mental health checks for LTC applicants?

[drgrant]

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.

"Psychiatric evaluation" is not a panacea. The end
result will be people that "game the shrinks" (which is easy
enough to do, unless one is so mentally incompetent that they
can't walk across the street without starting a fight with
someone, etc. ) The people you REALLY have to worry about
will not be detected. So now we've just infringed on a bunch
of people's privacy rights, etc, to accomplish nothing... the
only people punished will be those that are honest, eg, "I had
an episode of XYZ 20 years ago" BZZZT! NO GUN LICENSE
FOR YOU! etc. It's a bad solution in search of an almost
non-existant problem. (If one looks at overall gun deaths, only
a small portion of them are caused by fully enabled raving lunatics...)

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.

Once you create a license for ownership, you've just opened the
gateway to regulation and restrictions, and then the antis just
have to "crank the knob slightly" later on to pad onto those restrictions,
etc. Then a decade or so passes and you end up with
Massachusetts firearms licensing.



-Mike

 

[Erebus]

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.

I'm with Jose!! I live in MA but most of my family lives in NH. I can't wait to get the hell away from this place.

Once Cadillac Deval got elected I knew it was over for MA. I won't live long enough to see it turn around, if it ever does.

As soon as you accept a license to do anything you are accepting that someone else can take what ever that license regulates away from you whenever they want.

 

[drgrant]

Why do you need a licensing procedure at all?

I think what depicts was talking about
was that, in regards to "probable" changes
in MA licensing, that asking for shrink evals
would not be an improvement.

I agree that in a perfect world the 2nd amendment would apply legally
to everyone regardless of state of residence, etc... but the feds have
crippled it by not making it fully binding upon the states, etc. If that
were the case then whatever MA legislamers thought would be
irrelevant.

 

[Gmountain]

Gentleman, just the fact that you are talking about this and trying to find ways to make it palatable is a problem.

There is no way that this is acceptable in any way, shape or form.

 

[kevin9]

Gentleman, just the fact that you are talking about this and trying to find ways to make it palatable is a problem.

There is no way that this is acceptable in any way, shape or form.

True, True. I don't think you'll find a single person here who would find this acceptable in any way. The fact is there are people who think this way and we will have to deal with them somehow.

The point of the OP though was to discuss what arguments to use in rebuttal. I think it is good to share ideas on this. I know I frequently come across an argument I would not have thought of in these kind of threads.

 

[depicts]

drgrant, thanks for covering for me. You hit it right. No one asked if I thought there should be any license, the subject was a psychological test for licensing.

I can't even IMAGINE anything that would turn Massachusetts around. This state is full of girlie men and cowards. They haven't the testicular fortitude to provide for their own self defense, so they try to deprive others of the right so they won't look so bad.

 

[Garys]

I agree that this is a bad idea. In addition to being inherently liberal, most psychiatrists I've known over the years are a few fries short of a Happy Meal themselves.

Gary

 

[Joe R.]

As the recent recipient of a medical " professional " attempt to have me checked out, I really don't think that is a very good idea Tony. I was ( still kind of ) having probelms adjusting to 1st shift as I've been working nights for 13+ years. The doctor is the sleep center guy I've only seen for 15 minutes at a time for 3 times at the most. I'm all wound up and not sleeping well and I guess the agitation he saw was enough to scare him into talking with my primary care doctor. Yes, because I was agitated and 300+ pounds and scared the shit out of him that day, he decided that I was dangerous and needed to be looked at! I was glad my PCP knows me well enough to tell this guy that I was just having a rough time adjusting.

Why stop at just a background check for a license. Let's get 10 letters of recomendations, a phsycological exam by a doctor who trys to help you out with your problems ( let alone what they bring to the table for their problems ), and an inspection of your domicile to make sure your're storing everything correctly. Does doing this to me make MA a safer place? I don't think it does.

Joe R.

 

[Major D Ret.]

I say no on the gun licenses, but it's definitely a good idea for
people who want to have children or vote.

MAJOR D

 

[kevin9]

I say no on the gun licenses, but it's definitely a good idea for
people who want to have children or vote.

MAJOR D

Then I'd REALLY be in trouble.

 

[Lugnut]

I love these topics.

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

Sure.. but how many of you think that that right should also apply to a convicted felon? Let's give the OP some slack.

