Channel 5 on Mental Health and Guns

Rating - 100%
49   0   0
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
23,159
Likes
1,007
Location
The Land of Confusion and Pissed off!
Glidden and other chiefs across the Commonwealth tell Team 5 Investigates this hurts their ability to determine whether a person is mentally fit to carry a firearm.

This shit pisses me off. Mass made the law so you have to get a Carry permit to possess. Then bitch because people with no training or "mentally ill" can carry a firearm.

Do like the rest of the country. Make owning and carrying two separate issues.

And I'm with Keith here on this... If the guy was hell bent on shooting up his workplace...he would have found a way to do it...gun permit or not! Record sharing or not.
 

doobie

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
8,423
Likes
263
Great...so what enforcing mental health on gun owners will do is force gun owners who have a minor bout of depression to not get treatment for fear of losing their firearms, just because they are unhappy with their gf or work and can't find better work, yada, yada.

So someone will invent a image scanner and put it on the highway and if you get pissed because someone just cut you off, it'll record that, send a notice to your local LEO and when you get home they'll be coming to get your firearms.
 

Scrivener

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10,156
Likes
517
Glidden and other chiefs across the Commonwealth tell Team 5 Investigates this hurts their ability to determine whether a person is mentally fit to carry a firearm.

What specious crap; regurgitated by a media happy to vilify gun owners while sucking up to unelected bureaucrats.

ANY firearms license application can get vetted by the DMH. This crap about the chief's hands being tied by lack of data is patently false.

I've received copies of the complete DMH check as part of the denial clients were given, completely unredacted, with the names, SSN and license applied for thereon; up to ten names on each sheet. So, not only do the chiefs clearly have access to that sensitive information, they are too careless to even safeguard it as required by law.
 

the_shootist

Banned
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
10,110
Likes
1,590
Location
Nowhere near Mass!
What specious crap; regurgitated by a media happy to vilify gun owners while sucking up to unelected bureaucrats.

ANY firearms license application can get vetted by the DMH. This crap about the chief's hands being tied by lack of data is patently false.

I've received copies of the complete DMH check as part of the denial clients were given, completely unredacted, with the names, SSN and license applied for thereon; up to ten names on each sheet. So, not only do the chiefs clearly have access to that sensitive information, they are too careless to even safeguard it as required by law.
Question, why can't you put this on the table in front of those useless tools who call themselves journalists and demand a rebuttal and/or an admission of irresponsible reporting?
 
Last edited:

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,930
Likes
15,791
Location
NH
I suspect what they want is for the private records of private physicians and private hospitals to end up in the FBI files. Then they can get a "full history" right down to who has hemorrhoids for each LTC applicant. It'll certainly help determine "suitability". [frown]

Law enforcement at any level has no concerns whatsoever for the privacy of the general citizenry. On traffic stops they will regularly give out info (name, DOB, SSN, address) over clear air . . . more than enough for some enterprising ID thieves to ply their trade w/o ever leaving their homes.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
939
Likes
36
Great...so what enforcing mental health on gun owners will do is force gun owners who have a minor bout of depression to not get treatment for fear of losing their firearms, just because they are unhappy with their gf or work and can't find better work, yada, yada.

So someone will invent a image scanner and put it on the highway and if you get pissed because someone just cut you off, it'll record that, send a notice to your local LEO and when you get home they'll be coming to get your firearms.

This fear is unjustified. What they are talking about is people who were INVOLUNTARILY committed to a mental hospital by a judge. Not some guy who talks to his therapist because he is having a tough time in his marriage or career. As the piece says, 35 states do this. And of course, the bulk of these states are free states like NH, AZ, etc...

Besides, they are only talking about complying with federal law. Its not like its some half-baked MA state legislator idea about how to ban firearms.

And most importantly, every crazy who goes on a shooting rampage further jeopardizes the liberties of all of us on this board. Every time there is a school or church or work shooting, there are new calls for banning or restricting our firearms rights. So this federal law will help us a good deal in the future.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
939
Likes
36
Then they can get a "full history" right down to who has hemorrhoids for each LTC applicant. It'll certainly help determine "suitability". [frown]

If your hemorrhoids flare up while your carrying, you might get really hot and bothered and get a little trigger happy [rofl]
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
920
Likes
109
Location
Grafton, MA
That, in my opinion is a tough one. There are clearly cases where a person is obviously mentally unstable and can be labeled as such. On the other hand, there are situations where event the best psychiatrists or psychologists will not detect a basic underlying issue that could result in violent behavior. Take the issue of a sociopath personality - i.e Ted Bundy. He'd pass a polygraph test ...so hard to detect as this was part of his basic wiring, not a degenerative mental illness. How do you stop that?
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
4,523
Likes
706
Location
Lynn Ma
I've not watched the piece,usually it's the same old claptrap. Everybody goes thru some type of stess in life and sometimes you have to talk it out with a mental health professional and possibly have a script for some type of meds given thru your doctor. I for one don't want that info out there for anyone to see,period. If someone is committed by the courts,maybe,it depends on what he was committed for. If he is not considered a danger to himself or others his right to own firearms should not be denied.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
1,155
Likes
49
Location
South Shore
I've not watched the piece,usually it's the same old claptrap. Everybody goes thru some type of stess in life and sometimes you have to talk it out with a mental health professional and possibly have a script for some type of meds given thru your doctor. I for one don't want that info out there for anyone to see,period. If someone is committed by the courts,maybe,it depends on what he was committed for. If he is not considered a danger to himself or others his right to own firearms should not be denied.

