and one hardly needs a gun to kill someone anyway.

And when a law is passed everyone including the criminals unwaveringly obeys it.

And yet these people are the worst offenders
when it comes to obeying laws. The Ruling Class has never obeyed it's own laws.

-Bill