Expanding NICS mental disqualifications

[Atypical Liberal]

I think we should consider expanding NICS disqualification to anyone who is prescribed anti-depressants or anti-psychotic medication.

Any prescription of such a drug should trigger an automatic entry into the NICS list of prohibited persons.

[jody]

1. Agree and not just one right but all civil rights. The moment a person fills a prescription for a

drug on the list they should be treated just like a convicted felon and lose all their civil rights.

[Atypical Liberal]

3. OK. n/t

[gejohnston]

2. for life?

or how would it operate? I doubt the FBI would deal with the flood of records. Legal records associate your name with SSN, DL, and place of birth to identify that specific individual. To require an MD to do that would conflict with privacy laws. I understand the sentiment, just have to look at the practical considerations. Besides, it's the ones not taking their meds I would be concerned about.
That said, I'm not a fan of stigmatizing and treating innocent people like criminals. That could very well be the root of the problem, fear of stigma of preventing people seeking help.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Until there is some kind of permanent cure.

Besides, it's the ones not taking their meds I would be concerned about.

Except you can't be sure they will keep taking them. I think it's a great place to start for weeding out unstable people who shouldn't have guns.

Maybe if someday medical technology progresses to where we can have permanent cures to these problems you can get your rights back.

[Glaug-Eldare]

24. Yep, good goin'.

Seek treatment -> Become felon-equivalent. How far are you willing to go with this? It's people like you that have made me swear to myself to never, ever see a psychiatrist for any reason. I am not willing to end up on your list. How else do you want to automatically punish people for seeking medical treatment?

How would you punish HIV patients? How would you punish inoperable cancer patients? Gee whiz, they're gonna die anyway, who KNOWS what acts of senseless violence they might commit! Lock the fuckers up! Tattoo their foreheads!

[Atypical Liberal]

39. I'm only interested in stopping the nut jobs who are destroying the right to keep and bear arms.

Every time one of these shootings happens it comes out that the shooter was an obvious nutter, and often on medication.

It's time to bar these people from owning guns. They are fucking it up for everyone else.

How would you punish HIV patients? How would you punish inoperable cancer patients? Gee whiz, they're gonna die anyway, who KNOWS what acts of senseless violence they might commit! Lock the fuckers up! Tattoo their foreheads!

This has nothing to do with people who are physically sick, it's about people who are mentally sick.

[Glaug-Eldare]

43. Your solution is horrifically broad

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:23 AM - Edit history (1)

and seems to come from the belief that the mentally ill aren't quite human beings, deserving of rights, dignity, and due process. This is not an open, obvious demographic to be pushed around and driven like cattle. Look at this from the perspective of your victims: There is a huge portion of the population which sees no problem whatsoever with removing your right to bear arms without knowing anything at all about you, your condition, its severity, your treatment, or history. It sees no problem with requiring that you submit to humiliating blanket disclosures, placing you on a blacklist for seeing a medical professional, and setting you aside for further punishment. It believes that your Constitutional rights should hinge on the basis of the mere presence of a medical condition or particular treatment option, regardless of your risk for or history of violence. It believes that once identified, you will never, ever be fit to enjoy the full benefits of citizenship again.

Why the HELL would you trust the legislature, the police, psychiatrists, or anybody who might betray you to them? Maybe you can deal with it yourself, and they'll never have to know. You can be a real person like everybody else, and not a half-person.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. And who is to blame for that?

There is a huge portion of the population which sees no problem whatsoever with removing your right to bear arms without knowing anything at all about you, your condition, its severity, your treatment, or history.

And we can blame yet another mentally sick individual for that, can't we.

No, sorry, it's time to cut loose some baggage.

The anti-gunners were right. We should have done it ourselves. Now it will be done for us.

[Glaug-Eldare]

45. The solution is to drive sick people into hiding?

The mentally ill are not "baggage." They are human beings, and equal in dignity.

[gejohnston]

47. how so?

he did not buy it, he murdered someone and stole theirs. The guy in Portland stole his. Shit, the guy in Port Author Australia didn't even legally obtain his. Any even like this causes any thinking person to think about his or her position, I get that, but think about the unintended consequences. Besides abuse of authority, people will not get treated. That would cause more problems. One of them steals a machine gun from a police armory, or another brain tumored Charles Whitman comes along and the the antis would be complaining about deer rifles and revolvers.

So what's next, not let them vote either? Some on the right wants to take that right away from people on food stamps. Sorry, due process is an absolute. If that means ten guilty go free to keep an innocent from going to prison, those are the breaks.

Your thread stopped being about guns, and became about supporting arbitrary and subjective decisions and becoming a society that erodes due process of law and human dignity more than it already has. That is absolutely unacceptable to me.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. Put them all in camps.

