Oregon proposes "mental health emergency" hold on gun purchases

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tony k

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
762
The latest from Oregon State Senators Floyd Prosanski and Ginny Burdick.

Authorizes specified reporters to make report to Department of State Police Firearms Unit that person is experiencing mental health emergency and is danger to self or others with firearm. Directs department, upon receipt of report, to record temporary firearm purchase hold preventing person from purchasing firearm. Provides civil immunity to reporter acting in good faith. Provides that knowingly making false report is criminal offense. Punishes by maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.
Creates processes for person to obtain relief from firearm purchase hold.
Declares emergency, effective on passage.
Click to expand...

I sent an e-mail to my state senator
Senator Bill Hansell
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1729
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-423, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/hansell

The main sponsor is:
Senator Floyd Prozanski
District: 4
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704
Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-415, Salem, OR, 97301
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/prozanski
 

Attachments

  • Mental-Health2.pdf
    27.2 KB · Views: 15
Am I supposed to tow the party line and say I think its OK for the mentally ill to have firearms because they havent had due process and might be veterans etc. Blah blah blah ...Or should I say what I really think which is that I don't think the mentally ill should have firearms and I dont care if they might be veterans? Hmmm...

Given that they are Oregon Democrats though they can stick it
 
Honestly, this is the kind of legislation we should be backing. This is the right way to improve mental health response, with due process for relief and penalties for false reporting.
 
"Am I supposed to tow the party line and say I think its OK for the mentally ill to have firearms because they havent had due process and..."
Well, this is the legal forum, so...maybe? Perhaps some way to ferret out the unfit of mind while respecting due process requirements is a better solution for what you seek than ham-fisted legislation?

"Provides that knowingly making false report is criminal offense. Punishes by maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both."
Hmm, well at least they are trying for checks and balances, here.

"Creates processes for person to obtain relief from firearm purchase hold."
Hmm, hopelessly vague without some goals, at the very least, but they're 'trying.' At least they aren't trying to debar these folks forever, though the process to remove the hold could well be beyond a human's lifespan for all we know.

The 'danger to self and others' is the threshold for involuntary commitment isn't it? And wouldn't you want it to be the procedure to use, seeing as suicide/homicide by many means is possible? I worry that these band-aid holds/restraining orders may forestall the involuntary commitment process, when it should really be used in this type of situation, gun rights issues aside. Aren't there law-enforcement holds for observation of a similar nature in Oregon already, with a lower burden to be met, which would moot the firearms purchase potential?

TCB
 
Last edited:
Anyone can have a crisis or emergency, even without a medical history of mental problems. This is designed to keep those emergencies from becoming tragedies.
 
...and denying them access to (only new?) guns alone is likely to achieve that? I'm not saying the intentions or processes of the law aren't beneficial, just that they are likely either unnecessary due to existing processes, or fatally incomplete in their scope. We all know a mental health emergency will not be limited to firearms, so exactly how is limiting access to the purchase of those items alone likely to yield the desired outcome for the person in trouble?

Maybe if involuntary commitment wasn't such a game-ender in so many ways with no chance of redemption, it would be sought more freely in these cases; if you wish to restrict a person's means of doing harm to anyone & prevent tragedy, that's exactly what commitment is for, is it not?

I worry that a law like this would prove ineffective for the reasons I've stated, and the threshold of cause subsequently lowered in pursuit of the desired results to the degree that due process to the patient is not given, inviting abuse.

TCB
 
So some rape victim goes for counseling and is being treated for depression. Is that a mental health emergency? If she wants to buy a firearm for protection, would she be able to?
.
 
This is our same senator the authored the UBC here in our state. I doubt that he is motivated by anything other than another gun grab.
 
I think it violates the 5a and 6a and therefore rife with the potential for abuse. It's also akin to the "no fly list" in that you don't know why, how, or by whose word you ended up on the list. Then, once you find out you are on the list, the burden of proof is on the accused to get off the list.

Besides, what qualifications does a calculus professor, a family member, or your boss have that we should give them the unilateral authority to decide if someone is experiencing a mental health emergency?

