POLITICS - Active Dangerousness as relates to Mental Health

[24thMICH]

I was going to post this in Old Ironsides' thread about the NRA regarding the mental health provisions. I first hit the "reply" button, and by the time I finished composing my text, the thread had been locked.

Normally I would leave well enough alone, but the thread was so full of misconceptions about mental health, illness and what is or is not considered dangerous I felt my response needed to be posted.

While I live and work in Michigan, I'm pretty confident the legal situation here is not all that different from the other states.

Here's what I was going to post to Old Ironsides' thread:

**********************************************************

Please allow me as a mental health professional (15+ years working as the coordinator of a psychiatric crisis team to the ER of a large suburban hospital right outside of Detroit as well as close to 13 years now working with college students, both real good ones as well as some really sick puppies not all that different from the VTech shooter) to make a few distinctions:

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about "crazy people," about medications and various mental disorders and about involuntary hospitalization.

Most people with a mental disorder aren't "crazy." Most people taking medication are taking it either for an anxiety disorder or for varying levels of dysthymia, depression or bipolar disorder (formerly called "manic-depression"). These people are not at all violent towards other people on average. The average person suffering from severe depression is at higher risk for suicide, not homicide or any other kind of violence towards other people.

Most "crazy" people are not violent. Most "crazy" people suffer from schizophrenia and are typically disorganized and chaotic in their everyday lives. They are usually very passive and very slow moving, on or off of their medications. The only time they typically might be dangerous towards others is when they are being forced to do something they don't want to do, like take their medication, go into an ambulance, go into a psych. hospital or leave their apartments. Their dangerousness towards others usually results from a flailing of fists and from random kicks and bites.

As far as the mental health laws of the State of Michigan are concerned, taking medication or voluntarily admitting yourself into a mental health facility, whether it be an outpatient clinic or an inpatient facility, does not qualify you as being dangerous to yourself or to other people, nor does it as far as I know disqualify you from owning any type of firearm in the State of Michigan.

The only action which results in an individual losing his firearms-owning status in the State of Michigan is if that person has been adjudicated as "actively dangerous" to himself or another person in a court of law and has been involuntarily committed to an inpatient treatment facility as a result. Usually the process begins when a person is brought into an Emergency Room, typically after a suicide threat. A mental health professional--typcially a psychiatric social worker or less frequently a clinical psychologist or psychiatric nurse practictioner--is called in to interview the patient. If that patient makes specific statements that meet the criteria for what is called "active dangerousness," then that mental health worker fills out a Petition for Hospitalization, while the attending physician in the ER fills out a Physician's Certificate. Once that is completed and assuming a bed in a local psychiatric hospital inpatient unit has been found, that person is transported via ambulance to the hospital (in the case of the patient not having any insurance and the EMS carrier refusing to do the transport, the paperwork is shown to the local county sheriff and they end up doing the transport on the county's dime). Once the patient arrives in the Admissions Department of the psychiatric facility, he or she is interveiwed a second time by the attending psychiatrist, who okays or denies the admission. At that point, the law says the patient has to be seen in a local court of law within 72 hours for a judge to legally certify the admission. If the judge refuses the certification, then the patient has to be released regardless of the psychiatrist's opinion. That rarely happens, but it does occasionally.

"Active dangerousness" has a very specific definition. It's not the same thing as generalized dangerousness. A person can say "I want to kill myself" but be vague or indeterminate as to when or how. You can say such a person is at risk for killing himself but not actively dangerous to himself. You couldn't hospitalize him against his will in the State of Michigan. He has to say "I plan to kill myself in the next 24 hours by jumping off the Mackinaw Bridge or by taking this vial of cyanide I have stored in the trunk of my car." or something just that specific. If a person said to a mental health worker "I want to kill that guy who just had an affair with my wife," that mental health worker has a legal obligation to inform the adulterer in question of the husband's statement (this is called the "duty to warn"), but the cuckolded husband himself could not be hospitalized or lose his right to a firearm in the State of Michigan unless he said something to the effect of "I plan on taking that *** out tomorrow afternoon with my brand new Alaskan .50."

In other words, active dangerousness occurs if it is:

1) specific as to plan and is realistic as to implements (if a person says he plans to kill another person with the M-16 he plans to steal first from Ft. Dix, then his statement fails on the "realism" scale unless he is in fact a soldier stationed at Fr. Dix);

2) the person states he plans to implement the harmful deed on himself or to another person within 24-48 hours, depending on the local jurisdiction. In most counties in Michigan the time frame is 24 hours.

Potential or eventual dangerousness is not in the same ballpark as active dangerousness and is treated in a totally different legal venue, at least in Michigan these days. Sometimes as a mental health professoinal this can be exasperating, as there have been times I knew somebody would eventually kill himself, but couldn't do anything more than work with him to stave it off and to constantly be on alert for active dangerousness. I can't begin to tell you how distressing it is and at the same time how upset off I get when a female, for instance, suffering from borderline personality disorder, which is marked by many parasuicidal behaviors (such as cutting oneself in order to express anger, to get attention or to manipulate a boyfriend to do what he otherwise wouldn't agree to do), finally miscalculates and ends up dead. As a treatment professional, you can see it coming "eventually" but can't do anything about it. When it happens (usually on weekends or late at night when nobody's around to find and/or rescue the person) there's this sense of futility compounded by having to deal with the public perception that "the mental health people should have been able to do something about this, and they're heartless bastards that they didn't!"

In my view, most people taking medication, who've been hospitalized in an inpatient psychiatric facility or who were suicidal or homicidal at some time in the past but who are no longer so, should have exactly the same Second Amendment rights as the rest of us have. These rights are given to all of us and to them by God, not by government. This is something we as Americans have to always remember.

