Mental Illness Control?

[bayoupirate]

If I'm a convicted felon, and I lie on my gun purchase paperwork, the current system will catch the lie and prevent me from purchasing a firearm.

If I've been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition that makes me violent, unstable and/or otherwise unsuitable for firearms ownership (By Law), and I lie on my on gun purchase paperwork, unless I've been forceably committed to a mental institution by court order, the current system will NOT prevent me from purchasing a firearm.

How do we resolve this loop hole?

and a few even stickier situations.

What if I own firearms and then become mentally ill.
Does the government have the right to take away my access to my own firearms?

Many psychiatric conditions are very well treated with medication and therapy. Some so much so that they are not impediments to owing firearms.
Who decideds which conditions warrant removing someone gun rights?

Here's a side note: I had a few co-workers who were diagnosed as having conditons. One has Anxiety and the other depression. Both received medication and therapy and now no longer need either. Their "episodes" were linked to life events that triggered the conditions, and once they got through the situations they went back to functioning normally in every way.
The next year when they go to apply for long-term disablility insurance, they're both denied for their conditions.

I'm all for tracking people have mental conditions that should preclude them from buying and owning firearms, BUT how will that information be used? and once labeled will they be labeled forever? and lastly, will this lead to people not seeking help and treatment for mental issues for fear that there will be negative consequences?

Please educate me, inform me and discuss.

 

[dzelenka]

"will this lead to people not seeking help and treatment for mental issues for fear that there will be negative consequences?Absolutely

Basically, in order to implement this you would need a doctor who has the power to determine (based upon his opinion) whether you can exercise a constitutional right. I guess if that would be lawful, perhaps we could have a law passed where I get to decide who can exercise their 1st amendment rights based upon my opinion of the potential stupidity that may be spoken.

 

[Tim67]

As near as I can remember, the question on form 4473 is whether you've been committed to a mental institution and the Concealed Handgun Permit asks about certain medications (controlled substances) you may be receiving on a regular basis. I don't remember much about that since my meds all have to do with my arteries and my stomach-nothing with any psychotropic effects.

 

[stancel]

Unless you were institutionalized by the court, your records should never be available to any government agency. What you say in a doctor's office is between you and your doctor, and nobody else.

If one in a million people who buys a gun slips through the safety net......OH WELL.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither?

 

[highstandard40]

I don't remember seeing anything in the Second Amendment that mentions mental issues. This is understandably a dicey topic for most people who believe convicted felons and the mentally ill should not be able to buy a gun. However, the Second Amendment makes no such distinction. I wonder if a convicted felon or the mentally ill also lose their freedom of speech? Or the right to a speedy trial, or the freedom of religion, etc, etc. Not saying the restriction is a bad idea. It just needs to be addressed in a Constitutional manner. Like so many other Constitutional infringements already in effect.

 

[Yrdawg]

RKBA should SHALL NOT be infringed, however, thanks to the Rule of Law there are penalty's for breaking the rules.

Punish Criminals NOT people who might think about committing a crime.

Careful...this is simple so it's very confusing to progressives

 

[mikepizz]

The question is: What government doctor will be in charge of determining WHO is mentally ill??????????????????????????

 

[Tim67]

I don't remember seeing anything in the Second Amendment that mentions mental issues. This is understandably a dicey topic for most people who believe convicted felons and the mentally ill should not be able to buy a gun. However, the Second Amendment makes no such distinction. I wonder if a convicted felon or the mentally ill also lose their freedom of speech? Or the right to a speedy trial, or the freedom of religion, etc, etc. Not saying the restriction is a bad idea. It just needs to be addressed in a Constitutional manner. Like so many other Constitutional infringements already in effect.

Two of the problems about convicted felons are that there are some felonies that should be misdemeanors and there are some felonies that should be capital but aren't. Anyone who is free at all should be truly free. Anyone (criminally) not fit to be free should be incarcerated or executed.

 

[charliepapa]

Two of the problems about convicted felons are that there are some felonies that should be misdemeanors and there are some felonies that should be capital but aren't. Anyone who is free at all should be truly free. Anyone (criminally) not fit to be free should be incarcerated or executed.

Sounds like a plan to me!

To be clear, I think convicted killers, child molesters and rapists should be killed and all the rest should bust rocks unless there's something else more constructive that needs doing. If they try to escape, choot 'em. If that happens a few times, it ought to demotivate the rest of them.

 

[JadeRaven]

The overwhelming vast majority of the mentally ill who would be dangerous owning a firearm are already in prison or otherwise committed already.

Violently mentally ill are violently mentally ill. They'll kill you with a gun, a knife, a spoon, whatever.

 

[Cat]

Unless you were institutionalized by the court, your records should never be available to any government agency. What you say in a doctor's office is between you and your doctor, and nobody else.

If one in a million people who buys a gun slips through the safety net......OH WELL.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither?

I believe this is how I feel also. I also happen to think there is a strong difference between voluntary and involuntary commitment. There are individuals who are proactive in recognizing their mental illness and make a point to have a strong support system in place.

 

[Yrdawg]

The overwhelming vast majority of the mentally ill who would be dangerous owning a firearm are already in prison or otherwise committed already.

Violently mentally ill are violently mentally ill. They'll kill you with a gun, a knife, a spoon, whatever.

