When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill

New York Times ^ | December 21, 2013 | MICHAEL LUO and MIKE McINTIRE

[Seizethecarp]

In Washington, discussion of new mental health restrictions was conspicuously absent from the federal gun control debate.

What remains is the uncertain legal territory at the intersection of guns and mental illness. Examining it is difficult, because of privacy laws governing mental health and the limited availability of information on firearm ownership. But The New York Times obtained court and police records from more than 1,000 cases around the country in which guns were seized in mental-health-related episodes.

A systematic review of these cases — from cities and counties in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee — underscores how easy it is for people with serious mental health problems to have guns.

Among them was Ryan Piatt, an Afghanistan veteran with a history of treatment for depression, anxiety and paranoia. The police had descended on Mr. Piatt’s workplace in November 2011, after mental health workers at the veterans hospital in Tampa reported that he had made intimations of violence to his psychiatrist and had tried to renounce his citizenship, mailing his Social Security card, birth certificate and other documents to a judge. Officers confiscated two guns from his car and one more from his toolbox; he got them back less than a year later.

[Seizethecarp]

The title of this NY Times article seems to me to falsely imply that people who are known to be actively psychotic and/or an imminent threat to themselves or others are allowed to keep their guns.

The issue actually discussed in the article seems to be how long firearms should be taken from people deemed to be legally dangerous and how the length of time varies from state to state.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Everybody in the TEA party is mentally ill, right NYT?

[max americana]

mentally ill..i thought they were talking about liberals?

[RichInOC]

As far as I can tell, the mentally ill are allowed to exercise every other right. Why not?

[darkwing104]

This has the potential to be misused by power hungry progressives. or Dianne Feinstein. I don't know who is worse

[Alberta's Child]

The bigger issue is this:

How can anyone tell you with a straight face that deranged people aren't allowed to own guns if Federal law (HIPAA) is aimed at ensuring the confidentiality of medical records?

This is the question nobody in the gun control crowd even attempts to answer in any discussion about the issue of "background checks."

[theneanderthal]

Nailed it in one. Mental illness as defined by a “22yo deputy “or an “estranged ex gf or wife.” My whole familily is nuts, and loving, and gathering for Christmas.

[DBrow]

Should the mentally ill be allowed to vote? Or teach?

[a fool in paradise]

When the right to drive a car into a crowd includes the mentally ill.

When the right to fly on an airplane unescorted includes the mentally ill.

When the right to vote includes the mentally ill.

It’s an easy game to play if you try it.]

LOCK UP THE CRIMINALLY INSANE ALREADY. If they cannot be held accountable for their actions, then they require 24 guardianship. NOTHING LESS.

[SkyPilot]

If you agree with Phil Robertson that homosexuality is a sin and the Bible is true, then our media says you are mentally ill and should not own firearms. The Soviet Union perfected this technique - political troublemakers, Christians, and free thinking intellectuals were declared mentally ill and locked away into horror chambers.

[Tzimisce]

We let the mentally ill vote.

Why not let them carry guns?

Which “right” does more harm?

[GeronL]

If they are unable to keep themselves from harming others, maybe they should not be put into the position where they can harm others.

[IndispensableDestiny]

Is it a problem of nuts getting guns, or nuts not being adjudicated as such? When the “prohibited person” was described by the Gun Control Act of 1968, society was more likely to adjudicate somebody “as a mental defective.” These days, society recoils from the term.

[golux]

1. According to liberals, all Conservatives are “mentally ill.”

2. Liberals believe the “mentally ill” should be disarmed.

3. You are “mentally ill” to disagree.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****In Washington, discussion of new mental health restrictions was conspicuously absent from the federal gun control debate. ****

That problem was solved back in 1968!

“Today we begin to disarm the criminal and the careless and the insane. All of our people who are deeply concerned in this country about law and order should hail this day.”

- Lyndon Johnson when he signed the 1968 GCA into law.

[SecondAmendment]

The "CoastalCommieLibs"™ are just taking another page from the old CCCP playbook, claiming all political opponents to be mentally ill.

Which is why they are pressing the issue with vigor all of a sudden.

[Marcella]

“LOCK UP THE CRIMINALLY INSANE ALREADY. If they cannot be held accountable for their actions, then they require 24 guardianship. NOTHING LESS.”

Hussein would write an executive order that every conservative/tea party person/registered Republican is criminally insane and we all get locked up. It is that definition of insane that Hussein would make.

[Robert357]

Note the number of states for which WA State has no ccl license reciprocity and that most have little or no mental health checking. The lack of mental health checking in firearms sales and ccl is a big deal. Oh, I mean serious mental health issues not depression,but potential for suicide or violence.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/concealedweapons/reciprocity.aspx#.Urez__s355c

[TurboZamboni]

Five-Point Action Plan for President Obama to Reduce Violence by the Mentally Ill

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/335767

This makes too much sense to ever get a vote in Congress.

[Still Thinking]

When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill

Well, I don't see how you can keep politicians from having guns, given that for some reason we let them write the laws!