The only time a person's right to self-defense should be compromised is when that person is an active danger to himself or to other people, or if the person has been adjudicated as being chronically mentally incompetent such that he or she could not be expected to behave responsibly in the presence of a firearm (such as somebody sufficiently retarded or psychotically disorganized that they could not be expected to maintain awareness of safe firearm usage). Such people normally reside in supervised residential settings already, such as my chronically schizophrenic sister-in-law.

I have this argument with my biological older sister all the time. Not quite 20 years ago she was involuntarily hospitalized for suicidal depression, yet has been fine for about the last 15 years while on her medications. She likes the fact that the law does not allow her to buy or own a firearm, while I say she should have her right to buy and own them restored. She asks me "do you know what I could have done if I'd have had a gun!?" I reply "I know what you could have done with all the steak knives you had in the kitchen drawer but chose not to use. You still own all those steak knives, as well as a potentially lethal automobile, a boxcutter and some hedge trimmers sitting in your tool shed. Why should you not be trusted with a firearm, which is no more and no less than a tool like these other tools you own?"

In addition to the NRA, I typically advise folks to join the GOA as well as the JPFO and the Gun Owners Alliance. The other three organizations do their best to keep the NRA honest.


Blaine, if I overstepped the line by posting this, I apologize in advance. But I believe the information I'm providing might help clear up a lot of misconceptions.



.

[Old Ironsights]

Can I shake yor hand?

I have been involved - as a non-professional - with Mental Health issues and NAMI for 14 years.

Thank you for posting a "professional," non-prejudiced/bigoted POV & explanation of what Mental Health issues really entail.

It is beyond unfortunate and unConstitutionally Wrong that people who are not actively dangerous are permenantly branded with the epithet "Mental Defective".

Yet it seems that people are more than willing to let the Government decide that, and force innocent, stable people PAY to TRY to prove their "innocence".

That is Sick and Wrong.

Thank you for your support of people with these complex medical issues.

[Jeeps]

I for one appreciate knowledge, knowledge is power. But any kind of gun law scares the stuff outa me.

This thing seems like a grain of sand in an oysters mouth. Not worth alot to the anti's but they can build upon it and turn into a pearl for themselves.

You never know until it's too late what a room full of lawyers and people who want something to go in their direction can come up with.

The second amendment seems solid in it's words, but look how people that don't like can make it seem otherwise.

Trust me, they wholeheartedly believe that the 2nd amendment does NOT give us the right to bear arms.

What doya think they could do with another peice of paper with words on it?

[Old Ironsights]

I for one appreciate knowledge, knowledge is power. But any kind of gun law scares the stuff outa me....

+10,000.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

I for one appreciate knowledge, knowledge is power. But any kind of gun law scares the stuff outa me.

This thing seems like a grain of sand in an oysters mouth. Not worth alot to the anti's but they can build upon it and turn into a pearl for themselves.

........

Incrementalism. How do you boil a frog. you turn the heat up little at a time.

[Old Ironsights]

...Incrementalism. How do you boil a frog. you turn the heat up little at a time.

Yah. You round up all the "mental defectives", then those of "politically unreliable" religions, then ... then... then...

Ah well.

As long as the NRA says it's OK...

[Andrew]

...Incrementalism. How do you boil a frog. you turn the heat up little at a time.

Yah. You round up all the "mental defectives", then those of "politically unreliable" religions, then ... then... then...

Ah well.

As long as the NRA says it's OK...

+1

[Old Ironsights]

http://slashdot.org/features/00/03/28/183219.shtml

W.A.V.E., a profit-making program ramping up in the southern U.S. and soon to go national, will use Web sites, toll-free numbers, T-shirts and cash to encourage students to anonymously turn in classmates they consider depressed, dangerous or potentially violent. This horrifically stupid Geek Profiling would be blatantly unconstitutional if applied to adults.

According to David Bresnahan, reporting on the WorldNet Daily site, the new "W.A.V.E" program, developed by Pinkerton Services Group,a division of the international security firm Pinkerton, Inc. is starting up in North Carolina, and is soon to go nationwide.

W.A.V.E. offers anonymous toll-free lines for students, who will be trained to watch for and report "dangerous" behavior like depression, or kids with weapons. Every North Carolina school will have free access to this program, which will include a Web site, classes, school assemblies and special sessions for parents and teachers. W.A.V.E America was created by a North Carolina task force on school violence working together with Pinkerton. A contact list of law-enforcement agencies is also being developed for each school in the state to notify when a tip has been received by Pinkerton on its nationwide toll-free line.

W.A.V.E joins new sofware "security" programs like Mosaic 2000, which is being tested in public schools in America to compile and computerize information on students believed to be dangerous or potentially violent. This new rat-on-kids industry is an offshoot of the Geek Profiling anti-Net hysteria that broke out all across the United States after the Columbine High School killings, whose first anniversary is fast approaching. Despite the fact that horrific incidents like Columbine are extremely rare, and that the FBI and Justice Department have both reported that youth violence has dropped to its lowest levels in more than half a century, the belief persists in much of America that technologies like the Internet (and activities like computer gaming) are turning otherwise healthy school children into mass murderers.

In a newsmagazine survey taken earlier this year, 81 percent of Americans said they believed the Net was responsible for the Columbine massacre.

In the lunatic world of American education, and the surreal aftermath of Columbine, it now seems perfectly reasonable, even sensible, to suspend and force into counseling children who who are angry, depressed, who wear white, game obsessively, or who say intemperate and stupid things. The W.A.V.E program is not only institutionalizing but rewarding a culture in which kids are being taught to turn in classmates whose behavior they consider abnormal or dangerous. It also reinforces the notion that school students have no Constitutional rights of due process such as privacy, confronting accusers, behaving in non-conformist ways, or even knowing that accusations against them exist.

