Executive Powers & Mental Health

Status
Not open for further replies.
From a legal perspective, there is still a lot of grey area in some states (the usual suspects) over the process and requirements to be added to the NICS system. Since the Harkin-Alexander Amendment is part of the now-tabled S.649, those grey areas are still not defined well.

As a result, loosening HIPAA protections now is likely to result in some people who should not be disqualified being added to NICS.
 
Battler said:
Is there an inclination or strong possibility that things like named personality disorders (narcissistic, borderline, etc.) will become checkbox automatic disqualifiers? Or bipolar? Or some psychoses/psychotic/delusional symptoms? Or would it specifically have to be linked to violence?
Click to expand...
Prohibiting a person from owning/possessing firearms on the basis of a diagnosis would be an egregious violation of his rights.

Any disqualification must be based on evidence that a person is an immediate threat to himself or others. As I said above, this means actual violent behavior or credible, specific threats. It's not enough for a mental health professional to suspect that someone has the potential to be violent, or might get violent sometime, etc.

Keep in mind that only a tiny percentage of people with mental illness are ever violent. They are, in fact, far more likely to be the victims of violence.

It's no different from depriving any other group of people of their rights because they are members of a particular class: it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion -- and disability.
...
ClydeFrog, I'm still not understanding your point...
 
It's also a judgement that the person cannot contract or manage their affairs.

27 CFR 555.11 - Meaning of terms.

Also, disturbingly, it does not require a judge.
A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority
Click to expand...

So a state could impanel three licensed social workers, call it a mental health board, and start deciding bi-polar, etc. folks off their meds are unable to contract or manage their affairs. I'm pretty sure organizations like the ACLU would parachute in like the 82nd Airborne if that happened though. However it also isn't unheard of for excessively... pro-active (to be polite) States to enact legislation like that. And if they work with an aggressive POTUS to get these folks adjudicated, and into the NICS database assembly line style to apply the prohibition to as many people as possible....
 
JimDandy said:
So a state could impanel three licensed social workers, call it a mental health board, and start deciding bi-polar, etc. folks off their meds are unable to contract or manage their affairs.
Click to expand...
You're confusing two separate standards -- being adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous is one thing; being adjudicated mentally incompetent is completely separate from that.The latter requires a determination by a probate court, which then appoints a legal guardian. This is a well-established procedure, and it would be difficult to change it.

Not that a state couldn't try to pass such a law, but it's not likely, and it would certainly be challenged and overturned in short order.
 
My point...

For the 3rd time....

My point here is:
This should be a rational discussion of persons who are already adjudicated as mentally unstable or violent(ie: unable to own or carry firearms/ammunition) & how or what databases or systems are in use(or should be set up) to prevent gun crimes/violent acts.
I'm not discussing persons with bi-polar, ED, cry when it rains outside, wets the bed, etc. I'm talking about violent, aggressive subjects who have documented felonys, court mandated restraining orders/PFAs, trespass notices, are fugitives, dis-honorable discharged from the US armed forces, etc.
As for the % or # of criminal felons with mental health problems, I strongly disagree. In 2011, I had a incident with a 57 year old male, 6'06", who made threats against me & attacked me with a chair leg. :eek:
I was doing a security job at a low end hotel property in a major urban area.
In 2013, I saw the former State's Atty for my area(a SE Asia combat veteran & former Sheriff for the county) say that he also considered violent criminals with mental health issues or those who go off their meds/take illegal drugs-alcohol, as a major law enforcement issue/public safety problem.
 
You're confusing two separate standards -- being adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous is one thing; being adjudicated mentally incompetent is completely separate from that.
Click to expand...

I find the same language here And Title 18 Section 40 referenced in the first link is ATF related, though I haven't drilled down the rest of the links.(Because I think, but can't be sure CFR is some sort of shorthand for Executive Branch Department Promulgated Regulation.)

Edit For Clydefrog Just saw your post.

and backtracked to this one:
These "what if" topics spin all over between members discussing persons who have already adjudicated & those still in the process.

I understand the concern over starting databases & the required criteria, that's a valid point of discussion, my problem is that these TFL topics swerve into "who's to say who is unstable?" Or Obama's gonna take my guns because I have migrane head-aches,
Click to expand...

The process for adjudicating is as important and the process for reporting. An "insanity plea" or a finding of not guilty by mental disease or defect, or incompetent to stand trial all feed into NICS, and there's probably an almost automated system for this in many places. If this is done in some form of family court at the request of parents of a minor child, the process may not even exist.

