Reporting a Mentally Unstable Person

C

Crazy88Fingers

New member
It's my understanding that anyone who has been deemed mentally incompetent by a court will be denied the sale of a firearm. It also seems like every time there's a tragic shooting spree everyone who knew the shooter testifies that he was clearly crazy, in a scary way, for a very long time.

Now usually the blame shifts to the "gun show loophole" for some reason or another. But suppose you or I know of someone that is really off his rocker and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere good. How would you go about reporting him to get him the help he needs and, perhaps, keep him from obtaining a firearm?
 
Or supposed there is some really annoying guy called Uncle Buck who posts on gun forums. If he is reported as being crazy, how does he defend himself against these unfounded accusations?

There is a double edge sword at work here. I know people who I feel should never own a gun and thank the Good Lord, they have no interest in them.

As far as I know, average Joe Citizen can not just call anyone and say "Uncle Buck is a nutjob and should not own a gun." The courts would have to order me to undergo some kind of test to prove I am sane enough to own a gun. (This same test will not apply to the First Amendment ;)) I would have to pay out of my own pocket to obtain the same test to prove I am not quite mentally unstable enough to own a gun.

They would have to find some reason to haul me in front of a judge to begin with...

Crazy88 has brought up a very interesting conundrum indeed...
 
I'm aware there is a process, as there should be, before the final decision can be made. I just have no idea what that process is, or how to initiate it if the need ever arises. I'm sure it varies from state-to-state as well.

I also know that this is a very tricky subject. But the fact is: every time a nut goes on a killing spree, our hobby and right to bear arms come under fire; as well as innocent people.

Now that I think of it, I have a friend who works in the mental health field. Maybe I'll drop her a line.
 
I hope Florida is more helpful than Illinois... We have just such a case at my company. There is a mentally unstable gun, lots of different run in's with the law. He got his FOID card a few years ago needless to say to the shock of just about everyone here. An executive here tried THREE times to get the Illinois State Police to review his FOID via sending e mails with a detailed history on the guy and their was never a single response. I hope Florida is better because here in Illinois they don't seem to care until after the fact "Oh it was the gun show loophole, how could we have known!"


This is not the gun grabber paranoia and overreaction you hear in corporate America every day, We are all pretty much pro gun people here but this guy should not have a firearm or so much as a friggen sharp spork.
 
This is still an innocent until proven guilty country, supposedly. If the person has not received official attention from the legal system there is probably not much you can do. If they act in way that would call for police involvement, like a credible threat to themselves or others, then you could start the ball rolling. The other way people get into the system is normally because a close family member has a credible reason to have them detained for mental evaluation, but without something in the public records it wont be flagged on a routine check.

The dishonest way to get them evaluated is to call the police and lie about them threatening to kill themselves. Then they will likely be held for a 72 hour mental health evaluation. But once released they might be a real threat to you.
 
Reporting & having the report acted on are 2 different things in my experience.

Example.
I have a friend on whose land I shoot, usually several of us get together to shoot, 99% of the time with the owner there as well. WE always shoot safely & with consideration for others. There is a neighbor who in my opinion is totally nuts. He is about 1/2 mile away off to the side & we have never shot in his direction. Every time we shoot he calls the police, frequently before we start. Every time they have responded they agree we're doing nothing illegal & we are safe & responsible. But every time they are called the have to respond.

He babbles partial sentences, yells & screams at nothing & has admitted in court to being crazy. (He was in court facing harassment charges after he attacked a vehicle with visitors in it.) The local PD & the State PD have had multiple run ins with him & he has been charged with & convicted of multiple counts of public endangerment & harassment & aggravated harassment.

Beyond charging him with trespass & yet another harassment charge there is nothing the PDs will do. They state that they are "Just waiting for him to step over the line" but the line seems to be getting further & further back as time passes.
 
There is a double edge sword at work here.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Throughout recorded history, "insanity" has been commonly used by tyrannical regimes and corrupt law enforcement as a ploy to lock up political opponents and other people they don't like. ("Anyone who hates our glorious and benevolent leader is obviously insane." :eek:) In modern times, an advantage for authority figures who wish to abuse this system is that it's often easier to manipulate a handful of doctors than an entire legal system.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a system designed to keep firearms out of the hands of people who have been flagged as potentially dangerous, provided:
  • The person is given written notice that they've been flagged.
  • There is a straightforward and transparent process in place to appeal the decision.
  • The "flag" expires after a specific and fairly short period of time, and it can be undone within days if the person seeks treatment.
  • A person can only be flagged a limited number of times without court action.
  • Only a licensed health professional can flag someone. (No LEOs, neighbors, teachers, social workers, etc.)
  • There are severe penalties in place to discourage health professionals from flagging people frivolously, starting with loss of licensure to practice, and escalating to serious criminal charges.
In the real world, I doubt that a system like this could be successfully put in place.
 
