Shouldn't Jesse Jackson Jr. have his gun rights revoked by Illinois police?

[Double Naught Spy]

The issue isn't that Jackson is bipolar. Lots of people are bipolar, but not to any extremes, though they may be on meds, or not. I have worked with people who were bipolar who ended up on meds because they didn't like the way the acted when they were on the negative side or didn't like the shopping sprees when on the happy side (the bills do come). So the meds help smooth out their lives, but they are far from being mentally defective in need of state control over their lives.

Think many gun owners suffer from paranoia? LOL.

Bipolar extremes can result in some really bad things, violent acts, and the like, but being bipolar doesn't mean you will be violent.

 

[BSA1]

If he goes on a rampage won't people say he should have been barred from having weapons as he himself has stated people with a mental illness should not have firearms?

http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-fo...-state-police


This is a very disturbing post and attitude on the part of the O.P. It appears that based on his lack of knowledge about mental illness he wants to bar everyone with bipolar disorder from owning a firearm. I find this to be very offensive.

More than 2.3 million Americans suffer from bipolar disorder, and these are just the people who are diagnosed -- there are as many as 5 million more who may not be currently diagnosed. Bipolar disorder is an invisible illness, and sometimes the stigma of having it is almost as bad as the disorder itself.

Just try buying life insurance after being diagnosed bipolar. If O.P. succeeds in banning people affected with bipolar disorder from owning firearms it will have a chilling affect on gun owners seeking treatment.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

In IL the FOID will be revoked for being an in-patient for psych (doesn't need to be in a psych hospital). Now, the thing CAN be revoked for five years for OUTPAITIENT treatment as well. This area is very murky, even by IL standards. If a practitioner reports the patient, for which they are exempt from civil liability, away goes that FOID. The only redress for the individual isto seek relief from the ISP--a diffcult process in which they hold all the cards. As for Rep. Jackson I have no idea. Regardless of his politics I respect his privacy and wish him the best.

In IL the whole mental health prohibition just gets stonger and stronger, and can cast a wide net.

 

[jeepnik]

You are under the mistaken impression that in the US today, all men are created equal. Well they are, but to paraphrase the writer, some are just more equal than others.

 

[The Man With No Name]

I am thoroughly confused at this point. So is it the stand of those in this thread that a mental health professional should have the final say about whose rights are taken away or someone else?

 

[larryh1108]

I thought you were found to be mentally defective if you are a politician in IL? It seems that a prison term follows the office term. That would cause any IL citizen to lose their FOID card.

 

[CZguy]

I am thoroughly confused at this point. So is it the stand of those in this thread that a mental health professional should have the final say about whose rights are taken away or someone else?

I can't speak for others, but a Doctor is the only one qualified to make that determination.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I am thoroughly confused at this point. So is it the stand of those in this thread that a mental health professional should have the final say about whose rights are taken away or someone else?

No, it seems that if one has a mental illness, a medical professional should contact law enforcement if the medical professional determines the patient to be a threat to him/herself or a threat to others. Then a judge should be the one to determine if the patients gun rights are revoked, and for how long.

I'm mildly bipolar and suffer from a bit of PTSD. I have sought treatment, and neither condition is severe enough for medication, nor was I determined to be a threat. My private doc and my VA doc concurred on that. My gun rights were never in jeopardy. Neither should the gun rights of 3J, as long as he isn't a threat.

Edit to add: the biggest problem we seem to be facing in this topic is the lack of communication between medical professionals and law enforcement. Those who are (or may) be a threat go unreported, underreported, or there is no investigation at all, and/ or follow up on those who have been reported.

 

[JohnBT]

Please, folks, the discussion is about the law in one state. That state has rather harsh laws pertaining to psychiatric treatment and carry permits.

"So is it the stand of those in this thread that a mental health professional should have the final say about whose rights are taken away or someone else?"

No, I've been involved in numerous discussions here - and on other gun forums - on the general subject and nobody is in favor of the doctors having the final say. This thread is trying to be about what happens to your carry permit if you get psychiatric treatment in that one state.

"it seems that if one has a mental illness, a medical professional should contact law enforcement if the medical professional determines the patient to be a threat to him/herself or a threat to others"

Should? No. Certainly not. Not ever, based on the current system. Maybe you are only thinking of the out of control psychotics, but those diagnosees are a small percentage of of what's in the book. You really need to read the dozens of psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM-IV (soon to be V.) Caffeine addiction? It's in there. Sexual addiction? It's in there. ADD? ADHD?

www.dr-bob.org/tips/dsm4a.html




John

 

[Fremmer]

Somehow have the feeling that a regular citizen has to worry a lot more than his highness has to worry.
he is so mentally ill that he's been hospitalized for it. In patient treatment.
You know that if it were a normal regular joe, i think what is described by nukeemjim would happen. They might revoke and give you an opportunity to fight it later.
So when will king jacksons card be revoked? Try never. He's special....

 

[JohnBT]

"the biggest problem we seem to be facing in this topic is the lack of communication between medical professionals and law enforcement"

Unless a patient says, "I'm going to kill Mr. Xyz" there's nothing to report. Being out of your mind, delusional, anxious or even hallucinating is not a crime and until a person actually does something - like make a direct threat - no crime has taken place. Now, if a person is so out of touch with reality that they are unable to care for their basic needs, well, they're the ones who get committed for their own safety.

Psychiatrists and psychologists are terrible at predicting future actions. (To be fair, everybody is. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If they haven't been violent there is no reason to expect that they will be.)

And anyway, where are you going to lock 'em all up?

National Institutes of Health - "Approximately 2.4 million American adults, or about 1.1 percent of the population age 18 and older in a given year, have schizophrenia."

John

edited to add: I'm turning in my 2 weeks notice on Monday after 37.5 years of working with folks with disabilities. I'll be 62 next month and I'm just about worn out.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I am not in any way saying I think the IL policy is a good idea--just stating how it works in general terms.

The idea is that, the patient's rights (FOID) goes away--POOF--and *IF* they have a case they may get redress from the ISP sooner than 5 years. This often happens for LEO's in IL that have mental problems but can't work without being able to have a FOID.

I have no doubt that many if not most outpatients seeking mental health treatment don't have practitioners who inform the state of their condition to see the FOID revoked--but if they do they can never be civil liable owing to recent (less than five year old) state law. A few years back it had to be inpatient treatment, but now to comply with federal policy they added the bit about non-civily liable reporting.

Obviously the system is optomistic that the rights of the mentally ill won't be thrown under the bus willy-nilly by medical staff, but they can be. At the heart of this is that, regretably, the NRA and ISRA has not been very concerned with the rights of the mentally ill. Sadly, if you're in that category
you need to be on watch to keep your rights intact in IL.

 

[Bubbles]

I am thoroughly confused at this point. So is it the stand of those in this thread that a mental health professional should have the final say about whose rights are taken away or someone else?

No, it's about whether or not IL's gun control laws should be applied to politicians as well as the people that they represent.

 

[barnbwt]

If simply checking oneself in for help gets your rights (and your expensive/meaningful firearms) revoked, you can bet that many who need help will not seek it out. The stigma of mental illness and shame of admitting a personal dysfunction are impediments enough, why make legal ones as well?

TCB

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Very true and in IL, upon self-admit to a mental health facility, the patient is made to sign off on a form that states that her/his FOID 'may' be revoked---it always is at that point. Best idea; if going to seek mental health treatment in IL have a plan just who is taking custody of your weapons and ammo BEFORE you lose your card---or they may go away. I would go so far as to say transfer them to family/friends prior to acting if you can. Or maybe move to Indiana.