Mental Illness and Gun Ownership/Right to Carry

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
The Link: http://news.excite.com/news/r/991213/13/news-health-mental

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Mental Disorders Go Untreated, U.S. Report Finds

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As many as 20 percent of all Americans will have some sort of mental illness this year, but half of those with a serious disorder, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disease, will not get treatment, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher said on Monday.

A mental health report, presented at a news conference at the White House, finds that up to half the population will suffer from mental illness, from depression to obsessive-compulsive disorder, at some time in their lives.

Even though drugs are available to treat mental illnesses ranging from depression to schizophrenia, people fail to seek treatment because they do not know about the drugs, because they fear the stigma attached to mental illness or because they lack insurance to pay for it, Satcher said.

The report contains no surprising news, but gives the issues surrounding mental illness the backing of the No. 1 doctor in the United States.

It is the result of a survey of a number of studies on mental illness that have shown how widespread mental disorders are, and how few people get treatment for them.

"This report underscores the need to continue to strengthen our nation's mental health system and fight the stigma associated with mental illness so all Americans can get the treatment and services they need to live full and productive lives," Tipper Gore, wife of Vice President Al Gore, said in a statement.

Mrs. Gore, who once had depression and has taken up mental illness as a cause, was scheduled to release the report along with Satcher.[/quote]

There's more to the story, but that's the jist of it.

Assuming 250 million people in America, and ten percent will have a serious disorder and will not get treatment, we're talking about 25 million seriously mentally ill people that may not be getting any type of professional help. Should firearms be kept from these people? How? And what about the other 25 million who do get some sort of treatment? Should firearms be restricted to them?

Maybe someone knows the answer to this question: Does NICS "kick-out" names of people who have been treated for mental illness?" IOW, deny them purchase privileges? What about concealed carry background checks? Will a history of mental illness keep your name off the approved list?

I know that this may be a touchy subject, but it may be an important line to draw. Or, perhaps, it may be just as important to not draw that line.

Whaddaya think?

How about proposing to Tipper that "to live full and productive lives," some mentally ill folks may need to own and carry a gun for personal protection.


------------------
RKBA!

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
The problem as I see it is that restrictions based solely on the presence of mental illness are prior-restraint. If someone has not harmed another person, then s/he is not a demonstrable threat, therefore, s/he should have the same rights as a "sane" person.

I have a friend (yes, really, *not* me) who was involuntarily committed when he was 16. According to his parents, he had "anger issues." He never directed his anger towards anyone, but expressed it through painting and writing. Guess what happened to his "anger issues" during his imprisonment... that's right, he got worse, since he wasn't allowed access to his only means of release. He's since worked through his anger on his own.

Now he can't legally buy or own a gun. Is that fair?

I believe, and I know this is going to offend some people, that if someone is not a threat to *others,* regardless of whether he's been adjudged insane, there's no reason to deny him the means to defend himself.

------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
 
R

RickD

Moderator
"Expresses anger through painting"? That sounds like Vincent Van Gogh

Remember, prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act, there was no federal law addressing any of the restrictions we find so common now. No criminologist has demonstrated that the 68 GCA has reduced crime.

A mental health rule would allow anti-gun Psycholgists to revoke our RKBA. Remember how the Nazis and Soviets used such ploys to restrict the right of their subjects.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
That sounds like Vincent Van Gogh

Yeah, except that my buddy still has both of his ears.

Good point about the potential for abuse of this rule. That's what the Soviets did, after
all: "You don't believe in the infallibility of the government, you're obviously insane."

------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
"As many as 20 percent of all
Americans will have some sort of mental illness this year,
but half of those with a serious disorder, such as
schizophrenia or bipolar disease, will not get treatment"

I don't believe it one bit....
Define mental illness. Rick is right, another tool to destroy RKBA. So every year 1 in 5 people become mentally ill; then they make a study that shows, say, all schizophrenics or bipolar types had minor depression for a few years before the serious illness developed. Well, gee, let's prohibit anyone who has ever exhibited depression from owning a gun, because they could develop schizophrenia.

I have a better idea...force the gov't to stay the hell out of our lives and tend to what they should be doing

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
J

jimpeel

New member
The upshot is this:

If a person is a citizen he has all of the rights and protections of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a person is denied those rights and protections by legislation; where does the authority for that legislation lie?

Legislation does NOT trump the Supreme Law of the Land and there are prescribed ways to change the Supreme Law of the Land. Those prescribed ways DO NOT include legislated law.

Nowhere in the Supreme Law of the Land is there any provision for the denial of rights to any citizen outside of Treason. Nowhere in the Supreme Law of the Land is there a provision for legislated law to exceed the Supreme Law of the Land.

Where is it written that ANY citizen of the United States has any less enjoyment of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness than any other citizen? Where is the authority for the Congress to abrogate these rights or any authority for the regulation of criminal behavior outside of piracy, counterfeiting, or treason?

