Can Someone with a history of depression own a gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's perfectly legal to own firearms while having mental problems :(, so long as you have not been adjudicated as such.
 
Adjudication both protects due process and sets a legal standard for how mentally ill mentally ill is.

Someone who manages their illness, has never been in trouble, and thus isn't dangerous shouldn't be prohibited, should they?
 
The court hearing(s) that determine whether or not you are placed in the prohibited person category are there to (presumptively) look at all the evidence, and determine if your condition is a danger to yourself and or others.

Unless, and until that happens, you can legally own firearms (absent other disqualifying factors -illegal drug use, commission of, and conviction for felony crimes, etc.).

you can have mental health problems, but until they reach the conditions specified in the law, the law does not prohibit you owning firearms.

There are a good many people with problems, who can legally own firearms, and who probably should not be allowed access to firearms, BUT until a court decrees it, their legal right exists, within the framework of the law, the same as everyone else.

Each and every individual is different. And each case should be judged individually. There is currently a push underway to automatically lump everyone who might be described as having a "mental illness" (a hugely broad category) into the category of prohibited person. They are making assumptions, that I personally disagree with.
 
From a diagnostic stance, mourning can be indistinguishable from depression. Most people are going to mourn the loss of their mother when she dies. A person filling out a routine mental health screening form while in the waiting room for a routine check up, after the immediate death of their mother, could easily be labeled and diagnosed as depressed by a medical professional. Congratulations, you are now medically and legally depressed. Since medicare or the VA covered part of the cost of the medical procedure, there is a federal record on file in a data base that can be cross referenced. Thus you would now and forever have "a history of mental illness".

None of what I have written here is not hyperbole or an extreme example of the system failing.
 
From a diagnostic stance, mourning can be indistinguishable from depression. Most people are going to mourn the loss of their mother when she dies. A person filling out a routine mental health screening form while in the waiting room for a routine check up, after the immediate death of their mother, could easily be labeled and diagnosed as depressed by a medical professional. Congratulations, you are now medically and legally depressed. Since medicare or the VA covered part of the cost of the medical procedure, there is a federal record on file in a data base that can be cross referenced. Thus you would now and forever have "a history of mental illness".

None of what I have written here is not hyperbole or an extreme example of the system failing.
 
Who Can be Reported?
All persons receiving mental health treatment services from any of the
four types of mental health professionals identified in the law, regardless
of the setting in which they work, may be subjects of reports.

What About Patient Privacy?
Under HIPAA, because these informational disclosures are required by law
[so much for HIPAA-meh], they can be made without the patient’s
consent. HIPAA permits disclosures of protected health information without
the authorization or consent of the individual to the extent that such
disclosure is required by law and the disclosure complies with the
requirements of that law.

Given that EVERYthing is becoming medical CYA, why would ANY reasonably sane-but-just-needing-some-help person EVER consider going to his/her doctor?

(But since this is New York what more should I expect in these times of your-information-is-private-unless-I-want-it.)
 
..why would ANY reasonably sane-but-just-needing-some-help person EVER consider going to his/her doctor?
Click to expand...

Now there's a question....

What is Catch 22 (adjusted for inflation) up to now Catch 88? or Catch 2014?

Isn't it interesting how few Americans know that the law that "protects" the medical records privacy, requires that privacy be broken if the govt requests the information? Don't worry folks, its only part of your information they will get. Only the part they need...
If you have ever worked where a security clearance was necessary, you probably aren't surprised....

One outfit I once worked for did contractor work for the Govt, at a govt site. A security clearance was a requirement. Something a couple levels above "top secret". Not even remotely an "instant check", average time to get one was 10months to a year+.

Now, the work was a bit stressful, and to help us all out, the company had a councilor service, which they urged us to use, (free, of course) if we were having trouble dealing with...anything, really. Work, family, finances, what ever the problem, they were there to help. Pretty nice folks, actually.

Oh, and of course, what you talked to the doc about (councilor / doc / "shrink"), was totally confidential. That is a law, you know. Even your boss can't find out.

BUT....
We learned pretty quick (after a couple of examples, people we knew, and worked with..)...we learned that if you did what the company said they wanted you to do, (talk to their shrinks) to get help when you needed it, essentially, you lost your job.

Except you didn't. But you did lose your paycheck. Because, while the law kept the company (and the govt, mostly) from knowing WHAT you went to get help for, and what you said to the docs, the law required the fact that you were getting "help" to be reported. Your job was with the company, but the clearance came from the govt.