Although school-age children are presumed to have few rights, it's obvious that this kind of anonymous and intrusive law enforcement would blatantly unconstitutional for adults. Just yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida law that permits police to search people for firearms solely on the basis of anonymous tips. Citing the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, the court ruled that such a law would enable "any person to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search..." Authorities, the court ruled, needed some corraborating evidence before they could invade the privacy of any citizen. It's frightening to imagine how school authorities can possibly teach citizenship when they have so wantonly violate the very idea of constitutional rights.

This Orwellian phobia (who do we turn in next?: "dangerous" parents, neighbors and sibs?) has been a staple of the most venal political systems in the 20th Century, from Nazism to fascism to Communism. It is presumptuous and arrogant on so many levels it's astonishing to see public officials like North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt adopt the idea so unthinkingly and enthusiastically. But he's not alone -- plenty of parents and educators are along for the ride.

It isn't clear where information goes once it's collected by kid-profiling software, or toll-free hot-lines. Presumably, it remains in a computerized dangerous-kids database for life. This is just one more reason that it's insane to ask young children to evaluate their classmates for emotional disorders and other signs of potentially "dangerous" behavior. Not only are kids patently unqualified to make judgments like that, the temptation to turn in kids that are socially competitive, "geeky," different, disliked, abrasive or unhappy seems almost irresistible, especially when doing so brings tangible rewards like cash, and is cloaked under anonymity. Monitoring and evaluating behavior is a science that's supposed to be done by trained professionals -- teachers, psychologists, guidance counselors, and therapists. Even then, kids ought to have the right to be openly confronted with the accusation that they're a menace to society, and to respond, rather than wonder if some angry classmate has branded them for life on an anonymous toll free line run by a profit-making private company with a vested interest in promoting the notion that schools -- and kids -- are dangerous.

"A safe school environment is fundamental to helping North Carolina's students succeed in school," announced Governor Hunt. "Every school ought to be a safe one and W.A.V.E. American will help get every kid involved. This program is more than just a tip line, it teaches students and parents to look for the early signs of violent behavior and to resolve conflicts constructively."

This is the worst kind of political exploitation of kids. It takes schools off the hook and turns the complex process of school administration over to adolescents. Kids will ultimately have to live in fear that the deskmate they jostled with will turn them in for money, or that bragging about exploits on Doom will get them turned into W.A.V.E. as "unbalanced."

If a kid or a parent becomes aware that a classmate has a gun and plans to use it, there are plenty of cops and law enforcement officials they can call. There is no statistical evidence to support the notion that schools are so dangerous that children need to be manipulated into turning one another in. Nor is there much doubt about who will be targeted -- geeks, nerds, Goths, oddballs, along with anyone else who is discontented, alienated and individualistic.

That kids are being rewarded for doing this is revolting enough. That they are being asked to do by a profit-making private corporation for money suggests a culture a lot sicker and more dangerous than most schoolkids.
---------------------

Adjudication by Classmate anyone?

[Scott64A]

+1 to the original content of this thread.

I hope the distinctions is drawn in this bill. I suspect it is, and I don't believe they're going to take away guns from anyone who had ritalin, or an anti-depressant prescribed to them.

What we're dealing with here ia the backlash from Virginia Tech. "How did this whack-job get a gun?!? He had no record, and was able to buy a gun and lots of ammo. He had been evaluated and deemed "dangerous", so how did he fall through the cracks?!?"

And here we are.

Of course, some of our more rambunctuous counterparts would yell that the sky is falling, and that the next step is a national pogrom where we the gun owners get rounded up and sent to concentration camps, but I'm not thoroughly convinced.

I am satisfied that my representatives will vote on the conservative and pro-second-ammendment side, and have said so.

I really don't mind if the Korean national with a history of telling his psychoanalyst that he wishes to harm people is refused purchase of a Glock and 30 round clips.

[Old Ironsights]

+1 to the original content of this thread.

I hope the distinctions is drawn in this bill. I suspect it is, and I don't believe they're going to take away guns from anyone who had ritalin, or an anti-depressant prescribed to them.

That is true, and I have said so. HR2640 "only" puts the names of tens of thousands of innocent, stable people into te same database where the Government keerps Child Rapists.

As if my Wife is a Child Rapist...

What we're dealing with here ia the backlash from Virginia Tech. "How did this whack-job get a gun?!? He had no record, and was able to buy a gun and lots of ammo. He had been evaluated and deemed "dangerous", so how did he fall through the cracks?!?"

Yep, he had been "evaluated" but IIRC he had never been "adjudicated". Hmmm. This bill only affects "adjudicated" persons (and their families). Wouldn't have made one whit of difference at VT.

THe only thing that would have made a difference ouuld have been someone with both cajones and a gun to put the rabid dog down.

And here we are.

Of course, some of our more rambunctuous counterparts would yell that the sky is falling, and that the next step is a national pogrom where we the gun owners get rounded up and sent to concentration camps, but I'm not thoroughly convinced.

Doesn't matter if you are convinced or not. THe Rules were put in place in Germany long before the Concentration Camps wee opened.

This Bill/Law does to innocent people what no other bill in the US has done - COnvict and Catalogue innocent people for the crime of existing.

Isn't that scary enough?

I am satisfied that my representatives will vote on the conservative and pro-second-ammendment side, and have said so.

Guess what? They didn't. They passed this bill without even giving us proles the ability to see who voted Aye or Nay.

I really don't mind if the Korean national with a history of telling his psychoanalyst that he wishes to harm people is refused purchase of a Glock and 30 round clips.

Then he would have bought it from Joe Crack Dealer - just like every other two-bit punk on the street. His being "denied" by the NICS would have meant, at most, another day or two delay in his LONG PLANNED AND WELL THOUGHT-OUT CRIME.

Laws don't stop things like that. Armed Citizens do.

This Law/Bill disarms more Citizens. What good is that? I thought the NRA was PRO "Armed Citizen"...

