The fearmongering of the mentally ill

[dorc-1]

In dire times you have to think outside of the box Mr. Leake. If you are a law abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about in garnering support from a relative to take that responsibility. The report and felony responsibility would only apply to that weapon purchased, not your arsenal of other guns.

[Battler]

If you are a law abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about

I think in the bizarre situation you describe, that one can be both completely law-abiding *and* worrying at the same time, if you sponsor someone. Maybe noone would want this "worry" no matter how much they like or trust their relative.

I think this is in the realm of fantasy. We often discuss the axis of more liberty/rights or less rights, this is off on a separate axis of bizarro-eligibility rights, some parallel universe where your legal freedom of action is contingent on happening to have 3 relatives.

[dorc-1]

If this is true, then why do about 55-60% of the patients on whom I file commitment petitions NOT get committed?

You must not be able to make a good enough case, or there is no money to pay for it.

[MLeake]

Either reason is possible.

Meanwhile, while the media love to exploit violent scenes such as Newtown, these are hardly dire times due to violence rates. Violence is lower than it was twenty years ago.

What may make times dire is the increasing number of Americans who appear willing to throw the liberties of others under the bus, if it will protect their pet issue. So it seems, at least, looking at the microcosm of TFL.

People are acting like panicky rabbits.

"Let's offer up background checks for everybody and agree to licensing schemes!"

"Let's blame video games!"

"I don't need more than six rounds, and you should not, if you can shoot!"

And now, "Let's allow a complete bypass of civil rights protections, based on a relative's say-so!"

It would be funny, if it were not both scary and pathetic.

Rather than running around in a panic, people might want to consider contacting elected officials, and donating heavily to RKBA organizations. They also might consider trying to educate some of the antis they know.

They should not try to protect a right by curtailing the rights of others.

What dorc-1 calls thinking outside the box, I call reprehensible.

[MLeake]

Meanwhile, with regard to making cases...

One of my ongoing frustrations during my active duty years was the pervasive assumption that DOD government civilians could not be sanctioned nor fired for poor performance or bad attitudes. Senior officers would tolerate behavior that should have been unacceptable, because they felt it was just too hard to correct.

Really, all it should have required was proper documentation and actions. Keep accurate notes; counsel the offender in accordance with regs, and document the counseling. Have the offender sign the paperwork, or have a witness sign that the offender was counseled but refused to sign.

Could it take a while, cost man-hours, and be a minor or even major nuisance? Yes, of course, but it could be done, and was not so impossible as many would seem to believe.

There is a parallel here. If there really is a history of threatening behavior, and it is properly documented, then mechanisms are in place, so long as one crosses the t's and dots the i's.

If there is no money or bed space, that is a separate issue with regard to commitments, but that is one that would need to be addressed.

[sig220mwxxxx]

It seems to me that the mental health situation is one in which as usual anything that is being proposed is "after the fact". People were "let go" from institutions evidently with either no or not enough follow up. The result was people out on the streets either not cured or not taking prescribed medicines but since they were no longer institutionalized they often got into trouble and then lawyers came to their rescue and made sure they couldn't be treated if they chose not to be. A never ending situation as it stands today but of course now "after the fact" the government will likely over react.

[dorc-1]

Yes, we are a nation that reacts instead of pro-acts. Trying to mitigate the next mass shooting is difficult because although disturbed, many of these perpetrators are very smart and know how to circumvent the rules or laws. The mental health lobby sees this as an opportunity to get more State and Federal aid to treat and confine many of these people. Because budgets are tight, I don't see any changes except maybe they can coerce a few more states into reporting those who have been institutionalized on the national database. It's just a drop in the bucket.

The school shooting yesterday from what I've gathered is another incident of a boy getting his gun from home. How do we protect our children when parents insist on not locking up weapons. Even Lanza's mother had to have a few screws loose to keep weapons around a child like that. Maybe the estranged husband could have put he and her on a list of no gun buy had the opportunity presented itself. Alas, there is no guaranty that would have happened.

I support the gun show loophole, and i'm sure it will be closed. Obama will probably execute the executive order for assault weapon ban (semi-automatic large capacity), but it is just posturing and will be rightfully overturned. So until the next catastrophe happens.......and it will happen, we will prepare to debate how much longer we can keep a total ban of semi-automatic weapons from being seized by a frustrated populist.

[JN01]

The school shooting yesterday from what I've gathered is another incident of a boy getting his gun from home. How do we protect our children when parents insist on not locking up weapons. Even Lanza's mother had to have a few screws loose to keep weapons around a child like that.

There have also been instances where minors have successfully used guns (which they had access to) in home defense situations when a parent was not present.

Many states have criminal negligence statutes which could possibly be enforced if someone fails to take reasonable measures to keep a gun away from someone who they reasonably should have known were a risk to themselves or others. A moot point if the gun owner is murdered, of course.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by dorc-1

Maybe the estranged husband could have put he and her on a list of no gun buy had the opportunity presented itself. Alas, there is no guaranty that would have happened.

