Putting Guns in the Hands of the Mentally Ill

[MaverickNH]

While the liberal left gun control advocates accuse GOP, NRA and Trump of putting guns in the hands of the mentally ill al the time for insisting on proper Due Process before deprive Veterans of 2nd Amendment Rights, this lawyer insists we repeal gun bans for the mentally ill.

I initially though she was crazy herself, but she raises the point that past violence and substance abuse are more relevant than mental illness. Her focus is mass shootings which, while claiming media and public attention, remain less than 1% of homicides. How about those other 99%?

While mental health advocates always remind us that only ~3% of the mentally ill may be violent, who listens when gun rights advocates remind us that 1000-fold fewer CCW permit holders commit firearms-related crimes?

Lawyers, Guns, and Mental Illness by Susan McMahon :: SSRN

 

[JayMcB]

I thought this was going to say liberals could get guns too

 

[Jordo]

Throwing around the term “mental illness” will get many in trouble who simply aren’t a problem whatsoever. It’s been discussed here many times and most on here know it’s a scapegoat. It’s a slippery slope and nice to see that even lawyers know it’s BS. Good article.

 

[Drix]

1.2% of Americans have schizophrenia, when you do the math out that's potentially giving a gun to 32,000 paranoid people with a history of auditory and visual hallucinations, generally of a evil nature.

No thanks, I'm good.

 

[Supermoto]

Do the mentally ill not have the right to self defense?

 

[Jordo]

I’m not saying I would want someone with schizophrenia owning or having unfettered access to firearms, but schizophrenia isn’t the only “mental illness” and that there is where it becomes dicey. As has been stated many times on here PTSD, OCD, Anxiety, etc. are also under this blanket term and as we know there are those who want nothing more than to reduce civilian ownership to 0, so it’s prudent to be vigilant on all fronts of our rights. Additionally as was stated in the article- substance abuse and a history of violence are far better indicators for determining true dangerousness. If people with mild issues deprive themselves of professsional treatment just to avoid this broad definition and instead self-medicate and thus develop a substance abuse problem then what good is that?

 

[MaverickNH]

There are about 750k felon in jails in the USA any given year that have proven themselves as violent offenders - a bigger worry than 32k schizos who “might” be violent. I’d target anti-crime efforts on that 95%+ slice of the pie. It doesn’t take a psychiatrist/psychologist to spot an ex-Con. Convince me violent ex-Cons should be allowed to possess guns the day they get out. Many do within days/week, I’m sure, but they didn’t pass a NICS at an FFL..

Yeah, with 6.1 million felons unable to vote, the push is to re-enfranchise them but only as they poll 70%+ Democrats. The recidivism rate for violent felons was 64% in 8yr and for non-violent felons 40% in 8yr. Stay out for 10yr and maybe get your right to vote and own guns back.

 

[Mountain]

1.2% of Americans have schizophrenia, when you do the math out that's potentially giving a gun to 32,000 paranoid people with a history of auditory and visual hallucinations, generally of a evil nature.

No thanks, I'm good.

"...generally of an evil nature."

Wow, that's really f-ing ignorant. Some serious stone age prejudice and fear there.

No, a schizophrenic legally judged to be harmful to him/herself and others shouldn't have a firearm or even drive a car; but that should take a proper legal procedure to enact.

 

[Jordo]

This is honestly where they say “I think we can ALL agree” and unfortunately many do without seeing the real consequences. Plus the fact that they seldom make any real distinction to what they mean when saying “mental illness”...

Many have said this type of talk is what will keep vets from seeking help for trauma they may have experienced and be dealing with not to mention many other responsible, fully functioning people who are trying to improve the quality of their life.

It’s just a shallow argument and thankfully professionals even see that way. Why argue with professionals, when even if they’re not on our side, at least deal in facts.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

I've been told many times that I'm nuts. When will they start "putting guns in my hands"? Along with ammo. Jack.

