Here's an interesting question -- menatl partient's gun rights???

O

Oatka

New member
Geez, after reading the way I spelled
"mental patient" I have to wonder if I need help too? ;)

I am not in the Pennsylvanis shooting area, so I can be somewhat cold-bloodedly detached about this question:
Should people who voluntarily turn themselves in to a mental facility be forbidden to own a gun?
http://www.tribunereview.com/

Baumhammers passed gun check
By Marisol Bello and Luis Fabregas
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Richard Scott Baumhammers, hospitalized at least twice for mental illness, cleared a background check when he bought a powerful handgun because the law does not screen for those who voluntarily seek treatment.

Baumhammers, 34, who had been undergoing therapy since 1993, purchased the weapon on April 30, 1999, at Ace Sporting Goods in Washington County, according to police.

Police say he turned that gun on six people Friday in a two-county killing spree, slaying five and leaving the other clinging to life.

Under state and federal law, the store ran a computer check on his name and driver's license number using databases maintained by the Pennsylvania State Police, spokesman Jack Lewis said Monday.

Baumhammers, of Mt. Lebanon, had no criminal record in Pennsylvania or Georgia where he lived for several years.

He properly cleared the check to buy a .357-caliber Magnum revolver manufactured by Smith & Wesson.

"That's the law," Lewis said. "The Legislature decided people would be denied access to weapons if they're involuntarily committed ... It's not something we have any sway over.''

The laws apply to those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or found mentally incompetent or insane by a court, state board or other legal authority.

Also, people convicted of felonies such as murder, robbery or domestic abuse are prohibited from buying or owning guns under federal and state laws, Lewis said.

The law worries folks like Betty Holder, a member of the local chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.

Putting a gun in the hands of a mentally ill person can be extremely dangerous, she said.

"I don't see a reason in God's green earth why a mentally ill person should have a gun," said Holder, who teaches a class for families of mentally ill people and encourages them to take any firearms out of the house.

"I don't think this incident on Friday would have occurred if this person didn't have access to a gun."

Still, Holder said, few people with mental illness turn violent, a message pushed by mental health advocates for years.

Studies show people can be prone to violence if they had a record of criminal violence before becoming ill or if they had substance abuse or alcohol problems, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

Baumhammers was hospitalized twice to treat an undisclosed mental illness, said his attorney, William Difenderfer.

During both stays - at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Oakland and St. Clair Hospital in Mt. Lebanon - Baumhammers stayed in the hospital for at least several weeks.

While his attorney wouldn't elaborate on the symptoms, Difenderfer said Baumhammers first showed signs of a mental illness in 1993 while living in Pittsburgh.

Difenderfer said he won't decide definitively on a defense strategy until he reviews Baumhammers' medical records and examines evidence collected by the police.

Baumhammers' parents spoke to Difenderfer about their son's condition but he would not say what they told him.

Ace Sporting Goods, which has been in business for more than 50 years, bills itself on its Web site as "Western Pennsylvania's number one firearms dealer."

The store's owner, George Romanoff, did not return calls seeking comment.



[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited May 02, 2000).]
 
Should people who voluntarily turn themselves in to a mental facility be forbidden to own a gun?

Depends on what their particular problem is. If someone gets off on sniffing J Reno's soiled underthings :eek:, that only harms them. If the voices in their heads tell them to start clearing off Earth in preparation for the Great Old Ones' return, well... I'd have some doubts about their ability to distinguish right/wrong, good/bad, shoot/no-shoot.
 
Ten or 20 years ago, the thought of protecting the gun rights of the mentally ill would not be an issue.

But times have changed. Every little socialogical or personal problem is now considered a mental problem.

Alcohalism for example. Are we going to somehow track people down who go to AA and remove their right to own a gun because they have a psychological disease?

Even stranger, are we going to prevent people who had abusive parents the right to buy, own and bear arms?

Good thread Oatka.

~USP
 
What about if the person takes Prozac? AntiDEPRESSIVE medication. Take his guns away. (Some estimates show 20% of Americans take some type of antidepressive meds.) Drinks alcohol (more than 3 beers a day) his guns go. Domestic abuse or animal abuse -his guns gotta go. Can't take them all away at once? Just chip, chip, chip.
 
