Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumMental Illness and Gun Ownership
Discussion on another blog. Surprisingly, I am finding myself on the "pro gun" side on some of this. A woman wrote that someone with an eating disorder is considered mentally ill and if they have sought treatment that they will be denied gun ownership. Having worked with adjudicated mentally ill people, I feel someone who is anorexic is not a danger to society and should not be denied the right to own a gun. How losely do they define mental illness? If someone goes to see a marriage counselor are they mentally ill too? How about a grief counselor after the death of a loved one? Are they mentally ill because they are "depressed"?
If someone's "mental illness" does not alter their sense of reality, or pose a danger to society at large, I don't think they should be considered mentally ill for gun ownership. What is the law on this? Does is vary from state to state?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Go and look yourself. It is in the Great Debates section. I don't remember her screen name offhand, but you will find her thread. I have a paralegal degree, work with the mentally ill, and a daughter who is BiPolar, so I have an interest in this topic. I searched this, but cannot find an answer. My question is what is the LAW on this, and does it vary from state to state.
Response to HockeyMom (Original post)
Post removed
enough
(13,759 posts)However, there is one difficult situation that is fairly common. That is Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. A lot of families with Alzheimer's sufferers find that the issue of taking away the guns is just as difficult as that of taking away the car.
This is especially problematic because the middle stages of Alzheimer's are often characterized by extreme rage and paranoia, along with the inability to understand and accurately judge what's going on.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)takes mood stabilizers for BiPolar. I know that this disqualifers her because while the meds do work and nobody would know she has this, IF she, or others, don't take their meds, that's another ballgame. They can get violent towards themselves, and others.
However, eating disorders shouldn't be defined as a disqualifying mental illness. I wanted to know how losely this is defined?
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)In many states it's illegal to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated.
She should be able to have a gun, but it should be a crime if she is ever in possession of it while being off her meds.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)
One can only be denied the exercise of a civil right by due process. So marriage counciling would not necessarily go before a judge while counciling ordered by the court because of domestic violence would.
Undereating because of serious self esteem issues is not immediately self destructive while starving one's self to death would be.
That's why we need the courts, guided by mental health professionals and involved friends, families, and communities to make it work
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)You would have to be adjucicated which would involve testimony by mental health professionals. I didn't think simply going to see a mental health professional or voluntarily checking yourself in a hospital for evaulation would be enouigh. That is what was the topic of that other site.
SteveW
(754 posts)
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)They excuse marriage counseling, but if you've been under care or prescribed any medications anytime in your life, you have to state such on the permit application.
But you can be a sodden alcoholic, and as long as you haven't been popped more than once for PI, hey, how much you drink is your own business.
I had to get a letter from my therapist stating I'm no danger to society or myself, and I'm not. I just have a brain chemical problem.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)And to my mind, entirely unfair. Brain chemical imbalance hardly constitutes mental incompetence. And I can speak from experience.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)And it doesn't distinguish between mental illness.
On one hand I think you are correct that not all mental illness presents a danger to self or others (especially after treatment and stabilization), but on the other hand having to be forced to received psychological/psychiatric treatment shows that the person is not dealing with reality well. Or they would have sought treatment on their own.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)or to themselves, or was incompetent to manage their affairs.
If it was mere declaration of some vague "mental illness", we'd probably all be locked up for our own good by some well-intentioned authoritarian.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Different states have different rules, but being dangerous and incompetent are often the key issues in making the case for commitment.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...and probably most state's laws bind the FFLs to refuse sales to those who fail NICS or state checks.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - (10th amendment)
The states pass laws as to sales to or between private citizens. The feds pass laws related to interstate commerce. A federal law prohibiting an FFL from selling to someone with a mental illness binds the dealer. Private sellers are generally bound by state laws prohibiting the same.
federal firearms laws
Paladin
(32,354 posts)...don't cop an attitude if you get accused of wanting everybody to have a gun. The same goes for you perennial supporters of guns for the blind and guns for convicted felons (you know who you are)......
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)For example? It has been a federal crime for a felon to possess a gun since 1938. Who here suggested we repeal it?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Defining mental illness? You would probably define anyone suffering from the most minor problem as mentally ill thus preventing them from ever owning a gun.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...problems they would characterize as mental. There's probably a few here that would name you as their mental problem. 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If a judge rules that you are not mentally competent and a danger to yourself and others, you are a prohibited person.
If you commit yourself, no problem.
Seeking help on your own, no problem. your state may vary.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)At no small expense, the ATF maintains a website that will answer most of your questions.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html
"who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;"
That means someone who a judge has classified as an "idiot, imbecile, or moron" as those terms have specific legal meanings or some who has been committed to an asylum or other institution for the insane. Remember, the law was enacted in 1968. Back then families with someone, say like, Jared Loughener, would have gone to the judge and had him put away in state hospital.
