Some States Do Not Report Mental Illness To Federal database

[carlson1]

I agree with everything you said and this part has always scared me. . .

I deal with psychiatrists in many of my cases and have for decades. Most cases that involve psychiatrists have at least one on each side of the case, each of whom reviews the same medical records and evidence, yet they come to opposite opinions. The jury is then left to guess which one, if either, is correct. The mental health sciences are far too imprecise to use as a basis for denying anyone their Second Amendment right, unless the psychiatrist and the judge will go so far as to institutionalize the person, or appoint a guardian. It would be far too easy for a court to decide "he's too crazy to own a gun, but other than that, he can function independently."
Chas.

. . .and we are supposed to trust the Psychiatrists.

[jimlongley]

In my view, merely having a court "find" that a person is a danger to himself and/or others, without doing anything to restrict that person's activities, is too low of a standard upon which to deny a right to own a firearm. It means nothing to me if a judge renders an opinion that someone is a danger to himself, but then lets him walk out of the courtroom to tend to his own affairs. (BTW, only a court can adjudicate a matter, but expert testimony from medical professionals will be required to make that determination.)

Moi osi, if you'll excuse my French.

Doing some poking around in family history because of vaguely recalled stuff I found the record of my wife's grandmother, who was committed on the strength of testimony from the rest of the family, and it appears that it was mostly because her husband wanted her out of the way so he could tomcat around. In a previous generation there was another (probably where he got the idea) who was committed for "feminine hysteria" just on the judge's say so.

Not saying that such abuses would happen today, but the potential always exists in such a judgment based system.

Here is another issue. I have been told that once you are on the NICS "prohibited list" for mental health issues, you will not get off. I have not confirmed this, but it came from a very knowledgeable attorney that deals with NICS issues almost on a daily basis. I would also note that, while there is a federal law that provides a procedure for a person who has lost their right to own a firearm to have that right reinstated, Congress passed a bill that prohibited the use of any federal funds for that purpose. So the procedure exists in law, but, as a matter of law, it cannot be used. I don’t want dangerously incompetent people running around shooting innocent people, but I fear this is a very slippery slope on which we are treading.

And that one there is as much a reason not to compromise on this issue as any I can think of.

[Geister]

hey,
my understanding of the whole thing, is that this issue was already before the Supreme Court who said it was voluntary to submit that information to the federal database. So I don't see where the force is, because it has been on the books for all these years.

And when was the last time the government had the power to do something like that and decided not to?

Can't expect the government to police itself.

[Geister]

Hey Chas,
isn't that what most of those not opposed to using a mental database in these few discussions have been saying all along? So basically, we are in the same line of reasoning as the NRA,....right???? ONLY THOSE THAT WERE ADJUDICATED AS INCOMPETENT BY A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL. We were not calling for complete open records.

What makes you expect that that's all they are going to do and it's going to stop there? My experience with government is that they continuously attempt to expand their power and they're pretty successful at it.

I agree with longley, this database will not do a thing to curb violence but it will keep citizens from purchasing arms due to database errors.

[KBCraig]

I agree with longley, this database will not do a thing to curb violence but it will keep citizens from purchasing arms due to database errors.

Exactly like NICS: it has done NOTHING to reduce gun crime, but it has been a huge pain for folks who consistently come up "delayed", all because some thug shares their name and date of birth.

Just 15 years ago you didn't need government approval to buy a gun. Now we have fellow "gun people" suggesting that it's "reasonable" to open your medical and mental health records to the bureaucrats who decide whether or not you're worthy to enjoy the right to self defense.

No infringement is "reasonable".

Kevin

[Geister]

I agree 100%, Kevin.

Lucky45, why exactly are you on the mental database bandwagon? Your chances of ever being shot by a deranged individual are pretty slim. In fact, since you are from Missouri City, you have a greater chance of dying due to a car accident or gang bangers. In fact, you have a far greater chance of being killed in a car accident caused by a deranged individual. So why focus on guns? Why aren't you out there demanding a mental database for people wanting driver's licenses? Why aren't you out there demanding a mental database for people wanting to buy a car or knives?

You will not be any safer at all with a mental patient database. All you are doing is giving up more of your freedom to the government so they can make you feel safe without actually doing so. You might not think a mental patient database will affect you, but every little inch of power you give to the government, they are always going to take it and demand more and more. Soon you'll find YOURSELF unable to own a particular firearm.

It's pretty ridiculous that we even have background checks for firearms when most people use them in a safe and non-violent manner.

[Lucky45]

You will not be any safer at all with a mental patient database. All you are doing is giving up more of your freedom to the government so they can make you feel safe without actually doing so. You might not think a mental patient database will affect you, but every little inch of power you give to the government, they are always going to take it and demand more and more. Soon you'll find YOURSELF unable to own a particular firearm.

I OBJECT, your honor.

SPECULATION. The same way the poster says we cannot speculate what a person with mental illness will do in the future; therefore the poster cannot speculate what the goverment will take or demand in future. Either rephrase or strike it from public record, your honor (Moderator).

[pbandjelly]

yeah, but which one of you is Jack McCoy??

[GlockenHammer]

(deleted after further review)

[Lucky45]

Geister & Lucky, please focus on the issue and not each other.

What are you talking about? Where was my post not focused on the issue?

[GlockenHammer]

What are you talking about? Where was my post not focused on the issue?

After reviewing this thread, I retract my post. I've been reviewing a lot of threads and there has been a lot of emotion. I think I've just read too much of it in one sitting.

Please, continue the thread.

[Geister]

I OBJECT, your honor.