I agree with you on that. If you simply were seeking treatment for depression or some other personal issue that does not disqualify you, then that info should not be shared. That is private info.

However, if you were involuntarily commited or are deemed mentally unfit to own firearms, then that info should be released so you are prevented from legally doing so. Like they said, it is federal law and we've not been complying.

It may not %100 prevent them from obtaining firearms, but it will create one more obstacle and a large one at that.
 

Scrivener

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10,156
Likes
517
Reminder: We already have have chiefs demanding a "physician's letter" attesting to the applicant's suitability to have firearms, despite the fact that:

1. There is no such statutory requirement;

2. Physicians are not qualified to determine mental stability;

3. Chiefs already have DMH checks done on applicants; and

4. Such a demand may well violate HIPPA privacy requirements.

Just complying with the Federal standard is not what these chiefs want and will almost certainly NOT be what any proposed legislation will be limited to.
 

depicts

Army Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
4,627
Likes
522
Location
Massachusetts
I suspect what they want is for the private records of private physicians and private hospitals to end up in the FBI files. Then they can get a "full history" right down to who has hemorrhoids for each LTC applicant. It'll certainly help determine "suitability". [frown]

I admit to hemorrhoids, and they make me damn cranky some days. Better not give me a gun! [thinking]
 

pdm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
10,518
Likes
2,398
Location
Taxachusetts
That, in my opinion is a tough one. There are clearly cases where a person is obviously mentally unstable and can be labeled as such. On the other hand, there are situations where event the best psychiatrists or psychologists will not detect a basic underlying issue that could result in violent behavior. Take the issue of a sociopath personality - i.e Ted Bundy. He'd pass a polygraph test ...so hard to detect as this was part of his basic wiring, not a degenerative mental illness. How do you stop that?

You can't. And if they want to commit a crime, you can't stop that either. If they really want a gun, they'll get one.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,930
Likes
15,791
Location
NH
IANAL, but AFAIK, courts don't usually do involuntary commits to private health facilities. Those commits are usually to public (under DMH supervision) facilities. Any inadequacies in recordkeeping/reporting should be dealt with "internally" to the gov't.

The court record itself would be adequate for most any chief to deny on suitability, even without a complete report of what drugs were prescribed and how often the perp passed gas.

Private facility "commits" are usually voluntary and legally don't meet the criteria for denial as it is written currently.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,874
Likes
70,705
You can't. And if they want to commit a crime, you can't stop that either. If they really want a gun, they'll get one.

Ding.... we have a winner!

All the NICS/background check happy horsecrap in the world will not stop a psycho or a criminal from obtaining a gun, if they really want it. All of this crap amounts to a "feel good speed bump" on a good day. The system may trap a few moron felons here and there but the really dangerous simply don't see gun control as an obstacle at all.

-Mike
 

KMaurer

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,653
Likes
344
Location
Litchfield, NH
As is usual whenever this discussion come up, we have two entirely separate and distinct issues confounded (deliberately, I suspect).

The first and simplest is whether a person is disqualified to possess firearms under federal law. All the discussion about whether a person has sought help or counseling for some problem, whether he or she is undergoing treatment for some psychiatric condition or emotional problems, and similar "gray areas" is entirely irrelevant to this question. The only thing that matters is whether the person has ever been "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution". All the hand wringing by the mental health types over privacy issues and deterring people from seeking help is obviously misdirected here.

The second and much more complex issue is a result of our discretionary licensing system under which a person must be deemed to be "suitable" in order to be granted a license required to exercise a constitutional right. Here Rosenthal and his allies are really up against HIPAA and mental health advocates. Of course it's always easier for them to pretend that their real opponent is that nasty old NRA and its fellow travelers in "the gun lobby".

I suspect that most of us have little problem in theory with disqualification of those certified as genuine fruit loops, as long as the terms are defined objectively and there are both due process safeguards when declaring someone to be a whack job, as well as clear and simple procedures for restoration of rights when someone is no longer mad as a hatter. While that's what federal law currently calls for, that's far short of what the usual suspects want. They want to make sure that anybody who might possibly ever exhibit the tiniest anti-social behavior (e.g., raising one's voice at someone, watching the wrong sorts of movies or reading the wrong books, etc.) is guaranteed to be declared unsuitable.

Ken
 

pdm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
10,518
Likes
2,398
Location
Taxachusetts
They want to make sure that anybody who might possibly ever exhibit the tiniest anti-social behavior (e.g., raising one's voice at someone, watching the wrong sorts of movies or reading the wrong books, etc.) is guaranteed to be declared unsuitable.

Ken

So anyone who reads Chomsky? [smile]
 
Top Bottom