mental health checks for LTC applicants?

[TonyDedo]

I was discussing gun law with the Uneducated this afternoon, and someone suggested that during the application process, a LTC applicant should be required to undergo a mental health evaluation by an independent psychiatrist in order to determine if a person is mentally suitable to own a firearm. This would be in lieu of or in addition to the interview conducted by the CLEO or one of his subordinates.

The argument is that an interview by a trained psychiatrist would better help to spot people like the VT shooter, who I'm sure we can all agree should not have been able to purchase a firearm, and other unsuitable applicants like drug addicts planning to conduct straw purchases for their dealers, etc.

On one hand, this seems very reasonable to me. I am a firm proponent of using a firearms license as a gateway to prevent unsuitable people from obtaining firearms, and this seems like a productive step in that process. However, is also sets off warning alarms in my head, because there is a HUGE amount of room for subjectivity. Just like the CLEO has the power to deny or confiscate LTCs at his digression, a shink with an anti agenda would easily prevent people who may seem a little 'weird' but are not at all unsuitable from obtaining a license.

Discuss...

 

[MarkM]

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[bpm990d]

I'm not a proponent of firearms Licenses. No thanks. Please stay in Mass.

B

 

[jkelly]

It reminds me of a Barney Miller episode where Wojciehowicz (spelling) had shot a bad guy and needed to have an evaluation of his suitability to carry a gun. Wojo fails the evaluation and his career is in jeopardy. Any way it ends up the shrink didn’t believe that any one should carry a gun not people, not LEOs no one. Hard to believe isn’t it?


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[Gmountain]

I was discussing gun law with the Uneducated this afternoon, and someone suggested that during the application process, a LTC applicant should be required to undergo a mental health evaluation by an independent psychiatrist in order to determine if a person is mentally suitable to own a firearm. This would be in lieu of or in addition to the interview conducted by the CLEO or one of his subordinates.

The argument is that an interview by a trained psychiatrist would better help to spot people like the VT shooter, who I'm sure we can all agree should not have been able to purchase a firearm, and other unsuitable applicants like drug addicts planning to conduct straw purchases for their dealers, etc.

On one hand, this seems very reasonable to me. I am a firm proponent of using a firearms license as a gateway to prevent unsuitable people from obtaining firearms, and this seems like a productive step in that process. However, is also sets off warning alarms in my head, because there is a HUGE amount of room for subjectivity. Just like the CLEO has the power to deny or confiscate LTCs at his digression, a shink with an anti agenda would easily prevent people who may seem a little 'weird' but are not at all unsuitable from obtaining a license.

Discuss...

Yikes! Is that what it's like in Mass? Someone has to give approval for you to own a firearm? And then they can take them away for no reason?

 

[tele_mark]

Yikes! Is that what it's like in Mass? Someone has to give approval for you to own a firearm? And then they can take them away for no reason?

You got it!

 

[ignium]

Absolutely not! We already know what the problems are. In MA in particular we have a growth in MS-13 members, the drug problem as well as parents who decided to allow TV and the state to raise their kids. This is just another attempt to make the process so tedious that people won’t bother with getting a license and potentially enjoying a lifetime of challenging shooting sports. We in MA already have to pay a $200 tax and be treated as second class citizens just to practice our right. The knowledge of needing to be “evaluated” by a so called well trained un-biased “Mental Health Specialist” will only fuel the prejudice and stereotypes that law abiding gun owners already have to suffer. You need to remember what kind of people your dealing with.

Who would this person be?

Are they an “independent party”?

Who would they answer to?

What exactly are their credentials?

My wife is a Doctor, a dam good one, and I was with her through thick and thin while she was in school and I can promise you one thing after meeting some of the other students at that time. Just because someone gets a Doctorate in the particular field they choose to practice does not necessarily mean that they are the most qualified individual for that particular field. I’m getting a little tired of having to pay the price for someone else’s crime. Next time you talk to these people ask them if couples should be evaluated before they have a child to unsure that they are capable of doing so. Come to think of it that may not be a bad idea. Enough is Enough!

 

[kevin9]

Start the rebuttal by asking the uneducated if they think they should have to pass a mental health exam to get a drivers license, or buy a car, nail gun, hammer, etc. MarkM's point is of course the bedrock of the response.

