Misdemeanor=No gun

[Luku]

And if you think I am wrong, take a look at MI's CPL application, which predicates granting of the license on not currently having or being treated for "a mental illness." The application does not say "a dangerous mental illness" or "have been adjudicated". It requires, on pain of perjury, an attestation that the applicant does not have a mental illness.

I wonder, under current definitions, which of us couldn't be shown to have a mental illness?

It is really time to stop defending "mental health" limitations. - delta9

I agree. Do we really want psychologists to have that kind of power?

 

[ilbob]

It may be that the intent of the law was that only people who had a fair chance in court to show they aren't crazy be prohibited. A lot of people think that is the way it works from watching old Perry Mason shows.

In the real world, if you actually get a hearing in front of a judge, it is very perfunctory and off you go. Its not like a real trial where you get a lawyer and can call witnesses or even question the witnesses against you.

There was a case a few years ago in Rockford where a guy was suing a lot of county functionaries. Typical nut case pro se things, complicated by a gross misunderstanding of what common law means. A judge eventually ordered him not to file any more law suits without using a lawyer so he tried to sue the judge.

The judge and the SA got together and had him committed. A newspaper reported that a shrink testified, not under oath, for only a few minutes and the guy was not given a lawyer or allowed to question the sole witness. The judge than said he was nuts and committed him to a nut house downstate, 6 hours away. He might still be there for all I know. No allegations of him being a danger to anyone, just a nuisance.

 

[TallPine]

In the real world, if you actually get a hearing in front of a judge, it is very perfunctory and off you go. Its not like a real trial where you get a lawyer and can call witnesses or even question the witnesses against you.

In Michigan, the so-called hearing is in an "administrative court" right in the hospital, and the judge is a former MH "professional" - friend and recent coworker of the doctors and caseworkers.

 

[Ed Ames]

Side note about mental health as a reason for stripping civil rights, mentioned because I recently had a rather sad conversation with a friend. The guy's in his early 40s and has been trying to deal with chronic health issues and depression for a while. Anyone who has done any research will know that approximately 40yo males with chronic health issues are at extreme risk of suicide... it's almost as though it is hard wired into human males that if they are forty, sickly, and haven't yet reproduced they should clear the way for younger and healthier specimens... anyway... he is suicidal. He needs mental health assistance. If he lives another five years he'll probably be fine but he needs help now.

He won't get it. Why not?

He has a friend who is studying to be a psychiatrist. That friend has explained all of the record keeping requirements imposed on mental health professionals in his state. The fact that there are electronic records that must be maintained and shared with the state, which last forever, and can be used to strip civil rights including being an obvious invasion of privacy. He thinks it is simply wrong to be forced to share that much information with strangers just to get help. He won't do it.

So the recordkeeping requirements, putatively in place to ensure public health and safety, are actively keeping extremely needy people from seeking medical help they very much need.

That's the other side of Delta9's excellent point... if we punish people for being sick by stripping them of their civil rights (including 2a rights) we discourage them from seeking assistance. We establish an adversarial relationship between the health care system and the people who legitimately (and usually temporarily) need assistance. And, in the end, there is an excellent chance that we will get exactly the result we're nominally trying to avoid: more people living with untreated mental health issues which may result in more violence (especially if suicide is included in the definition of "violence").

 

[BridgeWalker]

Exactly, Ed.

And we ourselves a great disservice when we just dismiss the plight of all of those people out of hand because

"mental illness...an excuse for bad behavior and flawed character"
"just have a couple drinks and relax"
"real men (and women, presumably) just talk to a buddy"
"go to church and it'll be fine"

As is probably fairly obvious from my repeated focus on this area, I am affected personally by this problem. I will truthfully state on my CPL application that I do not have a mental illness. And I will really hope no one decides to go looking at records from several years back and decides that I'm not adequetely "cured".

