Skip to comments.When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill
Posted on 12/22/2013 7:14:46 PM PST by 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. Piatts 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
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.
mentally ill..i thought they were talking about liberals?
As far as I can tell, the mentally ill are allowed to exercise every other right. Why not?
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."
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.
Should the mentally ill be allowed to vote? Or teach?
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.
We let the mentally ill vote.
Why not let them carry guns?
Which “right” does more harm?
If they are unable to keep themselves from harming others, maybe they should not be put into the position where they can harm others.
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.
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.
****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.
Which is why they are pressing the issue with vigor all of a sudden.
“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.
Five-Point Action Plan for President Obama to Reduce Violence by the Mentally Ill
This makes too much sense to ever get a vote in Congress.
Well, I don't see how you can keep politicians from having guns, given that for some reason we let them write the laws!
Leftards think we should have greater background checks when we exercise our constitutional rights, but that its a crime to ask if someone is in our nation illegally.
....or legislate, and have the rest of us treat the product as if it were binding?
California recently added legislation to its Welfare and Institutions Code which requires "a licensed psychotherapist to which is communicated a serious threat of violence" to report that person to local law enforcement within 24 hours. The name of the person is put onto the Armed Prohibited Person list and the state DOJ goon squad goes out to that person's residence and demands that they turn over any guns they may have (for "safe keeping"). Does such a thing violate due process? I think it does since most of these raids are conducted without the benefit of a duly sworn search warrant; the goon squad tries to intimidate the "victim" into giving up his or her firearms voluntarily.
The law also includes those who have been institutionalized (either voluntary or involuntary) as a danger "to themselves or others", but this, at least should require a judicial hearing usually subsequent to a 5150 or 5250 Cal Penal Code charge.
MY fear of this is that even a visit to a psychiatrist, a diagnosis of depression, and a prescription for an antidepressant will soon qualify as "mental illness" for the purposes of gun confiscation.
It kind of reminds me of the Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago - a government that locked up political dissidents on trumped-up mental illness charges.
This country is moving rapidly toward a post-Constitutional America in which government is run by a single party and the Separation of Powers no longer exists. The Gulag can happen here.
I cannot get a straight answer from her about this which makes me think that this database will allow the Feds to violate HIPPA by tapping into this information. Think of it as NSA snooping broadened to include all medical records and carried out by HHS.
Carried to an extreme this allows some nameless bureaucrat to flag your name as mentally unstable because you visited a psychiatrist for a minor problem and determine that you should not have firearms - all done without the benefit of due process.
Every elected official needs to pass a background check and be tested for mental illness before they can be armed with power to limit, or better yet protect our rights.
“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.”
Worked to deal with the enemies of the old USSR government, and it work for the Democrats in America.
Or to provide ID when voting!
I thought they were talking about cops...
HIPPA is no barrier at all to the Federal government. Quite the opposite in fact.
HIPPA is mostly about standardized formats for electronic medical record exchanges between health care providers and insurance companies. The "privacy" features of HIPPA are a minor portion of that law - and Government agencies can override them.
What could be easier for Government employees to access than mandated records kept in a standardized format?
It is not particularly difficult for a Government agency to obtain a disclosure order from a compliant judge. Such actions can be kept secret too.
When the Federal Government bureaucrats want to harass anti-government opponents, they will have very little difficulty obtaining whatever adverse information may be present in medical records. "Privacy" in such matters vanished a long time ago.
The "last barrier" to anything is when people refuse to comply.
How about driving a car or truck? A 180Gr projectile is not as destructive as several tons of steel moving at 88 feet/second.
Not all who suffer from mental illness are dangerous (I know, I have a son with Schizoaffective disorder). But the few who are are the ones who get all the attention. Mental Illness is complex and we can’t just lump everyone together.
Mental illness is permanent in the same way a broken leg is permanent.
The local VAMC in Grand Jct. sent me to see their social worker in Mental Health —she was obsessed with two things that have Nothing to do with my Service Connected disabilities.#1 she wanted to know about my guns —and wanted me to “allow her” to remove all guns from our house.I reminded her we yet had a second Amendment. she insisted that “studies have shown that depression in homes with guns usually leads to suicide.” I reminded her we yet have a second amendment. The other obsession was just as lunatic she was insistent I relay my sexual fantasies.
She was far too fugugly and Stupid to play any part in my fantasies even if I were under the influence of drugs or alcohol I could not have covered her with our flag and done it for old Glory. But I was in her office so I politely reminded her I am a Happily married Christian male.But she remained ignorant of what I said— The moral it seems those who have rejected God and allowed the modern science of Psychology supplant Religion in their lives are drawn to death and endless discussions of aberrant sex.Seemingly as true in the New York piece as in my own experience.
Who makes the determination on what constitutes mentally ill?
if it is the feds, then it is a violation of the second amendment.....
Do liberals ever think of the consequences of their controlling policies? Which is better: for someone with depression or anxiety to receive mental health help when needed, or for that person (with an entirely appropriate touch of paranoia) to avoid seeking help because that would endanger his fundamental human right to keep and bear arms? The far left disgusts me.
So if the left gets their way, we will simply have millions of people avoid getting treatment so they can keep their Constitutional and God-given rights.
The left is truly mentally ill by pushing these policies.
4. If you want a firearm you MUST be mentally ill.
If we get to the point, like CA & NY, where SWAT teams descend on the "mentally ill" to take their firearms by force, then it is just an itty bitty step to declare all Tea Partiers "mentally ill." Then, declare all Christians "mentally ill."
You may laugh. But it has been done before.
The GCA 68 needs to be repealed. In its entirety. As does the National Firearms Acts of 1934.
Every bit of that trash is unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.