One of the places where the laws get sticky are when a person seeks mental health care on his own. When a person is committed against their will by a judge and court order, that result is a judicial record and public. It would normally be available in the FBI database if the state is on the ball. If a person seeks treatment for mental illness on their own now we have to deal with HIPPA and medical privacy laws. In that case the state may actually be prohibited from revealing those records.
Some, such as Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, have proposed that VA and military health records be searched and any combat veteran who has been seen for PTSD be prohibited. That proposal is particularly pernicious as the DoD has been doing mandatory screenings on all personnel returning from deployments for several years now. The most generous reading of her proposal is that all combat veterans need to be prohibited from owning personal firearms.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The two federal prohibitions for firearm ownership regarding mental health are:
Adjudicated mentally incompetent
or
Involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
It does not matter what mental issue was the root cause of these two events.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I think that seeing a grief counseler or being anorexic doesn't disqualify you from gun ownership, even in Chicago or NYC.
I could be wrong about the law in extreme anti-gun places, but I agree with you on policy preference.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Is one who walks into a public park, restaurant, church, etc., with a gun or two strapped to their body really thinking rationally? Same question related to those stocking up on tactical weapons, hi-cap mags and other assorted "assault" accessories?
I will say this -- I would be concerned if someone I cared about with anorexia, depression, etc., wants to buy a gun. I'd have the same concern if they started growing hemlock.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I suspect "gun nut" is right next to "women that want an education" "women that want to vote", and "gay people that want
to get married"....
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)you would be doing society a favor by not packing in public. Guns may be a pitiful plight to you, but your gun plight is no where near comparable to women's rights, gay rights or any other human minority's rights in history. In fact, guns have been one of the main ways minority's rights have been discriminated against.
We need to re-think the love of guns in modern society.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)What mental condition (having been diagnosed by a mental health professional) does your wharrgarble relate to? And who has ever been adjudicated mentally ill given that diagnosis?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And . . . . . . . what government need to do to avoid having to treat all these folks obsessed with them.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Thought so.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's like... every goddamn thread, regardless of the topic.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I can't live in that sort of suspense.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)No wonder I got my copy so cheap, it's not in there.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)In any other forum, blatently accusing your opponents of mental illness would be a banable offense. Yet you continue to roam freely. One wonders why.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)One of the symptoms is an irrational obsession over the idea that gun owners are mentally ill and the NRA is behind ownership increases.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)Sorry, I don't connect the words "strap" and "on" with firearms.
Dildos, yes. Guns, no.
oh-oh-oh, I get it! You think we're all like Yosemite Sam, strappin' on our shootin' irons, checking that our spurs jingle, then checkin' our wide stance in the mirror before we greet the day....
Wrong-oh!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"or two strapped to their body really thinking rationally?"
Yes.
Next question.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...is it accurate to conclude that you believe people should be forced to put the needs of society above their own? In other words, each of us should be subservient to the state?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In this case, society should come before your poor, pitiful gun plight.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)You're the one saying my right to be armed should be restricted for the public good. Justify your position.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...should the benefit of society justify legislation over the rights of individuals.
This country was founded in favor of those ideals. Anyone with contrary ideas needs a bit of re-education.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Sadly, there are those here who believe the collective is more important than the rights of the individual.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...regardless of what they call themselves, they are have not the spirit of real Americans nor do they believe in the basic rights and liberties of a sovereign individual. (May posterity forget that they were our countrymen. Paraphrasing S. Adams)
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)If submission to the state is required to be considered a good citizen, then by all means, call me a radical.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)This country was founded by slave owners, men who denied women the vote, and who killed Native Americans for their land. I think times have changed. Unfortunately, some folks can't keep up. So, who really needs the education?
Actually, we shouldn't need laws regarding guns, and wouldn't if people weren't hell bent on carrying them everywhere and arming up in a manner that is a threat to a free society.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)You really want to go by that? Lets see, it was ALSO founded by non-slave owners, people who were overthrowing their legitimate government, criminals of all stripes, blacks, whites, and native Americans. Incidentally they also all breathed air, drank water and ate food. Shall we dismiss all those things as being tainted as well?
Women were not denied the vote either. They just had to own property - just like men.
Yes they killed Indians for their land. So what? That's how things were (and are) done. Typically when an indigenous people is where you want to be, they don't usually leave because you ask nicely.
Some of the specifics have changed, but people by and large have not. If you want the Constitution modified to remove the right to keep and bear arms, you are free to start your campaign now. You wont get anywhere, but good luck. Simply pretending it does not exist is the wrong way to go about it. Seems you're the one who "can't keep up".
Truth is, we really DON'T need laws regarding guns. The gun isn't the problem. The criminal is. Criminal acts are already illegal. All gun control laws do is make it harder for those who wouldn't break the law to begin with to comply with new laws.
Last and certainly not least, this nation was founded on the principals of individual liberty. If you don't like it, leave. Seriously. GTFO.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Still good for a laugh though 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)slave owners were scared shitless of the thought of a free black or working class white with a gun.