 

[Mountain]

This is honestly where they say “I think we can ALL agree” and unfortunately many do without seeing the real consequences. Plus the fact that they seldom make any real distinction to what they mean when saying “mental illness”...

Many have said this type of talk is what will keep vets from seeking help for trauma they may have experienced and be dealing with not to mention many other responsible, fully functioning people who are trying to improve the quality of their life.

It’s just a shallow argument and thankfully professionals even see that way. Why argue with professionals, when even if they’re not on our side, at least deal in facts.

Exactly, and I completely agree that such a direction is likely to cause vets to avoid help- even if they might only need a little

 

[Hetzer]

“Mental Illness” will be stretched as far as they can get away with and will include anyone who so much as had a prozac prescription even if it was for a month, ten years ago.

So no, screw that.

 

[KBCraig]

SSRIs on SSRN?

 

[MaverickNH]

The author lost me at: “Lawmakers could go even further and institute a licensing scheme, like one in Massachusetts, that allows police chiefs to deny gun licenses if existing factors (such as multiple domestic violence calls or repeated episodes of public drunkenness) suggest the individual presents a risk to public safety.”
MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 140, § 131. These restrictions apply to a license to carry, which allows an individual to possess any firearm and concealed carry. Id. If the person is applying for a firearms identification card, which allows for possession of certain rifles or shotguns, they must still go through the permitting process, but the police must petition a court to deny the license. MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 140, §§ 129B, 129C

 

[Drix]

"...generally of an evil nature."

Wow, that's really f-ing ignorant. Some serious stone age prejudice and fear there.

No, a schizophrenic legally judged to be harmful to him/herself and others shouldn't have a firearm or even drive a car; but that should take a proper legal procedure to enact.

I spent 10 years working in psych, most of it in rehab. I can tell you one thing- basically nobody hears god saying "Have a nice day"

Going back to OP:

"While the liberal left gun control advocates accuse GOP, NRA and Trump of putting guns in the hands of the mentally ill al the time for insisting on proper Due Process before deprive Veterans of 2nd Amendment Rights, this lawyer insists we repeal gun bans for the mentally ill."

This is a BAD thing. Clearly you're a bit of a reactionist, you and Maura must hang out at the same bitch sessions. But circling back to the point the position is to "repeal gun bans for the mentally ill." So any legal procedure you're referring to is moot in her hypothedical as she wants to get rid of those laws you're pearl clutching.

Go take your angst and stuff it bud.

 

[xtry51]

I'd rather protect myself from schizophrenics than from government.

 

[MassachussettsMosinNagant]

Mentally ill is such a vague term. And I think liberals are constantly using it as this giant grey area to spit at Trump anytime someone shoots people. Their is smears her own shit on the walls spelling out "The Guinea Pig is Gone" while humming Mary had a Little Lamb.... mentally ill. And their is. Guy has social anxiety and one time in 2004 he yelled at a waiter. Mentally ill.

If the alt left had their way nobody would have guns. We are all a tad mentally ill. All that disparring the mentally ill people from getting guns does is make less and less people come forward with their problems in fear that you'll take their guns away.


I think no insane people should have guns of course. But neither should they be in public. So really, the asylums need to come back. Like Trump said.

 

[drgrant]

1.2% of Americans have schizophrenia, when you do the math out that's potentially giving a gun to 32,000 paranoid people with a history of auditory and visual hallucinations, generally of a evil nature.

No thanks, I'm good.

Well, one thing you have to ask is, how many people actually attempt to obtain guns that are DQed etc?

It must be way more than just schizophrenia, because when I looked at the NICS operating report for 2017 there were over 6000 "Adjudicated Mental Health" denials, but that could likely cover a whole bunch of MH conditions not
just schizophrenia. The bar is usually high in some cases but might not be so much in others, etc.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Mentally ill is such a vague term. And I think liberals are constantly using it as this giant grey area to spit at Trump anytime someone shoots people. Their is smears her own shit on the walls spelling out "The Guinea Pig is Gone" while humming Mary had a Little Lamb.... mentally ill. And their is. Guy has social anxiety and one time in 2004 he yelled at a waiter. Mentally ill.

