Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
I'm not taking sides on this issue, I just want to see what the range of opinions are and the reasoning behind them. This could be a great discussion.
Should mental health records be part of the NICS background check?
- Thread starter Redneck with a 40
- Start date
- Status
pcosmar
member
No. Just like all the other threads.
NICS needs to be eliminated.
NICS needs to be eliminated.
PotatoJudge
Member
Define "mental health records."
alucard0822
Member
Mental health records, just like all medical records have a patient confidentiality agreement, they can be viewed if a suppeno is issued, patient is commited, or if a patient can be shown to be "a danger to his/herself or others". There is good reason for this, because of misuse or misinterpretation by unqualified (read NICS) viewers. It also leaves open to interpretation what standards would disqualify someone, as in a single case of court ordered commitment, adjudicated mentally deficient, or spending a total of more than 30 days under inpatient care (not-consecutive) without a psychiatrists letter of approval to purchase a gun (these are the present guidelines, court orders are part of NICS check) or if we change it to: disqualification and criminal indictment after finding out they either, had 3 sessions of grief counseling from a phsycologist after the death of a parent 10 years ago, diagnosed with ADD and prescribed ritalin in elementary school, a formal dislexia test reccomended by a college counselor.
Gun control doesn't work, untill the events of last monday no-one really thought about denying people with no criminal record, but a medical one their 2nd amendment rights. It is sad that 33 people were murdered at the VT campus, but that is the national daily average of murders, most of which you will never hear of, there were thousands of robberies, and assaults, and many many law abiding honest people became victims, many of which would have been willing to carry a concealed weapon to protect themselves if the law/campus/buisness allowed. Do crazy people occasionally hurt or kill people with guns? YES, Does gun control keep criminals from obtainig weapons? NO, Should law abiding people be able to protect themselves from harm? Definitely. For once we are not entirely on the defense, the issues surrounding the VT shootings have been reported with more balance, with more pro gun points of view, and more people pushing for increased gun rights over a false sense of security and gun control than ever before.
Gun control doesn't work, untill the events of last monday no-one really thought about denying people with no criminal record, but a medical one their 2nd amendment rights. It is sad that 33 people were murdered at the VT campus, but that is the national daily average of murders, most of which you will never hear of, there were thousands of robberies, and assaults, and many many law abiding honest people became victims, many of which would have been willing to carry a concealed weapon to protect themselves if the law/campus/buisness allowed. Do crazy people occasionally hurt or kill people with guns? YES, Does gun control keep criminals from obtainig weapons? NO, Should law abiding people be able to protect themselves from harm? Definitely. For once we are not entirely on the defense, the issues surrounding the VT shootings have been reported with more balance, with more pro gun points of view, and more people pushing for increased gun rights over a false sense of security and gun control than ever before.
RealGun
Member
I couldn't answer that without seeing the fine print first.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
If we are to expand the nature of a mental health denial, it must be on fari, objective criteria with a robust, fair, and actually functional appeal process.
mr. chuckles
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11
I agree with RealGun.
RealGun
Member
Yikes! Whatever happened to self defense as a natural right? I believe it has nothing to do with citizenship. It is also why I turned down a gig in the UK, let alone fly anywhere.
I think you make it quite clear that you have issues with "furiners" in general, some issues with which I definitely agree.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
Is there something wrong with my wife owning a gun? What about me owning one, since I live with her and she has access to them? What about my friend, a graduate student from India, he has no right to defend himself?
David
alucard0822
Member
could have just stayed on topic with that, but by all means tell us how you feel. afterall some of the kind folks that keep this little ship afloat in cyberspace that have helped to further the INALIENABLE rights of us fellow citizens and honest to god green card carrying patriotic americans might just take offense to that.
RealGun
Member
Cho's record had been expunged, so I don't think you will see judges now too keen about the idea of hiding someone's record.
The other factor is that the law governs under what conditions a person can be "committed". Processing people into mental facilities is part of my sister's job as a county LCSW in northern VA. In Cho's case, some of the handling was simply to protect his record from the severity of the legal consequences. If not careful, "the system" will become even more reluctant to commit people who really need it.
So far, the government does not have complete carte blanche into someones privacy, at least not that you would know about.
Confiscating a troubled person's guns or preventing purchase may do that person as well as society a favor, but it should never be unconditionally permanent by law, Lautenburg style as in the case of restraining orders for domestic violence. The only exceptions I can see to having a right of self defense is when one is under someone else's professional care and protection, such as in prison, in a hospital, or in a mental institution. Obviously, being of age and on a college campus doesn't work, not to mention other gun free zones.
Once free to go, it wouldn't be the guns that are being restored. It would be the rights. I guess I would let the person ask for the guns to be returned, assuming the guns weren't still at home or freely retrievable from some friend or relative. I can't think of a good reason why it has to be the police who control the weapons and present red tape or even a bill in returning them, unfunded mandate and all that.
The other factor is that the law governs under what conditions a person can be "committed". Processing people into mental facilities is part of my sister's job as a county LCSW in northern VA. In Cho's case, some of the handling was simply to protect his record from the severity of the legal consequences. If not careful, "the system" will become even more reluctant to commit people who really need it.
So far, the government does not have complete carte blanche into someones privacy, at least not that you would know about.
Confiscating a troubled person's guns or preventing purchase may do that person as well as society a favor, but it should never be unconditionally permanent by law, Lautenburg style as in the case of restraining orders for domestic violence. The only exceptions I can see to having a right of self defense is when one is under someone else's professional care and protection, such as in prison, in a hospital, or in a mental institution. Obviously, being of age and on a college campus doesn't work, not to mention other gun free zones.