Sometimes, when I sit back and take a closer look at what's going on in the world around me, I feel like I'm already a resident of a mental institution. :eek:

All kidding aside though, this could develop into a serious issue for gun owners. It's not as if the anti's were lacking in ammunition to use against us.

1. Consider that the Surgeon General issued a report last year that claimed that 20% of the population of the U.S. was suffering from some form of mental illness.
2. Also keep in mind that the medical community (or at least the more vocal part) appears to be largely anti gun.
3. And remember that one of the more commonly used reasons the Soviets used to banish undesirables to the gulag was mental instability.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, especially if they're potentially dangerous, would be a fairly easy idea to sell. One obvious solution would be for doctors to report those patients that they had concerns about. Except that by doing so they would violate the Dr./patient bond of confidentiality. They would also risk driving patients who need treatment underground for fear of being stigmatized by public disclosure of any infirmity. And they would open themselves up to litigation in the event that they failed to report someone who goes on to commit some heinous crime.
So, what does that leave? No guns for anybody?
 
It's worse than you think, Doc. I recently read an article about rampage shooters (here I think), it seem that most of them were known to the authorities, but were able to purchase weapons because priviacy laws protect the mentally ill from background checks, i.e. their 'medical' records are priviledged, the state can't have access to them for such purposes, so they don't show up on instant check (CRAZY, ain't it!?!?!?!).

And of course the PC wimps would much rather protect the loonies' privacy rather than society at large (or even protect teh 'reality challenged' from themselves), and while I agree that medical records must be protected,there comes a point where there needs to be some accommodation for the good of society (ewwww,that sounds smarmy -)
M2
 
Again, you fall into their trap.

Look at what the firearms prohibitionists have gained from controlling who is allowed to buy a firearm. The govt. already chooses who may buy a firearm.

Everyone has their idea of who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun, some think the mentally insane, some think everyone. BTW - handgun control inc. already thinks you're insane if you own a safe full of guns.


The way to remove a right (yes, right) is to deny it to the unpopular. Noone disputes those who commit felonies should spend their time in jail; but denying them firearms (IF they get out) is only a means to depriving you of them.

Battler.
 
A few years ago there was a case here in Illinois where the press supported the RKBA rights of a mental patient. The man had checked himself into a mental unit for treatment of depression. the hospital reported it to the illinois State Police and they showed up to revoke his FOID card.

The man was connected in the community and after a lot of press reports the Governor (Edgar I believe) intervened and he got his FOID card (and RKBA) back. Don't recall seeing any negative press at the time, but he was a lifelong hunter (politcally correct use of RKBA) not sure how it would have been looked at had he been a high power competitor and wanted his M1A or AR15 back.

Jeff
 
"Consider that the Surgeon General issued a report last year that claimed that 20% of the
population of the U.S. was suffering from some form of mental illness." - Karanas

Der Surgeon General is underestimating the venereal psychosis. It is obviously more rampant despite federally funded studies and the absolute accuracy they always guarantee. The number of "sick" purchasers of firearms is continuing to escalate regardless of attempts to curb this trend.
There is no alternative left but total federal control, not regulation, but control of any potential gun situation-like prevent it! A report shall be filed for the picky proletariat who are so needy as to require due process. Can't you be a team player here?
They don't call them gun nuts for nothing. Sure, you should not call them such because they are quite ill and deserve no disrespect. Ok maybe a little, they are sooo stupid...and dangerous... blah,blah,blah. "Medication please.." One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest.
 
Preoccupation with sex and the need to have many partners is a mental problem so the doctors say.Can Comrade Klinton buy a firearm?

------------------
beemerb
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world;
and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men
every day who don't know anything and can't read.
-Mark Twain
 
Gun owners (present and future) here are facing the very real possibility of being forced to take compulsory psychiatric tests (on a repeating basis) to "determine their mental fitness to possess a firearm".

Note that the argument is not over whether such a repulsive thing should happen or not -- no, the argument at present is purely over which test to use.
 
