mental health dilema

[infiremedic07]

Ok so every one that is out there talking about mental health issues anyhow those with mental health problems shouldn't be allowed guns. But the issue that I see is that who decides if someone is mentally unstable. The call to action by Pres Obama the other day scared me on this one issue primarily. If a doctor reports you as unstable to then govt you will be prevented from owning a firearm. But where is the due process required to remove rights..ie conviction of a felony to remove right to vote. One doctor can not have the power to strip anyone of their rights.

 

[88GT]

I had another thread about this a few weeks ago: people will refuse to seek out diagnosis/treatment because of the consequences associated with their 2A rights. We aren't helping a damn thing.

Likely someone will be a test case for the due process aspect when they are arrested for possession after being labeled 'unfit' due to mental incapacity.

 

[singlestacksig]

it is already illegal for someone who is mentally ill from purchasing a gun.. and you are right.. the white house wants to change the way we define this..

remember at one time mentally ill included, gays, jews, people of the wrong religions...

 

[diverdown219]

Ok so every one that is out there talking about mental health issues anyhow those with mental health problems shouldn't be allowed guns. But the issue that I see is that who decides if someone is mentally unstable. The call to action by Pres Obama the other day scared me on this one issue primarily. If a doctor reports you as unstable to then govt you will be prevented from owning a firearm. But where is the due process required to remove rights..ie conviction of a felony to remove right to vote. One doctor can not have the power to strip anyone of their rights.

This is something to think about too.
Executive Order 14
Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
now add this
The danger of analyzing Adam Lanza's DNA - Brainiac

 

[Steelman]

it is already illegal for someone who is mentally ill from purchasing a gun.. and you are right.. the white house wants to change the way we define this..

remember at one time mentally ill included, gays, jews, people of the wrong religions...

It is important to distinguish between being "mentally ill" and being adjudicated as mentally defective.

Mentally ill is a broad and vague term and does not (by law) prevent you from owning a gun.

If a judge deems you mentally defective, then your 2A rights are stripped.

 

[Ericpwp]

I agree with the dangers this poses. The risk to personal liberty if one is forced to be "treated". I'm sure there are doctors out there that can find something wrong with 90+% of the public.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It is important to distinguish between being "mentally ill" and being adjudicated as mentally defective.

Mentally ill is a broad and vague term and does not (by law) prevent you from owning a gun.

If a judge deems you mentally defective, then your 2A rights are stripped.

Exactly right. The problem is that Obama likely is starting to work redefining it to mean one bad report from the doctor and you are certified as unstable.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree with the dangers this poses. The risk to personal liberty if one is forced to be "treated". I'm sure there are doctors out there that can find something wrong with 90+% of the public.

How many of them would consider having any desire to possess a weapon prima facie evidence of mental deficiency?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Lots of folks already think I am mentally defective

 

[Pitmaster]

I agree with the dangers this poses. The risk to personal liberty if one is forced to be "treated". I'm sure there are doctors out there that can find something wrong with 90+% of the public.

BINGO, I do mental health evaluations and assessments. I can get the diagnosis in about 10 minutes especially if I can ask the family a few questions. Less if they are upset at you.

The mental health component is the most dangerous threat that Obama and the NRA are clamoring for. It sounds great but it really won't stop anything. There could be a little tweaking of the law to make it a little easier to commit someone in an emergency. But if your parents, wife, kids, friends, etc. are angry with you and you have had an argument where you may have made a threat or made certain statements they can be used against you.

As far as I'm concerned the only changes to gun laws should be reducing and eliminating all gun laws from the NFA to the present day.

 

[HavokCycle]

Maybe they'll figure out how to deal with life instead of medicating it away

 

[indykid]

Who's there among us to say who is normal? You say you like black rifles? You must be mentally defective and therefore must turn in your firearms.

And another can of worms opens.

 

[6mm Shoot]

Some years back my wife wanted to get a permit to carry a gun. She filled out the form. It asked if she had ever seen a doctor for mental health. She said yes when her mother died her work had sent her to a doctor about her depression.

She said that she didn't want to and they said she had to to come back to work. So she went. Well now she can't get a permit because of it. The police officer told her that she had to go back to that doctor and get a letter stating that she was OK. She doesn't know the doctors name and only saw him three times before she quit going.

The drugs he gave her damn near had her drooling on herself. She quit taking them and quit going to him. The last time she went to him she told him how the drugs were making her feel. He said to just give them time you will feel much better. After a week she quit taking them and two weeks later she felt much better.

Now she has no way of getting a hold of him. So she decided to give up.

She has no mental problem. Yet on her records there is that incident. Under the new laws will that keep her from owning a gun? Under what they are trying to do I would say yes.

 

[Ericpwp]

Sounds like a very competent woman that has been "deemed" by the wrong people.

 

[Captain Bligh]

I am a mental health professional. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't think the latest pronouncement on mental health changed very much at all for me or the clients I serve. Presently, if therapists have reason to believe that a client poses a threat to a third person, we are already required to warn that person and to report it to authorities. See Tarasoff vs. The Regents of the University of California. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I remember the language I read in the Executive Order it was "report credible threats." HHS issued a bulletin the same day as the Executive Order. Once again it, seemed to merely re-iterate what already is.