If the alt left had their way nobody would have guns. We are all a tad mentally ill. All that disparring the mentally ill people from getting guns does is make less and less people come forward with their problems in fear that you'll take their guns away.

I think no insane people should have guns of course. But neither should they be in public. So really, the asylums need to come back. Like Trump said.

I would bet pretty much anything that like 90% of the population has experienced some form of mental illness at some time or another, although not necessarily chronic or dangerous conditions, etc. if people don't keep trying to make that distinction important, the antis will swing in and start trying to suggest BS like "every person who has
had (whatever) or is on (whatever) shouldn't have access to guns!!!" etc. Pre crime, etc, swirling toilet of
doom for freedom.

-Mike

 

[EJFudd]

The author lost me at: “Lawmakers could go even further and institute a licensing scheme, like one in Massachusetts, that allows police chiefs to deny gun licenses if existing factors (such as multiple domestic violence calls or repeated episodes of public drunkenness) suggest the individual presents a risk to public safety.”

Yeah, let's not get the impression that she is looking to greatly expand gun rights. Use the Massachusetts licensing system as a model? WTF? Give me a break.

Quite the opposite. Her mission is reducing the stigma of mental illness, not expanding gun rights.

But it's a moot point anyway. "Mental illness" is not going to removed as a disqualifying factor in Massachusetts or anywhere else... not in my lifetime anyway.

 

[MassachussettsMosinNagant]

I would bet pretty much anything that like 90% of the population has experienced some form of mental illness at some time or another, although not necessarily chronic or dangerous conditions, etc. if people don't keep trying to make that distinction important, the antis will swing in and start trying to suggest BS like "every person who has
had (whatever) or is on (whatever) shouldn't have access to guns!!!" etc. Pre crime, etc, swirling toilet of
doom for freedom.

-Mike

People call me crazy, but I think I stand on the fence of preconvicted felons and criminals should be allowed to also purchase firearms too. I mean at the end of the damn day. What is prison for? It's reformation. It does a poor job of it sure. But once someone is released from prison. They are a member of society again and should be treated as such. People can genuinely change for the better and I think anyone who is not behind bars should be given that benefit of the doubt. Both to vote and to own a gun. But it's one of my controversial opinions. I get that some are bound to repeat criminal acts. But that's not a foregone given. It's a assumption and for those who genuinely reform themselves in prison and turn over a new leaf. They should be allowed.

I say this because my dad is not allowed to own a firearm because of a DUI from 8 years ago and a felony from when he was 16 years old. And now here we are 40 years later. He's one of the most standup members of society I know and as clean as a whistle. Hard working blue collar man. But the state will take away his fundemental right over something from when Reagan was president. It's just illogical.


As for the mentally ill. I agree with you. I think once you start analyizing what is grounds for banning guns it gets tricky. What about Autism and Bipolar disorders? Not always violent disorders. It's just impossible to judge.

 

[citoriguy]

I agree with all of you that said we’ve all had what could be classified as a “mental issue” at some point in our lives. Situational depression is real, and happens when you lose a loved one, be it human or pet. Should that disqualify you from owning a firearm? Absolutely not.

I realize that “mental illness” casts a very wide net, but to put that label on anyone that’s gone through a rough patch is absolute BS.

 

[MaverickNH]

This “fact” about 45% of everyone being “mentally ill” at some time in their lives is pretty lame - we all know when to give a wide berth to some guy on the subway or lady on the streets. It’s not 1 in 3, or 1 in 10, or 1 in 50. Those “kind” are pretty rare.

If I just up and kill someone, it’ll be for a damned good reason.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

this is a tough one, but maybe they should start on both sides by changing the language of how its talked about and how it will be written into any bills or proposals:

"mentally ill with the ability to commit un-provoked violence"??? or something like that?

