Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,505
Location
Central Ma.
How about they fix the licensing system first before they try to add more restrictions? We can't get renewals on time but these incompetent officials want to further complicate the issue? Hopefully GOAL will be all over this and point this out.
 

murf4321

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
1,699
Likes
1,130
Given that the shooter in that case suffered from severe mental health issues – and the fact that numerous school and public mass shooting incidents have also revolved around mentally ill people getting their hands on legal weapons – the issue of the state’s lack of reporting mental health records has come to a critical juncture.

glad they have this solved... I mean it's not like Lanza stole the guns or anything.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,880
Likes
70,720
Part of the problem I have with this is that they act like there would be thousands of records in there. Do they really know how RARE a disqualifying MH committment actually is? Most people with issues, even severe ones, seek treatment voluntarily. Sure MA probably isn't submitting theirs, but when other states only have a few hundred submissions, that should tell you something.

-Mike
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
745
Likes
107
I'm a little confused with the article. Is the reporter also saying anybody who wants a gun permit will have to disclose their mental health records for whatever reason they went to a shrink.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,880
Likes
70,720
I'm a little confused with the article. Is the reporter also saying anybody who wants a gun permit will have to disclose their mental health records for whatever reason they went to a shrink.

I think the gist of it is the antis are whining that MA DMH doesn't disclose "full nutters" to the FBI NICS system, or doesn't
appear to be doing so.

The irony of the whole thing is that while these people would pass a NICS check they would still never get an LTC in MA, anyways, because MA does a nutter check with MA DMH to make sure all applicants are not disqualified. So this doesn't really ever matter unless one of these nutters moves to another state and tries to buy a gun at a dealer. The likelihood of which is.... pretty low.

-Mike
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
745
Likes
107
I think the gist of it is the antis are whining that MA DMH doesn't disclose "full nutters" to the FBI NICS system, or doesn't
appear to be doing so.

The irony of the whole thing is that while these people would pass a NICS check they would still never get an LTC in MA, anyways, because MA does a nutter check with MA DMH to make sure all applicants are not disqualified. So this doesn't really ever matter unless one of these nutters moves to another state and tries to buy a gun at a dealer. The likelihood of which is.... pretty low.

-Mike

If that's what they want go after fine with me. I get worried that they will start targeting innocent people who went to get help, and still want to keep their 2a rights.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,377
Likes
5,609
Location
Stoughton
If they do, which I'd bet they do, it's because once they get the reporting system in place they'll start work on lowering the bar. Which is the fear that a lot of people have about the reporting requirements in the ACA. Look at what New York is doing with that, or trying to do. I think CA is doing something similar, coming to confiscate people who had any in patient MH admission. That's why we should fight any attempt to lower the bar from a court ordered commitment. Ironically, we might get some support from the mental health advocates. They don't want a lot of this information to become public because they fear that it might discourage people from seeking counseling or other forms of mental healthcare.



Part of the problem I have with this is that they act like there would be thousands of records in there. Do they really know how RARE a disqualifying MH committment actually is? Most people with issues, even severe ones, seek treatment voluntarily. Sure MA probably isn't submitting theirs, but when other states only have a few hundred submissions, that should tell you something.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,880
Likes
70,720
If they do, which I'd bet they do, it's because once they get the reporting system in place they'll start work on lowering the bar. Which is the fear that a lot of people have about the reporting requirements in the ACA. Look at what New York is doing with that, or trying to do. I think CA is doing something similar, coming to confiscate people who had any in patient MH admission. That's why we should fight any attempt to lower the bar from a court ordered commitment. Ironically, we might get some support from the mental health advocates. They don't want a lot of this information to become public because they fear that it might discourage people from seeking counseling or other forms of mental healthcare.

Yeah, it all depends on how these systems work. I know federally at least they would have to change the law as to what constitutes a prohibited person.... however, depending on how the state data is provided, if they're just "naming names" of people who are supposed to be disqualified" that could be a "whatever that means" kind of moment. I can see a dangerous possibility of some people being falsely flagged.

-Mike
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,377
Likes
5,609
Location
Stoughton
That's the issue. Ironically, it might be better for this to happen at the federal level, if it happens at all. The other part of this is that people who should by law become PP don't because the felony charges that they are originally indicted on are plead down to misdemeanors that wouldn't be disqualifiers. They then went on to legally buy guns and commit crimes. If the system had worked as intended, they wouldn't have been able to make those purchases. Would that have stopped the crimes? We don't know, but we do know that the antis wouldn't have been able to use them as poster boys for tighter restrictions.

Yeah, it all depends on how these systems work. I know federally at least they would have to change the law as to what constitutes a prohibited person.... however, depending on how the state data is provided, if they're just "naming names" of people who are supposed to be disqualified" that could be a "whatever that means" kind of moment. I can see a dangerous possibility of some people being falsely flagged.

-Mike
 

aeromarine

NES Member
Rating - 100%
51   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
448
Likes
162
Location
Eastern Massachusetts
It will be very interesting to see what happens if they try to open up this can of worms. Will people continue to voluntarily seek mental health services if they think there is any chance they could be "flagged" as prohibited persons? Will mental health professionals be willing to take on the responsibility for making such a determination in the absence of a specific overt threat to do harm? Will patient privacy groups chime in to oppose it? I see the potential for all sorts of unintended consequences and strong resistance to implementation from a variety of groups in addition to gun owners. Even if new regulations are imposed in this area it's possible they could simply be ignored by those held responsible for flagging people who might present a risk. To do otherwise would have a chilling effect on the therapist-patient relationship. So this could just be more "feel good" legislation and result in yet another law that accomplishes nothing.
 
