Those adjudicated insane have more rights

[42!]

Something I learned while talking to my Rep about the whole AG thing.

MA does not provide information on those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to the national database used for background checks on gun purchases.

I'm pretty sure, someone correct me if I'm wrong, that this information also does not come up when a check is run for an LTC/FID.

I'm still looking for the MGL, there is a law protecting the insane, preventing the sharing of this information.

So, after full due process, MA still will not share this info which would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally insane.
If the person applies for a permit the LO will never know.
If the person tries to buy a gun (in or out of state) it will be allowed.
If a long-time gun owner, who is sane and has no record, wants to buy an AR he/she will NOT be allowed.

So remind me how this is about protecting the Public!

 

[amm5061]

Wait, wtf?

That is literally one of the things that makes you a PP! How can you not share that?

 

[Horrible]

Something I learned while talking to my Rep about the whole AG thing.

MA does not provide information on those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to the national database used for background checks on gun purchases.

I'm pretty sure, someone correct me if I'm wrong, that this information also does not come up when a check is run for an LTC/FID.

I'm still looking for the MGL, there is a law protecting the insane, preventing the sharing of this information.

So, after full due process, MA still will not share this info which would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally insane.
If the person applies for a permit the LO will never know.
If the person tries to buy a gun (in or out of state) it will be allowed.
If a long-time gun owner, who is sane and has no record, wants to buy an AR he/she will NOT be allowed.

So remind me how this is about protecting the Public!

Gun Control is NOT about protecting the public. Its about taking YOUR guns and the guns of other tax-paying, law-abiding contributing members of society AWAY and putting you in jail for daring to vote against and challenge the ridiculous ideas of the progressive left!

 

[42!]

Wait, wtf?

That is literally one of the things that makes you a PP! How can you not share that?

Feel free to call your Rep and/or Senator and ask them. It was my Rep Chris Walsh that told me this.

 

[amm5061]

Feel free to call your Rep and/or Senator and ask them. It was my Rep Chris Walsh that told me this.

Well, mine's useless and isn't running for reelection at this point. It might have some impact with Spilka though. Spin it as gun control and she'll eat it right up.

 

[Marine-daughter]

Planned sabotage? Let them fall through...a planned Loophole.....to obtain their LTC. Then when they do something stupid...the powers in charge, will feel even more justified punishing us.

 

[JJ4]

I thought this was one of the things they addressed in the 2014 law updates?

 

[vipprimo]

I don't mean to burst your bubble on this, but look up all the people that Obama has pardoned for drug related offenses that clearly had unlawful gun use in their rap sheet. Don't stop on one search either. You'll find that he has a "history" of doing it. 56 here, 24 there. If you're a drug user/pusher/etc. that carries a gun his record shows he wants you out of jail and on the streets... Think about that logic for a minute.

Oh, ha ha, you thought he was against people using guns for criminal activity or protecting the population! That's funny.

 

[CobaltBlueSteel]

Very interested to know the MGL when discovered.

 

[Rider]

Feel free to call your Rep and/or Senator and ask them. It was my Rep Chris Walsh that told me this.

When I talked to Karen Spilka, she defended this because the mentally ill are often ostracized and marginalized. So, while she fully supports taking all the guns, and making criminals out of anyone who owns them, she does not support providing data on the mentally ill to the federal government so that they can be unfairly discriminated against or denied their right to own guns.

I don't understand why this doesn't make sense to you people.

 

[Asaltweapon]

You can thank the ACLU and HIPPA laws.

In Maine you are required to sign a release form for them to conduct a mental background check.

 

[42!]

Planned sabotage? Let them fall through...a planned Loophole.....to obtain their LTC. Then when they do something stupid...the powers in charge, will feel even more justified punishing us.

Yup, and when something happens we'll never know about them being insane since that information is protected.