The problem here is that although I think most of us don't think a mentally deranged person like the VT shooter should be allowed to have firearms (I really hope this is the case) we feel a system couldn't do a good job of this without scewing others.... that's the problem as I see it anyway.

 

[KMaurer]

The simple answer is the one that they'll never accept. If someone can't be trusted to posses a firearm, then they shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. Whether it's due to them being a violent criminal or mentally unstable, the simple fact us the same: people who can't be trusted shouldn't be. It's the people you need to worry about, not their tools.

Ken

 

[Len-2A Training]

The simple answer is the one that they'll never accept. If someone can't be trusted to posses a firearm, then they shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. Whether it's due to them being a violent criminal or mentally unstable, the simple fact us the same: people who can't be trusted shouldn't be. It's the people you need to worry about, not their tools.

Ken

In the "days of the West" if someone was locked up for a minor crime, when they were released, they were handed their gun back. If it was a major crime, they were hung and the risk of a repeat occurrence was so minimal that they didn't worry about what his gun might do!

 

[Chris]

All boils down to the same old argument.

Why should I trust you if you don't trust me?

If you have evidence of past actions which you think MIGHT make me incapable of being responsible for all my freedoms, charge me, set me before a court with a jury of my peers, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Otherwise, mind your own business.

Oh yes, and those that you do find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, STOP LETTING THEM BACK INTO SOCIETY!!!!

 

[Len-2A Training]

Do you really want to trust the gov't to determine who is mentally competent or not?

Think of this (details are available with Google) . . .

The VA declared some 80K returning Vets as mental health risks, all without notification or any hearings. Just the administrative stroke of a pen. AFAIK (and I admit, I do not know all the details) these so-called "at risk" Vets were not mustered out of the US Military and are still "at risk" of being called back for another tour of duty in hostile territory. So, they may be declared unfit to ever own/touch a gun in civilian life, but it's perfectly OK for Uncle Sam to hand them an M4, M16, SAW, tank, plane, etc. on some foreign turf??

Just because someone suffers from stress, anxiety, PTSD, etc. after seeing the horrors of war; should we strip them of their rights without due process?

 

[reinbeau]

In the "days of the West" if someone was locked up for a minor crime, when they were released, they were handed their gun back. If it was a major crime, they were hung and the risk of a repeat occurrence was so minimal that they didn't worry about what his gun might do!

Sounds good to me!

 

[MarkM]

I love these topics.

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

Sure.. but how many of you think that that right should also apply to a convicted felon? Let's give the OP some slack.

The problem here is that although I think most of us don't think a mentally deranged person like the VT shooter should be allowed to have firearms (I really hope this is the case) we feel a system couldn't do a good job of this without scewing others.... that's the problem as I see it anyway.

I feel the point of contention is more around how a person is determined as being mentally deranged.

Should there be a license required to own a firearm and as part of that license should you have to get checked out by a shrink who can arbitrarily decide if you might be a danger to others? I say no way!

Should we allow for a medical diagnosis by one doctor or shrink that someone might be a danger to result in a permanent disqualification as part of a firearm purchase check, I say no way (but this is what has passed in the US house without a formal vote and is currently on the floor of the Senate)..... I say no way to this as it is too arbitrary - any Veteran returning from war could be diagnosed with PTSD and banned from firearm ownership by the decision of one doc.

Should we enforce the current law that bans convicted felons and persons involuntarily committed to a mental institution from Firearm ownership: yes! and should we do a better job of tracking who are in those categories, yes!

No new gun control laws, just enforce the existing laws properly (and if any existing laws are unreasonable and overly restrictive (such as all the LTC/FID, assault weapon, high cap mag BS in MA and the Federal machine gun bans etc) work to get those laws repealed).

 

[Len-2A Training]

I haven't dealt with any psychiatrists, but have known some psychologists casually over the years. All but one of those I've known I wouldn't trust with a sharp pencil!

- A young couple moved across the street from us, so we went over to introduce ourselves and welcome them to the neighborhood. The guy went ballistic on us. Come to find out that he's a psychologist who works for the State, DYS I believe. Another neighbor (>60 yo) shoveled out his driveway for him a few times (the couple was in their 30s), myself and another neighbor picked up his barrels (that were rolling all over the road) for him a few times. He never so much as said thank you to anyone during the ~5 years he lived there. We gave up and didn't even bother waving to him any more (he subsequently moved to another part of town).

