mental defective in possession of firearm

[jcr]

With all the talk of passing new anti-gun laws, one suggestion is adding disqualifiers for less severe mental problems.

We often see criminal charges of "felon in possession".

Has anyone ever seen anyone charged with being a mental defective in possession of a firearm? Has anyone been sent to Federal prison on this charge?

--jcr

 

[Len-2A Training]

Has anyone ever seen anyone charged with being a mental defective in possession of a firearm? Has anyone been sent to Federal prison on this charge?

--jcr

No, all the politicians get a free pass!

 

[clinotus]

'On the book' Mental Defectives would have had to have been touched by the system at one point or another and as a result be disqualified from transfer/purchase at the FFL level. FTF transactions would be the loophole.

 

[M1911]

You mean this guy?

Full text here: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12002945896784/salisbury-police-chief-under-investigation/

 

[jcr]

I'm guessing that a mentally disqualified person could get a gun the same way a felon does (usually via a handy drug dealer).

My question is directed more at whether a compassionate system would not charge such an unfortunate individual with a felony and instead just take the gun and divert the chages somehow.

--jcr

 

[clinotus]

I'm guessing that a mentally disqualified person could get a gun the same way a felon does (usually via a handy drug dealer).

My question is directed more at whether a compassionate system would not charge such an unfortunate individual with a felony and instead just take the gun and divert the chages somehow.

--jcr

I would like to see that happen and I think in some smaller towns across the nation it can happen, but most police departments are large, faceless, and scramble for arrest/conviction/intervention numbers for reporting which get them state and federal funding. One of the things about an arrest is that once you are in the system you are in the system (pretty much any system), everyone gets a piece of the pie from the police station to the DA. They aren't going to let that go.

This might be more of a mental health issue rather than a civil rights issue, since those persons should be in mandated care.

 

[swampy]

What makes a mentally disqualified person though? Can a mentally disqualified person be restored as a qualified person? If there is mandatory reporting by doctors for people being treated for depression, anxiety, or any other emotional problems that may or may not be long term them gun owners or potential gun owners may avoid seeking treatment. We all feel periods of excessive stress. It could be because of a kid being sent to a war zone, a sick relative, loss of a job, an injury or illness, etc. If a requirement is in place for doctors to report everyone they are treating so they can be disqualified then eventually everyone could be disqualified. What doctor is going to risk the liability to declare someone once disqualified as qualified? So if you take an anti-anxiety medication because your wife is terminally ill, your kid is missing in afghanistan, and your daughter is dating a biker twice her age with a record should you be permanantly disqualified? If you know this would you seek treatment? If 20 years from now you decide you want to buy a gun that 30 day presciption may disqualify you even though your wife recovered, your kid is fine and your daughter dumped the biker for a nice conservative IT geek. Would all that disqualifying information also keep you from getting a job? How about anything that disqualifies you from owning a gun also disqualifies you from running for an elected office?

Cops see shrinks after a shooting or on the job injury. Should they be disqualified? Should their rules for requalifying be the same as for everyone? Will they be?

The variables of the nature of and privacy of diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental treatment being made public scares me. There is a huge opportunity for abuse and misuse of information.

I'm guessing that a mentally disqualified person could get a gun the same way a felon does (usually via a handy drug dealer).

My question is directed more at whether a compassionate system would not charge such an unfortunate individual with a felony and instead just take the gun and divert the chages somehow.

--jcr

 

[Jordo]

Nice post Swampy. It seems ridiculous that one would be potentially punished for voluntarily seeking any type of mental help. It is not as though all mental health issues can be summed up so simply and certainly the majority of them are not even remotely of a violent nature. It is true that if such actions are to be implemented that less people will seek help for whatever may be bothering them for fear of losing certain rights.

 

[Cooter Brown]

As I posted on another thread, the potential trojan horse to watch for re: new gun control will be the mental health angle. Consider the following or some similar course of events:

The overt gun control measures (mag bans, AWB) fail, if indeed they even make it to the floor.

A large swath of middle America, along with "reasonable" people on both sides of the gun rights debate, agree that nut-jobs like Loughner should never have had the ability to legally purchase a gun;

They then agree that tighter scrutiny of mental status might indeed be desirable for gun purchases;

This gets translated, either by legislation, or administrative ruling, or executive order into a revision of the form 4473 from asking if the applicant has ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent or a danger to self or others, to ask if the applicant has ever been treated for a mental illness. (This is the case on the local forms in some jurisdictions already).

Bingo; if you had a rough patch in the 90's and your Doc put you on Prozac, guess what?

And how is the poor FBI to catch this on the NICS check since it currently only covers public records? Well, mandated reporting of mental health treatment might be one way....

 

[scouter-rick]

I think the definition of "Mental Illness" will be the most important part of something like this. What about all the ADHD cases, real and imagined including adult ADHD. There goes a huge part of the population right there.

I absolutely agree with the idea that this will prevent people from seeking help.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Nice post Swampy. It seems ridiculous that one would be potentially punished for voluntarily seeking any type of mental help. It is not as though all mental health issues can be summed up so simply and certainly the majority of them are not even remotely of a violent nature. It is true that if such actions are to be implemented that less people will seek help for whatever may be bothering them for fear of losing certain rights.

Ridiculous? Yes, but the potential for "punishment" is very real, not new and yes it does prevent people from seeking treatment.

When "EAP" became a new buzz-word, all employees received notices about it's availability and supposed confidentiality. I remember the "buzz" at the PD about it, with every officer warning others that if they did go to EAP that the chief would find out (I have no doubt of that) and that repercussions could result.

Ergo, people that did need help didn't go for help. Results that I know about (and I was only PT, didn't hang with them socially and thus only picked up bits and pieces here and there) was that one officer was a known (to everyone) alcoholic who flew off the handle at the drop of a hat (and was suspended many times, if it wasn't for Civil Circus he would have never survived to retirement), made an ass of himself at his retirement party, his son committed suicide. Another detective, who was a decent person IMNSHO, let alcohol destroy his career. Another very high ranking officer was a klepto, it was covered up even after his retirement.

I saw "leaks" in confidentiality as a supervisor in industry too.

I think the definition of "Mental Illness" will be the most important part of something like this. What about all the ADHD cases, real and imagined including adult ADHD. There goes a huge part of the population right there.

I absolutely agree with the idea that this will prevent people from seeking help.

Yup, even my doctor agreed with me that medical people prescribe pills for damn near everything when other solutions might also be effective (I was very glad that he agreed to me when I dropped that on him in a casual conversation). Who hasn't been under undo stress in a job? After a loss of a loved one? After the loss of a job? ["we have a pill for that! ]

Does that make them "unsuitable"? Many chiefs will say YES, if they get access to medical records and that is the direction that many are pushing for. I'm not taking bets that they don't succeed in pushing that thru either. Jim Wallace has had numerous discussions with mental health professionals in the recent past when this sort of thing was presented by the current state administration as a "solution" . . . and they were very concerned about breaches in confidentiality and the potential result that some will not seek treatment if they know that everyone will have access to their personal info!