 

[Rider]

By the way, this is also a big part of the reason why 'we' end up opposed to people on so many other issues. You can't readily unwind 2A from a lot of the progressive basket because they've got it all wound up together. Hence people say, 'well of course that person is an anti, they are a _____' and everyone gets all stupid talking about how that is an inappropriate statement. But it is probably a true statement, because ______ buy into the rest of the agenda that says guns must be bad.

In this case, it's 'we don't want to discriminate against the mentally ill, so to be fair, we should just take everyone's guns away to make us all safer.' Now replace discriminate and mentally ill with whatever you like, and you get to why almost every progressive issue somehow comes back to gun control in some way.

 

[amm5061]

When I talked to Karen Spilka, she defended this because the mentally ill are often ostracized and marginalized. So, while she fully supports taking all the guns, and making criminals out of anyone who owns them, she does not support providing data on the mentally ill to the federal government so that they can be unfairly discriminated against or denied their right to own guns.

I don't understand why this doesn't make sense to you people.

So if I claim I'm mentally ill, does this mean they can no longer discriminate against me and I can buy the extra killy guns?

 

[Wrench75]

Very interested to know the MGL when discovered.

It could be this one. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleX/Chapter66A/Section2

(c) not allow any other agency or individual not employed by the holder to have access to personal data unless such access is authorized by statute or regulations which are consistent with the purposes of this chapter or is approved by the data subject whose personal data are sought if the data subject is entitled to access under clause...

 

[sig shooter]

Its not true, adjudications are done in court, it is the court that reports to PP database. Also, under Obama's eo, health insurance clearing houses and providers can now report specific info relating to the prohibitory adjudication. Prior to the EO, reporting was done under the "law enforcement" provision in HIPAA. I will also say the whole mentally ill having guns thing is a Boogeyman made up by the left so they can eventually make everyone prohibited persons for going to outpatient therapy.

I think you should focus on protecting everyone's rights in lieu of taking away the rights of people who have certain diagnosis that you are misinformed about. I have been a mental health professional for over 7 years and most mentally ill people are afraid of their own shadow. Furthermore, only a small percentage of people who are mentally ill commit crimes. If you wanted to really make an argument, "normal" people should be PP because they participate in the most crime. Moreover, the mentally ill are at a higher risk for being victims of crime.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[JJ4]

They changed this in 2014


http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/gov_deval_patrick_signs_gun_bi.html

[FONT=&amp]The law will bring Massachusetts into compliance with a federal background check system by requiring the state to report to a federal database any mental illness and substance abuse commitments. [/FONT]

Here's the law:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4285/History

(h) Notwithstanding any general or special law or court order, including an order of impoundment, to the contrary, the department shall transmit to the Attorney General of the United States any information in its control required or permitted under federal law to be included in the National Instant Background Check System or any successor system maintained for the purpose of conducting background checks for firearms sales or licensing. No more information than is necessary for the purposes stated above shall be transmitted, and such information shall not be considered a public record under section 7 of chapter 4 and section 10 of chapter 66.

Note that "notwithstanding..." means that "despite the fact that the law otherwise says we can't do X, this law overrides that and allows us to do X"

 

[sig shooter]

They changed this in 2014


http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/gov_deval_patrick_signs_gun_bi.html







Here's the law:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4285/History



Note that "notwithstanding..." means that "despite the fact that the law otherwise says we can't do X, this law overrides that and allows us to do X"

Basically they cannot report any other info than what is necessary to report the prohibitor. EX: John Doe was adjudicated mentally defective on x date because of xyz reasons.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[drgrant]

MA does not provide information on those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to the national database used for background checks on gun purchases.

I'm pretty sure, someone correct me if I'm wrong, that this information also does not come up when a check is run for an LTC/FID.

You are wrong. The MA DMH looney bin check is frequently a huge waste of app time for LTC applicants. Several years ago DMH was turtling and everyones apps took over a month to process. The information is not provided to the PD in detail its just a "OK or Disqualified" verdict from DMH.