"...estranged husband???" If your "family members can turn people in" proposal would allow for such a thing, I shudder to think of how that might affect women who want to acquire guns to protect themselves from estranged husbands who are threatening or stalking them -- from whom, by the way, they are much more at risk than they are from strangers.

Originally Posted by MLeake

Nothing you suggest has any place in our Justice system, and the more you try to bolster your idea, the more outrageous you become.

How very true...

[Battler]

Or the "woman scorned" falsely accusing the male (a personal favorite).

Freedoms curtailed on an accusation.

It is fortunate that in reality neither "left" nor "right" would be so insane as to implement such civilization-ending lunacy. They have different visions of the society they want (perhaps ultimately unrealistically destructive ones) but they're not deliberately in search of such anarchy and mayhem.

[dorc-1]

Leaving things the way they are is just fine with most responders, and you will have a bigger hill to climb in the next mass shooting. When no compromise exists then it's just a matter of time before a police state edict is written for confiscation and separate factions take up arms against each other. For those of you that welcome this kind of existence then you and those who believe that way can stand together as civil war ensues.

Felony responsibility assumption for those relatives that wish to remove a reported relative from purchasing guns doesn't have to reflect a charge based solely on using that gun in any felony. It can be adjusted to only include if the gun is used with intent to commit mass casualties on non family members. This will give some wiggle room for those relatives that would feel uncomfortable signing off on behalf of those removed.

Yeah, yeah, I know........no compromise. Good Luck.

[Battler]

Leaving things the way they are is just fine with most responders

What the "responders" may get from this is: "Since noone has a *sane* plan to prevent mass shootings, how about we go with mine?"

[Tom Servo]

Obama will probably execute the executive order for assault weapon ban (semi-automatic large capacity), but it is just posturing and will be rightfully overturned.

You might want to review Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

[dorc-1]

If it can't be overturned, then I doubt he will risk his parties future. My bad.

Who's Noone?

[MLeake]

Just saw this, posted elsewhere. Think it bears directly on dorc-1's idea. Sorry for the lack of paragraph form, but it was not my post:

Hello,I am trying to renew my FID card, the clerk at my Police Dept stated I need to have my doctor fill out and sign a "Physician affidavit Form" because recently I was evaluated(by a Court House appointed psychiatrist ) and brought before the Judge.The reason was my 84 yr old Mother felt I was a danger to myself because I was unemployed and live alone and called the police.The psychiatrist verified I had no symptoms of depression or any mental illness.I have never been institutionalized or arrested or under anyone's care for mental illness or have a criminal background.General Law:Chapter 140 Section 129B states: (1) Any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority or any person residing in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction located within a city or town may submit to the licensing authority an application for a firearm identification card, or renewal of the same, which the licensing authority shall issue, unless the applicant :has been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness, unless the applicant submits with his application an affidavit of a registered physician attesting that such physician is familiar with the applicant's mental illness and that in such physician's opinion the applicant is not disabled by such an illness in a manner that should prevent the applicant from possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun.My problem is as I stated earlier,I have never been hospitalized or treated,by anyone for mental illness.How can my Doctor vouch for me regarding a condition or history I never had? My doctor feels he is not a psychiatrist to make such a call even if I had a history.He also feels if I did something illegal with the shotgun(which of course I wouldn't do)he would be liable and won't sign the affidavit.What can I do if my Doctor is being irrational? The affidavit was worded in such a way your guilty of a mental illness I never had! I would hate to think I cannot have my property returned or obtain an FID card based on my Mother's untrained evaluation or a stupidly worded form.

This is just one of the potential negatives.

I advised this guy to close his thread and hire an attorney. Name redacted.

[dlb435]

Sorry, but I cannot accept the idea that seriously mentally ill persons should own firearms. My neice suffered with schizophrenia. She was dangerous to herself and others up until she overdosed on drugs and died.
Unlike you Kirkpatric, she did not control her condition well with medication and had a violent history that went back to her teen years.
Since you have had no history of violence or forced commitment I don't see where you would fall into the catigory of seriously mentally ill. It's not black and white, there's lots of grey in there.

[MLeake]

dlb435, the point is we need a standard set that protects the civil liberties of the individual (IE, due judicial process), not that we should allow dangerously psychotic types to have weapons.

(Edit: I am not referring to the OP; the vast majority of those with mental issues do not pose a threat.)

[Kirkpatrick]

dlb435, I am sorry for you loss. The odds of someone with untreated bipolar or schizophrenia dying by their own actions are somewhere between 20 to 40%, depending on which study you read.

My illness is quite serious, it's bad enough that I'm willing to subject myself to some very nasty medication, take no drugs recreationally and limit my drinking to beer and only then on special occasions, even though I've never been an alcoholic or an addict (except for nicotine and caffeine).

