If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
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.
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
Bullshit article. They only talked to politicians and MAIG. Really??
- - - Updated - - -
Or murdered his mom.
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
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
Will people continue to voluntarily seek mental health services if they think there is any chance they could be "flagged" as prohibited persons?
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 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.
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.
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.
What could be done to help this along?Don't worry about Bobby DeLeo - he is about 1 good friday night away from getting indicted
Don't worry about Bobby DeLeo - he is about 1 good friday night away from getting indicted
Especially as the last, what, 4 Speakers have all been indicted on some sort of charge? I swear, one must have a criminal record in this state to be elected.What makes you think his replacement would be any different on 2A issues?
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.
This bill is going to be a suck-fest.
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."