No Guns for Folks On Anti-Depressants?

[Jeff White]

The problem with singling out someone for seeking treatment is that once everyone finds out you can lose your rights for seeking treatment no one will anymore.

This has already happened. Last summer I responded to an attempted suicide. The wife of the suicidal man told me that he had tried to shoot himself the week before and his brother had wrestled the gun away from him. She showed me the hole in the ceiling. I asked why she didn't call the police and EMS then and she said she didn't want to see him lose his FOID card. She did tell me that the brother had removed all the firearms from the house.

Jeff

 

[SteveS]

My client got his license back within a month of losing it. Suing under the ADA was not needed.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I never suggested that the mentally ill should be denied rights. On the contrary, I have cautioned against making knee-jerk reactions because of what happened. I have also never said that people with depression should be denied a CPL and I agree that licensing agencies should have to show more than a diagnosis to deny a permit. I have worked with hundreds of mentally ill people that go to school, go to work, raise families, and do the same things as non-mentally ill people, so I would never suggest that they be discriminated against.

What I am trying to do is be realistic, and this is where I question what you know. Mentally ill people, as a group, are not a very politically powerful group. They do have some good advocacy groups, such as NAMI and various state groups. Professional groups also lobby for their rights. As I indicated in my other post, most ADA claims are not ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the most difficult claim to win is one that deals with a mental impairment.

The state, in denying a license, needs to show a legitimate reason for the denial. Given the current climate towards gun ownership by many in the public, especially as it relates to the mentally, I can't say that there is a huge amount of support for all mentally ill people carrying guns. Currently, my state does not seem to make denials solely on the basis of a diagnosis. I can't comment on other states. I am concerned that the public, in their demand that this not happen again, will push for more stringent controls on the mentally ill obtaining weapons. There are already laws on the books preventing certain mentally ill people from carrying guns and many (but not all) of the state statutes I have seen have vague langauge that could be expanded to cover more mentally ill people.

Again, I do not support additional restrictions on the mentally ill and I think they should only be denied rights in rare circumstances and only following due process. I hope I am wrong, but the more they show Cho's tape and pick apart his mental history, the more I am convinced we will see some kind of backlash against some of the mentally ill carrying guns. While the ADA is an option, it seems to be a huge longshot. In my search, I was unable to find any cases where the ADA was used to appeal a denial of a CPL. It certainly could be used in a claim.

From what I remember the studies said that people with mental illness are 2 or 3 times more likely to be violent than people without, although when you add in substance abuse the numbers go up. Also, women with mental illness have higher rates of violence, which are similar to men! Try looking up studies by Monahan on mental illness and violence.

I recall similar studies (or maybe the same one), but wasn't the 2 to 3 times greater in regards to people with schizophrenia?

I also think one significant differentiating factor would be between those suffering form milder forms of depression who take an anti-depressant as opposed to those who have much more severe mental illness along the lines of bi-polar, schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.

I think it would be very significant and it certainly bears further study. I have worked with hundreds (possibly thousands) of mentally ill clients and have only been assaulted once and that person was severely mentally ill.

 

[RealGun]

I don't think it is helpful outside a discussion with a professional colleague to blithely refer to common depression as "mental illness". Nonprofessionals are likely to have a strong, often inappropriate reaction to that term, and those suffering from common depression may be less likely to seek treatment. I am sure you know that part of the problem is that depression sufferers resist thinking of themselves as sick and may only seek help when desperate or someone intervenes.

Probably my biggest concern is that common depression should not be lumped in with other conditions that are potentially dangerous to others.

Others have already revealed that the drugs commonly used are often prescribed for other conditions, so we certainly don't want to key restrictions to what drugs are being used.

My client got his license back within a month of losing it. Suing under the ADA was not needed.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I never suggested that the mentally ill should be denied rights. On the contrary, I have cautioned against making knee-jerk reactions because of what happened. I have also never said that people with depression should be denied a CPL and I agree that licensing agencies should have to show more than a diagnosis to deny a permit. I have worked with hundreds of mentally ill people that go to school, go to work, raise families, and do the same things as non-mentally ill people, so I would never suggest that they be discriminated against.