 

[Pilgrim]

how many psychos are driving cars? When psych tests are required for drivers licenses, I MIGHT agree to it with guns.

 

[TOM-P]

Good luck getting a DR to sign off on that one.. They would be the first ones sued if patient x went nuts and shot someone.

 

[matt]

how many psychos are driving cars? When psych tests are required for drivers licenses, I MIGHT agree to it with guns.

WOOH!!! If that happened, I'd be ESPECIALLY disinclined!

I'm with MarkM.

 

[kevin9]

how many psychos are driving cars? When psych tests are required for drivers licenses, I MIGHT agree to it with guns.

Of course such a test would immediately remove 30% of the drivers from MA roads
Still would not be enough for me to agree for guns.

 

[FPrice]

On one hand, this seems very reasonable to me.

Just how reasonable would it seem if you are trying to get an evaluation from a doctor or other "health professional" who does not believe that anyone should ever be allowed to have a gun?

Someone like, say, Dr. Arthur Kellerman.

 

[ignium]

Good luck getting a DR to sign off on that one.. They would be the first ones sued if patient x went nuts and shot someone.

That's an excellent point and one of the main reasons why a head check wouldn't work.

 

[Riverside]

How about we mandate that the licensing officials be certified by the psychiatrist or psychologist? We could weed out control freaks and those with tendancies to deny folks their basic 2nd ammendment rights just because they have the power to do so.
We could weed out the anti-second ammendment bum kissers such as Menino's man or the Brookline chap. It's more cost effective to screen the licensing officials than it is to screen the shrinking gun owning population.
Best Regards.

 

[SKS Ray]

I'm amazed that there isn't a drug test before issuing a license.

 

[wahsben]

The reason the founders wrote shall not be infringed is that they knew from history that infringements would only disarm the innocent. When the RKBA is not infringed it keeps things in balance. If someone with criminal intent starts shooting there is a much better chance that someone will be around to put an end to their criminal ways.

 

[Twigg]

See post No. 2 above.

Yeesh.

Why not have our social security numbers tattoed on our forearms while we're at this ?

 

[Jose]

I am a firm proponent of using a firearms license as a gateway to prevent unsuitable people from obtaining firearms...

There is nothing to discuss.

This Ma**h*** shit of requiring licenses to excersie a RIGHT is beginning to get on my nerves.

Why don't you move to a free f***ing state and live there for a while? You MIGHT come to learn that those of us without your f***ed up draconian and unconstitutional laws get by JUST FINE with a lot less violence than your f***ed up "Commonwealth".

Massachussetts is the laughingstock of the nation.

 

[tele_mark]

<SNIP>
Massachussetts is the laughingstock of the nation.

Thank god. I hope that's really true.

 

[Cato]

Thank god. I hope that's really true.

Trust me, it is.

 

[FPrice]

Why don't you move to a free f***ing state and live there for a while?

This has been covered in another thread which I can't find at the moment. There are many reasons to live in a particular state besides gun laws unfortunately.

edited to add:

Found it! http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23275

I suppose that we all would have been better off if the Minutemen and other Patriot Militia had simply moved from the Colony of Massachusetts when General Gage moved to seize our arms that fateful April day.

 

[Jose]

This has been covered in another thread which I can't find at the moment. There are many reasons to live in a particular state besides gun laws unfortunately.

edited to add:

Found it! http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23275

I suppose that we all would have been better off if the Minutemen and other Patriot Militia had simply moved from the Colony of Massachusetts when General Gage moved to seize our arms that fateful April day.

The O/P's supremely stupid idea that your licensing laws actually do anything useful and desirable set me off. It smacks of pure ignorance coming from someone who has not lived any place else and has zero frame of reference to make intelligent statements. It's either that or he did not learn a GD thing any place else he went.

Unlike some of you all, I have lived in Puerto Rico, Maryland, New York, Florida, California, Hawaii, Washington, Kansas, and Ohio. In forty one years and nine different states/territories, I have formed my opinions and biases from a rather varied set of experiences, rather than the narrow view that those who have never lived any place other than where they were born, educated, and worked tend to have.