As far as the NICS stuff goes though, that I have no idea about. There are probably a lot of states that don't share info or only some info.

One thing worth noting though.... do we know how rare that disposition is? I'd love to get a FOIA # from MA DMH about how many disqualifying records it has in its
database that are people from 21+ years of age. I'm guessing it's probably not a huge number, it takes some serious gymnastics to actually get adjudicated as a mental defective.

Not to mention even with that number, it's not going to tell you the distribution of how ****ed up people are. There's no line in the sand for "****ed up, but could probably still attempt to purchase a gun" vs "****ed up, can't function at all in society and couldn't buy a pack of wrigleys let alone a firearm".

-Mike

 

[amm5061]

I think you should focus on protecting everyone's rights in lieu of taking away the rights of people who have certain diagnosis that you are misinformed about. I have been a mental health professional for over 7 years and most mentally ill people are afraid of their own shadow. Furthermore, only a small percentage of people who are mentally ill commit crimes. If you wanted to really make an argument, "normal" people should be PP because they participate in the most crime. Moreover, the mentally ill are at a higher risk for being victims of crime.

In all honest, and not intending to disparage those with mental illnesses, the law is intended to keep people who are more likely to be violent away from firearms. We're talking psychopathy with violent tendencies here, not depression or anxiety. I find this to be acceptable, since they would be more likely to do themselves or others harm. That being said, where do you draw the line? People suffering from depression are at a higher risk of suicide, should they be PP as well? What if you just have SAD, like millions of people? I definitely see your point here, and I think I'm starting to agree.

 

[sig shooter]

In all honest, and not intending to disparage those with mental illnesses, the law is intended to keep people who are more likely to be violent away from firearms. We're talking psychopathy with violent tendencies here, not depression or anxiety. I find this to be acceptable, since they would be more likely to do themselves or others harm. That being said, where do you draw the line? People suffering from depression are at a higher risk of suicide, should they be PP as well? What if you just have SAD, like millions of people? I definitely see your point here, and I think I'm starting to agree.

My point exactly, its a very slippery slope to where someone will become a PP because they are depressed because of the death of their spouse. The Soviet Union use to jail those who resisted because anyone who wasn't a commie just had to be "mentally ill". Remember that most lefty's think we're are mentally ill and dangerous because we own firearms and support the Constitution. I will also say that those with true diagnosed sociopathy and antisocial personality disorder are very rare, I have only seen a few cases.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[amm5061]

Remember that most lefty's think we're are mentally ill and dangerous because we own firearms and support the Constitution.

I actually had a first hand experience with exactly that. About 3-4 months ago, our HR director and I were shooting the shit, (he actually wrote one of my recommendation letters for my LTC) and we were talking about guns so he pulled up his email so we could take a look at what was on sale from his local shop. He ran out to the bathroom and I went back to my desk, and while he was in the can our boss came in. He went right into our HR director's office and immediately looked at the screen. Silly HR director had forgotten to minimize the browser window. I hear "Oh that's not good!" and our boss proceeds to bitch out our HR director because "guns." He even called our HR director a sociopath, because "only sociopaths need guns!"

We just sort of shook our heads about the whole thing, because the guy's starting to suffer from early-onset Altzheimers, and he's running his company straight into the ground because he's too senile to do anything right, but that's another story entirely.

 

[drgrant]

Its not true, adjudications are done in court, it is the court that reports to PP database. Also, under Obama's eo, health insurance clearing houses and providers can now report specific info relating to the prohibitory adjudication. Prior to the EO, reporting was done under the "law enforcement" provision in HIPAA. I will also say the whole mentally ill having guns thing is a Boogeyman made up by the left so they can eventually make everyone prohibited persons for going to outpatient therapy.

