Mental health review

S

stargazer65

New member
Should there be a mental health review required of pistol permit applicants who have been confined to a psychiatric hospital within the last year?

This was a question on a survey being passed around by a legislator in CT. Any thoughts on this? The question seemed so vague so I anwered "not sure".
 
So, assuming the current system was managed properly wouldn’t this person be denied if they attempted to purchase a gun?
 
No, there should not. 99.999% of the reasons why one might be in a mental health facility have zero bearing on that individual's RKBA.

The mental health issue is important, and certainly needs to be strengthened (just look at the recent lunatics who would have been prevented from mass-killings with reasonable adjustments to current policy and laws), but if we, as gun owners, keep banging on this mental health drum as if it's the source of all problems it's going to bite us in the arse.

As gun owners, we point with pride to the scientific studies which validate the benefits to society from our RKBA. We're clearly the side focused on truth, and that matters.

Well, use that same reverence for the truth when you talk about mental illness, because there's clear science showing that the *vast* majority of all mental health issues are not related to violence in any way. Failing to adhere to this will make us as bad as the antis...just spewing emotional crap.

So no generalized bans on the RKBA for mental health issues. Next thing you know, some quack with 2 years of junior college will decide you're stressed because of the heavy traffic during your commute, and therefore you lose all your guns? Not interested.
 
No, speed pretty much hit the nail on the head on this one. Early diagnosis and treatment would have a better chance at helping prevent future violence than creating a registry of people who have spent time in treatment and denying them their RKBA.
 
BarryLee is correct, though - there is already a question on this on the 4473.
Click to expand...

Yes, just pointing out that I think a person who has been committed would be denied. I assume that person would be required to go through a process to have their rights restored and it would include a mental health review. So, not sure if the survey the OP saw was affirming or challenging this policy.

I was referring to line 11.f but I could be misinterpreting something.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
 
The question on the 4473 refers to people who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective. Both of those require a court judgment. Voluntary commitment -- checking yourself in to an inpatient mental health facility -- is a different thing entirely, and doesn't make you a prohibited person as far as the Feds are concerned.

But standards for state-issued permits vary from state to state, and can be stricter than those on the Federal level. So it's not necessarily a case of "double illegal nonsense."

But it's a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, one of which is that it would be a really good way to discourage people from seeking treatment for mental illness.
 
Last edited:
4473 refers to people who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective. Both of those require a court judgment.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? I think you can be involuntarily committed without a court order. At least temporarily. Scratch that, I volunteered in an ER and people were regularly involuntarily committed without court orders. The doctor just stuck them in the padded room.
I think someone involuntarily committed should not have access without a psych evaluation indicating the issue is resolved. You can be involuntarily committed for many things that are temporary.
 
The doctor just stuck them in the padded room.
Click to expand...
And is some states, that is for no longer than 72 hours for observation. Since no judge is involved, I don't believe that a person in that position would have to answer that question as a yes. There's no court/legal record of the event. AFAIK, the FBI doesn't have access to your medical records, yet.
 
Exactly -- that's often referred to as a "72-hour hold," and it's not the same as involuntary commitment, which would be the next step in the process; that involves going before a judge and presenting evidence (not just opinion) that the patient is an immediate danger to himself or others. Such evidence might be a failed suicide attempt, or a violent act, or a credible threat of either, made in the presence of others; the evidence has to refer to the person's actual behavior, not merely what a doctor conceives his mental state to be.

So once those 72 hours are up, holding a patient against his will requires due process of law; otherwise it's a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to liberty.
___________________
Thomas Jefferson never said that.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/spurious-quotations
 
Last edited:
In WA it goes..."involuntary confinement for 14 days or more". State law is that you must be committed by a Judge is they are going to hold you more than 72 hrs. There is also a way to reverse this restriction....also takes a Judge.
 
Mental health

Sorry guys this is where us gun rights folks are wrong. Once you cross the threshold of a mental health facility the rules of pistol permits should be different. I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment- but mental health issues change the rules in my world.
 
Should there be a mental health review required of pistol permit applicants who have been confined to a psychiatric hospital within the last year?

This was a question on a survey being passed around by a legislator in CT. Any thoughts on this? The question seemed so vague so I anwered "not sure".
Click to expand...

Getting back to the OP, I think it depends on what you mean by "confine."

A person who has been involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric institution, IMHO, should provide some documentation from a mental health professional stating that the person is continuing to recieve treatment or was discharged after completing treatment goals for incidents that occured after a sufficient passing of time.

A person who checked themselves into a psychiatric facility voluntarily should have no such restriction.

IMHO, my $.02, IANAL, IDNSIAHIELN, YMMV, IHATA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top