At risk of being not sufficiently RKBA/PC I am going to come down with a split opinion on mental patients and forcible felons retaining the right to purchase and possess firearms.

Since good mental heath care should be available to all and when sought voluntarily should not be the cause for deprivation of legal rights -- I must strongly support the position that a history of voluntary mental health/illness treatment should not disqualify a persons from the right to possess a firearm.

However, since most mental health involuntary commitments are done on the basis of danger to self or others, and contrary to popular opinion, it is not that simple to get an involuntary commitment in most jurisdictions (certainly not like it was twenty years ago) I do feel a history of involuntary mental health commitment should at least require a hearing before restoring the right (God given though it may be) to possess a firearm.

And, yes I do think a convicted forcible felon, even after serving his/her sentence, should remain deprived of the right to possess a firearm.

And what do I base this on? Unfortunately not a consistent political position. I find myself tainted by working with persons with serious mental illnesses for much of the last thirty plus years. And, presently I am the legal custodian of four locked wards for felonius or violent mental patients. That is 66 out of possible 1,500 in the system to the percentage remains very small. This experience and my research in my own profession has convinced me of the oft cited statement that the best indicator of future violence is a history of past violence. And, some of the best legal indicators of past violence are a history of conviction for forcible felonies or of involuntary mental health confinement as a danger to self or others. Why? Because eventually we have to admit that some persons cannot be trusted with an instrument of easily dispensed violence. My work over the years has convinced me that there are a very few persons who have such short fuses and no respect for any other person that for my self preservation, they should have that right limited.

Jim in IN

For those who feel that the RKBA must be an absolute right and not tainted by the realities of human misbehavior -- let the flames begin.

------------------
-- TANSTAAFL
 
A psychological asessment is already required here in Austria for new applicants for firearms licences (for ownership!!!). If all legal owners of firearms in Austria were required to provide such a statement, psychologists would gain about US$ 18 million in business. At current capacity, it would take 20 years to process all gun owners.

Now if they would just require all current owners to be processed before any new licences are granted...
 
Here's the way it works in Kali-

If a person is a danger to self/others or unable to care for self they may be placed on a 5150 and interred for 72 hours against their will. They will be placed in a locked ward. Most of these are hardcore.

If they seek treatment, they may still be placed on a 5150 for the same above reasons. Now you may also voluntarily seek psych treatment for depression, drugs, and a slew of other more minor diseases that may be transient and much less severe.

I would support restricting the gun rights of all who are placed on a 5150 to be restored in rare individual cases by a judge.

FWIW

Olazul
 
JJB - Why should ANYONE "be trusted with an instrument of easily dispensed violence".

And who decides whether or not I can "be trusted with an instrument of easily dispensed violence"?

Ask Bruce in OZ about being trusted with an instrument of easily dispensed violence. They'll be taking yearly mental exams for their bolt-action 22s.


Battler.
 
Battler,

It was obvious from your earlier posts that you and I are at different points in this discussion.

You take the absolute position that no one's right to carry should ever be restricted.

I take the position that persons who have demonstrated themselves to be dangerous in the past by repeated violent acts should not retain the unrestricted right to carry firearms. And, since the best predictor of future violence is several incidents of past violence, involuntary mental health commitments for danger to self or others or convictions for violent felonies are a good indicator of probable future violence.

What the system should then allow is judicial review of any denials stemming from commitments or convictions so when circumstances change the person's status can change.

I suspect we will not come to agreement. But, to allow us to hold divergent opinions while still supporting the right to keep and bear arms for the majority is one thing we share. I hope.

I do not think that recognizing there are some persons who have demonstrated themselves too dangerous to keep unmonitored is supporting the gun banners.

I do not support pretesting with psychological tests of general applicants for CCW permits. When dealing with a "normal" population those instruments are too imprecise. Predicting danger in future CCW permit holders is not what these instruments were designed for regardless of what some lawmakers or professionals now propose as current use.

Jim in IN

------------------
-- TANSTAAFL



[This message has been edited by JJB (edited May 03, 2000).]
 
Keep in mind that my firend in Russia can't own guns because of a stomach ulcer (unfit to be drafted, by extension unfit to own guns)! Slippery slope with an obvious end.