- Digital Equipment Corp was in the "death throes", so when I was given the heads up that I was going to get laid off the following month, I was honestly relieved. It took me 3 days to come up with a "plan" to start my own business, serving the computer needs for small businesses. When a psychologist that I knew casually heard that I was getting laid off, her first comments were that she could refer me to someone that could give me some meds for depression. DOH! I wasn't depressed at all, she never saw me professionally . . . she just "assumed" that anyone laid off must be depressed and need drugs! I looked at her like she had two heads, told her that there was no need and I was looking forward to a new adventure (the 26 weeks severance and accrued vacation time didn't hurt ) and avoided her like the plague after that. [As someone who doesn't even take ibuprofen/naprosin unless I'm already in real pain or an allergy pill until after I am sneezing uncontrollably, I really took offense at the attitude that "we have a drug for everything" . . . before a diagnosis of real need.]

- My late Sister was born with Downs Syndrome and thus under the "control" of the Dept. of Mental Retardation. When it was suggested that my Sister should have a legal guardian to handle her financial and medical decisions, DMR took "exception". MGL requires 3 INDEPENDENT evaluations before a judge will grant guardianship (by an MD, psychologist and a social worker). Well, the social worker told the psychologist (they both worked for DMR and worked with my Sister regularly) what to put in his report and he was stupid enough to even admit (in writing, a direct violation of MGLs) that the social worker told him <blah, blah> to refute the need for a legal guardian. When I read these "Independent" evaluations that DMR filed in Probate Court, I was furious. I called the psychologist and reamed him out. Lucky for him, he decided to quit and move to Brazil, or I would have turned him in to the Licensing Board and ask that his License be revoked. Do you really want to trust your RIGHTS . . . that there will never be any collusion between a psychiatrist and the state to deprive you of your rights?

- The only good psychologist that I've ever dealt with was the industrial psychologist that worked with our group at DEC. Her task was to get the 13 of us to work more effectively with different personalities (we supported most orgs within the company, including our foreign subsidiaries) and cultures (we had some serious cultural issues with a CSA Engineer who was originally from India and treated us like we were his slaves - when he came to audit us, he DEMANDED pickup/drop-off at Logan, for us to drive him to/from his hotel, etc. whereas others would fly in, rent a car, etc.). We obtained UL, CSA and TÜV product safety approvals for most products that DEC was developing. She was firmly grounded in "reality" and was a big help to the group. Perhaps because she worked in industry, her perspective was the bigger picture?

At any rate, I would NOT trust these types of folks (and I kinda lump psychologists and psychiatrists together as "birds of a feather") to pass judgment on my rights!

 

[depicts]

LenS, the Clinton administration added those Veterans you mentioned to the "not qualified" list due to PTSD and other nervous problems.

The VA is presently in the process of changing that ruling, and those 80,000 people are starting now to get licenses if they want them. The government no longer submits the names of PTSD patients to the BATFE as a routine matter.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Depicts,

Thanks for the clarification.

No matter who makes the determination . . . the government is NOT your Friend!!

 

[pipmaster1971]

No freaking way.

I know a few psychologists, they're nice people, but most of them are anti-gun. I would just love to see the results of their examinations.

I also doubt that they would want to get involved. I can just imagine imagine the legal and lawsuit crap that would happen where someone is "cleared" as sane enough to own a gun, buys one and proceeds to go on a rampage. No psychologist with an once of sense would want to get involved with that sort of mess.

 

[bpm990d]

Think of it this way. You know those stupid personality tests that some/many big businesses require you to take when you interview there for a job. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is one of them. These stupid tests are the reason you don't get hired even though the interview was great, and your resume fits perfectly. The business apparently conducted research to ascertain certain traits of employees that are successful in their stupid company culture.

Try this one on for size - The Massachusetts Criminal Behavior Probability Screen.

If your bubbles aren't filled in just right you might not get to own a gun. Thanks but no thanks. You can take the idea for a MCBPS and flush it.

B

 

[drgrant]

Sure.. but how many of you think that that right should also apply to a convicted felon? Let's give the OP some slack.