Last edited:

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
3,746
Likes
2,424
Location
NH
Will people continue to voluntarily seek mental health services if they think there is any chance they could be "flagged" as prohibited persons?

Yes, or at least fear of being a PP that then prohibits them from purchasing a firearm won't be the reason they choose not to seek MH care. And the MA legislature wont care b/c it will assume that the population of MA residents who care about being a PP (or even know about it) is small. Of course, this leaves you wondering exactly what broadening PP based on MH issues really accomplishes but of course actually doing something that might have a meaningful effect on reducing violence and increasing safety in our communities is not the objective. Instead, going after the second amendment and preying on the emotions of the people gets the votes.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,210
I think the gist of it is the antis are whining that MA DMH doesn't disclose "full nutters" to the FBI NICS system, or doesn't
appear to be doing so.

The irony of the whole thing is that while these people would pass a NICS check they would still never get an LTC in MA, anyways, because MA does a nutter check with MA DMH to make sure all applicants are not disqualified. So this doesn't really ever matter unless one of these nutters moves to another state and tries to buy a gun at a dealer. The likelihood of which is.... pretty low.

-Mike

I thought that has always been a non-issue as MA DMH has always refused to cooperate with providing any mental health records to anyone... federal, state or local.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
2,643
Likes
265
Location
Here
If they do, which I'd bet they do, it's because once they get the reporting system in place they'll start work on lowering the bar. Which is the fear that a lot of people have about the reporting requirements in the ACA. Look at what New York is doing with that, or trying to do. I think CA is doing something similar, coming to confiscate people who had any in patient MH admission. That's why we should fight any attempt to lower the bar from a court ordered commitment. Ironically, we might get some support from the mental health advocates. They don't want a lot of this information to become public because they fear that it might discourage people from seeking counseling or other forms of mental healthcare.

All it would probably take is some wack job to commit another mass murder of some sort, and have been at one time diagnosed with some common mental disorder or depression to get them what they need to lower the bar, so to speek

the mental disorder the killer has dose not even need to be part of the reason why they did it, but its enough for the antis to push blame on unrelated mental heath problems the killer may have had , no facts needed to back them up, just good old "its for your safty" propaganda
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,880
Likes
70,720
I thought that has always been a non-issue as MA DMH has always refused to cooperate with providing any mental health records to anyone... federal, state or local.

Well, apparently they provide some sort of access to CJIS, because on numerous occasions CJIS has claimed permit processing delays were due to "waiting to hear back from MA DMH" on applicants status. So they probably don't "provide" anything other than a "yes no" answer on involuntary commitment or something to that effect.

-Mike
 

Bill Katt

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
10,567
Likes
3,055
Location
North central Mass.
Could be interesting. People that want to try and quit smoking using Chantix (an anti-depressant I do believe) are also urged to seek counseling in conjunction with the whole thing. [thinking]

Then there's people that are prescribed anti-depressants for treatment in 'off-label' situations.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
745
Likes
107
No real new info to add, but Deleo mentioned it again today on what he is planning to do this year.

A task force appointed by DeLeo to study Massachusetts' gun laws following the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, was close to releasing its final report, the speaker said, adding that the group's recommendations — which he did not detail — would be incorporated into a gun control bill this year.

"I have learned that while Massachusetts has some of the strongest gun laws in the country, there is room for improvement," he said.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/058bca18be0a44038b18470e0abaa898/MA--Massachusetts-Legislature
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
So, MA will spend even more millions micromanaging a group of people who aren't a problem while DCF continues mismanaged, unsupervised wrecking families and letting children go missing and die under their noses...

Real classy Bacon Hill...
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
12,518
Likes
5,546
Location
NOLA
No real new info to add, but Deleo mentioned it again today on what he is planning to do this year.

A task force appointed by DeLeo to study Massachusetts' gun laws following the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, was close to releasing its final report, the speaker said, adding that the group's recommendations — which he did not detail — would be incorporated into a gun control bill this year.




“I have learned that while Massachusetts has some of the strongest gun laws in the country, there is room for improvement,” he said.

He has LEARNED?! There is room for improvement, but it involves removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens, not adding more!

This bill is going to be a suck-fest.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,219
Likes
1,674
Location
SoNH
Heard about this on NPR. Can't wait to hear what they are going to ram through under the pretense of saving the children. There is no hope for MA.
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
5,490
Likes
1,591
Location
Hyde Park
how do they define mentally ill? those whove been adjudicated as such by the courts or are they going to demand a violation of HIPAA rights and disclosures for seeing a counselor or getting an SSRI?
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,897
I was present for a panel on gun violence and mental health back in October that featured voices from the mental health community. While I suspect all of them favor gun control in the broader sense, none of them seemed to want any more mental health disqualifiers to gun rights, arguing it would dissuade people from seeking treatment. It came off to me as a "we need gun control, but look for it somewhere else."
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
745
Likes
107
I was present for a panel on gun violence and mental health back in October that featured voices from the mental health community. While I suspect all of them favor gun control in the broader sense, none of them seemed to want any more mental health disqualifiers to gun rights, arguing it would dissuade people from seeking treatment. It came off to me as a "we need gun control, but look for it somewhere else."

I hope you're right regarding mental health. But I don't trust this state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom