The mentally ill should not own guns, right?

[AKElroy]

Thanks to the ACA, our government is now in the position to know the details of our individual health records. This opens the door to massive new opportunities for "common sense" gun legislation.

"Mentally ill people should not own guns".

Sounds reasonable enough. No doubt, this statement will be agreed too by massive majorities, and is very likely to yield some new legislation in light of recent events. Since the devil is in the details, I will attempt to arrange a few statements from society's view of "common sense" legislation to see if we can find the point at which we draw a line:

1. Program NICS with information to deny those that have been forcibly committed, assuming they are judged to be violent.
2. Program NICS with information to deny those that have been forcibly committed, regardless of whether they are deemed violent.
3. Confiscate existing weapons from the above households, even if weapons present are owned by others.
4. Deny through NICS anyone diagnosed with a mental disorder, including depression.
5. Deny through NICS anyone prescribed a psychotropic and/or anti-depressant medication for treating the above.
6. Deny through NICS anyone diagnosed with an anxiety disorder.
6. Deny through NICS anyone prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
7. Confiscate from the households of 3-6.
8. Deny through NICS anyone admitting to their therapist feelings of rage at being bullied.
9. Confiscate from the above.
10. Glean from pharmaceutical purchases, on-line searches, reading preferences, etc.., those that are at higher risk of being socially isolated and deny purchases through NICS.
11. Confiscate from the above.
12. Determine through the recommendations of teachers those students at risk of being bullied and eliminate purchases by any in their household.
13. Confiscate from the above.
14. Empower / require doctors, therapists, teachers, councilors, pharmacists, etc... To complete a "SARS" report on any they deem a potential threat. Such reports would trigger a NICS decline.
15. Confiscate from the above.

I am thinking of dozens of more avenues to chase this down, all tied to identifying the threat before the tragedy.

Mental health will be the turning point in this fight, due to the massive public support for the simple phrase "mentally ill folks should not have guns".

Where do you draw the line? Remember, that 50 mg Xanax that 30 million of you take to get a decent nights sleep may well be the avenue that leads to the knock on your door.

 

[jim243]

None of the above!!!

If you have been forcibly committed you are no longer a threat, I doubt that they allow firearms into the hospital.

If you have been discharged, you are no longer a threat, since you have been cured, unless you have been discharged because of no insurance, in which case the doctors are the ones that should have been committed for acting in a manor against public safety.

I know of no service man or women that has served in a combat area, that has not had some form of combat fatigue from stress 24/7 365 days that will not require some assistance when they return home. So that means that if you served your country and protected it with your life, you should be deemed unworthy of owning a firearm, I think not.

Mental health is a very subjective medical area, it is not like saying "O' he has cancer". It should not be used at all in judging one's right to own a firearm.

I know a lot of sane individuals that I feel should be kept from gun ownership, like Nancy Pelosi but she own's one. And how safe do you feel with Joe Biden owning a shotgun (LOL). Or how about Dick Cheney who actually shot a friend by accident.

Now these are responsible individuals, right.
Jim

 

[jmr40]

It's already illegal for the mentally ill to own guns. There WILL be stronger laws to ensure it does not happen. As there should be. Instead of burying our heads in the sand and pretending the problem does not exist this is an opportunity for the pro gun side to pass laws that prevent the mentally ill from getting guns, and getting them out of their hands if they become mentally ill after they legally purchased them. And at the same time ensuring that the law is not abused as you claim.

If we sit on our hands and continue to let anti-gunners control the debate and propose all of the laws written the way they want them we WILL get laws we don't want.

 

[lobo9er]

Jmr40 you are pro gun control and I oppose your opinion. Strongly. Legislation will not prevent tragedy.

 

[Walkalong]

It is definitely a slippery slope open to much abuse. Took meds once for anxiety? Told a health nurse at school once you felt like kicking Joe's butt? Lost your temper and yelled at work one day? Whoops, no guns for you...........

It is a very serious subject that needs to be addressed very carefully.

 

[SleazyRider]

… If we sit on our hands and continue to let anti-gunners control the debate and propose all of the laws written the way they want them we WILL get laws we don't want.

There's a lot of truth to that statement, especially considering that the "pro gun" side of the debate seems to be the side pushing the mental health issue. We can't have it both ways; that is, point to mental illness and not be willing to do something about it.