Once free to go, it wouldn't be the guns that are being restored. It would be the rights. I guess I would let the person ask for the guns to be returned, assuming the guns weren't still at home or freely retrievable from some friend or relative. I can't think of a good reason why it has to be the police who control the weapons and present red tape or even a bill in returning them, unfunded mandate and all that.
Ratzinger_p38
Member
No, no no no no and no. I am scared ****less I would be denied. I was diagnosed 'obsessive compulsive' some years ago - no symptoms - should I be denied? I was on Zoloft and Prozac (different times) when I was a teenager. Should I be denied? The social security board told me I was fine, shut up and get a job. Am I the kind of person they are trying to prevent from getting a gun?
Absolutely not. If they were, and I were to start feeling depressed, I would not seek help. That reason alone is reason enough - gun owner or not, to keep this private. This argument should not even relate to guns. It is a privacy issue in general.
22-rimfire
Member
What records? A trip to the marriage counselor? Alcohol rehab? Where do the records start in the interest of public safety and right to privacy stop? Committed by a court? Outpatient counseling? Perscription drug use? Some psychologists review as part of job screening? Taking prescription drugs as a child in school? Personally I would keep the bar raised very high and limit any official record to being committed by a court involuntarily.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I say no because in some states it's too easy for somebody to be railroaded into a mental institution. (And, no, I'm not going to say further.)
Aside from the problems with privacy laws and just plain old basic communication between the world of psychology/psychiatry and law enforcemnt, "mental health" criteria do not lend themselves well to the issue of potential criminal behavior.
Art
Aside from the problems with privacy laws and just plain old basic communication between the world of psychology/psychiatry and law enforcemnt, "mental health" criteria do not lend themselves well to the issue of potential criminal behavior.
Art
River Wraith
Member
Not just no but hell no. Actually, yes Ratzinger, you are the type of person they are trying to prevent from having a gun. And when they've successfully denied you your right to bear arms, then they will come for a different group, then a different group, and then the last group. That's their plan, one group at a time, they will attempt to pass legislation to prohibit guns until they've passed enough to ban them all. It's our job to make sure that doesn't happen.
Ratzinger_p38
Member
You sure? Or is this just tin foil hat stuff?
On the front of it, it seems like people who are 'danger to themselves or others' by a court and then the usual people who are involuntarly commited.
Argh some legal people help me out here I hate reading bills.
River Wraith
Member
The way they've operated in the past is divide and conquer. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it sure seems that they would love to prevent anyone who's ever had a mental health issue to be ineligible for gun ownership. That's why mental health stuff shouldn't be part of NICS.
NO - I work at an Outpatient Mental health Center. First, most mental health professionals are very liberal, left of center and anti-firearms. SHEEPLE!
Do you want these people to have an opinion on your constitutional rights?
Also, you would not believe how young and unexperienced some (most) of the licensed therapists are. Do you want a 20 something college graduate that has been brainwashed into the evils of firearms along with all the current PC flovors of the day to have this kind of authority?
NO!
Not to mention it would violate HIPAA laws and regulations. Mental Health records are held to a higher standard of privacy than medical records - giving gov't buerocrates access to them would be a big BIG mistake.
Do you want these people to have an opinion on your constitutional rights?
Also, you would not believe how young and unexperienced some (most) of the licensed therapists are. Do you want a 20 something college graduate that has been brainwashed into the evils of firearms along with all the current PC flovors of the day to have this kind of authority?
NO!
Not to mention it would violate HIPAA laws and regulations. Mental Health records are held to a higher standard of privacy than medical records - giving gov't buerocrates access to them would be a big BIG mistake.
wally
Member
Be very very careful here.
Everybody would agree that violent people should not be buying guns, but what did we end up with? The word of one person with zero evidence files a restraining order against you, and there goes your right to own a gun!
There is enough stigma attached to getting psychiatric medical care as it is, adding more could end up creating additional maniacs if the potential loss of civil rights motivates them to avoid treatment at all costs.
--wally.
Everybody would agree that violent people should not be buying guns, but what did we end up with? The word of one person with zero evidence files a restraining order against you, and there goes your right to own a gun!
There is enough stigma attached to getting psychiatric medical care as it is, adding more could end up creating additional maniacs if the potential loss of civil rights motivates them to avoid treatment at all costs.
--wally.
RealGun
Member
I think they are desperate to restore bliss, real or imagined. Get 'em all back to shopping. But then something else will come along that was not precluded by any law or any amount of money thrown at the issue.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I voted "No" because it is an infringement upon the right. If someone is so unstable as to be untrustworthy with arms, that person belongs in an institution or under full time guardianship.
Woody
Woody
SoCalShooter
Member
On the one hand I can see the advantage. ON the other hand it is an invasion of doctor /client priviledge. So yes and no.
trondossa17
Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 29
No. If they're a true danger to others, they can't be trusted loose, with a car, knife, . . .
Even in the old west, when the "wicked wrong'un" got out of jail, they handed him his gun belt back. Just as if there are murderers doing 5 years, the solution to me is not to not let them have guns when they have served their sentence.
My .01, post taxes
Even in the old west, when the "wicked wrong'un" got out of jail, they handed him his gun belt back. Just as if there are murderers doing 5 years, the solution to me is not to not let them have guns when they have served their sentence.
My .01, post taxes
- Status