That will ensure the preservation of American liberty.

[Crunchy Frog]

50. Are you so certain that you're not one of "them"?

Maybe you yourself are part of the "baggage" that needs to be cut loose. The quality of your postings would certainly suggest that as a possibility. Just because you've never sought treatment doesn't mean you don't need it.

[gejohnston]

51. introspection after a tragic even does that

This is how he is expressing it.

[Eleanors38]

72. I get your drift, but there are some real concerns here:

I recently had a discussion with a psychologist who wanted a panel to decide who should own a gun; i.e., you went through HER panel before you applied for a weapon. Not once would she address the question or any concerns about due process.

I am leery of pro forma disqualifications based on prescription of the sometimes witch's brew of psycho-tropics and other drugs, or the "diseases" they attach to. The only way I could see this working is when persons with standing (family members?) complain to legal authority about someone's mental competency, then having a judicial hearing to see if treatment is warranted and disqualification ruled on.

It strikes me as a difficult task if the individual in question is competent not to have acquired a felony record, enough so to disqualify firearm ownership in the first place.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. I've been on antidepressants.

I'm pretty confident that I'm a good deal less dangerous than you'll ever be. I'm not some wacko gun nut who feels some kind of twisted need to surround myself with weapons of mass murder, while you evidently are, and you're the one who feels threatened by me.

[Democracyinkind]

70. All I have to go on is the your posts on DU.

I'd fear him long before I'd ever consider you a threat to anyone.

Excellent comeback!

[holdencaufield]

4. You can use a subjective criteria ...

... to deny someone a privilege ... but not to deny a citizen his right.

Let's face it, the founders of the Constitution knew what they were doing.

[Atypical Liberal]

6. Gun ownership is going to become a privilege.

And I don't think I care anymore.

[holdencaufield]

7. Not unless the Constitution is amended ...

... and with gun control legislation waning in this country on a state level, that's not going to happen.

[jody]

8. No amendment can take away a right that preexists our Constitution and does not depend on it. nt

[holdencaufield]

9. Technically-speaking ...

... an amendment can be passed that repeals or significantly alters a previous provision -- the way the 21st amendment repealed the 18th.

But, it won't happen in our lifetime -- no matter how much chest-thumping and hair-ripping there is from the prohibitionist crowd.

[jody]

10. That can happen only under a totalitarian government. Rights obligate government to protect the

minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.

[holdencaufield]

12. I don't disagree with that ...

... it would be a totalitarian act. But, it has happened before -- the 18th amendment was passed because of intensive pressure from a demonstrably small, but very loud minority of people who had appointed themselves the "moral guardians" of America.

Do you see any difference at all between that kind of thinking by alcohol prohibitionists and gun prohibitionist? They both believe in the absolute morality of their cause and that the rights of others need to be sacrificed to their morality.

[jody]

14. Good point. Can't recall reading that drinking alcohol was viewed as a preexisting right, have you?

Anyway, both sides of the RKBA issue are frothing at the mouth mad to the point rational debate cannot occur.

IMO any real solutions to prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy require some sort of compromise and I don't see how that can happen when two parties are brain-dead mad at each other.

[holdencaufield]

15. Not written, no

However, many of the founders of America and the framers of the Constitution were avid drinkers -- George Washington had his own distillery. Perhaps they never envisioned an America insane enough to attempt to ban alcohol.

[jody]

16. "avid drinkers" shame on you. Made me almost choke on a martini olive. nt

[holdencaufield]

18. Don Draper -- Model American

(yes, I know, not a martini, but I have limited access to stock footage)

[tortoise1956]

57. What a vicious canard!

I had to swill a tumbler of Maker's Mark to calm down...

[jody]

60. It's 4 o'clock somewhere so I'll drink to that!

[Eleanors38]

66. And soon thereafter, 4:20!

[jody]

67. Are you going to join me? Get away from all this name-calling and seriously discuss whether there is

an afterlife?

[Eleanors38]

68. The discussion is a strong one. Requiring much preparation.

Where is the group for that?

[holdencaufield]

19. You won't see any either ...

... (good solutions I mean).

Because Sandy Hook wasn't a failing of the country's gun regulations -- it was a failing of this country's mental health system. But, that won't stop prohibitionists from using the tragedy for their political ends.

[jody]

20. Agree and so sad. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

13. Well Regulated Militia and all.....

....

[Clames]

25. I'm part of the militia...

...and I'm fairly well regulated.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. What makes you part of the Militia?