What I am trying to do is be realistic, and this is where I question what you know. Mentally ill people, as a group, are not a very politically powerful group. They do have some good advocacy groups, such as NAMI and various state groups. Professional groups also lobby for their rights. As I indicated in my other post, most ADA claims are not ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the most difficult claim to win is one that deals with a mental impairment.

The state, in denying a license, needs to show a legitimate reason for the denial. Given the current climate towards gun ownership by many in the public, especially as it relates to the mentally (ill), I can't say that there is a huge amount of support for all mentally ill people carrying guns. Currently, my state does not seem to make denials solely on the basis of a diagnosis. I can't comment on other states. I am concerned that the public, in their demand that this not happen again, will push for more stringent controls on the mentally ill obtaining weapons. There are already laws on the books preventing certain mentally ill people from carrying guns and many (but not all) of the state statutes I have seen have vague langauge that could be expanded to cover more mentally ill people.

Again, I do not support additional restrictions on the mentally ill and I think they should only be denied rights in rare circumstances and only following due process. I hope I am wrong, but the more they show Cho's tape and pick apart his mental history, the more I am convinced we will see some kind of backlash against some of the mentally ill carrying guns. While the ADA is an option, it seems to be a huge longshot. In my search, I was unable to find any cases where the ADA was used to appeal a denial of a CPL. It certainly could be used in a claim.


<snip>

I also think one significant differentiating factor would be between those suffering form milder forms of depression who take an anti-depressant as opposed to those who have much more severe mental illness along the lines of bi-polar, schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.

I think it would be very significant and it certainly bears further study. I have worked with hundreds (possibly thousands) of mentally ill clients and have only been assaulted once and that person was severely mentally ill.

 

[gulogulo1970]

If every one of these mass shootings involves a person on ADs then well it needs to be looked into.

Almost everyone will agree here that you should not handle or shoot guns if you have been drinking. But mind altering seratonin uptake inhibitors are above scrutiny? They even carry warnings now about increased suicide risk on the bottle.

I'm not saying ban the possession of gun ownership by people who take ADs but there needs to be a test or something. I undersand that the vast, VAST majority of people on ADs are better and peaceful. My wife took a mild AD to quit smoking for example.

If something isn't done (and it won't be) we can look forward to these AD boosted shooting sprees not only killing a boat load of people but eroding our rights in the fallout as well.

If it turns out that these drugs do this in certain people then a way needs to be found that keeps the drugs out of these peoples bodies. I just don't know how you do that.

I wish I had an easy answer.

 

[30 cal slob]

I can't say that there is a huge amount of support for all mentally ill people carrying guns.

i guess that's what i was trying to drive at with this thread.

good to get this issue out in the open and discuss.

 

[RealGun]

these AD boosted shooting sprees

There has been no credible report to that effect. That is your own need to control others speaking.

If it turns out that these drugs do this in certain people

But if you have been reading, you know that drugs were certainly not the determining factor in this incident. Cho was driven by more powerful forces and was ill far beyond common depression. Have you read a report of what, if any, medication he was taking? Do you really know much about AD medication? Are you aware that depression or obsessive/compulsive behavior would have been only a marginal symptom in his case? My armchair diagnosis would be more like paranoid schizophrenia, often treated with very different medication than would be prescribed for common depression.

Don't put too much stock in warning labels. They are often ludicrous, acknowledging the smallest of incident percentages, and really only serve to protect drug makers, pharmacies, and prescribing doctors from liability claims.

 

[BAT1]

Future

The truth is most people that have been prescribed these meds may not be eligible to buy a gun in the future. That is going to include alot of school age children in the future. Ritalin is prescription cocaine, Ambien caused a good friend to wreck her new car, There are reports citing Ridalin in the Columbine shootings, and there reports Mr. Cho was on Prozac. You cannot regulate deficiencies in the body with artificial drugs that cause a worse imbalance. And now, they want to give vaccine's to all our daughters. Like Jimmie Buffet says there is isn't any dumb ass vaccine, which is really needed for our government.