Too long have the people of America allowed the incremental encroachment on the legal system by those who have no authority to act in that behalf.

The problem is NOT possession and use of guns by the mentally unstable. The problem is possession and use of guns by the mentally unstable in the midst of a society that is stripped of their right to defend themselves against the possession and use of guns by the mentally unstable, that's all.

Those who disarm those mentioned above are the same ones who will continue to beat the drum for more disarmament of those mentioned above because of the abberant behavior of the others mentioned above. Vis-a-vis, those who wish to disarm us NEED those armed, mentally deficient people to achieve their end game because they need victims to exploit.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
K

Karanas

New member
I'm a little confused about something.
If the mental illness of a particular individual is not a matter of public record, i.e. he has never been incarcerated in any kind of public institution as a result of his disability, wouldn't his condition be privileged "doctor-patient" information?
In which case, how could it be legally accessed to make a determination of this sort?
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
Karanas...

There has been a fierce seesaw battle the last 3 yrs on medical records and privacy.
Just last month (sorry don't recall if its state or fed)it was stated that there is strong support in the gov't that the method of keeping medical records must be updated, streamlined,modernized and centralized. Someone doesn't like the fact that most doctors still write your history on paper and store it in those folders in his/her locked file cabinet. So, "in the interest of improved medical care" all your med/dental history should be digitized and stored on a central data base to keep it safe and obtainable in case of emergency.

In Calif (this has been law for years) a Dr must report to DMV any patient who has a problem of losing consciousness....that person's DL is either suspended or revoked until DMV is satisfied as to the outcome

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
K

Kframe

New member
This is a really grey area.
When the average Joe thinks about what a mentally ill person is, he thinks of a wild-eyed, frothing at the mouth, unpredictable, violent killer type.
There are some mental illnesses that result in bizarre and violent behavior, but not nearly all of them.
Strictly speaking attention deficit disorder, seasonal affective disorder, phobias, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, etc, are all mental illnesses. But, do they impair one's judgement and self-control over violent thoughts/urges?
Nope.
The only one (of the above) that has anything to do with self-control is ADD, and that is not so much a problem controlling unacceptable impulses as it is a problem maintaining task orientation and follow-through.
According to the #4473 (that damn yellow form) mental illness is only restrictive (on the gun purchase) if you we're committed against your will or deemed incompetent by the courts.
So, if on your own you checked into the funny farm for a week, that shouldn't matter as far as guns are concerned.

I do wonder though, if the actual legislation behind the 4473 specifies whether the commitment/adjudication is important if it occured while the individual was a minor.
There are lot's of parents that send their kid off to "treatment" when he/she get's a bit mouthy and/or out of hand.
Whether or not the kid really was "nuts" is irrelevant, if the 4473/legislation considers any commitment as permanent restriction on gun purchases, then that kid will never be able to buy a gun; even ten or twenty years later as a responsible sane adult.

I support restrictions upon persons suffering from schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder, major-depressive disorder, manic (AKA bipolar) disorder and any person who has demostrated a violent history or shows a specific likelihood that they will harm themselves or others.

I'm pretty sure that the laws are intentionally written in a vague manner, so that more people fall under a restrictive umbrella than the public thinks.

I dunno, maybe I'm just paranoid. :D
-Kframe
 
C

Christopher

New member
I have first hand knowledge in this arena. Here in illinois we have what is called a "Firearm Owner Identification Card" (Longhand for "Gun-owner registration). You must have a valid FOID in order to purchase guns or ammunition. In filling out the application, you basically answer all the questions on the 4473. I got my FOID when I was 13. When I was 15 my step-mother conned my father into thinking that I needed a vacation in the mental ward of the local hospital. Right after I got out, I received a letter from the Illinois state police stating that since I was a patient in a mental facility that my FOID was no longer valid. I consulted a friend of my father (who was, at the time, an assistant state's attorney) and he said that the wording of the prohibition was very important. The word "committed" refers to one who has been ordered by a court of law to undergo psychiatric treatment. I went voluntarily, so I was not a "prohibited person" under law. I then sent the state police (since it is they who handle all FOID applications) a letter stating that I voluntarily, and under no court order, underwent psychiatric treatment, and by law, was not a prohibited person. I also sent a copy of my discharge papers in which was stated that my official diagnosis at time of discharge was "Family communication difficulties". I received my FOID back in a matter of days, and I must logically conclude that they realized that I was not a prohibited person, and if they kept restricting my ability to engage in a perfectly legal activity they would be embroiled in a serious lawsuit. Since then I have purchased many firearms and have always answered "no" on the "are you an adjudicated mental deficient" question. I haven't had a problem with anything yet, although it did keep me out of joining the Navy :(. Don't laugh, I was gonna go into nuke school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top