@WOG: We have one of those next to my family's property in Wisconsin, every time we shoot he calls the cops and says we are shooting at his horses. This guy is well off and has connections at the county level so we have been "warned" once or twice though but have been told we are breaking no laws as well O_o
 
This guy is far from well off & the only connections he seems to have is with "the voices in his head".:eek:

The local LEOs have been very fair to us, they have to respond if called but every time they have been polite & professional about having to be there. They have never, ever threatened anything to us as they see we're being responsible with both the shooting & the camping & partying that happens after the guns get packed away.

They will not, however do anything to stop this nut-job, who, apparently also is at odds with just about the whole town, they admit he "has a file 18 inches thick" that they'd "love to close out" but they don't eve actually do anything that would achieve this.:rolleyes:
 
I've been through this with a family member. In order to get the person actually adjudicated as mentally unstable, we had to undertake a fairly long and difficult process.

Some of the problems that we faced were that the legal system would take no preemptive action - there had to be a demonstration that the person was a danger to self or society. Even after that, the most that could be done immediately was a three day evaluation. The evaluation itself did not result in an adjudication, although the doctors did determine that the family member was certainly mentally unstable.

Even after the family member was arrested for assaulting an officer, we had significant difficulties. We worked with both the public defender and the prosecutor to have the judge place the family member in a psychiatric facility - to actually adjudicate the person as mentally unstable. After reaching an agreement, the judge unraveled it all by dismissing the charges and setting the person free.

We ended up at the state Health Department, where we were able to use the circumstances of the arrest to have Health and Welfare order an involuntary 3 day commitment for the purpose of adjudicating our family member as mentally unstable. That finally happened and eventually the person received treatment at a state psychiatric hospital for several months.

Now, the only reason that it happened is because we, as a family, kept pressing and pressing to have it done. If we were not family members and if we hadn't kept our noses to the grindstone, so to speak, I don't think that anything would have happened.

Also, what I've said above is kind of simplified. I can't even count the hours that we spent on the phone, writing letters and in person with attorneys, counselors and doctors in our quest to get some sort of treatment.

The system, I think, is set up to keep people from being found mentally unstable unless overwhelming evidence is presented in an aggressive manner. In fact, there isn't really a clear path that leads from point A (realizing that somebody has a problem) to point B (getting action). Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad - I don't know. But, at least in Idaho, there's no easy (or even somewhat difficult) way to have action taken that will declare an obviously crazy person as, well, crazy.
 
It seems to me that many who run afoul of the law, here especially in connection with guns, are not necessarily described as mentally unstable or incompetent, yet are still described as troublemakers, agressive, anti-social, reclusive, and have sometimes been mentioned as shooting guns a lot, owning lots of guns (with hair triggers or assault rifles or high capacity magazines, etc., etc.,), naturally followed by a large stock of ammunition on hand and so on. Many such descriptions fit me and I sometimes worry that should I happen to get in trouble, all of those things would be trotted out and used against me. And those are just the things that would be easy to find out about from poking around in my basement.
 
it depends on the state w/regards to how difficult it would be or how easy it would be to get the ball rolling.

Of course age can make a difference: example your concern is a minor instead of an adult.

usually family can be a big factor in this stuff but basically can you show a prima factor case that said individual is a very possible danger to himself and/or to someone else?
 
"I can't even count the hours that we spent on the phone, writing letters and in person with attorneys, counselors and doctors in our quest to get some sort of treatment."

It would have been quicker and easier to arrange for treatment at a private psychiatric hospital. It's expensive though.

The government - state or local - does not have enough bed space and never has. And never will based on what I've seen the past 30 years. They don't have enough room to treat even a small percentage of the severest cases on an inpatient basis.

And on top of that the law says people are to be treated in the least restrictive environment - and that means in the community. The state warehouses for the mentally ill were emptied 30 years ago or so.

John
 
I have extensive experience in the field of mental health. I work in the field. My daughter has extensive psychiatric problems. I associate with doctors in the field.


