|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 19, 2013, 01:13 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Executive Powers & Mental Health
After recent failures of restrictive gun legislation Mr. Obama is now moving to use executive powers to restrict access to guns for mental health reasons. Currently individuals who meet certain criteria related to mental health are supposed to be reported to the NICS and currently 17 states do not participate as required. Much of the resistance to reporting comes from concerns about privacy requirement related to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPPA.
So, Mr. Obama wants to clarify what the law requires and make reporting easier - which sounds good. I suppose I am a little concerned as we hear stories related to Veterans being added to NICS who do not meet the normal criteria. I realize that Mr. Obama cannot make new laws here, but I hope the actions do not lead to abuses of personal freedom and loss of due process. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
April 19, 2013, 02:51 PM | #2 | |
Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 15
|
As stated: currently laws are in place which are being ignored. I agree that mental health professionals should be forced to report potentially dangerous people at minimum to the federal database so they can't buy guns.
The continual whine about "patient privacy" needs to be superseded by safety concerns for the general population. IMHO, the reason health providers don't comply and report is they are afraid of being sued. We need a blanket umbrella law to prevent that so they would be allowed to report the loonies. Quote:
Veterans deserve the best of help, but if they are dangerous they should be restricted from owning guns just like anybody else. |
|
April 19, 2013, 02:58 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The problem as pointed out by professionals is that we do not have the tech to really identify dangerous individuals without a tremendous number of false positives that are done with good will or maliciously by antigun medical and mental health professionals. The truly delusional might be spotted but that's about it.
Tightening up the reporting of those adjudicated (if they are not being reported) makes sense as they can have protections and appeals. However, laws like the SAFE act are not supported by mental health professionals who think about it for more reasons than liability. If a poster can come up with literature that demonstrates reliable predictions of violence or such a technique, please do. It doesn't exist.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 19, 2013, 03:01 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 15
|
It needs to be understood that Obama has extremely limited power using Executive Orders. EOs are binding on anybody in the executive branch, but he can not create new law using an EO. Read the total of the EO's he enacted on gun control here:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obam...1/16/id/471689 You will notice that in substance, they add up to NOTHING. It's suggestions, create a dialog, publish a paper, have an agency look into something, lots of vague feel good rhetoric but nothing of any actual substance. It sounds like what Obama wants to do is try to force states to comply with existing law on mental health reporting. He doesn't need an EO, he could use the Justice Department and some kind of federal lawsuit. Last edited by Alizard; April 19, 2013 at 03:07 PM. |
April 19, 2013, 03:05 PM | #5 | |
Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
Point is, these were not "healthy" kids who went bad without any indication or warning, these were disturbed kids. IMHO, this country is leaning way too far to the side of protecting the "rights" of the mentally ill when states are refusing to report potentially dangerous people or do any follow up. |
|
April 19, 2013, 03:15 PM | #6 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
The SAFE acts says: Quote:
It is a tremendous risk to civil rights and the branding of folks. It will cause people to avoid therapy. It breaches confidentiality. An ethical therapist will have to inform the client of this risk. Would a gun owner continue to go? How many folks would be harmed by not getting help?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
||
April 19, 2013, 03:17 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
The way the current law works is that in order to deprive a mentally ill patient of his rights, he must first be determined by a professional or other authorized person to be an immediate danger to himself or others. That determination is enough to have someone hospitalized for a maximum of 72 hours. After that, a judge must rule that, yes, this person is dangerous and should be involuntarily committed or required to undergo some other form of treatment. (In some states, a judge can commit someone to outpatient treatment, for example.) After a judge has so ruled, that finding should be reported to the FBI so that the person is included in the NICS database of prohibited persons. This is what is technically known as "due process," and it is a requirement, under the Constitution, before someone can be deprived of rights -- including the right to own a gun. The problem occurs largely at the level of the state reporting systems: some are merely inefficient or underfunded, and others actively refuse to submit these records to the FBI because they're limited by state privacy laws. This absolutely does need fixing. New York passed a reporting requirement such as you propose as part of the SAFE act: reporting a suspicion that a person might pose a risk is now required of mental health professionals in that state, and it's leading directly to confiscation of guns. This is not a good thing at all, and it's being challenged by lawsuits even as we speak. --- And just for the record, most people seem to have forgotten that there is no evidence that the Sandy Hook shooter ever received a diagnosis of mental illness. He does seem to have had an "autism spectrum" disorder, which is not a mental illness, but an organic condition, but even that has yet to be confirmed by a medical professional who treated him. In general, such disorders are in no way predictive of violence.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; April 19, 2013 at 03:38 PM. |
|
April 19, 2013, 03:29 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2013
Location: Lenhartsville, PA
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
|
|
April 19, 2013, 03:36 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
April 19, 2013, 03:36 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
|
Quote:
What about a doctor that is anti-gun, and he's saying that all of his patients are "potentially" dangerous? Words have meanings, and we need to make sure that the rights of those who aren't a clear and imminent danger to themselves or others don't have their rights infringed. As Vanya showed, the current way it's supposed to work is more than sufficient. The one thing that people keep forgetting is that Sandy Hooks, Virgina Tech's and Columbines are exceedingly rare. You're more likely to be struck and killed by lightning (about 1/1,000,000 odds) than killed in a mass shooting. Safeguards that target guns themselves or the people (making the huge assumption that all mass murderers are labeled as being a danger to themselves and others using the process Vanya mentioned) that commit them just won't work...as Adam Lanza showed us. 1) Guns are already out there. Pandora's box, as it were, has already been opened. 2) Preventing someone from buying a gun won't stop them as there are other ways of getting a gun. The only thing that could prevent another tragedy is to have someone who is armed, and can confront an attacker at the school. We guard our President, Celebrities, and even our money with people with guns. How come we don't provide the future of our country the same protections? |
|
April 19, 2013, 03:43 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
BTW, since the fundamentals of psychiatric diagnosis is undergoing major change from the DSM-IV to DSM-V - that might be a hint that unbridled mental health professional and state power needs strict scrutiny.