The "cure" is worse than the desease, again.

Talked to him last night. Turns out his ulcers were caused by nervous anticipation of glorious army life and THAT is why he was judged unfit for gun ownership for now. He might get that ruling reversed yet. Shows the slippery slope most clearly though.

Another aspect of the same is that certain behaviors were viewed as illegal AND insane at the same time (homosexuality, for instance). How'd people like being disarmed under a pretext such as that!


[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited May 04, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited May 04, 2000).]
 
Posting this may or may not be the STUPIDEST thing I’ve ever done, BUT here we go. I
have noticed NO posts here from anyone who may be DIRECTLY affected by this type of
potential restriction. Ok; I’ve kept quiet until now (and will probably wish I had continued to do so) but, I RESEMBLE these remarks. Yes kids, I AM a ”Mental Patient”
(MENATL for you , Oatka ;).....God, I can hear all the gasps from here. The MAJORITY of people under psychological care are NOT potentially violent “time bombs”, any more than anyone else who would be considered "normal" is (many times less so!), although many would have you believe they are a “threat to your safety”.
At present I am being treated for Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and am considered a “functional depressive” (now, THERE’S a way to impress women!-sarcasm ;)).
The cause; a chemical imbabance, a history of depression dating back to 1983, and these circumstances:
Around 1996, after a domino-like chain of events which included the sudden lay-off from a well-paying job I liked, a spinal injury causing partial paralysis in 1997, leaving me walking on a cane, and the break-up of a 10 year relationship, and then a car accident in 1999 introduced some new injuries, leaving me in constant pain, depression re-entered my life for the first time in 17 years. The pain (in part) causes the depression, and then in turn the depression causes more tension and pain; a classic “vicious circle”.
I am medicated with a different, newer tricyclic anti-depressant as well as tranquilizers, and a pain killer to keep the incessant pain I am in “tolerable”.

I also carry concealed on a regular basis (come on! one guy, alone, walking with difficulty on a cane; can you say FOOD/easy target?!). I have been licensed to carry concealed since the age of 18. In case you’re wondering the obvious, yes, I have the go-ahead from my Psychiatrist, who also happens to be a shooter! No matter what some may automatically assume because of my condition, I am more than competent with a sidearm, and am QUITE able to exercise good judgement as anyone else despite my “condition”; and I was concerned enough about the situation to ASK my Psychologist MYSELF whether he thought I was fit to be armed, just to be sure, and get an objective point of view. Had he said “no”, all you’d find on me is a can of OC spray.

There most certainly are people with various psychological conditions who should NOT own firearms, but don’t fall into the trap of lumping ALL people with “mental problems” into ONE group!

As with diseases of the body, diseases of the mind are many and varied, both in effects and extremes. A functional depresive is as different from a paranoid schizophrenic, as a cancer victim is from a cardiac patient. This bears repeating: The MAJORITY of people under psychological care are NOT potentially violent “time bombs”, any more than anyone else who would be considered "normal" is (many times less so!), although many would have you believe they are a “threat to your safety”.

In fact, I managed a gun shop for 5 years and have been gunsmithing on and off for 10 years! STRTANGELY ENOUGH, I don’t recall EVER considering a mass killing spree, despite my status as a “mental Patient” and my “easy access” to guns! I ran the shop alone, so I was armed at all times.

In 17 years of carry, I have been forced to draw twice, and in both occcasions the mere presesce of my sidearm stopped the situation cold, without a shot ever being fired.
I’m sure some of you could say the same.
I have NO desire to EVER have to do it again, but now that I’m the “slowest Yak in the herd”, it becomes MORE of a possibility than when I was uninjured.

All I really want everyone to know is that there are people with mental illnesses who are every bit as safe, and cautious, and competent as you are in the possession, and carry of firearms.

PLEASE don’t associate ALL people with mental illnesses with the “One Flew Over The
Cuckoo’s Nest” stereoptye.
It just doesn’t hold up; and I, for one, am proof of that.

Take Care- Dakotan



[This message has been edited by Dakotan (edited May 05, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top