Forcing the system to recognize a nut is tilting at windmills. It won't happen. Reporting a nut with a gun may work through legal channels, but probably not, as a person is legall free to both be crazy or a criminal, and own a gun, until he breaks a law and is convicted.

If the situation is genuinely serious, contact the chief of police or other high ranking official directly, explaining briefly and in small words, your greatest concerns. If he has broken laws, file complaints. If he breaks laws, file charges. Get legal attention to his actual criminal behaviors.

Do not report him as contemplating suicide. Why? he will be held for several days, and in most cases, he will be released with a clean bill of health, no matter what is wrong with him. He isn't suicidal, and that is why he is there. He can choose not to seek treatment for any other problems. Any information gathered is privileged, and will not be shared with police. On top of that, this individual will find himself responsible for a bill of many thousands of dollars for the confinement. No, the cops don't pay, and the hospital doesn't do it for free. Do you really want a nut to find out that a coworker turned him in as suicidal, had him locked up for days, caused him untold hardship personally, and then, got him saddled with a $10,000 debt?

Observe the AZ case. He was a known nut. he had been in the system. he had been involved in both legal and psychaitric interventions. yet he still committed a mass murder, in spite of the fact that numerous people knew he was crazy, and had struggled to stop him. This is reality. this is how it works. Even with legal and psychiatric fields knowing there is a problem, it can and will still happen. Usually, it's not on such a grand scale.
 
I hope Florida is more helpful than Illinois... We have just such a case at my company. There is a mentally unstable gun, lots of different run in's with the law. He got his FOID card a few years ago needless to say to the shock of just about everyone here. An executive here tried THREE times to get the Illinois State Police to review his FOID via sending e mails with a detailed history on the guy and their was never a single response. I hope Florida is better because here in Illinois they don't seem to care until after the fact "Oh it was the gun show loophole, how could we have known!"
This is not the gun grabber paranoia and overreaction you hear in corporate America every day, We are all pretty much pro gun people here but this guy should not have a firearm or so much as a friggen sharp spork.
Click to expand...

Funny how the Illinois FOID card would get brought up so soon in this thread. I truly believe the person(s) in the Illinois State Police Dept. that gives the okay for these cards spends most of their time asleep at their desk. I used to work with a guy that was “mentally challenged”. He was a good worker, a damn good worker. But, every once in a while he would get that 1000 yard stare like Private Pyle in the movie Full Mental Jacket, just before he shot his Sergeant then himself. Kind of scared me at times. This guy I worked with had a FOID and a handgun and shotgun. Out of curiosity one day when he wasn’t in a Private Pyle mood, I asked to see his FOID card. The picture on his card was of him, but he was wearing an American Indian head dress and war paint on his face. How in the heck could someone at the Illinois State Police allow that to get through is a mystery to me. You could not recognize the person dressed like an Indian in the picture, so how that could be considered a valid ID is beyond me. Leads me to believe the ISP department is not doing their jobs.
 
Your definition of crazy is not the same as mine. While we have emptied the state warehouses for the mentally challenged (A good thing, to a point), we also have laws.

HIPPA has hurt the medical profession, the patients and enriched the lawyer.

If it was easy to adjudicate someone as being mentally deficient and therefore they should not be able to own a firearm, we would just have the police arrest every person who applies for a CCW or a FOID card, or what-ever your state uses.

One of the doctors I used to visit was against private ownership of firearms and thought we (Firearms owners) were all crazy. His nursing staff were all card carrying members of the Humane Society of the United States. I am pretty sure that if he had a way to do it, he would have reported all of us as mentally deficient and tried his best to make sure we could never own a gun.

Yes, there has to be a better way to report people, like Jared Loughner, but there also has to be a balance in place to prevent people from losing a Constitutional Right. I just do not know what that balance is.
 
Johnbt, a private hospital was as difficult as public: involuntary treatment isn't any easier at a private hospital. The problem wasn't hospitalization - it was the involuntary commitment.

I learned far more than I ever wanted to know on the subject. And, unfortunately, it's still a bit contentious with the person concerned.
 
Personally, I wouldn't report the person from a "they shouldn't be owning a gun" perspective to the authorities;

rather, it would be from a perspective of " the person being unsafe and unable to safely take care of themselves" scenario and then let the appropriate agency do their job

In this case, the gun ownership is secondary to everyday life.
Here in FL, we have have the ability to have someone "Baker-Acted" - wherein someone in your description can be committed for their own safety to determine what should happen to them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top