Your gun laws suck ass and to suggest that any of them do anything useful, in light of the violence that infects your capital city and most of your other metro areas, is utter stupidity. To insinuate that they should be a model for other states is sure to bring a nasty reply from those who know better.

And spare me the revolutionary war crap. Your patriots must be spinning uncontrollably in their graves looking at what Mass has become.

 

[sig shooter]

you should not need any license to own a gun. whats next? having a license to FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

 

[depicts]

Some of the craziest people I know are psychiatrists. While I've known one or two that have helped with marriage problems and routine stuff, I've run into more that are off the wall. We need LESS people involved with the licensing procedure, ESPECIALLY phychiatrists.

And if it turns out someone abuses that right, prosecute them and put them away.

If I insulted any phychiatrists that are reading this board, TOUGH, live with it.

 

[Jose]

We need LESS people involved with the licensing procedure

Why do you need a licensing procedure at all?

 

[dixidawg]

Some of the craziest people I know are psychiatrists.

+10000 to that!! I worked for over 20 years in various hospitals. Some of the folks that worked in the "Mental Health" department were amongst the scariest people I have ever met.

 

[GSG]

I agree with Riverside that checking the issuing authority would be money better spent, IMHO.

I'm a firm believer that the 2nd Amendment shall not be infronged. No matter what, or by who, or how. The more people we insert in the process, the more of a mess it becomes. There's a reason there's only one steering wheel in a car.

I think people need guns when they need them. If you currently reside in Mass. without an FID/LTC and your life is threatened, after you schedule a safety course, schedule an appointment, apply, and wait hoever long it takes to jump through whatever other hoops the CLEO has set up for you, and THEN you can legally access a gun. If my life is in danger today, what good is a gun 3 months away, 3 weeks away, 3 days away, 3 hours away? Just something to help weigh down the coffin at that point. There needs to be a legal way to defend my life whenever I need to, regardless of local politics or someone else's idea of my rights. My grandfather is extremely anti-gun, but he's held an ALP Class A for as long as he's been able to, because he recognizes that someday he might need one, and fast.

All that aside, all this money we piss away into a gun registry, licensing process, approved firearms roster, etc. etc. has done nothing to stop or reduce violent crime, and only the Brady Campaign thinks it prevents suicides, mass shootings and AD's/ND's. It's made a lot more paperwork for everyone, more criminal convictions that people don't do time for, and cost me, the taxpayer, more money. Look at almost every other free state in this country where people pass a background check at the store for a gun and have a shall issue permit system. They spend a lot less money on the process, and people are for the most part responsible, just like they are everywhere else in the world. If the VT shooter hadn't used a G19, he could have used the Timothey McVeigh fertilizer and diesel fuel. The difference in result is very little, but the cost to the taxpayer and the law abiding citizen in money and danger is a hell of a lot lower.

Almost 10 years now of running a firearms registry, and the only thing it's showed us is that legal guns are almost never used in crime. Huh. I didn't see that one coming. I'm sure glad we paid a few million to learn that lesson. I betcha if the government spent 10 years monitoring lawful sexual encounters they'd learn that rapists and prostitutes don't register their actions either.

Tony, you have any replies to all of these?

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Good luck getting a DR to sign off on that one.. They would be the first ones sued if patient x went nuts and shot someone.

+1 No way any shrink would sign off on this: The real point is, are you not innocent and sane until proven guilty? People snap all the time for crazy stuff, and there is no way to prevent it far short of placing everyone in a bubble for the rest of their life.

Personally, I believe this is the intestinal fortitude (a.k.a balls) that a lot of politicians and sheepole lack, and the more they do not understand a subject, the more dangerous they are to the public at large.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

how many psychos are driving cars? When psych tests are required for drivers licenses, I MIGHT agree to it with guns.

Actually, I would go one step further: When everyone is mandated to have a yearly psychological examination, period. The act of segmenting the population and mandating a medical exam seems like discrimination to me: Not to mention the privacy laws that would be broken when a person would have to prove they have the mental capacity to own a firearm by releasing their medical records.

Hmmmm....now that we have mandatory health care in MA...would they....could they....