I am opposed to it
 
yugorpk said:
Am I supposed to tow the party line and say I think its OK for the mentally ill to have firearms because they havent had due process and might be veterans etc. Blah blah blah ...Or should I say what I really think which is that I don't think the mentally ill should have firearms and I dont care if they might be veterans? Hmmm...

Given that they are Oregon Democrats though they can stick it
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty well established that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. You are buying in to the narrative that there are legions of people who are one argument away from becoming homicidal maniacs, and that we should, therefore, use prior restraint for public safety.
 
Tony k said:
I think it's pretty well established that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. You are buying in to the narrative that there are legions of people who are one argument away from becoming homicidal maniacs, and that we should, therefore, use prior restraint for public safety.
Click to expand...
No, I do not think that mentally ill people should have access to firearms. I do think they should be adjudicated as such and given due process and that there should be a recourse for them to reacquire their firearms rights as their condition improves and they become less of a danger to themselves and the public. We made the decision in this country to empty the mental institutions in this country to save money back in the 70's. It's a decision that has consequences that can and should be mitigated.
 
yugorpk said:
No, I do not think that mentally ill people should have access to firearms. I do think they should be adjudicated as such and given due process and that there should be a recourse for them to reacquire their firearms rights as their condition improves and they become less of a danger to themselves and the public. We made the decision in this country to empty the mental institutions in this country to save money back in the 70's. It's a decision that has consequences that can and should be mitigated.
Click to expand...

The specific classification of individuals to whom this applies is not as important as the lack of due process of law. That's why I oppose this draft bill. Right now they are proposing to deny due process to people experiencing a "mental health emergency." That sounds reasonable to plenty of intelligent people. But we know that's not the end game. After the "crazies", who's next?
 
Last edited:
Am I supposed to tow the party line and say I think its OK for the mentally ill to have firearms because they havent had due process and might be veterans etc. Blah blah blah ...Or should I say what I really think which is that I don't think the mentally ill should have firearms and I dont care if they might be veterans? Hmmm...

Given that they are Oregon Democrats though they can stick it
Click to expand...

This sounds like something a mentally unstable person might say. Better suspend their 2a just to be safe.
 
I think if you are registered as a Democrat or a Republican YOU have a mental problem and should not be allowed to own firearms.
 
Mentally ill ...........Seems like that determination is made after the facts.

One minute that person is A-OK. Next minute, after some sort of situation,

They are deemed............. mentally ill!

It goes with out saying, If they are known to be "mentally ill" .....No weapons!!
 
I'm confused by this sort of proposed legislation when there are already processes for reporting people that are a threat to themselves or others. They're taken into a facility for a 3 day evaluation period and then released or kept longer (voluntarily or involuntarily). If they present a threat to themselves or others and they already have firearms it does no good to stop them from purchasing another. If they don't have firearms they have plenty of other means to do this harm.

OTOH, if your angry girlfriend or rival reports you maliciously under this law you have no recourse in civil court any longer. I'd be very careful about classifying this as a mental health measure when we have current laws covering the question.
 
WardenWolf said:
Honestly, this is the kind of legislation we should be backing. This is the right way to improve mental health response, with due process for relief and penalties for false reporting.
Click to expand...
NO, exactly wrong. Anytime civil rights are removed without due process it is wrong. This law allows an individual to deprive you of your rights based on no factual information.
The statement that is heard by many of the liberals is:
If you want a gun you are too crazy to own one.
 
hso said:
there are already processes for reporting people that are a threat to themselves or others. They're taken into a facility for a 3 day evaluation period and then released or kept longer (voluntarily or involuntarily). If they present a threat to themselves or others and they already have firearms it does no good to stop them from purchasing another. If they don't have firearms they have plenty of other means to do this harm.

OTOH, if your angry girlfriend or rival reports you maliciously under this law you have no recourse in civil court any longer. I'd be very careful about classifying this as a mental health measure when we have current laws covering the question.
Click to expand...

