Mental illness and guns

[RACER X]

Where do you draw the line?

At what point should a person not be allowed to have guns?

From my secret cel phone the NSA doesn't track !

 

[mitchntx]

First define "mental illness" as it pertains to gun ownership.

In the broadest sense, OCD, hoarding or compulsive shopping is a mental illness.
Do I need to share the photo of my ammo stash again or just give you all my ammo?

LOL

 

[matefrio]

When? When they are considered a danger or threat or high risk of doing harm to themselves or other people.

The problem is one of process and procedure and as noted by my post below; the risk of further eroding freedom.

Who can make the call to put folks on the list and under what criteria and who defines the criteria?

Who is going to make the call to take folks off the list and with what liability (professional and public)? There is an inherent bias towards safety where the incentive is to put people on the list is easy and low risk and taking them off the list is hard to determine and high risk.

Tracking and maintaining the list. HIPPA issues with having a medical condition on a list accessible to non medical personnel.

Enforcement. Confiscation and continued monitoring of prohibited persons.

Funny I was just reading this.

View Rule

 

[matefrio]

Here's another question.

Does the current system work sufficiently?

Does the current rate of deaths from firearms warrant more regulation?

We are seeing a decline in violent crime starting in the 90s. Some would argue with the relaxing of regulation and enforcement of MJ and other drugs we are doing better each year with the laws currently on the books.

So does the sense of security by further regulating firearm ownership, even with the risk of a person who is mentally unstable gaining access to guns, trump the loss of freedom?

We accept death as a risk in so many other areas and there are more risks in so many other things that firearm related deaths is way way down on the logical priority list.

 

[Dawico]

I would rather suffer the injustices of too much liberty than not enough.

Limiting gun ownership because of mental issues is a slippery slope. Remember now, the Left would consider many of us on this board bat shit crazy.

There is just no way to know exactly who is going to snap and who isn't. Some are easy to judge, but a system that had stopped the recent California killer would be way too overreaching in my opinion.

Until mind reading technology is perfected we are very limited on diagnosing those that intend to do harm to others.

 

[NeckBeard]

I would rather suffer the injustices of too much liberty than not enough.

Limiting gun ownership because of mental issues is a slippery slope. Remember now, the Left would consider many of us on this board bat shit crazy.

There is just no way to know exactly who is going to snap and who isn't. Some are easy to judge, but a system that had stopped the recent California killer would be way too overreaching in my opinion.

Until mind reading technology is perfected we are very limited on diagnosing those that intend to do harm to others.

the govt defines mental illness these days and we know they don't like guns. soon, your voter registration will determine if you're mentally ill or not.

 

[Dawico]

the govt defines mental illness these days and we know they don't like guns. soon, your voter registration will determine if you're mentally ill or not.

Exactly.

 

[RACER X]

We know crazy people don't vote

From my secret cel phone the NSA doesn't track !

 

[Southpaw]

the govt defines mental illness these days and we know they don't like guns. soon, your voter registration will determine if you're mentally ill or not.

Then they are going to have flip the current definition of insane or they would disqualify every liberal.

 

[matefrio]

We need to relearn how to recognize the trade-offs that come from risk management, especially risk from our fellow human beings. We need to relearn how to accept risk, and even embrace it, as essential to human progress and our free society. - Bruce Schneier

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/our_newfound_fe.html

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I consider anyone who tries to take my guns away mentally deficient.

 

[AustinN4]

Is it not against existing law to make public threats to harm or kill people, and to make terroristic threats to harm or kill a lot of people?

 

[breakingcontact]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[NeckBeard]

Then they are going to have flip the current definition of insane or they would disqualify every liberal.

sadly, i dont see that happening. the pendulum has swung hard to the left in this country. I don't see pro-abortion groups being audited and forced to hand over their donor lists.

it was a mental illness in the USSR to be against it. that will happen here, too.

 

[TXARGUY]

the govt defines mental illness these days and we know they don't like guns.

Oh, they like them some guns. They just don't like US with guns.

soon, your voter registration will determine if you're mentally ill or not.

Voter registration tells them nothing. You don't register as a Republican or Democrat or as any person who votes a certain way. You just register.

I always get a chuckle out of people saying they are a "Registered Republican" or a "Registered Democrat" or a registered whatever politically. Where in the hell is this registration form because I've never seen it. And an even better question would be if such a registration form existed why in the hell would you want to fill it out? It doesn't exist. The form is a lie.

It's voter registration in general that they don't like.

We know crazy people don't vote.

But lazy people sure as hell do. They'll even find ways to vote twice or three times. Lazy is a great motivation however inconsistent it is to use the words "motivation" and "lazy" in the same sentence when describing a particular behavior.

From my secret cel phone the NSA doesn't track !

I hate to break it to you but the NSA knows about your phone. And your affinity for scat porn.

Is it not against existing law to make public threats to harm or kill people, and to make terroristic threats to harm or kill a lot of people?

Apparently not.

 

[Southpaw]

sadly, i dont see that happening. the pendulum has swung hard to the left in this country. I don't see pro-abortion groups being audited and forced to hand over their donor lists.

it was a mental illness in the USSR to be against it. that will happen here, too.

I misread your post... I see what you meant and agree.

 

[benenglish]

Funny I was just reading this.

View Rule

This is, potentially, the most real-world useful response to the OP. Trouble is, I may just be a dunderhead but I can't figure out where to go from that URL to find the actual text of the proposed new rule.

Help?