I think you should focus on protecting everyone's rights in lieu of taking away the rights of people who have certain diagnosis that you are misinformed about. I have been a mental health professional for over 7 years and most mentally ill people are afraid of their own shadow. Furthermore, only a small percentage of people who are mentally ill commit crimes. If you wanted to really make an argument, "normal" people should be PP because they participate in the most crime. Moreover, the mentally ill are at a higher risk for being victims of crime.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I agree, the other problem is people act like this stuff will actually do anything, either. Out of the last half dozen or so fruitloops that comitted mass shootings, I don't think any of them were flagged in any kind of a BG check database. I'm of the mind that anyone who is enough of a sociopath to desire shooting a bunch of people are also going to be the least likely people to seek treatment anyways.

The left uses it as a boogeyman to try to infringe on rights. The right, at some level, also uses it as a scapegoat in some lame attempt at trying to pacify antis. In the wake of these intermittent mass shootings, we hear all these people braying about mental health as though it is some kind of panacea against mass shootings.

-Mike

 

[FPrice]

Wait, wtf?

That is literally one of the things that makes you a PP! How can you not share that?

Easy. Make EVERYONE a PP. Then there is no problem.

 

[amm5061]

I agree, the other problem is people act like this stuff will actually do anything, either. Out of the last half dozen or so fruitloops that comitted mass shootings, I don't think any of them were flagged in any kind of a BG check database. I'm of the mind that anyone who is enough of a sociopath to desire shooting a bunch of people are also going to be the least likely people to seek treatment anyways.

The left uses it as a boogeyman to try to infringe on rights. The right, at some level, also uses it as a scapegoat in some lame attempt at trying to pacify antis. In the wake of these intermittent mass shootings, we hear all these people braying about mental health as though it is some kind of panacea against mass shootings.

-Mike

I'm not disagreeing about the uses of mental illness as a political tool, but there really needs to be some reform in that department. It needs to be de-stigmatized, and those who really are suffering need to have better access and coverage. I know people who have thought about seeing a therapist, but won't because of the stigma attached to it. Even though seeing one would absolutely have helped them. Also, if you go see one, pay cash. Always. Never use insurance, because it's required for the therapist to submit the records to the insurance company. There goes any expectation of privacy. Insurance should never have those records. I know of some therapists who have switched over to being entirely cash only because of this.

 

[sig shooter]

I'm not disagreeing about the uses of mental illness as a political tool, but there really needs to be some reform in that department. It needs to be de-stigmatized, and those who really are suffering need to have better access and coverage. I know people who have thought about seeing a therapist, but won't because of the stigma attached to it. Even though seeing one would absolutely have helped them. Also, if you go see one, pay cash. Always. Never use insurance, because it's required for the therapist to submit the records to the insurance company. There goes any expectation of privacy. Insurance should never have those records. I know of some therapists who have switched over to being entirely cash only because of this.

I agree that reform in regards to social attitudes about mental illness needs to be changed, but this goes far beyond what any law or edict can do. It would take a major cultural shift to do so.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[amm5061]

I agree that reform in regards to social attitudes about mental illness needs to be changed, but this goes far beyond what any law or edict can do. It would take a major cultural shift to do so.

I think you're right there. I wish there were more to be done, because I have seen people suffer needlessly when help is just an appointment away. I encourage them to go, even volunteered to go with a couple of them as moral support.

 

[sig shooter]

I think you're right there. I wish there were more to be done, because I have seen people suffer needlessly when help is just an appointment away. I encourage them to go, even volunteered to go with a couple of them as moral support.

I agree. A good start would be to trying tear down the systematic discrimination in this country. Also, getting government out of healthcare all together would be a great help.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[42!]

1. Apparently the information I was given was outdated. Big surprise, a legislator was wrong about the law.
2. This was never about someone who is seeing a therapist or is on anti-depressants. It was about those who have been judged mentally incompetent. I doubt this is a lot of people, and it's not going to happen just because someone is seeing a shrink. No, I don't think someone who has been judged mentally incompetent should have access to firearms. There was due process and, they don't know the difference between right and wrong, so no guns.

 

[Kevski]

Is it a HIPPA law