I don't believe Jmr40 is pro gun control at all; I believe he is refreshingly proactive. We cannot simply continue to reiterate the Second Amendment in response to the public outcry over gun violence, lest we lose the debate.

 

[HexHead]

If a person has been going to a doctor or therapist of their own choosing for years, and talks about spree killings, I wouldn't have a problem with that professional sharing that information with NICS.

 

[AlexanderA]

The list in the OP is a gun controller's dream. If all of these things were enacted, it would disqualify a huge chunk of the population from owning guns, and we would be well on the way to a gun-free society (on paper, because the laws would be massively ignored).

Current law is adequate, possibly with improved information reporting. That's as far as I would go. The rest need to be strongly opposed.

The basic problem is the knee-jerk urge to legislate, whenever a problem is identified. No thought is given to the effectiveness of the proposed solutions, or to their collateral effects.

 

[TRX]

What's "mentally ill?" Talking to imaginary friends? Wearing an aluminum foil hat to keep the CIA mind control beams out? Unusual sexual practices? Voting for the wrong politicial party?

You not only have to define it, you have to be able to reliably test for it. As it stands, in many places a single signature is enough to strip you of your rights, and after that you're in pretty much the same boat as felons and sex offenders; you're forever set off from normal society.

Sure, carving up women in Whitechapel is easy to diagnose as a problem, but the DSM-V's brush spreads remarkably wide; chances are most of the people reading this thread show symptoms described there.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Hell I recently had heavy duty cancer surgery and was briefly prescribed a Xanax at bedtime to be able to settle down and get a bit of sleep. I am better now both physically and anxiety-wise and not taking anything stronger than Motrin.... but wondering if the stupid .25mg Xanax script will haunt me.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It's already illegal for the mentally ill to own guns. There WILL be stronger laws to ensure it does not happen. As there should be.

Nobody is arguing with this.

The issue is not whether or not we believe mentally ill people should be armed; the issue is the definition of mentally ill. THAT is what AKELroy was pointing out in the OP. Under the criteria above, over half the people in this county would be considered unfit. Now, while I joke about half of our nation (give or take a few million) being insane, it's about political leanings-I don't actually believe that there are anywhere near that many people who cannot be trusted with weapons due to a real mental disorder.

The "mental health" angle is a ruse for back door gun control, a work-around that will quietly avoid significant challenges until it's too late.

 

[alsaqr]

An existing federal law addresses the reporting of adjudicated mental cases to the FBI. Very few on these boards bother to read and understand the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Many states are reporting their adjudicated mental cases to NICS. Many, including Oklahoma, are not.

Note that The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 includes an appeals process.

Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential; (2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS; and (3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if:

(1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or

(3) the adjudication or commitment is based solely on a medical finding of disability without a hearing and there has been no adjudication under the federal criminal code of mental defectiveness.

Requires all federal agencies that adjudicate the mental health of individuals or commit such individuals to a mental institution to:

(1) establish a program to allow such individuals to apply for relief from the disabilities to firearms ownership resulting from such adjudications or commitments; and

(2) provide oral and written notice to any such individuals of the effect of a mental health adjudication or commitment on their ability to purchase or transport a firearm and their right to apply for relief from disabilities.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640#summary/libraryofcongress

 

[Mousegun]

If laws for gun ownership got as harsh as described above, just how many gun owners that needed some assistance or even took something to sleep would come forth and look for the help they needed in fear of what may happen if they did?

It all could lead to a greater number of people hiding from assistance in the long run.

A friend of mine who went through a horrible divorce went to a shrink on his own accord just to have a talk and get reassured. Years later, he was denied a pistol permit as a result and he is one of the most stable people I know.

 

[Tirod]

The House recently passed a bill with a lot more money to the States to report exactly this category of potential risks to the NICS. The States hadn't been doing it for good reasons, but if the Feds are going to bankroll a position in some administrator's fiefdom, he will snag the money and start the ball rolling.

The critical juncture is just who gets to legally determine if the individual should be included, and so far, it appears that a judge needs to see evidence that a pattern of behavior exists. That means the affected individual is likely a lot further down the road and it would largely be "too late" to prevent things.