Mental illness and suicidality are not about weakness of character or not being a good enough person. They are usually, in my experience and from what I've studied, a combination of incredibly stressful circumstances and a vulnerability of some sort caused by a combination of chemistry, genetics, and past experiences influencing thoughts and behaviors. That is certainly what it was in my case. Details would be useful to illustrate my point better, but well, noyb. Suffice to say that I survived what I survived because of strength acquired in the process of trying to survive, not because I was too weak to have avoided the problem in the first place. Don't judge another person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Plenty of people who tread paths similar to mine do not survive. Don't assume you would until you've been there, and I hope to God you never have to be.

And so it really bothers me that when I apply for my CPL shortly, I'll have to wonder and wait if someone, somewhere will check illegally or legally (the boundaries are awfully shaky there, whatever people say) into irrelevant aspects of my past, because privacy in the mental health world is not nearly as tight as folks would like to believe it is, and because paperwork from a couple years says I am unlikely to survive, and the gov't does not care about the truth, or about my rights, only about looking for ways to deny my rights and about listening to the professionals.

So, yeah, this is important.

 

[Javelin]

These threads just get me all worked up. I follow the law. But these state mandates that are passing through legislature are really getting under my skin.

 

[sig226]

The 1968 Gun Control Act prohibits convicted felons from owning firearms. The states can pass additional restrictions. Several do. New Jersey doesn't use felonies and misdemeanors. It uses four degrees of "crimes." A fourth degree crime is considered a misdemeanor under the federal definition. The fourth degree crime has a prison term less than one year and a fine less than $1,000. But any person convicted of a "crime" is a prohibited person in New Jersey, so if you had a misdeanor in another state, you can't possess guns in New Jersey.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I think Ed's post illustrates the complexity of the issue as a public policy issue.

The guy's in his early 40s and has been trying to deal with chronic health issues and depression for a while. Anyone who has done any research will know that approximately 40yo males with chronic health issues are at extreme risk of suicide...

A a concerned friend, I probably don't want to have a friend who suffers from chronic depression - at an extreme risk of suicide - buying a gun. I wouldn't sell a gun to a friend in those straits one of mine. Would you?

There are a lot of issues with selling guns to folks in that condition. The first is that at least as I recall, though handguns are not the most common choice as a method of killing yourself, they are by far the most effective. As I recall stats from years ago, pills are the most common choice, but are not very effective (in terms of the number of people who survive). But when someone does chose to use a handgun, they are much more likely to succeed in a suicide attempt. That's not surprising - handguns are by design, lethal.

... if we punish people for being sick by stripping them of their civil rights (including 2a rights) we discourage them from seeking assistance ...

And that's also very true - though I am not sure that "punish" is the intended consequence. I think the intent is protecting mentally ill people and those around them.

However, I am sure that to the person who's denied, it feels like a punishment. It's also an issue where people have jobs that would be in jeopardy if they sought mental health treatment, but are suffering from mental health issues.

Delta 9 also raises an interesting point.

Mental illness and suicidality are not about weakness of character or not being a good enough person. They are usually, in my experience and from what I've studied, a combination of incredibly stressful circumstances and a vulnerability of some sort caused by a combination of chemistry, genetics, and past experiences influencing thoughts and behaviors. That is certainly what it was in my case.

I am not judging you at all. But would you agree that during the time when you were in a depressed and suicidal state, you probably should not have been allowed to buy weapons?

Just to be clear, I also have some experience with these issues. I am a recovered alcoholic (over two decades sober now). I didn't survive because of my own strength - in my opinion, G-d had a lot to do with it. But I don't want to start another one of those threads.

I have to tell you that during my drinking days - particularly towards the very end, it would have been a very bad public policy to allow me easy access to handguns. I may very well have harmed other people (probably not intentionally, but I wasn't thinking any too clearly in those days). If I had a handgun in my possession at they very end, I would be dead now.

So I do think that there are a number of temporary conditions in one's life which might - as a matter of public policy - make it advisable to deny easy access to handguns for that temporary period.

Yep, it's a sad state of affairs, but the reality is that all it takes is someone to go to court and lie to get a temporary restraining order. The threshold is minimal and easy to get one. This is an 'ex parte' order, meaning you had no right to be present.