Although I have never intentionally killed anyone with a spoon....it sounds VERY labor intensive....sometimes when I find myself ordering through a truck window I'm killing myself by Clown

Long live the 50 cent Taco. the original pro biotic

 

[bayoupirate]

I believe this is how I feel also. I also happen to think there is a strong difference between voluntary and involuntary commitment. There are individuals who are proactive in recognizing their mental illness and make a point to have a strong support system in place.

Seems like the Virginia Tech shooter had some of these same personality disorder/mental health issues as this Arizona shooter. Basically everyone who knew him agreed that he was not mentally stable. I know that having "Voluntarily" entered a mental hosptial, the VT shooter was still legally able to buy a gun.

Pizz, I suspect if the gov. gets to pick a doctor or set standards, one question will be, "Do you feel that having a gun will allow you to protect yourself?" answering "yes" will automatically label you as paranoid, mentally unstable and disqualify you from buying.

I do believe that our prisons are full of our mentally ill.
Sad to say that they may have been able to be postively functioning and productive members of society, had their families cared enough to get them help for their conditiong. Instead, they were only interested in collecting those monthly checks for the "handicapped" family member.
By the time the government gets involved, (not counting WIC, Head Start, free lunch, free education, free SSI Crazy Check $$$) it's too late and prision or a mental institution is the only appropriate setting for these vicitims of their own families and our governments programs to breed voters.

 

[LACamper]

I suspect if the gov. gets to pick a doctor or set standards, one question will be, "Do you feel that having a gun will allow you to protect yourself?" answering "yes" will automatically label you as paranoid, mentally unstable and disqualify you from buying.

Or if you show signs of not trusting the government?

OK. lets complicate this. I have a mentally impaired daughter. If my wife and I were suddenly killed she would by law inherit everything we own, including all of my firearms. While she is not capable of purchasing a firearm (or wouldn't be if she were old enough) should the government have the right to step in, sort through her inheritance, and take those weapons? Do other family members have the right to remove them from her possession?

 

[Tim67]

Or if you show signs of not trusting the government?

OK. lets complicate this. I have a mentally impaired daughter. If my wife and I were suddenly killed she would by law inherit everything we own, including all of my firearms. While she is not capable of purchasing a firearm (or wouldn't be if she were old enough) should the government have the right to step in, sort through her inheritance, and take those weapons? Do other family members have the right to remove them from her possession?

You need to write a will and and arrange for a responsible disposition of your firearms. If you want, you can specify that they be sold with her receiving the proceeds after the auction or consignment fees are paid.

 

[bayoupirate]

Tim,

I whole heartedly believe that you have struck at the root of this.
Families usually step in and help in getting care or treatment for members that have problems, mental or otherwise. Adult or child, I feel it is a families responsibility to intervene in the best interest of that individual and the larger community. That may reach the point of taking steps to have someone legally committed to an institution.

It's my understanding that the parish coroner is the person with the authority to have someone forceably committed for mental treatment. Even if another doctor is recommending, the courts look to the coroner to represent them as their medical expert.

 

[TomTerrific]

Tim,

I whole heartedly believe that you have struck at the root of this.
Families usually step in and help in getting care or treatment for members that have problems, mental or otherwise. Adult or child, I feel it is a families responsibility to intervene in the best interest of that individual and the larger community. That may reach the point of taking steps to have someone legally committed to an institution.

It's my understanding that the parish coroner is the person with the authority to have someone forceably committed for mental treatment. Even if another doctor is recommending, the courts look to the coroner to represent them as their medical expert.

The good, old seventy-two hour hold.

 

[bayoupirate]

Someone in my family works in the charity hospital psyc ward.

 

[Yrdawg]

Tim,

I whole heartedly believe that you have struck at the root of this.
Families usually step in and help in getting care or treatment for members that have problems, mental or otherwise. Adult or child, I feel it is a families responsibility to intervene in the best interest of that individual and the larger community. That may reach the point of taking steps to have someone legally committed to an institution.

It's my understanding that the parish coroner is the person with the authority to have someone forcibly committed for mental treatment. Even if another doctor is recommending, the courts look to the coroner to represent them as their medical expert.

As a worker with a homeless agency I had a hand in several involuntary commitments, the only we were able to make this work was through the Coroners Office, I'm pretty sure now that this is almost never the way to go.

From my experience the result of this is a pissed off individual determined they will NEVER let anyone that close again.

The same was true for interventions, most likely we did them all wrong because there were no takers, the intervenee did not want other involvement...just leave me and my ( your drug here ) alone.

To make the involuntary it was necessary to have a family member to say the person was suicidal due to blah blah blah, which all coherent people will deny immediately. There were a couple times that because of my position of Homeless Shelter Director, the Coroner's office used me due to no family being available ( read not interested ), I wouldn't do that again. ( almost never )

Interventions, Involuntary Commitments...looks to me like these are just feel good steps for those desperatly trying to control another however thats just my take on it...YMMV

 

[leVieux]

You have hit upon one of the major problems with recent health-care "reform" legislation; the forced use of on-line "computerized" individual medical records.

We have just seen how safely the US Gov kept their "Top Secret" internal diplomatic communiques, haven't we ?

"Health Care Reform" is not about health or care; and it surely is not about "reform". It is about increasing control of US citizens and their physicians by nameless, faceless federal bureaucrats.

"They" should NEVER have access to our individual health information !

leVieux, MD