SPECULATION. The same way the poster says we cannot speculate what a person with mental illness will do in the future; therefore the poster cannot speculate what the goverment will take or demand in future. Either rephrase or strike it from public record, your honor (Moderator).

Hahahahahaha!

Hahahaha!

Hahahahahaha!

Yeah, I CAN speculate that the government will get BIGGER as the years go by as it has been doing the past 200 years. Doesn't even matter who's in office; both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of it.

Unless we have a huge war and have to start the government all over or if some libertarians get voted in en masse, the government will always get bigger. It gets bigger every day.

BTW Lucky, you can be adjudicated incompetent without suffering from any mental illness. In all honesty I don't think you really understand mental illness or psychology in general. But I can explain this to you: psychology is a VERY fuzzy "science." There are no clear cut definitions of who is mentally ill, who is not, what person has one disorder and not the other (they tend to overlap), what disorders make violent thoughts, who really has violent thoughts and who doesn't, if a person is going to actually act on violent thoughts, etc. Combined with the fact that the psychology field in general is anti-gun, it would be pretty stupid to allow psychologists the ability to strip people of their rights.

Just take a intro to psych college class and maybe you'll see what I mean. Psychologists generally speculate on what's wrong with someone and a lot of the times they are totally wrong. Hell, it's reminds me of that movie Terminator 2 where everyone thought the chick was crazy and threw her into the loony bin, even though she was not.

Besides, all these extremely violent mental patients you speak of (which is somewhat rare in itself), why are they out on the streets to begin with? Shouldn't they be locked up? More than likely they've already committed an act of violent. Those people need to be controlled, not the guns.

Frankly I'm just sick of seeing all the kneejerk responses over a shooting situation that was so rare it had national broadcast time on TV. President Bush himself spoke about the VT massacre. Obviously it's a pretty rare event. It'd be even more rare or even non-existant if more people carried guns and were able to stop an attacker like Cho.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Here's the problem.

Can someone tell me how you defend "guns for psychos" without sounding like one yourself?

Nobody is talking about banning guns for people with minor problems, perhaps for which they were prescribed medication in the past.

These days, it's not easy to be adjucated as incompetent, or as a danger to one's self or others.

Cho was adjucated to be a danger to himself and that judgement happened to be CORRECT. Yet, he still passed the NICS check.

I have heard that the NRA is helping to draft the legislation. I for one have confidence they will do a good job, and that the bill will be one that even most Vermonters can support.

The alternative would have been to come out in favor of "guns for raving lunatics". That would have caused many of the 4 million members to melt away, and our political support along with it.

Just imagine what would happen to our gun rights if something like THAT came about.

[Lucky45]

BTW Lucky, you can be adjudicated incompetent without suffering from any mental illness. In all honesty I don't think you really understand mental illness or psychology in general. But I can explain this to you: psychology is a VERY fuzzy "science." .... Combined with the fact that the psychology field in general is anti-gun, it would be pretty stupid to allow psychologists the ability to strip people of their rights.

I OBJECT, your honor.
SPECULATION and FICTION and GENERALIZATION. Please give a factual incident where someone was adjudicated without having mental illness. If psychology which the science of the mind or of mental states and processes and behavior; is considered fuzzy science. Then the medical field which is also associated with this area of science should be considered fuzzy in your estimation...RIGHT??? And last part is not factual and purely generalizing.

Just take a intro to psych college class and maybe you'll see what I mean. Psychologists generally speculate on what's wrong with someone and a lot of the times they are totally wrong. heck, it's reminds me of that movie Terminator 2 where everyone thought the chick was crazy and threw her into the loony bin, even though she was not.

FICTION. Most of times I notice you use fictitious info when giveing examples. I would love to see a real example that everyone have encountered before, not Hollywood movies. Also, we shouldn't assume that everyone here is on the intro level and haven't finished their Master's Degree Level.

Besides, all these extremely violent mental patients you speak of (which is somewhat rare in itself), why are they out on the streets to begin with? Shouldn't they be locked up? More than likely they've already committed an act of violent. Those people need to be controlled, not the guns.

FICTION. Stick to the facts in response. Nowhere in previous posts have it been even suggested the penal requirements for a person with mental illness. There is MENTALLY INCOMPETENT but NOT FUNCTIONALLY INCOMPETENT. Same way you have many posters that knows people who ILLITERATE and FUNCTIONAL, and then those who are NOT FUNCTIONAL. Some work with many on a daily basis. They can build houses, fix cars, operate machinery, but put a manual in front of them or have them fill out a form, then they are in ALOT OF TROUBLE.

[Geister]

Another thing, Charles, is that the judge can rule a person to be mentally incompetent regardless of what the psychologist says.

Please give a factual incident where someone was adjudicated without having mental illness.

Happens all the time. Do some research on your own because I don't have time to bicker with you day and night. While you're at it, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and learn WHY they were written the way they were written. Use statements from the Founding Fathers in your studies, not what some present lawyer or judge says like Frankie.

You're just arguing for a gun control law that's unconstitutional to begin with. You're worried so much about an extreme less than one percent of the population that you're willing to give up more of your God given Rights to a bunch of morons in government and subject yourself to a psych evaluation before you can even own a firearm, which is just a piece of metal that shoots little metal and/or lead propellants.

It's funny how you are asking for the government to decide who can have a firearm when it's been governments all over the planet for centuries starting wars. Hell, just throw in the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents and you are still telling me the government should be able to say who own a gun?

Governments have caused far greater damage with firearms than any mental nutcase out there.