I have to also sat that the TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) issue is a little more complicated than most posters have made it out to be. Are RO's abused? Very much so. I hear that filing an RO is pro forma in divorce cases.

But I have to say that of all the divorces I have watched, in the few that included a TRO, the TRO seems to have been justified. When I have heard that one was issued, it had always been proceeded by threatened or actual violence. While I agree that there are significant issues raised by TROs, I am not quite sure that they are issued quite as willy-nilly as we are lead to believe.

Let's be very clear that Restraining Orders are an attempt to solve a problem that does exist. The solution may not be correct, but the problem does exist. From reading the papers around here, it is not at all uncommon for a man to try to kill a woman when she tries to end an abusive relationship. It's not at all uncommon in the recent past, for a man to kill a woman and her children when she tries to escape an abusive relationship.

I have seen folks who are normally well balanced act extremely badly during a divorce. I am not judging folks - I have a good friend, one of the people I respect most in this world. He had very bad divorce before I ever knew him. Today (15 - 20 years later), he and his ex are relatively cordial. I asked him about it, and he said, "I hope you are never as angry in your life as I was at her. I am not very happy with some of the actions I took. You need to understand this. Divorce is about two issues - sex and money. Those are the two issues that most of us feel most deeply about, and those are the two issues that make us the most crazy."

I am not sure whether I agree with the law, but I think several things are true:

1. It is possible that any one of us might go through a temporary period of our live where - as a public policy issue, we should be denied easy access to firearms.
2. This would be the case when we are suffering from some kind of mental illness.
3. This could also be the case when a judge has issued a Domestic Violence TRO against us.

Mike

 

[BridgeWalker]

I am not judging you at all. But would you agree that during the time when you were in a depressed and suicidal state, you probably should not have been allowed to buy weapons?

Actually, no. Not in my case. But then women rarely commit suicide with firearms. Also, I was not especially suicidal.

I think that someone who is in a hospital for psych problem should not have access to weapons. That is as far as I'm willing to go on that point.

Most of my difficulties derived from ordinary things: cars, cold weather, sports, etc.

If I ask someone to protect me because I cannot do so myself, then they should do so, from all hazards. If my need for protection is so open and obvious that it can be determined by a third party, then the same.

That's as far as I'm willing to go.

 

[Ed Ames]

As a concerned friend I have no special concerns about firearms. I have concerns about helium (e.g. party balloon kits available from wal*mart) and rope (like the spool of rope he bought at Target) and knives (like the chef's knife he bought at Ikea) and cars (like the toyota he drives on freeways lined with concrete pillars) and bridges (like the freeway overpass half a mile from where he works) and natural gas (of the sort that heats his home) and all sorts of other everyday items (household chemicals, cops, electricity, you name it). Within that context firearms are actually a very minior concern. A firearm is no more likely to cause harm to bystanders (less compared to natural gas or a car), no more likely to leave him alive but permanently disabled (less compared to helium and the like), no more likely to be used as a suicide tool, etc.

There is also the mistaken assumption that prohibitions work at all. Felons can't buy guns so no felons own guns. Sure. Except there are guns around. My friend could go to a family member's house and get a gun. Actually he could go to a gun store and get a gun because he isn't on any official watch list.

So, in order to (ineffectually) impede his access to one of a thousand methods of suicide you are successfully preventing him from getting the help that may keep him from attempting suicide.

Sorry, I don't see it as a good thing at all. Nominally limiting access is NOT keeping him alive but the prospect of losing his civil rights (in his case mostly the right to privacy but also other rights) for being sick IS keeping him from getting help. Active harm is being done in the name of preventing a specific tool from being used to commit a future potential harm.

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

A buddy of mine was recently arrested in this sweep. He's been cleared, but his gun has yet to me returned.

He was arrested and charged with a felony, but never convicted. Didn't stop L.A.P.D. from hooking him up in front of his wife and daughter.

 

[mp510]

. I was not aware a misdemeanor, Trespassing, J-walking etc. can make it so one can not have a firearm. Is this a California thing?