Finally, I should point out to you, that the number of records for those adjudicated mentally deficient far outstrip the number of records for those convicted of a prohibiting offense. Mental Deficiency was the second most populous result.
 
Last edited:
Those of you who have been through these discussions in different threads here know my opinion on this. I think temporary involuntary inpatient treatment, with full restoration of rights available once the treatment has been shown to be effective is the tool that is missing in these scenarios.

That being said, can anyone here prove to me that restrictions on purchasing firearms through the retail system is effective in keeping obsessed people with mental disorders who are in the general population from getting the guns they want?

I have dealt with obsessed patients that were so bad they needed a locked, controlled environment. Obsession, combined with even an average intelligence is a powerful, devious, and effective source of trouble.
The first part of my nursing career was spent in ER's. I gained a lot of experience with addict and psych patient behaviour. The second part I was in the other end of trauma nursing so to speak, spinal cord and brain injury. The brain injuries quite often spent time in locked units as they were healing. Even with the deficits that came with the brain injuries quite often they were more than a match for us because they were obsessed with escape.
 
I proposed to both my Senators that someone needs to put forth a stand-alone Bill that mandates that the states provide to the NICS data base, all adjudications of mental defect and involuntary committments.

This data is to be provided with the same frequency as the reporting of felony convictions, etc.

Further, the Federal government shall provide such funding as necessary to continually fund this program.

Additionally, all previously existing fees which were paid for by the purchaser of a firearm shall be deemed to be the equivalent of a "poll tax" and are hence unconstitutional and declared to be null and void.

No other manner of "mental health" data or information shall be permitted to be used under any circumstances in the determination of the status of a citizen to be able to freely exercise his or her rights.
 
This data is to be provided with the same frequency as the reporting of felony convictions, etc.
Click to expand...
As I've already mentioned, there are more mental deficient records than felons.

I proposed to both my Senators that someone needs to put forth a stand-alone Bill that mandates that the states provide to the NICS data base, all adjudications of mental defect and involuntary committments.
Click to expand...

With our dual sovereignty system, the Federal government has VERY limited ability to mandate the State government do anything. They can only offer money, and prevent grants/federal services in states that don't comply in an effort to cajole states into compliance, or shame their citizenry into demanding compliance from their state lawmakers.
 
Forgive me for saying so guys, but none of those type of laws will be effective.

The truly mentally ill will find a way to get destructive devices to kill people with anyway.

The government finds a way to restrict guns to more people, but the people they stop with it aren't the ones who are committing these acts. The people who are that sick do not care about breaking the law to accomplish their purpose. They will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to accomplish their goals. This can't be argued. Keeping them form buying guns at the counter at Cabela's probably won't even slow them down.

Let's say it works and they can't buy guns, it won't, but let's just say. No problem, they'll find something else I promise, and the first one to use some horror that works effectively will be imitated.
 
They'll use the horror even without a restriction from guns. The suspects in Boston had both guns and bombs. Same with the Columbine kids- just their bombs didn't work.

And sure, someone who's really obsessed can get a gun, just mug a LEO for it. That doesn't mean laws that help prevent it aren't worthwhile.
 
That's very much what I'm saying Jimdandy. I don't see these laws affecting the people they are meant to target.

Ask yourself these questions.

1) Of the last ten incidents like this is there even one where these laws would have completely stopped the shooter? Not slowed them down, or made them choose another alternative, conclusively stopped them and prevented the tragedy.

2) How will they conclusively stop the next one?

3) How do they address the fact that we are dealing with people who simply don't care about right and wrong let alone about what laws say?

4)How do they address the fact that you are dealing with people who are obsessed and are almost inhumanly patient when it comes to spending time to get around restrictions?

The NRA solution solution of putting armed guards in the schools satisfies a lot of these questions, but even if that succeeds they will simply redirect them away from the schools. That's a helpful, if not completely effective, tactic in my opinion.
 
  1. Yes, improved reporting probably would have stopped Cho at Virginia Tech.
  2. These events are statistically rare, misleading vividness makes them seem like the targeted gun crime to prevent, but they aren't.
  3. By starting with the people who do care, and working to absolutely minimized the initial flow into the black market.
  4. By providing more opportunities to catch them making an illegal purchase and get them on law enforcement radar
 
Okay my internet went down for a while.

Let me take the replies in order.

1) Stopping Cho/ Virginia Tech. I don't believe that these laws would have stopped Cho. He would have just known not to go to a source that would do an NICS check. These laws will get a great deal of publicity, I can promise you BG's will take note.

2) The mass murder/spree killer/whatever BG isn't what these laws are supposed to stop. Okay, if you don't see the primary goal of these laws to target this specific type of BG who do you think they will stop? That's not a sarcastic question, if there are other uses for these laws, I might very well think they are a good idea. I'm very much open to that argument.