That's the focal point of the issue - just being stressed out and under counseling won't constitute denial. Don't forget that we already have a law on the books denying LEO's their job if domestic violence is detected in their life. Too many of the enforcers already get rickrolled by angry spouses on this issue. Judges aren't going to let the dockets get filled with "he said she said" cases that are basically cat fights. Same with mental adjudication - someone that far gone usually has a court appointed trustee to manage their money. Which means they will be adding a huge number of clients to the county burden and creating a major unfunded mandate.

Lots more to it than simply crying wolf over a NICS check.

That's why so little has been done so far - there are a number of Constitutional obstacles that prevent pointing a finger and saying "they are crazy, no guns for them." And, it doesn't even begin to address the those who are sane enough but soured on life in America - and hunt down cops in pizza parlors. A ex-con who posted video and had links to extremist sites gets a free pass, just how are we going to sort out the mentally unstable? Everyone has their breaking point, you CANNOT predict what it is or when it will happen. Until then they can even sweet talk cops face to face.

We can't school every LEO to detect a broken psyche, budgetary restraints aside. It's the people who need to get a clue, those around them. And we just don't expect the worse in a society that is geared to always looking up and "Have a Nice Day."

So, the reality is that it's just a political football to toss around for those who need to look like they are doing something - for which there will never be a solution.

 

[Midwest]

What about in the case of a wife who sought counseling because her husband beat her up and she filed for an order of protection against him.

So...does that mean the wife now has to forfeit her firearm (and her only means of protection) because of some ill conceived law written by clueless bureaucrats ?

.

 

[alsaqr]

The House recently passed a bill with a lot more money to the States to report exactly this category of potential risks to the NICS. The States hadn't been doing it for good reasons, but if the Feds are going to bankroll a position in some administrator's fiefdom, he will snag the money and start the ball rolling.

Oklahoma was not reporting their adjudicated mental cases to the FBI because it either fell through the cracks or the people who run this state don't care. Example: Despite a lot of hoopla, one quarter of OK car owners still drive without liabilty insurance.

Roughly half the states were reporting their adjudicated mental cases to the FBI in 2013. Some states, like Texas, went through their records and reported thousands of previously adjudicated mental cases to the FBI. Some only reported new cases.

This is the Indiana system:

JTAC developed the technology for Indiana trial courts to notify the Division of State Court Administration about individuals who fall under six categories that make them ineligible to possess a firearm. The categories are legally defined by Indiana code, but generally include the following individuals:

•A person who has been civilly committed (does not include commitments for evaluation or observation.)
•A person who has been found mentally ill and dangerous or gravely disabled.
•A person who has been found guilty but mentally ill.
•A person who has been found not responsible by reason of insanity.
•A person who has been found incompetent to stand trial.
•A person who has been found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility (according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)

https://secure.in.gov/judiciary/jtac/2652.htm

 

[USAF_Vet]

I'm bi polar. I have PTSD. I struggled with alcohol abuse. I've had anger management counseling. I've had anxiety counseling.

I've never harmed anyone. I own multiple firearms, and hold a concealed pistol license. I am not mentally ill, despite my past diagnoses. But, some people who are apparently pro-gun, pro-civil rights, would seem to have no problem what so ever with taking away my guns for the diagnoses I listed above.

Many people who have a mental illness diagnosis are perfectly functional. Many, like myself, don't even require medication. But since the legislation isn't going to allow anyone to pick and choose which individuals are safe, and which are not, its blanket coverage. If one bipolar person is deemed a threat, all must be, and all must be stripped of their rights. And that's just wrong.

 

[barnbwt]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just ruthlessly punish those who actually act out in violence, and put to bed the failed notion of rehabilitative incarceration? Treatment or no, it seems most of these criminal or insane actors end up in captivity for the duration of their lives, anyway.

TCB

 

[MErl]

That line gets to #4 I'm caught due to a household member. Don't forget newtown is partially due to #7 there not happening, it would absolutely get bumped up. (yeah slippery slope argument but gun control is all about baby steps)

General expansion along these lines would be a huge blow to gun ownership and the 2nd. Your child has a treated mental issue, too bad you are on the list. If it is untreated, well, you are not on the list but your child is screwed. Choice between bad and worse there.