 

[matefrio]

This is, potentially, the most real-world useful response to the OP. Trouble is, I may just be a dunderhead but I can't figure out where to go from that URL to find the actual text of the proposed new rule.

Help?

Regulations.gov

Some help reading through it.

?atf 51p? ?mental health? ?committed to a mental institution? ?adjudicated as a mental defective? | Prince Law Offices, P.C.

Adjudicated as a mental defective.​

(a) A determination, order, or similar finding by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:​

(1) Is a danger to self or others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.​

(b) The term shall include—​

(1) Those persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect, or lack of mental responsibility by a court in a criminal case;
(2) Those persons found guilty but mentally ill by a court in a criminal case in a jurisdiction that provides for such a finding; and
(3) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial by a court in a criminal case.​

(c) The term shall not include—​

(1) Any person adjudicated by a department or agency of the Federal Government, if any of the conditions of section 101(c)(1) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 apply; or
(2) Any person who has been adjudicated and subsequently received relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or under a program authorized by section 101(c)(2) or section 105(a) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

​

Committed to a mental institution.

(a) A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes an involuntary commitment to a mental institution for inpatient or outpatient treatment. The term includes an involuntary commitment for mental defectiveness, i.e., mental illness, to a mental institution. It also includes a commitment to a mental institution for other reasons, such as for drug use.
(b) The term does not include a person in a mental institution solely for observation or evaluation, a voluntary admission to a mental institution, or voluntary outpatient treatment. The term shall not include any person so committed by a department or agency of the Federal Government, if any of the conditions of section 101(c)(1) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 apply, or any person who has received relief from disabilities under a program authorized by section 101(c)(2) or section 105(a) of that Act or under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).​

 

[AustinN4]

Apparently not.

I think you might mean Apparently not enforced. Plus, it might be hard to enforce against unknown actors using screen names.

I was thinking more along the lines of the little Roger boy, you kown, the one that posted under his own name and got a pass anyway. His guns should have been taken away!

 

[benenglish]

Thank you, Matefrio. The links you provided were exceptionally useful.

I have no problem with most of the new proposed rule language. Some of it, though, is a complete deal-killer.

To wit (emphasis added):

In addition, the Department proposes amending the definition of “committed to a mental institution” to clarify that involuntary commitment to a mental institution includes both inpatient and outpatient treatment. ATF has received inquiries as to whether the definition applies to involuntary outpatient treatment. Although the term “committed to a mental institution” is not defined in 18 U.S.C. 922, the plain language of the statute incorporates both inpatient and outpatient commitments as the statute requires commitment to a mental institution, not commitment in a mental institution. See United States v. B.H., 466 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1147 (N.D. Iowa 2006). Mental institutions include mental health facilities and the auxiliary mental health services provided through those facilities.

What that means is that if you make a commitment to seek treatment for mental health services from almost any source (since "auxiliary mental health services" is a very broad umbrella), then you've been committed. Only the requirement that such commitment be "involuntary" is the saving grace but, as I'll address below, that's not as much protection as you might think.

Furthermore, ATF has received inquiries as to whether commitments of persons under the age of 18 are qualifying commitments to a mental institution. ATF is considering clarifying whether the term “committed to a mental institution” includes a commitment that occurred when the person was under the age of 18. ATF seeks comments on this option and solicits recommendations for other approaches.

This one seems a slam-dunk in a logical sense. Parents can involuntarily commit their minor children. No one should be denied their 2A rights for a lifetime because their parents made a mistake back during your teen years. And, yes, parents make mistakes. Doctors talk them into committing their kids to treatment programs all the time. I sincerely hope all comments on this section completely reject the notion of holding adults accountable for the actions of their parents.

Persons are not considered to have been “committed to a mental institution” as a result of a voluntary admission to a mental institution or a temporary admission for observation unless the temporary admission for observation turns into a qualifying commitment as a result of a formal commitment by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. As previously noted, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 provides that adjudications and commitments by a federal agency may not be reported to NICS when the adjudication or commitment is expunged, or when other criteria are met.

This is where things go to hell. Any temporary admission can be turned into a qualifying commitment. Generally, in Texas, when you voluntarily commit yourself for inpatient care (and sometimes outpatient care), you sign a contract that binds you to provide the institution with three days notice before you can sign yourself out of inpatient services or formally sever your outpatient relationship. If you attempt to sign yourself out, the institution (which is strongly motivated to keep you under care so they can continue to cash the checks from your insurance company) will immediately go to a judge and say "This patient is attempting to leave our care against the advice of their doctors. That attempt, by itself, is sufficient evidence that this patient is incapable of understanding their condition. Please convert their commitment from voluntary to involuntary status." These hearings are usually ex parte and judges sign such orders, in my opinion and experience, by rote, giving almost no thought to the matter.

Boom. Your 2A rights just went up in smoke.

Somebody please tell me my analysis is off the mark. As I read them, if these proposed rules go into effect no gun owner will dare risk seeking any mental health counseling of any kind.

No, I don't think that's an overstatement. I went for grief counseling after my father died. Under these proposed rules, if that social worker had wanted to kill my 2A rights, she could have found a way. While I think that should, in serious cases, be possible I think it should be very difficult. These proposed rules would make it too easy. I'd go so far as to say I'd like to see the rules tightened, not loosened, and that the requirement for adjudicating someone as mentally defective should not be considered in this context unless the adjudication took place in an adversarial setting.

OK, please, somebody tell me that my reading is too paranoid.