[24thMICH]

At the University where I work we occasionally have students who are worried about one of their fellow students and says something to either Public Safety, one of the Judicial Affairs officers, to a professor or to one of us. If there hasn't been any clear behavioral infraction, however, we don't do anything. We might advise the student to see if he or she can talk the student they're worried about to come in for counseling and maybe even to accompany them for the first session if they're skittish. At most we have an informal, off-the-record "heads up" system where we alert typically Public Safety to be aware that this particular student may be at-risk for something. We also have a weekly meeting of the Emergency Intervention Team that discusses potential at-risk students and who's doing what about it. Nothing is officially written down about any particular student so it can't be put into any kind of official log in a way that might harm any particular student's record. It's mainly an alert system so that if something happens, we won't be caught off-guard and have to figure everything out on the spot.

My boss recently attended the national University Counceling Center Directors annual meeting recently. He reported that, like us, most every university out there has its share of potential V Tech shooters in the form of highly disturbed, unstable university students, usually about one or two per university. Until they do something that results in some kind of academic or behavioral disciplinary action, however, there's nothing that legally or morally can be done to remove these students from campus. A good "heads-up" system helps a lot, as does a well thought-out and practiced Crisis Management protocol including sufficient staff trained in Crisis Intervention Stress Debriefing (CISD) or something similar.

I for one would be in favor of lifting CCW restrictions on campus. A nutcase like the VTech shooter (with a most likely diagnosis of Inadequate Personality Disorder with Paranoid Features) would have had a tough time doing his dirty work had a handfull of students pulled out a number of Glocks, Sigs and SP101's out of their backpacks when he came in pretending to be a videogame tough guy. However, the CCW restrictions are going to continue as long as I can see in this present academic climate of political correctness and firearms phobia. Trained CCW university students are no more likely to "wild west" a college campus any more than CCW trained adults have "wild wested" places like Florida or any of the other shall-issue states.

This electronic "turn-in" system wouldn't add much to a typical University's security protocols as best as I can see.

Now what the Feds might do with such a program, that's another matter! Shades of Moscow and Beijing!

.

[Jeeps]

Trust me plz, that law WILL HELP NO ONE

It wouldn't have stopped the Korean national either.

Like OI said, guns are just as available on the street.

There is a TOTAL ban of drugs in this country but you can walk downtown and
buy maryjane, coke, speed, exctasy, just about whatever you want.

Your being herded into a circle, all laws do is control the population for the
powers that be.

[Hobie]

I edited the topic with the intent of marking it more clearly for those wanting a reasoned discussion... 24thMich, if you feel that my edit of your title doesn't accurately reflect the content, please correct it. Please leave the "POLITICS" tag. Thanks.

[cutter]

"Turn In" system? Yikes, I have a special hatred for anonymous reporting programs. Especially ones with reward. I was victomised by being falsey reported to the 'gang hotline'.

Having spent nearly half of my sixteenth year under scrutiny from school officials, and harrassment from the sherrifs dept, all because of a PRANK, I can only imagine the possible abuse...

I don't like it. I don't agree with it, but I don't disagree with it either.
I just plain don't like it.

It seems to me, that most problems can be traced back to a week/corrupt judicial system. I believe creating new laws, only creates new criminals and income for the state, but never justice.

[Hobie]

It is true that any time a person of less than sterling character can use some law or rule to their advantage and is smart enough to do so they do so. Only one person has ever failed to do so. The day after tomorrow we will honor his life.

I don't trust government any further than I can throw it. It only takes ONE person in a position of power to harm many others. That person might even be convinced they are doing the right thing. Giving them power they don't deserve is simply dumb. Ok, so the next two people in that position do nothing and then...

Have you noticed all the recent mentions of the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of the Cherokees to remain on their properties and Andrew Jackson's statement that "the Supreme Court has so ruled now let them enforce it?" (might not be EXACT quote) This coming Supreme Court ruling MIGHT be for the 2nd as we've wanted and then, they will tell SCOTUS to enforce it. They can't. That's what the President does.

[Swampman]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Spock

[Scott64A]

I don't disagree that there are douchist-commie fascists who clamor for the disarmament of the constituency.

However, I don't like someone using the Star of David or Holocaust references to hammer home some "point" about how we are purportedly going down the same road as Germany pre-WWII.

It's NOT the same, and I'd be grateful if certain folk(s) would leave the sad memory of the Jewish peoples' brush with extinction out of it.

I have already PMd the person I refer to, and this is the last time I ask nicely.

I don't trust governments either, but dang.
This is not the same thing. This is merely more political osturing to appear "tough on crime!".

As ridiculous as it sounds, it gets votes.
Let's just sit back and watch the Second Ammendment ruling, shall we? It looks like the 2nd is going to be favored as an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
It says nothing about who decides if the person is "sane" enough, whatever that means.
So let's not go overboard.

[24thMICH]

Scott64a,

I understand and respect your point, but at the same time suggest you consider a couple of things:

1) The quotes "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence" and "Never forget." Some folks take these quotes very seriously. I can think of some friends in Skokie, IL in particular who do so.

2) Check out: http://www.jpfo.org/

Old Ironsides isn't the only person using the Mogen David as a reminder for all of us about a topic deeply important to him.



.

[The Lewis]

It's not the same thing until someone down the road sees how they might be able to use it to leverage their agenda. These little 'sensible' laws are the building blocks of tyranny and it's apathy that will let them be laid.

OI, IMHO, has been cool and concise and has merely called things the way he sees them. Open debate is not always seen as civil but put your big boy pants on and listen to what is said and beware any unconstitutional laws.

[Hobie]

In post WWI Germany there was a polarization of political thought. Then, when one party attained dominance it went for different groups each in their turn until it ruled with an iron fist over everyone.

[Scott64A]

As far as I know, Germany post WWI and pre WWII was a totally different animal, having come from a monarchy and then going to a "loose" version of "democracy".