Are you against the rest of the BoRs too?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...you might think differently than you do.
You would dare to impugn this country based on its founders mistakes?
Would you question the emancipation proclamation if you found Lincoln was against letting his wife vote?
The ideas you seem to love would characterize you as one who wants a host and a nanny.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Over the last 15 or so years. By the passage of CHL laws.
That said, what makes you the decider of societys mores?
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'll post some of my favorite videos of gunners showing their fast draw techniques, lethal weapons of choice, etc., later. Society needs to realize what gun proliferators and the "gun culture" is promoting.
Hoyt
Unarmed and safe while walking on streets of large city.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...the NRA has the kind of pull you want to believe they have?
49 states Hoyt - 49. If the NRA had the influence you're implying, they would have accomplished a LOT more than that.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...if the NRA had the kind of influence he believes they do, the term "the President's Office" would refer to a building in Fairfax rather than DC.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It seems moral entrepeneurship never completely out of style...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And 'pollution' in this context is pure idiocy. Try again.
spin
(17,493 posts)into a public park, restaurant or a church. Would you prefer that I leave my handgun in my car where it could be stolen?
Are you so naive that you believe that parks are crime free or that God prevents church shootings? Have you had your head buried in the sand for the last several decades and never heard of the Luby's cafeteria massacre and other shootings that have occurred in restaurants?
Luby's massacre
The Luby's massacre was a mass murder that took place on October 16, 1991, in Killeen, Texas, United States when George Hennard ″Jo Jo" [1] drove his pickup truck into a Luby's cafeteria and shot 23 people to death while wounding another 20, subsequently committing suicide by shooting himself. It was the deadliest shooting rampage in American history until the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
***snip***
Responding to the massacre,[5] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. To qualify for a license, one must be free-and-clear of crimes, attend a minimum 10-hour class taught by a state-certified instructor, pass a 50-question test, show proficiency in a 50-round shooting test, and pass two background tests, one shallow and one deep. The license costs $240 to $290, depending on the added instructor's fee.
The law had been campaigned for by Dr. Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. She later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person due to the fact that it could have cost her chiropractic license.[6] She testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.[7] The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush.[8]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre
Take a few minutes and watch Dr. Suzanna Hupp's Testimony before Congress on the Luby's massacre. Then you can try once more to convince me that carrying my licensed concealed weapon into a restaurant is irrational.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)Dr. Hupp has a lot more balls than this hoyt character.
spin
(17,493 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You afraid some 5 year old kid might attack you.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...is dwarfed only by your disdain for their liberty.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And no, you never know when and where someone might attempt a felony. Someone could walk into a chuck-e-cheese and start shooting up the place. I don't intend to try hiding in the ball pit.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Maybe, you are one who will never make a mistake with your gun. Then, again, maybe you will. Others certainly will because we have to poor about your poor, pitiful gun plight.
I'd rather not worry about people who actually practice shooting "people" and whether they've really got the sense to use a gun when it comes down to it. I think most of you are over confident. And I think that each new gun toter is a little more mistake prone -- on average, not necessarily everyone. But, gunners just keep promoting more guns, and in more places.
I think most people feel the same way, especially when they see what the majority of gunners are like when they are practicing in front of a mirror. Later, I'll post the link to my favorite video of a supposedly legal gun toter showing how much he has practiced his quick draw to shoot someone, armed or not, in a public areas.
Hoyt
Living in a big city without a gun in my waistband and feeling perfectly safe . . . . . . and happy.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)"I think most people feel the same way, especially when they see what the majority of gunners are like when they are practicing in front of a mirror."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You just said you feel perfectly safe, even though I have a gun right now, so I think that says all there needs to be said about your appreciation of danger. You don't actually have any at all.
I am glad you feel safe.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I can imagine mental illness would soon be defined as anyone seeking to buy a firearm for self defense. After all if you're that paranoid you must be sick in the head right?
spin
(17,493 posts)Catch-22
Catch-22 is a satirical, historical novel by the American author Joseph Heller. He began writing it in 1953, and the novel was first published in 1961. It is set during World War II in 1943[2] and is frequently cited as one of the great literary works of the twentieth century.[3] It has a distinctive non-chronological style where events are described from different characters' points of view and out of sequence so that the time line develops along with the plot.
The novel follows Captain John Yossarian, a U.S. Army Air Forces B-25 bombardier, and a number of other characters. Most events occur while the Airmen of the fictional 256th squadron are based on the island of Pianosa, in the Mediterranean Sea west of Italy.
Among other things, Catch-22 is a general critique of bureaucratic operation and reasoning. Resulting from its specific use in the book, the phrase "Catch-22" is common idiomatic usage meaning "a no-win situation" or "a double bind" of any type. Within the book, "Catch-22" is a military rule, the self-contradictory circular logic that, for example, prevents anyone from avoiding combat missions. In Heller's own words:
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. (p. 46, ch. 5)...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22
edited to add link