And when the company reported to the govt that you were "getting help", AS THEY WERE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO..., the govt. pulled your security clearance. One fellow I knew, went to the company shrink, because he was having some marital problems, and just needed someone to talk to, and the company service was, after all, free.

He wound up in a curious legal limbo, after his clearance was pulled. He was not fired. He was not laid off (and he had not quit), BUT without a clearance, he could not go to work, and since he could not go to work, he got no paycheck! And he couldn't get unemployment, or any other kind of public assistance, because he HAD a job (and a rather well paying one). Except he wasn't being paid....

And, in typical catch 22 fashion, if you got a certain form from the govt, and filed it, the govt had 90 days to explain why they pulled your clearance, and make a judgement on it. But to get that form, you had to go to a govt office in a location that required a security clearance to get in!!!!!

My friend spent many months in "durance vile", with him and his family living on the generosity of his extended family. His father-in-law happened to be a shift manager in the company, and with his clearance was able to get the paperwork, so the process of forcing a decision could be initiated. My friend was eventually re-instated (clearance returned), but the whole thing left a VERY bad taste in the mouths of all who knew about the situation.

I mention this, to point out that a system where your med records are both legally protected, AND (somewhat) open to the govt at the same time, exists, and has been in use for decades, if not longer.

THIS is the real danger to gun owners. If you get help (TREATMENT) for a "mental health" issue, your privacy about what your problem was, and what your treatment was, will be protected, (provided you are not in the "dangerous to self/others category, if you are, other rules kick in), BUT the fact that you got treatment for a mental health issue will not be private!

I can see a worst case scenario where the law (govt) paints us all with the broadest possible brush, and determines that "mentally ill" people should ALL be prohibited persons as it pertains to firearms ownership. FOR LIFE.

They won't care about you, or what your issue was, or the fact that you were NEVER a threat to anyone, or even if you are pronounced "cured". ALL that will matter is something put you in the "mentally ill" category, and once there, it will be no guns for you, for the rest of your life.

Don't scoff, my friends, it may be a remote possibility, but I do see it as a possibility. The might even model the law after that masterpiece of legal idiocy created by Mr Lautenberg, making it so that if you have ever received "treatment" (councilling), in your life, in the past, you lose your right to a firearm. Certainly I believe some folks in politics will try to make this a law.

Farfetched? perhaps. But so was the idea of a misdemeanor conviction stripping you of your rights, at one time equally farfetched, and yet, today, it is a fact, and has been for quite a few years.

Here's a situation, not realistic (at THIS TIME), but possible down the road, if they get their way...
Grandma died when you were 13. You were devastated. Whole family was. All went to councilling. A normal thing.
Now, you are 48, and thanks to the "new mental health" laws, the govt discovers that since you got mental health treatment you are now a prohibited person, and your name is in the databases as a firearms owner (thank you background check/registration laws).
Gun owner + mental health "issues" = dangerous nut job.
A SWAT team executes a no knock raid on you in the middle of the night to sieze your weapons.

I don't see that kind of thing ending well....

Keep an eye on the rhetoric, but scrutinize what ever they propose with an electron microscope! Don't let them pass the law(s) giving them the authority to do anything like I have described above. Otherwise, we'll all be in a very bad place.....
 
44 AMP said:
The court hearing(s) that determine whether or not you are placed in the prohibited person category are there to (presumptively) look at all the evidence, and determine if your condition is a danger to yourself and or others.

Unless, and until that happens, you can legally own firearms (absent other disqualifying factors -illegal drug use, commission of, and conviction for felony crimes, etc.).

you can have mental health problems, but until they reach the conditions specified in the law, the law does not prohibit you owning firearms.
Click to expand...
That's the way it's supposed to be, and that's the way it was until a couple of years ago. Since the Virginia Tech shooting and others that followed, with the sudden "uptick" in awareness of mental health as a major factor in mass shootings, the Veterans Administration has put a lot of stress on trying to address PTSD (and depression, which may be related). The problem is, whether or not it's true at ALL VA hospitals and clinics, there is a strong perception that anyone who seeks help for PTSD will immediately and automatically be reported to NICS and put on the prohibited list. No adjudication, no involuntary commitment, no due process ... just an administrative protocol.
 
there is a strong perception that anyone who seeks help for PTSD will immediately and automatically be reported to NICS and put on the prohibited list. No adjudication, no involuntary commitment, no due process ... just an administrative protocol.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt you a bit. But, is the "strong perception" the actual reality? And is it system wide? Officially approved policy? Or just "policy" done with the administration's "wink and nod" and no official written policy?