We, as a nation have never been where Germany has been, and our fabric is different.

Having said that, people are still just people, and subject to the same mob mentality and social pressures that have always existed. I see the point. The point is that some of us here believe that a socialist fascist regime is trying to take over and rule by brute force thinly veiled in colorful silk.

I am one of those people.

I do not however, like resorting to using such icons to illustrate a point.
They may fit, but using these things now isn't proper, IMO.

Use them all you want, and I'll just deal with it. I, too will remain vigilant in this fight.
I don't want you all thinking that I don't support our rights, and that I'm some sort of detractor.

[Jeeps]

It's all a matter of trust....

Your Government DOES NOT trust you, they have an entire system of checks and balances to make sure you are doing what they want. They have infinite resourses (your tax money) to insure this.

If your not acting right they WILL send an ARMED representative to make sure you abide by the rules. They ARE NOT afraid of using force when necessary (heck, even when it's not necessary)

ALL YOU HAVE IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS to keep things fair and even. And guess what? They even have laws that can over ride YOUR bill of rights.

You can call me paranoid if you want, I prefer to think of it as "keeping my eyes open".

[Old Ironsights]

Scott, I do NOT consider you a detractor. You have an opinion about iconography/imagry that is different from mine. That is all.

Having extended family who died in the Shoah, I come from a different place/world view than you.

Having a degree in Marketing/PR gives me yet another insight into how the use of imagry can be both a positive and a negative.

Sometimes images have to shock to be valuable - it is only then they speak "Truth to Power".

There are enough people out there - and some here - who openly declare that not only is registering innocent, but different, people a good thing, but that those people should be locked away forever. That is the essence of a concentration camp.

When living in Spokane I took part in events repudiating Herr Butler in his little neo-wannabe-Nazi compound in Hayden Lake. Like I said, these are things I don't play games with.

The only opinion a Man may not morally hold is that another innocent man does not deserveto live.

And THAT is the essence of Gun Control... the OTHER thing I don't play games with.

Truce - but my Avatar Stays

[Scott64A]

Ha ha...

You're too funny, OI.

Let's give 'em hell.

[Caco]

Thank you 24th MICH. Experienced profesional information to help sort things out.
Dave

[Swampman]

[Old Ironsights]

Still drinking the Koolade? How much is Wayne paying you?

[quote="Brady/NRA SHILL"]The NICS Improvement Bill: Myth and Reality

Some opponents of the “NICS Improvement Amendments Actâ€

[Caco]

Just baught a new hand gun and filled out the atf 4473-firearms transaction record. It has changed to reflect the new nics requirements resulting from 2640. Question 11-f. seems to take a wider swath than some like swapman are claiming.
NOW-- first of all my interpertation is that of one not trained to interpert due to the technical interpertation of definitions I just think that the term " other lawful authorities" is not a real defining term.
Not a lawyer-just sceptical
Dave

[Old Ironsights]

Just baught a new hand gun and filled out the atf 4473-firearms transaction record. It has changed to reflect the new nics requirements resulting from 2640. ...

Which, if true, means this is and always has been, and inside/railroad job since the President hasn't even signed it (yet).

Not saying you are wrong, but if you are right, it shows exactly how meaningless the NRA really is if the BATFE already published new 4473s as if it were a done deal.

[Scott64A]

Again, this bill only applies to reports to NICS from "government panels that are similar to “courts, boards, or commissions.â€

[Swampman]

"I don't see how fine-tuning NICS is going to hurt us, unless we are previously deemed dangerous by a COURT or some such process. It's still the same: keep your nose clean and don't threaten your neighbors."

Exactly!

[Old Ironsights]

...I don't see how fine-tuning NICS is going to hurt us, unless we are previously deemed dangerous by a COURT or some such process. It's still the same: keep your nose clean and don't threaten your neighbors.

Funny how my wife - and MOST of the people who have ever been "adjudicated" in this country have never threatened ANYONE - except MAYBE themselves.

But because some family member got a Doctor and a Judge to agree that they MIGHT be a danger to themselves at a specific point in time, they get involuntairly committed - "adjudicated" - so they can be forced into treatment for more than 72 hours.

And as a result they should lose their Right to Self Defense forever?

That they should be OFFICIALLY equated with Convicted Child Rapists in the National Undesireables List?

That their families should be forever forced to go through Government Hoops to "possess" firearms & ammo in the same house as a "prohibited person"?

That is what this bill does.

But hey:

When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937;

when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians - "should I be my brother's keeper?"

Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. - I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? -- Only then did the church as such take note.

Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.
…
We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934 - there must have been a possibility - 14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30-40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/mar ... .htm#order

[Swampman]

[Old Ironsights]

So?

Want me to post irrelevant articles about drive by shootings in Chicago?

Do they "prove" that all gun owners are latent criminals?

How about I "prove" all people charged with Felonies deserve it too..

A 10-year-old Florida girl faces felony weapons charges after bringing a small steak knife to school to cut up her lunch, according to a report on WFTV.com.

School officials say the Ocala 5th grader had brought a piece of steak for her lunch, and had brought a steak knife. According to the report, a couple of teachers took the utensil and called authorities, who arrested the girl and took her to the county’s juvenile assessment center.

"She did not use it inappropriately. She did not threaten anyone with it. She didn't pull it out and brandish it. Nothing of that nature," explained Marion County School Spokesman Kevin Christian, who added that it made no difference what the knife was being used for, they had no choice but to call police.

"Anytime there's a weapon on campus, yes, we have to report it and we aggressively report it because we don't want to take any chances, regardless," Christian said.

The girl now faces a felony charge for possessing a weapon on school property and has been suspended from school for 10 days. The parents of the girl could not be reached for comment, WFTV.com reported.

Here's another link to this same story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317202,00.html

Ooops.