[Glaug-Eldare]

27. Most people (men, anyway) are

by virtue of both federal and state statutes defining the unorganized militia, to be called up in crisis.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. Take That Position

....we can well regulated the militia.

[Glaug-Eldare]

33. I don't believe in the theory of a limiting prefatory clause,

but the present militia statutes dovetail with it as an explanatory clause. Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of a law you believe would violate the 2nd Amendment as you read it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. Ok

A bill to ban the manufacturing of bullets would be one.

[hack89]

52. Unconstitutional per Heller. nt

[Glaug-Eldare]

53. That's what fightthegoodfightnow is saying --

I asked for an example of a prohibited law, and he gave me one.

[hack89]

54. Got it. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. I know.

That's why I referenced it..

[hack89]

56. I figured that out after the fact. Sorry. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

59. No problem

I don't think it was Heller though. I think it was a different case. Anyway, no problem.

[Clames]

30. State and Federal statutes.

You might want to read up on some of those when you have a minute. You keep asking questions that only take 2 minutes with Google to answer for yourself.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. Oh I Know

Just curious how you defined.

LOL.

[oldhippie]

37. Title 10 US Code Sec 311(a) ......

Read it and weep. Google is your friend.

You're even likely part of the militia.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. Do you know how many mental facilities have been closed due to defunding? Do you know how

swamped are our ERs with mental health issues? Do you know how hard it is to have someone committed and how easy it is for them to sign themselves out in 72 hours? Do you know how hard it is to get someone declared incompetent and adjucated?

It is fucking HARD>>>>>

OBAMA: NOW IS YOUR CHANCE!!! PUSH THROUGH A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PROGRAM. ENACT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR MENTALLY ILL.

SHOW THAT YOU CARE ABOUT THOSE OF OUR NATION WHO ARE HOMELESS AND WITHOUT HOPE.

CHANGE THEIR LIVES FOR THE BETTER. GET THEM THE HELP AND MEDICATION THAT THEY NEED TO SHUT OFF THE VOICES IN THEIR HEADS.

ONSET OF SCHIZOPHRENIA IN OUR YOUNG PEOPLE MANIFESTS AT ABOUT THE AGE OF NINETEEN!!!!!!

THEY ARE SCREAMING FOR HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HELP US HELP THEM.

People: if nothing else please see two movies ---

A Beautiful Mind
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268978/
Biopic of the famed mathematician John Nash and his lifelong struggles with his mental health. Nash enrolled as a graduate student at Princeton in 1948 and almost immediately stood out as an odd duck. He devoted himself to finding something unique, a mathematical theorem that would be completely original. He kept to himself for the most part and while he went out for drinks with other students, he spends a lot of time with his roommate, Charles, who eventually becomes his best friend. John is soon a professor at MIT where he meets and eventually married a graduate student, Alicia. Over time however John begins to lose his grip on reality, eventually being institutionalized diagnosed with schizophrenia. As the depths of his imaginary world are revealed, Nash withdraws from society and it's not until the 1970s that he makes his first foray back into the world of academics, gradually returning to research and teaching. In 1994, John Nash was awarded the Nobel prize in Economics.

and

We Need To Talk About Kevin
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242460/
Eva Khatchadourian is trying to piece together her life following the "incident". Once a successful travel writer, she is forced to take whatever job comes her way, which of late is as a clerk in a travel agency. She lives a solitary life as people who know about her situation openly shun her, even to the point of violent actions toward her. She, in turn, fosters that solitary life because of the incident, the aftermath of which has turned her into a meek and scared woman. That incident involved her son Kevin Khatchadourian, who is now approaching his eighteenth birthday. Eva and Kevin have always had a troubled relationship, even when he was an infant. Whatever troubles he saw, Franklin, Eva's complacent husband, just attributed it to Kevin being a typical boy. The incident may be seen by both Kevin and Eva as his ultimate act in defiance against his mother.

Thank you.

[jody]

17. Agree and I don't believe the situation will get better any time soon. Worst, we keep sending my

buddies in harms way only to see them come back home with unbelievable horrors and mental problems.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. yes. PTSD must be addressed immediately. I really hope Obama comes through for our hurting people.

I don't know how much louder they have to scream for attention!!!!!!!!!!!

[LibertyFox]

21. Welp, I'm out then.

I was prescribed Prozac in middle school/high school for depression.

I'm 29 now, own quite a few guns and have never shot a living thing, nor desire to.

But because I had a severe bout of teenage angst suddenly I'd be denied a civil right?

No thanks.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. No. I don't think any laws should be made of that nature.

[HockeyMom]

29. Maybe people who DON'T want to own guns,

or be part of that mythical Militia, need to be declared mentally incompetent? How about deported????