It probably has to do with enforcing the Laughtenburg Ammendment, which bars MDV (Misdomeanor Domestic Violence) convicts from owning or using firearms. The Laughtenburg Ammendment does not even allow police and military users to posess firearms or ammunition in the line of duty- thus MDV is one of the few convictions which the military can not waiver during the enlistment process if they wanted to. A lot of agencies- LE and MIL- lost a lot of good employees as a result.

In Connecticut, in addition to MDV, we have a laundry list of prohibiting misdomeanors- inciting a riot, assault 3, unlawful restraint, assaulting a person 60+, stuff like that.

Additionally, the GCA 68 bars individuals convicted of state crimes classed as misdomeanors if the maximum possible penalty was greater than 2 years.

 

[RPCVYemen]

As a concerned friend I have no special concerns about firearms. I have concerns about helium (e.g. party balloon kits available from wal*mart) ...

OK. I accept your point. Your claim is that you no more concerned about selling/giving a suicidal friend a handgun than selling/giving a friend a party balloon filled with helium from wal*mart.

Can you cite some stats to back up this claim? How many people each year in the US kill themselves with handguns? How many with party balloons from wal*mart?

Mike

 

[Scratchy]

How many with rope?

 

[Ed Ames]

Ummm.... not a party balloon. A party balloon kit (I was specific ... read what is written) which contains a pressurized cylinder of helium. Inert gas asphyxiation is a fairly common suicide method and helium is a readily available inert gas. The method is to displace all available oxygen in an enclosed environment (e.g. by filling a plastic bag over one's head) and thereby startve the body of oxygen.

Rope is also commonly available and is frequently used for suicide. The method is to constrict the flow of blood to the brain while at the same time potentially damaging the spinal column, thereby starving the brain of oxygen.

The information on all of these methods, and many others, is easily available. I know because I got to listen to my friend go on and on about them.

I actually asked him why all the talk of non-firearms methods. His reason was that he "didn't like guns." So a law barring him from buying a firearm won't do ANYTHING.... but the laws that strip his civil rights if he seeks medical attention will be directly responsible for his death if he does kill himself. Why? They are keeping him from seeking help.

 

[TallPine]

We should also ban people who might be suicidal from bridges and buildings over two stories tall

 

[gym]

I firmly believe that reflection on past thoughts like "if I had a gun x years ago, I may or would have done this or that", is just not true at all. you can't go back in time, and assume that you would have acted differentlly in the same situation than you actaully did, it is like comparing life to a novel that you are reflecting upon. Truth is you did what you did, not what you might have done. Most people think about suicide at some point in their life, just like they think about what they would do if they hit the lotto, most of us will do neither, and there is little that anyone can do to stop either one. The people who really shoot their neighboor or kill themseves, process things in a different manner, and never stop and think about the consequenses that the average person might consider part of their process. Many laws are based on the theory that rational judgement will prevail in an irrational state, that is not the case, if someone is trully bent on doing a foul or in this case a murderous thing , there isn't much that a law can do about it. But a bad law could be the catalyst that pushes a troubled sole over the edge, for instance if you are about to loose your family house etc. and now they also want more, like your guns, which to many gun owners are a valued personal possesion like a pet, or a car, it could be argued that the law is the catalyst here in the outcome of the circumstanse, and that in itself may be grounds to contest the law. Maybe the law is unconstitutional, has anyone tried to have it repealed on those or any other grounds. This also goes to RO's, people react irrationally when they are told that they "can't" do something or go someware. Even if they had no intention of doing or going, it know becomes a rellavent thing, like telling someone not to think of an elephant.

 

[Louisiana Carry]

Two pages and I am surprised not to see the correct answer re: fed law.

USC 922 defines a felony as a prohibiter for owning weapons. The word 'felony' is defined as any crime that can be punished by over a year in jail/prison. ANY misdemeanor that COULD have been punished by 1yr and 1day or more will permanently prohibit you from owning guns, according to FEDERAL law, unless you get a pardon that specifically restores your gun rights. This is not up to the States.

It is a blatantly unconstitutional law, as it rests on a terribly strained interpretation of the commerce clause.

Sorry if this has been posted and I missed it.