 

[88GT]

I am a mental health professional. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't think the latest pronouncement on mental health changed very much at all for me or the clients I serve. Presently, if therapists have reason to believe that a client poses a threat to a third person, we are already required to warn that person and to report it to authorities. See Tarasoff vs. The Regents of the University of California. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I remember the language I read in the Executive Order it was "report credible threats." HHS issued a bulletin the same day as the Executive Order. Once again it, seemed to merely re-iterate what already is.

You could look at it like that.

Or you could remember that being white, owning a gun, and expecting the government to maintain a strict adherence to the Constitution are currently being used as indicators of domestic terrorism.

It seems all very innocent until the mere possession of a firearm is considered a credible threat.

 

[Captain Bligh]

I think we can all agree that the killing of innocents is a bad thing...which is why some of us carry guns in the first place. I think we would all like it to stop, and would do something about it if we could.

It seems to me the country can either say this is a gun problem for which gun control is the solution or it can say it is a mental health problem for which a mental health response is a solution. I think it is untenable for gun owners to say we don't want a gun control solution OR a mental health solution. As for me, I support identification and treatment of mental health problems that have potential for harm to children, families, and innocents.

 

[Classic]

My son was being treated for depression for a number of years by several different practitioners. Along the way one of the brilliant physicians strongly suggested he should get rid of all of his firearms. That was the one and only visit to that Dr.

Many people WILL avoid treatment if they feel their 2A rights will be at risk as a result.

 

[hoosierbdog]

Some years back my wife wanted to get a permit to carry a gun. She filled out the form. It asked if she had ever seen a doctor for mental health. She said yes when her mother died her work had sent her to a doctor about her depression.

She said that she didn't want to and they said she had to to come back to work. So she went. Well now she can't get a permit because of it. The police officer told her that she had to go back to that doctor and get a letter stating that she was OK. She doesn't know the doctors name and only saw him three times before she quit going.

The drugs he gave her damn near had her drooling on herself. She quit taking them and quit going to him. The last time she went to him she told him how the drugs were making her feel. He said to just give them time you will feel much better. After a week she quit taking them and two weeks later she felt much better.

Now she has no way of getting a hold of him. So she decided to give up.

She has no mental problem. Yet on her records there is that incident. Under the new laws will that keep her from owning a gun? Under what they are trying to do I would say yes.

Her situation sounded a lot like mine. Mother died, doctor prescribed anti-depressants, I didn't feel depressed however. Just precautionary measures taken by my dad (I was still a minor) Fast forward 6 years and I'm applying for my LTCH. I checked Yes on the Mental Health question, but had no way of getting hold of my doctor.

Thanks to INGO, I was led to the State Police FAQ, and went from there. All I did was send in a letter with my Application stating I was on anti depressants when my mom died, didn't know my doctors names and had no way of contacting them, had it notarized, and sent it in. This was all by the recommendation from INGO and the ISP. 9 months later (It does take some time apparently) I had my LTCH. Not impossible, just can't give up.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think we can all agree that the killing of innocents is a bad thing...which is why some of us carry guns in the first place. I think we would all like it to stop, and would do something about it if we could.

It seems to me the country can either say this is a gun problem for which gun control is the solution or it can say it is a mental health problem for which a mental health response is a solution. I think it is untenable for gun owners to say we don't want a gun control solution OR a mental health solution. As for me, I support identification and treatment of mental health problems that have potential for harm to children, families, and innocents.

Picking up where 88GT left off, how do you propose to do this without it becoming a device to disenfranchise people from a key right, perhaps several rights or all rights at some point, who happen to take politically incorrect views which happen to be absolutely correct according to the Constitution which is supposed to be the highest law of the land?

I would like to see a way to be more proactive, but you are buying into a multi-layered falsehood. The first problem is with the premise (i.e., we have to accept significant and dangerous intrusion on our rights in one area or other--demanding all to be honored is not 'tenable') and the second is the apparent presumption that all mental health practitioners are as honorable as you are. I am absolutely unwilling to give up any more ground on my Second Amendment rights which are already limited far beyond the threshold of acceptability, and I am unwilling to be subjected to scrutiny that eventually will be placed in the hands of personnel in government employ as opposed to your own practitioner of choice which will subject me to arbitrarily being deprived of my rights much in the same fashion as a felon.

I have no question that the sweeping new power would not come with a corresponding improvement in due process. If anything, the water will become much muddier than it already is and in the spirit of the NDAA, we will in practice be left subject to decisions which are arbitrary and do not place emphasis on honoring our rights and will offer little or no recourse. You may recall that people who live under the authority of autocrats were traditionally called subjects, as in subject to the authority imposed on them. Are you sure you really like this path? Bowing before the god of practicality often generates unintended and unwanted consequences. 'Compromising' away rights which are not negotiable is a losing battle every time. Never forget that.