So I think you have Asperger's and in MY opinion that can lead to asocial behavior and risk. Sounds good - Asperger's is going away in the new versions or so we are told. Oops.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 19, 2013, 04:52 PM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
These topics...
These points have been discussed at length on TFL before.
A few members(like me) can see the value of changes that would prevent firearms & ammunition from being purchased or legally owned by people who want to harm themselves or others. This would NOT include those with ED or depression or insomnia, etc. A valid argument could be made over state rights/laws & mental health issues but President Obama, VP Biden & the other elected officials want to STOP gun violence. Gun owners & 2A supporters should take the high road and be mature adults. CF |
April 19, 2013, 05:42 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Yes, very concerned about people being denied due process in these cases. While my psychological training is limited to a couple basic college classes I did learn enough to understand conceptually just how difficult it is to identify “potentially” dangerous people as opposed to people who just need a little help. So, I am concerned about politicians potentially lowering the threshold required to deny someone their Constitutional rights.
Now, if Mr. Obama takes steps to simply assure that people who have already been adjudicated as a danger get into the NICS system that seems like a good step.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
April 19, 2013, 05:50 PM | #14 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Due process...
I AGREE with those points but what Im saying(and a few other TFL forum members posted remarks along the same lines) is that people who already adjudicated as having serious or violent mental health problems should NOT have access to weapons/ammunition.
People can go thru a legal process or do what they can to restore their civil rights or legal status but they should NOT have access to firearms & ammunition until that time. People make it complicated or become argumentative just to stir up the issue. CF |
April 19, 2013, 06:04 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
April 19, 2013, 06:11 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
Obama does have power
state have power but the federal gov't doles out millions of dollars to states each year so long they 'comply'.
Ex. highway speeds. While he may not have the power to just create laws, they have the money and therefore, he does have the power. It just takes time to find a way to manipulate the system.
__________________
L2R |
April 19, 2013, 06:18 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Quote:
Now, my only concern was that somehow there is an intentional or maybe unintentional lower of the bar resulting in people who do not meet the requirements being placed in the system.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
April 19, 2013, 06:27 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
BTW, let's not use terms like 'loonies'. People who are ill don't need such.
Thanks Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 19, 2013, 07:24 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
|
Is there an inclination or strong possibility that things like named personality disorders (narcissistic, borderline, etc.) will become checkbox automatic disqualifiers? Or bipolar? Or some psychoses/psychotic/delusional symptoms? Or would it specifically have to be linked to violence?
|
April 19, 2013, 07:59 PM | #20 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Post 19...
See, this is my point...
These "what if" topics spin all over between members discussing persons who have already adjudicated & those still in the process. I understand the concern over starting databases & the required criteria, that's a valid point of discussion, my problem is that these TFL topics swerve into "who's to say who is unstable?" Or Obama's gonna take my guns because I have migrane head-aches, . CF |
April 19, 2013, 08:06 PM | #21 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
From a legal perspective, there is still a lot of grey area in some states (the usual suspects) over the process and requirements to be added to the NICS system. Since the Harkin-Alexander Amendment is part of the now-tabled S.649, those grey areas are still not defined well.
As a result, loosening HIPAA protections now is likely to result in some people who should not be disqualified being added to NICS. |
April 19, 2013, 08:12 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Any disqualification must be based on evidence that a person is an immediate threat to himself or others. As I said above, this means actual violent behavior or credible, specific threats. It's not enough for a mental health professional to suspect that someone has the potential to be violent, or might get violent sometime, etc. Keep in mind that only a tiny percentage of people with mental illness are ever violent. They are, in fact, far more likely to be the victims of violence. It's no different from depriving any other group of people of their rights because they are members of a particular class: it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion -- and disability. ... ClydeFrog, I'm still not understanding your point...
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
April 19, 2013, 08:23 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
It's also a judgement that the person cannot contract or manage their affairs.
27 CFR 555.11 - Meaning of terms. Also, disturbingly, it does not require a judge. Quote:
|
|
April 19, 2013, 08:38 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Not that a state couldn't try to pass such a law, but it's not likely, and it would certainly be challenged and overturned in short order.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
April 19, 2013, 08:42 PM | #25 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
My point...
For the 3rd time....
My point here is: This should be a rational discussion of persons who are already adjudicated as mentally unstable or violent(ie: unable to own or carry firearms/ammunition) & how or what databases or systems are in use(or should be set up) to prevent gun crimes/violent acts. I'm not discussing persons with bi-polar, ED, cry when it rains outside, wets the bed, etc. I'm talking about violent, aggressive subjects who have documented felonys, court mandated restraining orders/PFAs, trespass notices, are fugitives, dis-honorable discharged from the US armed forces, etc. As for the % or # of criminal felons with mental health problems, I strongly disagree. In 2011, I had a incident with a 57 year old male, 6'06", who made threats against me & attacked me with a chair leg. I was doing a security job at a low end hotel property in a major urban area. In 2013, I saw the former State's Atty for my area(a SE Asia combat veteran & former Sheriff for the county) say that he also considered violent criminals with mental health issues or those who go off their meds/take illegal drugs-alcohol, as a major law enforcement issue/public safety problem. |
|
|