You are bound and determined to see innocent people Gassed for the crimes of a few aren't you?

[Hobie]

I was reading a post where the number of people affected was estimated. That is just so many horse apples. Why? Because nobody knows because prior to this law nobody could bring all the information together. Thus there is no way they could estimate how many might be affected. PLUS, how the agencies write the rules will affect this. Something like the CA law on lead bullets being made MORE restrictive by the fish and game guys. Hmmmm, can't happen? More horse apples.

The fact is that the BATFE has written rules not in the law for years and mostly gotten away with it. To ignore that is like ignoring a 20lb goiter, complete self deception.

[Old Ironsights]

OPEN LETTER TO THE STATES' ATTORNEYS GENERAL
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Office of the Director
May 9, 2007

We at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), like all Americans, were saddened by the tragic events that unfolded at Virginia Tech last month. In the immediate aftermath, many questions arose about whether the person responsible for the shootings was prohibited under Federal law from possessing a firearm, and how the shooter passed the background check required before purchasing the two firearms used on April 16, 2007.

As the Federal agency responsible for enforcing the Federal firearms laws, ATF works every day to prevent the criminal misuse of firearms. We stand ready to assist our State and local partners in better understanding the Federal prohibitors and how we can work together to prevent future tragedies. This letter serves to explain what ATF has done in response to the events at Virginia Tech and to provide information on the nature and scope of the Federal prohibition.

In the initial weeks after the Virginia Tech shootings, ATF took immediate steps to communicate with our State and local law enforcement partners and the licensed firearms community. In particular, ATF joined the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who, along with the United States Attorney General and the Secretary of Education, embarked on a twelve-State effort to meet with State and local leaders, educators, mental health experts, and law enforcement officials to find out what can be learned from the tragedy at Virginia Tech. A summary of lessons learned will be reported back to the President with recommendations about how the Federal Government, working in conjunction with State and local partners, can prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

During the first week of May, ATF used the occasion of the annual FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Users Conference in Portland, Oregon, to reach out to State law enforcement officials to clarify the meaning of the Federal prohibition for those persons adjudicated as a “mental defectiveâ€

[Old Ironsights]

Ramifications Of The 9 May BATFE Letter Considering The Current Parameters Of 18 U.S.C. 922(d) (4)

By Mike Hammond, legislative counsel to GOA
May 15, 2007

SUMMARY
In the wake of BATFE's most recent letter of May 9, 2007, spelling out its current position on who is a prohibited person by reason of a mental defect, I have sought to lay out the current state of law. My conclusion is that, particularly in the hands of an anti-gun administration, there is a substantial danger that the term "prohibited person" can include the following:

* Persons who are ordered by courts to be evaluated by psychologists or psychiatrists in connection with child custody or other proceedings (the so-called "Alec Baldwin proviso");

* Persons who, in a wide variety of juvenile cases, are evaluated by psychiatrists because of school-related problems, and perhaps put on Ritalin as a result;

* Seniors receiving home health care under Medicare who are evaluated by professionals for Alzheimer's;

* Veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder;

* Persons who are arrested and referred, without due process, for psychiatric evaluation, followed by a finding that the person has no mental or emotional problems or does not require commitment;

* Persons whose psychologists commit them with no due process at all.

18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) & (g)(4)
18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g) (4) prohibit the sale, receipt, possession, etc., of a firearm by a person who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or has been "committed to any mental institution." (These are two separate grounds for banning guns, although a broad interpretation of who can do the "adjudicating" may also spill over to the question of who can do the "committing." So our analyses of the two will, to some extent, be interwoven.)

As someone who has drafted more gun law than any other living person -- with the possible exception of the draftsmen of the 1968 Act -- I can report the we always assumed that the language addressed persons who were found not guilty of violent crimes by reason of insanity. But suffice it to say that BATFE has consistently worked to expand that definition -- and anti-gun advocates in the media and elsewhere are now working to expand it even more dramatically.

Their ridiculously broad interpretations were not as much of a problem when there was no effective enforcement mechanism. But, with Carolyn McCarthy and Charles Schumer now pushing legislation which would force states and persons receiving treatments to report such information to the FBI, efforts to prevent the intent of statute from being co-opted are of greater concern.

THE CONTEXT
Therefore, we need to examine this language in terms of the political feeding frenzy which is taking place in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy:

For example, the commitment portion of the statute applies only to a person who has been committed to a "mental institution." But the governor of Virginia, by the stroke of a pen, used an executive order to "improve upon" that statutory law and turn over to the FBI the names of persons referred for both inpatient and outpatient treatment, whether or not an individual is actually "committed to a mental institution."

With this in mind, this statute has to be looked at in view of partisans' frenetic efforts to prove that it is relevant to Cho Seung-Hui -- notwithstanding the fact that Virginia, which turns over more psychiatric records to the FBI than any other state, did not feel that he was covered by it... and notwithstanding the fact that Cho was covered by being voluntarily referred to an institution, for evaluation only, and was not subsequently found to be sufficiently dangerous to warrant commitment.

WHO CAN "ADJUDICATE" A PERSON TO BE A "MENTAL DEFECTIVE"?
27 C.F.R. 478.11 states that the adjudication may be made by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority."

Anti-gun advocates have tried to create the impression in the media that "other lawful authority" means some judicial or quasi-judicial forum. But nothing in either the regulations or in BATFE's letter of May 9 says or implies this. "Authority" could be:

* A school psychologist to whom "behaviorally challenged" kids are referred;

* A psychiatrist commissioned by Medicare to evaluate seniors for Alzheimer's (an interpretation which is reinforced by the fact that such a finding by such a person is legally effectual for qualifying such a person for Alzheimer's grants);

* A Veteran's Administration psychiatrist who evaluates returning soldiers for post-traumatic stress disorder (large numbers of these names have already been turned over to the FBI by the Clinton administration);

* A psychologist who, under provisions of law, involuntarily commits a patient with no due process at all.