3) Stopping the flow into the Black Market. I really think that there is no effective way to do this. Even people in prison are still able get drugs and other contraband. I just don't think you can stop it short of a police state of some sort. Even then, think about the French Resistance or Warsaw Ghetto uprising in Nazi occupied territories. Besides, then we're just back to firearms aren't the only way to kill people.

4) An opportunity to catch them. I think that they will just get their weapons somewhere where they know the Police aren't looking. Inhuman determination makes them very good at staying under the radar.

Once again my questions and remarks are based on these most severe cases. If you are meaning something different who knows we might even agree.
 
In some of these posts I perceive a disdain for those who have had mental problems.

I notice it to the point it approaches a bigotry based on fear and ignorance.

We gun owner and supporters of the second amendment do not want to be smeared because some people holding guns kill people.Most gun owners do not.Some mentally ill people kill people.Most do not.

I have seen a person be taken by paranoid schizophrenia.It is sad,tragic.It is a horrible,painful disability that deserves compassion.No.not guns.But not the attitude,either.

I do not advocate selling guns to folks like that orange haired guy who shot up the theater.

I also do not advocate arms for those who batter their wives.

Yet some men lose their RTKBA for raising their voice,or restraining someone for trying to drive drunk...we have all heard stories.In the town I live in,if you are a college student who had a couple of beers and you get caught urinating in an alley.you will be charged with a sex crime because you were exposed,and you will have to register as a sex offender.

We have all heard of well intentioned laws designed to prevent child abuse turning into nightmares for decent parents trying to cope with a difficult child.Old school that I am,I believe a teen boy who says the wrong thing to his mother might deserve a slap across the face.Social workers may not agree.

Laws,well intentioned,that give power to beauraucrats WILL be abused.

Beauraucrats often believe in big,restrictive,powerful government.Add an agenda,a party line,and we live with a monster
 
Last edited:
Mental health issues in 2013...

I can only speak for myself here, but I don't have any bias towards those with mental health problems in general.
My problem is with those VIOLENT or hyper-aggressive thugs who use mental health issues as a crutch or an excuse for their crimes or those who feel that even with medication(s) or treatment programs feel it's okay or safe for them to carry weapons or loaded firearms.
The recent tragic murder of ex-SEAL Chris Kyle in Texas(by a combat veteran with documented PTSD) & the recent road rage shooting in central FL where a guy with a CC license & a .45 Colt Defender murdered a car lot employee after a car accident show that there are people who should not have easy access to weapons & ammunition.

CF
 
The continual whine about "patient privacy" needs to be superseded by safety concerns for the general population.
Click to expand...

Yes instead of giving up our 2nd amendment we can give up our 4th and 14th.:rolleyes:

How about a better idea. The government can open up and fund the mental institutions and programs it used to run back in the day. So that when a person is unstable they have a place to be held and treated until better. Instead of the current system of catch and release because there is no ongoing treatment for the mentally ill once they are released from the hospital. I have personally EPC'd subjects who displayed a danger to themselves or others and were literaly out at the scene 2hrs later causing problems again.
 
The continual whine about "patient privacy" needs to be superseded by safety concerns for the general population.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the call of anti-gun person, "safety concerns of the whole" very dangerous ground, it is also very difficult for any health processional to determine if someone mentally ill is dangerous. If you lose your temper at work perhaps we could have cameras installed in your home for the safety of the community. We really do no want to give politicians the power this tool would give them.

Over my long life I've seen freedom slip away we do not want to lose all and yet we see people begging to give more power to government, sad.
 
teeroux, +1! I couldn't agree more! We need to treat appropriately the ones who are the problem instead of trying to write useless gun laws. This is NOT a gun problem! It is a mental health treatment problem. We are sending our sickest and most vulnerable out to fight the dragon that's mental health problems with a paper sword. What do we expect is going to happen?
 
  1. Cho bought his guns from an FFL. He was POSSIBLY and ARGUABLY Adjudicated Mentally Deficient. Increased reporting could have stopped that.
  2. Nothing stops EVERYTHING, so if we can avoid that Mission Impossible Fallacy- the transition of guns from legal, to "crime guns"
  3. All firearms basically start as legal arms. Once stolen, they become "crime guns" and no law will stop that. But the vast majority of crime guns actually get there through transactions, not thefts.
  4. Somwhere they know... So we keep knocking out those somewheres. Next up is another big chunk. The private sale. We did the store sale. We won't get em all, but we'll get enough to be significant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top