[rrneck]

32. Big pharma will never let it happen.

The minute people find out about it they'll stop using the meds. Plus, tons of people are prescribed anti depressents who are simply not a danger to anyone. I don't know about anti psychotics, but I'm betting they're prescribed to a lot of people who would pose no danger.

[fkrizanek]

35. Medications and guns

Too late, I already have the guns, also rage anger issues. You are going to remove my rights based on what? Shall we remove your right to food because you are on lipitor?? Go ahead take 200 million weapons away from their owners based upon they have a prescription for one of the most prescribed drugs in the US.

[ComplimentarySwine]

36. If you want me to abruptly stop taking my meds

telling me that I can no longer legally own guns because I'm on them seems like a pretty good way to do so. Think it through.

Would you rather have medicated mentally ill people owning guns, or UNmedicated mentally ill people owning guns? Think it through.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. How about neither one?

Would you rather have medicated mentally ill people owning guns, or UNmedicated mentally ill people owning guns? Think it through.

How about neither one?

[bobclark86]

41. So a girl with anorexia nervosa (a mental disorder) shouldn't have guns? N/T

[ComplimentarySwine]

42. Sounds difficult to enforce n/t

[X_Digger]

46. No. Just no.

1) Due process

2) Will be counter-productive

[tortoise1956]

58. I'm glad you're trying to present ways to fix this, BUT

The main problem with this post is that in order to protect one right (RKBA), you're willing to give up other rights (privacy and due process, to name a couple).

I freely admit that I don't have the answer. I wish I did. All I know is that treating symptoms don't usually cure the disease.

[Angleae]

61. Antidepressants are sometimes prescribed for conditions other than depression

Things such as obsessive compulsive disorder or bulimia, neither should disqualify someone from owning firearms.

[Glaug-Eldare]

62. I wonder how the reactions would look

if people were proposing that any diagnosis or treatment for physical illness (HIV, tuberculosis, flu, broken bone, heart disease, common cold, etc.) disqualified you from attending a demonstration or using public transportation or common carriers, unless you get a notarized letter from a licensed physician stating that "X's illness, namely, genital herpes, does not reasonably endanger public health." Naturally, the physician is liable if somebody gets sick because of you, and you must present this statement whenever attempting to get on a bus.

[roninjedi]

63. I've been on SSRIs for over a decade

I've also had access to guns during that time. I've never shot anyone nor do I ever intend to. Would you have my door kicked in and my gun forcibly taken away because I had the sense to seek treatment?

[kudzu22]

64. Couple of problems with that

I agree that NICS needs to be improved, but --

1. NICS doesn't go into your house and remove guns you already have, and
2. If getting treatment for depression means you give up your guns for life, some people may choose not to seek treatment.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. I think you are another NRA talking point troll tossed out of DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=264598&sub=trans

Another gungeoneer gone. Time for the gungeon to police its own problems instead of making the rest of DU do it for you.

[Ikonoklast]

69. Lots more in this thread agreeing with the OP.

It's like agreeing with a racist.

[Eleanors38]

73. Really? Who? I do see the thread-bare "racist" burp.

[Glaug-Eldare]

71. How about this counterproposal?

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree that the current scheme doesn't provide enough opportunity to put dangerous people on the NICS prohibited list, but the OP's suggestion is far too broad, and discourages people from seeking treatment they need. I made this suggestion in Denninmi's GD thread, and I figure I might as well make it here and see what you think:

If a psychiatric doctor believes that a person is unfit for gun ownership by reason of mental illness, I believe he should be able to request that a judge or panel place a disqualifying order on them. This might be the result of a consensual decision within a voluntary treatment program, it could be done following an arrest (i.e., the police arranging for a psych doctor to see a suspect), or by referral from a general practitioner, or whenever sufficient reason exists to believe a person may be unfit. An expedited hearing would be scheduled, and the patient and doctor would both have the opportunity to present evidence for or against disqualification, the burden of proof being on the doctor and not the patient. If the evidence is convincing, the disqualifying order should be issued and entered into a new category of the NICS list. After a year of disqualification, or however long a period the legislature chooses, the patient should be able to request a hearing to remove the disqualification, and a new hearing would be scheduled. This time, the burden of proof would be on the patient to demonstrate that the previously-valid disqualification is no longer necessary. If the court finds that the disqualified person is no longer a risk to public safety, the disqualifying order would be reversed and removed from the NICS database.

I believe a scheme like this would provide a new and necessary way to disqualify genuinely dangerous people while guaranteeing that all patients enjoy the protections of due process and the ability to restore their rights. Doctors aren't given judicial power, ordinary patients are unaffected, and a blind spot in NICS is closed.