A fortiori, the same person whose findings are enough to "adjudicate" a person as a "mental defective" are equally capable of being able to legally "commit" the person under the second disqualifying clause, within the terms of the statute.

WHAT TYPE OF COMMITMENT CAN TRIGGER THE COMMITMENT LANGUAGE?
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting by a person who was "committed" "voluntarily" for "evaluation," efforts have been made to argue the Cho was a "prohibited person," and that the voluntary nature of the referral and the fact that the initial referral to the institution was made for evaluation were irrelevant.

The May 9 letter fails to limit the statute from applying to referrals for treatment. And, hence, a hypothetical "Alex Baldwin" who was referred by a court for evaluation in connection with a child custody or similar proceeding would presumably be covered by that interpretation.

BATFE does take the position that the referral must be "involuntary" -- ironically, imposing a requirement not set by the statutory language itself. However, the child, senior, soldier, arrestee, patient, or parent ordered by the school, Medicare, Army, police, psychologist, or court to be evaluated are arguably all acting "involuntarily." Furthermore, BATFE specifies that "voluntary" can be changed to "involuntary" if the person tries to leave.

WHAT TYPE OF FINDING MAKES ONE A "MENTAL DEFECTIVE"?
This archaic language is not likely to be found in any regulation or court order. And, as I started earlier, it was initially thought to apply to persons found not guilty of violent crimes by reason of insanity.

But the BATFE regulations and BATFE's May 9 letter apply it to any person who "s a danger to himself or to others, or [l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs."

Cleary, this broad definition:

* Will automatically apply to anyone with Alzheimer's (meaning gramps will lose his gun collection);

* Will probably apply to troubled kids (in view of teenage suicide);

* Will probably apply to vets (in view of isolated instances of violence by returning soldiers).

Furthermore, under the "better safe than sorry" rule, professionals are increasingly being pushed to adjudicate patients as "dangerous" or "suicidal" in order to avoid blame, in the remote event that something goes wrong. And, in this regard it is significant that BATFE explicitly states that "danger" means any danger, not simply "imminent" or "substantial" danger...." [Emphasis added.]

It is hard to imagine a situation where a psychologist would certify that there is absolutely no danger whatsoever.

TO WHOM MUST A "PROHIBITED PERSON" BE COMMITTED IN ORDER TO LOSE HIS GUN RIGHTS?
Both BATFE and the statute talk about commitment to a mental "institution" -- although BATFE, in its May 9 letter leaves open the possibility that commitment for outpatient treatment would even qualify.

But, whatever BATFE says, it is significant that Virginia, which submits more records on its disabled citizens to the FBI than any other state -- but was unable to stop Cho -- has now taken unilateral action to apply 922 (g) (4) to "outpatient" as well as "inpatient" referrals -- thereby completing the final link on the chain necessary to declare Alec Baldwin a prohibited person.

This means that -- in Virginia and any other state which chooses to do so -- "commitment" can mean simply ordering a person to see a psychologist for evaluation.

Virginia had already worded its state gun forms to disqualify a person who is "incapacitated" (as opposed to a "mental defective") -- a term broader in some respects than BATFE's definition.

But, by the stroke of a pen, governor Kaine also expanded the records which he would turn over to the FBI from persons "committed [to a] "mental institution" to persons "committed" for outpatient treatment. In press accounts, he made it clear that this applied to anyone ordered to see a psychologist or psychiatrist. And, while the first operative sentence of the executive order refers to commitment procedures under section 37.2-817 of Virginia law, subsequent language requiring the Virginia State Police to "request copies of orders both for involuntary inpatient and involuntary outpatient care from the appropriate district court" aren't explicitly tied to the commitment provisions.

WHAT ABOUT DUE PROCESS?
In its May 9 letter, BATFE does, to its credit, emphasize the importance of giving due process to persons whose names are submitted pursuant to (g) (4).

Thus, a person who is entitled to due process -- and who does not receive due process -- may be able to challenge his inclusion in the list of prohibited persons.

But this proviso takes us only so far.

The courts have found that a juvenile has few, in any, due process rights at all. The same is, increasingly, true of persons who are held by police for evaluation. I can say from experience that, in many places, a senior can be declared incompetent in, at most, a "star chamber" ex parte proceeding -- and possibly by a simple petition without notifying family or giving the senior an attorney. Finally, a patient who is civilly committed by his own psychologist may also, depending on state law, have limited rights.

[Old Ironsights]

Specific Concerns for Non Violent personswith Mental Health issues:

1. The definitions used to implement the Brady law are vague and do not clearly define who should and should not be included:

First, as a threshold consideration, the term “adjudicated as a mental defectiveâ€

[Swampman]

Prejudice

An adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.

[Old Ironsights]

"Judge a law by the worst reading, & in the hands of the worst enemies of the 2nd Amendment"

Assuming everything Brady/NRA says is true and nothing directly bad will happen with this bill, there still remains the issue of "constructive possession".

"Constructive Possession" (as interpreted by the BATFE) and GCA '68 means that all households with "prohibited persons" will be required to have comply with sort of Government Approved "Safe Storage" scheme.

Dr. John R. Lott of More Guns, Less Crime fame teamed with John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide on this study of more than twenty years worth of "Lock Up Your Safety" madatory gun storage laws. They found no support at all for the usual gun banner claims that such laws will reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths and suicides. On the contrary, the data suggest that these laws appear to impair the ability of citizens to properly use their guns in self-defense. During the first five full years after the passage of the safe storage laws, the group of fifteen states that adopted these laws faced an annual average increase of over 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses. The link is to the abstract; the actual study available for download is a 238K Acrobat pdf file.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=228534

[Old Ironsights]

Prejudice

An adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.