I have serious problems with FIP/Lautenberg, and I'm sure
others do, as well. There are numerous people "prohibited" from
the system that really shouldn't be, etc. I've discussed this
ad nauseum in other threads on here. (IMO the "class" of
prohibited persons is too wide, for starters, and people who
made dumb mistakes earlier in life, etc. There also is no
convenient means of restoring one's rights, etc. A guy who
kills someone while DUI can get their rights back easier than a
gun owner, and owning a car isn't a constitutional right! )

FIP/Lautenberg is just another federally orchestrated ponzi scheme
that sometimes acts as a band-aid for shitty excessively liberal
courts/judges who don't prosecute violent criminals properly. (how
about mandatory minimums for any violent crime with any weapon,
for starters?) Do you think the thugs in boston who have been
in and out of the court system 3 or 4 times for shooting at
someone really care about gun laws? (every once in awhile
the feds will bag one or two for FIP but most of the time, they skate)

Every time the feds (or whoever) come up with another one of
these schemes they either create more problems than they solve,
or they just serve to mask what the real problem is.

To top it off, the mental health thing is 10 times worse, because
it's WAY more subjective than a criminal record which is the
outcome of due process. Mental health determinations are often
made by the stroke of the pen of some shrink... and often never
by anything resembling due process.

-Mike

 

[KMaurer]

(how about mandatory minimums for any violent crime with any weapon, for starters?)

Why bother? Is there some reason to believe that this law would be enforced any better than the"mandatory" 5-years for first-offense simple felon in possession or the longer "mandatory" sentences for subsequent offenses or possession during the commission of particular crimes? The only people against whom such laws are ever enforced are otherwise harmless people found with a couple of rounds of .22 who pleaded out to a B&E and got unsupervised probation 35 years ago, not realizing it was a felony. It's so much more glamorous to announce the arrest of a "major illegal gun trafficker" (i.e., a dealer who inadvertently let a couple of customers enter invalid state abbreviations on form 4473). Besides, it's so much easier, since those honest people are much less likely to offer a violent response when confronted and also make the job so much easier by not knowing to keep their mouths shut.

Ken

 

[drgrant]

Why bother? Is there some reason to believe that this law would be enforced any better than the"mandatory" 5-years for first-offense simple felon in possession or the longer "mandatory" sentences for subsequent offenses or possession during the commission of particular crimes?

When I said "violent crime" I meant it- eg, assault, murder,
etc. "Gun possession" is not a violent crime, at least not
in and of itself. Additionally, the minimums would be at
the state/local level, not the federal level. The point being that
if the jurisdictions did their job, there would be no need for a
wallhack like FIP to even exist, because the criminals would be
serving longer sentences for assault, rape, armed robbery, etc.

Edit: To be more specific, what I'm getting at here is the only
way FIP/Lautenberg is justified is that it -does- net some BG's
in jail.... but if the system did it's job to begin with you wouldn't
see that many prosecutions via FIP because the criminal would be
serving -more- time for the "real" crime committed, instead of a based-on-bs
"gun possession" charge.

-Mike

 

[Jaxon]

In the "days of the West" if someone was locked up for a minor crime, when they were released, they were handed their gun back. If it was a major crime, they were hung and the risk of a repeat occurrence was so minimal that they didn't worry about what his gun might do!

Ahhh, the old days, eh Len?

We'll raises up our glasses
Against evil forces
Singing, "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!"

 

[csharpdev]

The outcome of the examination would be one of the following:

A) You are a human capable of feeling emotion and therefore should not have a gun. Being an emotional creature there is no way to predict what you may do in the "heat of the moment"

or

B)You are a human incapable of feeling emotion and therefore you may be a sociopath. You should be heavily drugged and should not have guns.

 

[matt1956]

the whole licensing in MA is a joke.

then you go putting it in the hands of someone that could be potentially sued if someone does infact go and shot someone after they get their lic...?

Yeah, i see a lot of shrinks saying "NO!" without a second thought.

 

[matt1956]

these have been in my sig for a while now... but think maybe they need to be put here to prove a point.

No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.

The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]

WRT RTKBA... the licensing in itself is a violation of our rights.

but rights have no place in MASS now do they?

 

[Lugnut]

these have been in my sig for a while now... but think maybe they need to be put here to prove a point.



WRT RTKBA... the licensing in itself is a violation of our rights.

but rights have no place in MASS now do they?

Firearms licensing is not just a MASS anomaly... unfortunately.