The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 28, 2013, 03:08 PM   #1
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Mental health review

Should there be a mental health review required of pistol permit applicants who have been confined to a psychiatric hospital within the last year?

This was a question on a survey being passed around by a legislator in CT. Any thoughts on this? The question seemed so vague so I anwered "not sure".
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 05:42 PM   #2
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,490
So, assuming the current system was managed properly wouldn’t this person be denied if they attempted to purchase a gun?
__________________
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 06:28 PM   #3
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 229
No, there should not. 99.999% of the reasons why one might be in a mental health facility have zero bearing on that individual's RKBA.

The mental health issue is important, and certainly needs to be strengthened (just look at the recent lunatics who would have been prevented from mass-killings with reasonable adjustments to current policy and laws), but if we, as gun owners, keep banging on this mental health drum as if it's the source of all problems it's going to bite us in the arse.

As gun owners, we point with pride to the scientific studies which validate the benefits to society from our RKBA. We're clearly the side focused on truth, and that matters.

Well, use that same reverence for the truth when you talk about mental illness, because there's clear science showing that the *vast* majority of all mental health issues are not related to violence in any way. Failing to adhere to this will make us as bad as the antis...just spewing emotional crap.

So no generalized bans on the RKBA for mental health issues. Next thing you know, some quack with 2 years of junior college will decide you're stressed because of the heavy traffic during your commute, and therefore you lose all your guns? Not interested.
speedrrracer is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 07:05 PM   #4
DarrinD2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 14
No, speed pretty much hit the nail on the head on this one. Early diagnosis and treatment would have a better chance at helping prevent future violence than creating a registry of people who have spent time in treatment and denying them their RKBA.
__________________
"The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
DarrinD2 is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 07:07 PM   #5
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
BarryLee is correct, though - there is already a question on this on the 4473.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 07:13 PM   #6
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,453
Yep. I'm not sure what this law is meant to achieve.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 07:40 PM   #7
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,490
Quote:
BarryLee is correct, though - there is already a question on this on the 4473.
Yes, just pointing out that I think a person who has been committed would be denied. I assume that person would be required to go through a process to have their rights restored and it would include a mental health review. So, not sure if the survey the OP saw was affirming or challenging this policy.

I was referring to line 11.f but I could be misinterpreting something.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
__________________
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 08:52 PM   #8
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Looks like more double illegal nonsense the antis are always in favor of.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 11:36 PM   #9
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,549
The question on the 4473 refers to people who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective. Both of those require a court judgment. Voluntary commitment -- checking yourself in to an inpatient mental health facility -- is a different thing entirely, and doesn't make you a prohibited person as far as the Feds are concerned.

But standards for state-issued permits vary from state to state, and can be stricter than those on the Federal level. So it's not necessarily a case of "double illegal nonsense."

But it's a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, one of which is that it would be a really good way to discourage people from seeking treatment for mental illness.

Last edited by Vanya; January 28, 2013 at 11:37 PM. Reason: excessive punctuation.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 12:41 AM   #10
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,609
Quote:
4473 refers to people who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective. Both of those require a court judgment.
Are you sure about that? I think you can be involuntarily committed without a court order. At least temporarily. Scratch that, I volunteered in an ER and people were regularly involuntarily committed without court orders. The doctor just stuck them in the padded room.
I think someone involuntarily committed should not have access without a psych evaluation indicating the issue is resolved. You can be involuntarily committed for many things that are temporary.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 07:44 AM   #11
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
The doctor just stuck them in the padded room.
And is some states, that is for no longer than 72 hours for observation. Since no judge is involved, I don't believe that a person in that position would have to answer that question as a yes. There's no court/legal record of the event. AFAIK, the FBI doesn't have access to your medical records, yet.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 12:00 PM   #12
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,549
Exactly -- that's often referred to as a "72-hour hold," and it's not the same as involuntary commitment, which would be the next step in the process; that involves going before a judge and presenting evidence (not just opinion) that the patient is an immediate danger to himself or others. Such evidence might be a failed suicide attempt, or a violent act, or a credible threat of either, made in the presence of others; the evidence has to refer to the person's actual behavior, not merely what a doctor conceives his mental state to be.

So once those 72 hours are up, holding a patient against his will requires due process of law; otherwise it's a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to liberty.
___________________
Thomas Jefferson never said that.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ous-quotations

Last edited by Vanya; January 29, 2013 at 07:29 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 05:23 PM   #13
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
In WA it goes..."involuntary confinement for 14 days or more". State law is that you must be committed by a Judge is they are going to hold you more than 72 hrs. There is also a way to reverse this restriction....also takes a Judge.
hermannr is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 09:04 PM   #14
Garybock
Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 95
Mental health

Sorry guys this is where us gun rights folks are wrong. Once you cross the threshold of a mental health facility the rules of pistol permits should be different. I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment- but mental health issues change the rules in my world.
Garybock is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 02:55 AM   #15
JimmyR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 867
Quote:
Should there be a mental health review required of pistol permit applicants who have been confined to a psychiatric hospital within the last year?

This was a question on a survey being passed around by a legislator in CT. Any thoughts on this? The question seemed so vague so I anwered "not sure".
Getting back to the OP, I think it depends on what you mean by "confine."

A person who has been involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric institution, IMHO, should provide some documentation from a mental health professional stating that the person is continuing to recieve treatment or was discharged after completing treatment goals for incidents that occured after a sufficient passing of time.

A person who checked themselves into a psychiatric facility voluntarily should have no such restriction.

IMHO, my $.02, IANAL, IDNSIAHIELN, YMMV, IHATA
JimmyR is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 05:44 PM   #16
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Rep Richard Smith (R) from CT’s 108 district, New Fairfield / Danbury area, is asking for input on gun control:

http://cthousegop.com/2013/01/please...public-safety/

Below is the link to the survey. It is 6 questions long. The last question is the one related to the OP. I put "not sure" because I thought there was not enough info to for a definite decision.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NM8XRMD
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09971 seconds with 9 queries