Define your "sufficient knowledge"... somthing more than MSM hyperbole.

I've asked before. How long will you continue to refuse?

[Swampman]

I'm just going on my personal experiences over the years, and that of my coworkers. Watching them come to work battered and bruised makes me feel sad.

Just last week my friend came in with a black eye. His teenaged son had busted him in the face, just as the meds started to wear off. When he returned the kid to the facility where they keep him, he lied to the doctors and said there were no problems while he was home for his visit.

This kid has beat up his grandmother, mother, and now his dad.

It's just too risky to trust a families' safety to a bottle of pills.

[Old Ironsights]

...It's just too risky to trust a families' safety to a bottle of pills.

So you would send some 20 MILLION people to concentration camps (euphamistically called "hospitals") because a father lies about the health/stability of his kid.

Brilliant.

Did you ever stop to think that it's because of the kind of evil stigma that you spew that he won't give the doctors the information that his son needs for proper treatment?

Bah. Your personal experiences mean squat. They are anecdotal hearsay at best. Yet you would condemn millions for it.

How pathetically sad.

[Swampman]

The dramma is killing me.

I'll let you continue your raving without my hinderance.

[Old Ironsights]

Oh, and FWIW, if the kid's meds "wear off" then he's not being properly treated anyway.

Antipsychotics and mood stabilizers work by maintaining a consistant level of the drug in the system.

They don't just "wear off" because the theraputic serum level is lower than the total serum level.

It takes DAYS for most theraputic levels to drop below threshold.

Sounds like the Father needs to take the time to understand his son's condition and find him a PsyD who will work to prperly stabilize him.

Once stabilized the son will be able to live a normal, productive life.

But reading more than news reports of violent people looking for individual incidents perpetrated by people who are NOT stable just isn't worth the effort, is it?

There I go... raving again.

At least you aren't hindering me with your brilliant analysis of the genuine issues at hand.

[J Miller]

The dramma is killing me.

I'll let you continue your raving without my hinderance.

Swampman, you have not hindered Old Ironsights one bit. As a matter of fact your refusal to see the truth has merely encouraged O.I. to post the clear and concise evidence that has proven his case.
It is you who are blind and refusing to see. It is you who are running on liberal feelings instead of using your God given intelligence to analyze the evidence and accept it's truth. It is you who have willingly swallowed the NRA's propaganda and spin hook line and sinker.
Your stubborn refusal to see what's happening is just an example of what is wrong with many people in this country. It's not happening unless it's happening to me ....... well, the BATFE will get around to you. Eventually.

It's about time you give up on this thread, you've lost. Facts cancel emotions in any debate.

O.I. - 1, Swampman - 0.

Joe

[24thMICH]

Swampman,

Sometimes psychiatric cases can be complicated. If this kid has a history of beating up his grandparents and his parents, the first question I have is whether or not these elders have reported his behaviors to the kid's psychiatrist. Kids with histories of repeated assaults need to be in superviseed residential centers, not in the home anymore. There are specialized residential centers for adolescents and for adults. If the kid is too assaultive there, they can be easily transported to an inpatient adolescent psychiatric unit.

If the parents aren't reporting this kid's assaults on them, shame on them! By attempting to falsely "protect" their kid, they're actually making the situation far worse, for themselves and also for the kid. If your kid beats up your mother and you "protect" him by not reporting his behavior, what are you teaching this kid? What is he likely to do the next time he gets angry or bored or whatever and sees a vulnerable target?

Is Adult Protective Services involved? Do you think medications alone are going to do the trick for this kind of kid?

More to the point of this thread, are you painting *all* individuals with the slightest emotional problems or who are taking psych. medications of any kind with the same brush as you paint this kid? That's like seeing somebody with terminal lung cancer and and concluding that anybody who has the slightest cough and a cold is going to die a horrible death.

I've worked with all kinds of emotionally and mentally distressed individuals, and I have to say, from your description of this kid you're describing less than 1% of the population of individuals with emotional problems. As bad as the example you're describing, it's not representative.

I'm sorry your friend is going through what he's going through. I've known parents who had to sleep with a .38 under their pillow for fear of their adult schizophrenic child. But these instances are very rare, not common.

It's important to keep perspective, especially when you're dealing with the law and the nasty effects avaricious lawyers can have, especially when they're partnered with a politician who sees an angle he can play.


.

[Lastmohecken]

I need clarification on this new law. Am I to understand that if someone living in your household is bi=polar, that you must give up your guns? How will this happen, will someone confiscate your weapons? Or are you just not allowed to purchase anymore, because you can't pass the NICs check?

Please, someone explain this law in layman's terms.

[Swampman]

Here you go.

The NICS Improvement Bill: Myth and Reality

Some opponents of the “NICS Improvement Amendments Actâ€

[Hobie]

Swampman,

Is that the second time you've posted the NRA position?

In any case, it was unhelpful as it doesn't answer Lastmohecken's question.

Lastmohecken,

The truth is that as of this moment we don't know what will happen. Once the bill is actually law, on the effective date, there will be supporting rules and regulations from the BATFE. THEN we will know. Likely, a person who's received involuntary treatment will be reported IF the records in that jurisdiction are correct. (AND THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM MOST PLACES) However, it could be quite a while before the mechanisms are in place to actually link a gun-owner to a prohibited person's address. Unfortunately, they will discover some such through other means such as investigations of gas leaks, burglaries, etc. One could find trouble because one reports a break-in and suddenly discovers that such a record exists about a person in the household (and of which the gun-owner might be unaware) or even a local PD determination to act according to the address rather than the persons in residence. IOW, there might be problems because one lives in the same house as was formerly occupied by a prohibited person. I imagine that even more problems could result from people with the same name, such as Smith.

When bureaucrats are involved, errors will be made and some will inevitably be compounded. The bureaucrat NEVER pays, only the affected citizen.