The treatment for mental illness, is server and invasive. There have been many times that I could not go to the range because the medications had me so messed up that I could not drive, let alone use a gun (and this is when they are working properly). This can also be the case if you have insomnia or some other temporary illness where you are prescribed drugs that say "do not operate heavy machinery". (If you can't operate a forklift, then you should steer clear of firearms).

All too many mentally ill people find drugs and alcohol as a way of coping before they find medical treatment. The rate at which the mentally ill are addicted to either drugs or alcohol is very high compared to the general population. This further compounds the odds of individuals getting and sticking with a working treatment plan.

None the less, we are discussing the notion that someone's Constitutional rights can be taken away because of a label or a diagnosis. The only way a person should lose any right is through Constitutionally prescribed due process.

Even knowing that I am not violent, during the Christmas season, over half of my relatives felt the need to bring up to varying degrees, the possibility of me going on some sort of shooting rampage.

Anecdotal fears or even fears born out of scientific statistics, are not reason enough to strip a person of their rights.

Just as one's right to liberty cannot be taken away due to the fact that they might commit a crime, my 2nd amendment rights should not be impinged upon unless stripped by due process based on something that is actually going on.

[LelloBeetle]

Obviously I'm late to the party on this one, but wanted to thank the OP for their bravery and openness about this issue and how it relates to their illness. I, too, have bi-polar (type 2) and some people asked about symptoms of a flare-up. When I get less than 3 hours of sleep, that's a good indication I could be cycling. I do stupid **** and must do it right then, like string my fishing rod at 3:30 in the morning. I've never known any bipolar to be violent.

[dorc-1]

dlb435, the point is we need a standard set that protects the civil liberties of the individual (IE, due judicial process), not that we should allow dangerously psychotic types to have weapons.

What do we do about the "postal" guy that is fired and decides on a plan to wipeout his boss and the workplace? Or a recently addicted person to scripts that begins a downward spiral toward insanity and plans a killing spree. These people fly under the radar of your judicial process. My recent suggestion where a relative can sign off and only face felony responsibility if the gun is used in a mass killing of non relatives at least gives us the opportunity to stop these people from purchasing a weapon without all the legal bureaucracy.

I know two bi-polar's that are son's of friends of mine in their late 20's. Both are live at home and will never have a job and are on lithium. Type 2's in my understanding don't cycle with multiple manic attacks. Both of these son's have been violent with their fathers with knock down drag out fights where they have been restrained by the police and taken to a lockdown institution for evaluation and eventual release. Both are heavily involved with video games which is worrisome. Could they purchase weapons? I have no idea as they may not be in any database that would stop them or they could lie on the FFL form.

[MLeake]

Your suggestion imposes an unchecked potential for abuse against a very small percentage threat.

I'll combine Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Port Townsend; now compare the total fatalities to the number of fatalities resulting from drunk driving during those years - what to you suppose killed more people, DUI or mentally unstable people with guns?

So, should we start a program where a family member can have the DMV revoke your license, just by saying they think you drink too much.

Your idea isn't good enough to be stupid; it is stoopid.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by dorc-1

or they could lie on the FFL form

And so could your hypothetical individual who's been prohibited after being "turned in" by family. It's not a perfect world.

It's time to move on from that idea, dorc-1. It really won't fly, for reasons that have been stated in more 10 posts, now, and come down to:

• Due process.
  
• Due process.
  
• Due process.

One of the main reasons civilized societies have laws at all is to protect people from the unjust or vengeful actions of those around them (and from an unjust government, of course, but that's a separate issue). This, at bottom, is why there's a judicial system: to put matters of justice into impartial hands. As frustrating as it can seem, at times, we're a lot better off with that system than we'd be without it.

[dorc-1]

Your right Mr. Leake a very small percentage that garners all the attention that may lead to possible ban of all semi automatic rifles and limit capacity on handguns.

OK Vanya, my idea will never fly right now as everyone is worried about due process and abuse. Let's see where due process leads us when they ban semi auto rifles. See how many people will be interested in abiding by your so called judicial system when they are told to turn in their rifles or face 20 years in Federal Prison. Stop turning my posts into a condemnation of our total judicial system........it's not.

[MLeake]

dorc-1, your idea used to happen in the US, back in the days when an influential family could hide their black sheep through institutionalization. Pregnant, unwed daughter? That could be hidden. Lesbian daughter or gay son? That could be hidden.

Ideas like yours have not flown in the US since lobotomies stopped being used for behavioral modification.

You would have probably liked Tailgunner Joe.

Your underlying reason, as you have made clear, is the desire to prevent the antis from having more ammo they might use in going for a ban. So, to protect a right you care about, you would cavalierly sacrifice the rights of others.

That disgusts me.

[dorc-1]

That disgusts me.

I am appalled you continue to bloviate, harangue, and perorate about vindictive relatives stampeding the rights of their kindred members. If they can't find 3 relatives to back up their sanity that they won't commit mass murder, then they don't deserve a green light to purchase a gun.

You follow an insular and deeply pernicious doctrine.