If you can prove your case in front of a judge and get someone locked up their rights can be stripped already. Anything beyond this is gun control not safety. The state is removing ONE weapon and saying they are free to go.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

We need to go back to the 1960's when real mental cases were in state hospitals and off the streets. Too many times now days they fall through the cracks are off their meds on the streets. Also we need greater intervention when parents cry for help.

 

[ohbythebay]

I think the term mentally ill is used too broadly

Due to a chemical imbalance, my wife doesn't process serotonin as most folks do so she is (and has been most of her life) on an anti-depressant.

I am naturally hyper and a bit tense - also a heart patient - so I have taken anti-anxiety medication for several years.

Neither of us is violent, neither of us is mentally ill.

More than 1 in 10 Americans take anti-depressants (approx. 30 million)

40 million per year on anti-anxiety

65% of North Americans take prescription medications daily, 43% take mood altering prescriptions regularly

So based on the original post almost 150 million Americans could not own guns ? That is downright silly.

Taking medication in most cases is not due to mental illness (as the connotation is not perceived as a positive) but rather through how the body processes things like serotonin. No different than my body processes cholesterol differently (genetics) than someone who processes it differently.

Neither my heart medication or my anti-anxiety medication affect who I am day to day with the exception that

1) If I stop taking my heart medication I could suffer another heart attack (had one at 44 and I am not overweight or sedentary - just genetics)

2) If I stop taking the anti-anxiety, more of the little things will bother me and cause stress (bad for my heart) whereas on the medication, small things are just that...small things.

3) For my wife, no medication means she can get the blues and may not get the same joy out of things that make us happy (serotonin not processed) but she still functions.


I refer you to this excellent post by RPRNY that actually changed my view to see those laws will make everyone suffer and most likely never stop the handful of mass shootings

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9505613&postcount=116

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I would just like to offer a note of caution:

I think it's very easy for gun people to cop out and say that the real issue is mental health treatment or the lack thereof.

Most of us, however, are not mental health professionals and have very little knowledge of mental illness, the treatment thereof, and laws regarding commitment or involuntary outpatient treatment.

So I think it's a little too easy to just say that improving mental health services is the answer.

After all, most of the anti-gun folks don't know anything about guns and see "improving gun laws and safety" as the panacea to the world's problems as well.

No need to follow the same trail in our ignorance of a subject on which we are not experts.

 

[USAF_Vet]

No need to follow the same trail in our ignorance of a subject on which we are not experts.

Yet the lobbyists and politicians who write and pass the laws are experts on neither guns, nor mental health. Just as most are not experts in economics, ecology, etc. But they still write and pass laws that effect these fields. There in lies the crux of this problem. The ignorant masses are experts in neither guns, nor mental health, same as the lobbyists and politicians, but they are still demanding something, anything, be done about guns and mental health.

We, who are vastly more knowledgeable about guns than the average anti said gun control isn't the answer, and pushed the mental health issue, despite being ignorant of the field.

Now that the focus has shifted away from guns toward mental health, we want the goal post moved again. Because now, despite the focus being mental health, we fear it being abused by the political system to be used as a form of gun control that will effect law abiding citizens.

We don't want gun control, because it doesn't focus enough on the criminal, and hurts law abiding citizens.
Now we don't want mental health reform for fear it won't focus enough on the mentally ill, and will hurt the law abiding citizens. (Given the current political administration, I believe that fear is warrented and justified).

We're stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place, mostly because both options stink.
At least we're not up the proverbial creek, without a paddle.

I believe in an open and free society, understanding that I am responsible for me personal security, not a government agency. I'm probably preaching to the choir with that. But its also a bitter pill to force the rest of society to swallow. Society wants reassurances, whether they are effective laws or not, the ignorant masses are placated, temporarily, until the laws don't stop the next shooting or stabbing or bombing or poisoning. Then we'll be right back to the place where we are now.

Eventually, the ignorant masses will have a loud enough voice and a willingness to give up their rights, and a government who is all to willing to placate them again, laughing maniacally and twirling their mustaches. We, who appreciate and understand that our rights are priceless, will eventually become such a small minority that we can and will be easily ignored.

 

[medalguy]

So the real problem is who is going to decide you or I are mentally ill.

I know I'm fine. I'm not so sure about YOU.

Think about that for a minute or two.

 

[RaceM]

Mentally ill folks should not be government functionaries at any level. Oops, too late.