^^^ this. Except your girlfriend couldn't report you...unless she is a doctor, health care professional, mental health counselor, teacher, professor, principal, instructor, or your boss. Then she could do so with little potential for repercussions, and only after due process of law could she be punished.
 
There is a famous Ayn Rand quote, "there are no contradictions; if you encounter one, check your premises"

I think it could more accurately be reworded as, "there are no good gun laws; if you think you've found one, check your premises"

As I figured, there are already myriad ways for the individuals this law is applicable to, to have sick persons' freedoms temporarily restricted, or permanently given sufficient due process. As is supposed to be our goal. If there are any deficiencies in the existing processes, appointing a new redundant process won't correct anything, and will likely only lead to abuse if given special consideration.

I've yet to find a good gun law, it seems we can readily poke holes in the logic underpinning them, every time...

TCB
 
WardenWolf said:
Honestly, this is the kind of legislation we should be backing. This is the right way to improve mental health response, with due process for relief and penalties for false reporting.
Click to expand...
As an Oregonian, I agree. I think the benefit with mentally ill people could be real, and the argument that it will frequently be abused is very thin, given the due process and penalties for misuse in the law.
 
If the only "specified reporter" was a "licensed health care provider", this MIGHT be a step forward. However "licensed health care providers" are restricted under HIPPA from giving out patient information.

The other classes of "specified reporters" have no more ability to positively state someone is having a "mental health emergency" than I (or you). Anyone diagnosing a "mental health emergency" should be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.
 
patmccoy said:
If the only "specified reporter" was a "licensed health care provider", this MIGHT be a step forward. However "licensed health care providers" are restricted under HIPPA from giving out patient information.

The other classes of "specified reporters" have no more ability to positively state someone is having a "mental health emergency" than I (or you). Anyone diagnosing a "mental health emergency" should be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.
Click to expand...
If this was a permanent restriction, I would agree. But this is to allow family members or co-workers who notice erratic or threatening behavior a few days to allow time for the sort of medical professional you describe to get involved and make such a medical determination.
 
yugorpk said:
Am I supposed to tow the party line and say I think its OK for the mentally ill to have firearms because they havent had due process and might be veterans etc. Blah blah blah ...Or should I say what I really think which is that I don't think the mentally ill should have firearms and I dont care if they might be veterans? Hmmm...

Given that they are Oregon Democrats though they can stick it
Click to expand...
But this is the big piece. NO DUE PROCESS for making the sweeping determination that someone is "mentally ill". Should I encourage others to avoid seeking psychological care because in your opinion they should then not have access to firearms?
 
Mitlov said:
But this is to allow family members or co-workers who notice erratic or threatening behavior a few days to allow time for the sort of medical professional you describe to get involved and make such a medical determination.
Click to expand...

Except that this bill would explicitly deny the person exhibiting erratic behavior from being notified that they are on a "mental health emergency" no buy list. Also, it doesn't specify "erratic or threatening behavior." It just says mental heath emergency, which is a very broad net. I could imagine all kinds of ways that phrase could be twisted to fit the accuser's intent--well intended or not.

Lack of due process is the heart of the issue to me.
 
If you don't have all your faculties I don't want you owning guns. Retarded no guns, bat___ crazy no guns, autistic no guns, talking to the walls no guns, drug addicted no guns. I'm as pro 2nd amendment as the next guy and probably more so than most but I think even the framers of the constitution themselves would have agreed that not EVERYONE has the mental capacity to own firearms responsibly.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Oregon Judiciary Committee Activity
Replies
2
Views
829
hso
hso
Guy B. Meredith
  • Locked
Legality of Oregon's proposed "mental health" hold?
Replies
2
Views
416
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
E
  • Locked
Oregon Bi-Partisan Effort To Protect CHL
Replies
0
Views
400
edhill
E
D
  • Locked
(Oregon) Senate rejects bill to bar guns from schools
Replies
3
Views
403
Shweboner
S
F
  • Locked
New Oregon Anti Gun Laws In The Works!!!
Replies
11
Views
781
Big Mike
B
Back
Top