If it is actually happening as it is being perceived as happening, then I would regard this as a violation of rights, and law.

I can tell you that the VA has been in favor of no guns for "at risk" individuals for many years. Over a decade ago, before the recent "awareness" of the role of mental illness in current mass shootings, the VA would ..discourage gun ownership, but they didn't do anything to put you on the prohibited person's list.

I knew a fellow in that situation then. Was seeking help from the VA for medical and mental problems (VietNam era vet). The VA essentially told him, if he wanted their help, get rid of his guns. Otherwise, they would not help him. (possibly, even likely not the official policy at the time, but it was done, in this one particular case, at least).

The VA (particularly the people in the administrative end of things are currently on the hook for a LOT of misdeeds. They shouldn't be let off the hook on this, either.
 
This isn't the only Catch 22.


If you asked me a few years ago I would have supported more compulsorily mental health counseling at the sign of serious trouble (short of involuntary medication or commitment for not adjudicated dangerous). I am opposed to this now due to the way the databases are working with HIPAA. In fact I wonder how many parents might be reticent knowing that databases can be cracked


But I have also shifted my view on protective orders. If you asked me a few years ago I would have supported very very low probative burdens, low cost, and high speed to getting a protective order against another person.

Now, knowing that this can be used as a tool to attack a persons rights, my view is the burden should be high.
 
TDL said:
Now, knowing that this can be used as a tool to attack a persons rights, my view is the burden should be high.
Click to expand...
Agreed, very high.

In fact, I wonder if there should be any such thing as a protective order ... since they don't work. In the past five years, just in my county there have been multiple instances of people who were subject to protective orders nonetheless obtaining a firearm and blowing away the wife or ex-wife. Protective orders aren't even useful as toilet paper.
 
Protective orders (restraining orders) are great tools for harassing someone. They are cheap (relatively), and fairly easy to obtain. All it takes, essentially, is your articulable fear, and some supporting circumstantial evidence. And in some cases, protective orders are issued on the fear alone.

As an actual protective measure, they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Anyone willing to do you harm is not going to be stopped or deterred by one more piece of paper.

Chamberlin got a "protective order" at Munich in 38. That worked out well.....:rolleyes:
 
Gun owner BEFORE being diagnosed with depression

I live in Hawaii and my question is....What if you are a legal gun owner and you were diagnosed with depression due to alcohol abuse years later? Do you have to surrender your firearm?
 
44 AMP said:
I mention this, to point out that a system where your med records are both legally protected, AND (somewhat) open to the govt at the same time, exists, and has been in use for decades, if not longer.

THIS is the real danger to gun owners. If you get help (TREATMENT) for a "mental health" issue, your privacy about what your problem was, and what your treatment was, will be protected, (provided you are not in the "dangerous to self/others category, if you are, other rules kick in), BUT the fact that you got treatment for a mental health issue will not be private!

I can see a worst case scenario where the law (govt) paints us all with the broadest possible brush, and determines that "mentally ill" people should ALL be prohibited persons as it pertains to firearms ownership. FOR LIFE.

They won't care about you, or what your issue was, or the fact that you were NEVER a threat to anyone, or even if you are pronounced "cured". ALL that will matter is something put you in the "mentally ill" category, and once there, it will be no guns for you, for the rest of your life.

Don't scoff, my friends, it may be a remote possibility, but I do see it as a possibility. The might even model the law after that masterpiece of legal idiocy created by Mr Lautenberg, making it so that if you have ever received "treatment" (councilling), in your life, in the past, you lose your right to a firearm. Certainly I believe some folks in politics will try to make this a law.
Click to expand...

We have only to look at what's been happening with the VA and, more recently, Social Security to see the direction this is going. Both agencies are reporting people to NICS as mentally incompetent solely because the person has appointed a designated recipient for their pension checks. NO HEARING, NO ADJUDICATION.

Many years ago, someone on one of the "gun" forums posted that if you ever need mental health assistance, go to a shrink in another town, use an assumed name, and pay in cash. This advice is proving to be very prescient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top