 

[appraiser]

they give guns to the mentally ill all the time, they are better known as police officers.

With apologies to the many fine LEO's that are on NES, but in my dealings with the Police I have run into more than a few that had severe Psych issues that never should have been sworn, and once their problems became known they should have been shown the door, but are still walking around with God complexes and firearms.

 

[MassachussettsMosinNagant]

they give guns to the mentally ill all the time, they are better known as police officers.

With apologies to the many fine LEO's that are on NES, but in my dealings with the Police I have run into more than a few that had severe Psych issues that never should have been sworn, and once their problems became known they should have been shown the door, but are still walking around with God complexes and firearms.

I think the problem is that i'd be willing to bet that at least 80 percent of them had no issues at all at the time they were sworn. So it isn't an issue of making crazy people cops. It's that cops have such a insanely traumatic line of work. Seeing babies with a bullet through their head, providing CPR for ODing children, having Mother's crying in your arm. Being blamed anytime you have to shoot someone who is trying to take you away from your children. I can never access the monster that must lurk in some of their heads after taking a life or two. People assume that cops are just predisposed to be arrogant and dangerous power freaks. But I have known at least 20 LEOs in my day. And all of them enter the academy with the same naive intentions at heart. They all want to do the right thing and protect and serve. But the line gets skewed over time. Takes an extremely strong will to not bend what you believe is right after years of being neglected.

The real answer imo is to provide all officers with proper counseling. Not paid for by their insurance or by their out of pocket methods with co payments out the ass. Not only after they kill or after they see a death or complain about something. I mean literally every officer. Proper PTSD and Stress counseling paid for on the federal level. At least Biweekly. And if we deport more of these freeloaders the money will make itself. We need these men to be looked out for. And just like Soldiers, they seem to be left to slip through the cracks a lot of times in regards of emotional states. Some of it comes from pride. Sometimes they don't want to admit their in that dark place. But either way, with conseling required by the employing police department. They will have an excuse to go without hurting their pride. And get the help they need to overcome some demons. Maybe not all but some.


When I was a kid I always wanted to be a cop. But boy am I f***ing glad I didn't. Such an underappreciated, underpaid and overworked line of work that only nightmares can fathom. I tip my hat to any LEO. Even the bad ones. Because lord knows what the f*** they've seen.

 

[citoriguy]

Of the handful of LEOs I know personally, I’d say about half could be classified as high functioning alcoholics. LEOs have one of the toughest jobs in this country.

The last time I got pulled over (tail light out), I turned the car off, put the keys where the officer could see them, handed them my DL & LTC and let them know I was carrying. Asked for permission to get the registration from my glovebox. Said LEO was happy that I was up front with him and thanked me. I got a warning, though I don’t know if it was because of what I did, or that I hadn’t had a ticket of any sort since 2004. Probably a bit of both.

 

[MaverickNH]

At SIG, one of the two course instructors (off duty LEOs) was causally speaking about another instructor who would join the day, saying that he’s had some hard knocks recently so the two of them will have eyes on him in case he starts going off. That was weird...like we were his test class to see if he could get through OK. He did. Seemed like a good guy trying to look ready again. Hopefully he’s stayed whole since.

 

[MaverickNH]

The author actually replied to my email:

“Please know that the piece addresses only the very limited question of whether gun laws unfairly stigmatize individuals with mental illness without a corresponding benefit. In all other respects, such as with ERPOs or federal licensing schemes, I am completely in favor of additional gun restrictions. I would be in favor of wholesale bans of guns, frankly.”

I’ve asked her to “belly up to the bar” and get Georgetown to sponsor a debate between herself, John Lott, Dave Kopel and another “academic who favors more restrictive gun policies” this Fall.

A lawyer who “favors a wholesale ban of guns” is not just a lawyer who puts law above their personal beliefs. Too many of them out there.