 

[tmg19103]

SteveS, thanks for your clarifications. I agree with what you have to say.

There will no doubt be some form of gun control backlash due to the VA Tech killings by an extremely mentally deranged person, and I think the anti's would have the most ammo (and perhaps an actual point or two) by going after how Cho, given a mental history that included all sorts of past dangerous and aberrant behavior, which included a judge calling him mentally ill and a danger to others, was able to legally buy a gun.

I actually prefer this to attempts at blanket gun control against all such as a renewed AWB, but no doubt if and when the anti's go after the mental stability of potential gun owners, we need to be vigilant that it does not become a subjective witch hunt, but rather just a tightening of the EXISTING process where those who TRULY are a danger to themselves and others can't legally get their hands on firearms (and we all know any lunatic or criminal can always get a gun illegally). No new laws needed - let's just enforce the existing ones as they should be enforced - but no doubt judges will now be more cautious when an individual is brought before them for a mental detention hearing.

The concern and what needs to watched out for is the anti's trying to turn anything that could possibly be classified as a mental illness, and for which that person meets the legal criteria of being of sound mind and is not a danger to public safety, into a reason to deny gun ownership or a CCW.

 

[StuckInMA]

Too many variables. I won't write my life story, but.....

I was mistakenly placed on AD's for what turned out to be severe indoor allergies when I moved into my very first apartment.

I was sent to an ER for observation (not admitted) for suicidal tendencies which was a side effect of a new seizure med I was put on.

I am now taking an AD to help me sleep due to a completely unrelated medical condition.

On paper these events would certainly disqualify me if reviewed by anyone not trained in medicine. And who's to say my doctor isn't an anti that would refuse to write a letter stating otherwise?

Unless they assembled a group of physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, etc. to review the medical portion of my history there's no way they're qualified to use my medical records against me. Even then it's a slippery slope since we'd have no idea where each one stood on the issue of gun ownership.

 

[SteveS]

I don't think it is helpful outside a discussion with a professional colleague to blithely refer to common depression as "mental illness". Nonprofessionals are likely to have a strong, often inappropriate reaction to that term, and those suffering from common depression may be less likely to seek treatment. I am sure you know that part of the problem is that depression sufferers resist thinking of themselves as sick and may only seek help when desperate or someone intervenes.

Unfortunately, you are right. There is a huge stigma in regards to getting help for depression or any other condition. I think things have been improving, but the general public is certainly ingnorant, for the most part, when it comes to these types of issues.

tmg, I am worried about the same thing.

 

[Justin]

1) Ritalin is not cocaine. It's similar to an amphetamine.
2) If someone is driving a vehicle after taking Ambien, I'm unsurprised that they had an auto accident.
3) SRI's and other anti depressants have helped far more people than they've harmed. (Gee, sound familiar?)

Like Jimmie Buffet says there is isn't any dumb ass vaccine

Indeed.

 

[Pixel]

Ritalin is prescription cocaine

I take Ritalin for adult ADD (diagnosed by a psychiatrist in 2002 after extensive testing) and have for the past five years. Ritalin is actually a prescription amphetamine, and in a person who truly has ADD/ADHD acts more as a calming agent than an agitating one. I have no trouble napping during the day, even with the Ritalin. Compared to when I'm not taking the Ritalin, I may be slightly more outgoing, but I can't imagine Ritalin causing anyone to snap and go shooting a bunch of people. I would hope that usage of Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta or other ADHD treatments won't be used to disqualify gun purchases - in my experience, it's the people I've known with untreated ADHD who are more likely to commit impulsive, stupid acts.

 

[RealGun]

You cannot regulate deficiencies in the body with artificial drugs that cause a worse imbalance.

Well, you do have to judge or try out which one will have managable side effects or none, while providing some sense of benefit beyond the placebo effect. It took three tries to find one that seemed to suit me, and I wouldn't mind experimenting further, if taking meds again.

Be careful about attributing undesirable behavior to medication. That same behavior might occur or be worse without the meds. It depends. Stigmatizing the prescription and taking of medication or lumping a whole general class of drugs in a sweeping statement is not helpful.