Maryland Mental Health/Guns Task Force completed their report today

[Glaug-Eldare]

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:17 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/legislation/TaskForceStudyMentallyIllAccessToFirearms.pdf

1. The Task Force noted the need for more research, particularly into the connection between substance abuse and risk for violence, as opposed to mental illness alone.

2. The Task Force recommended that laws be created requiring doctors, counselors, educators, and probation agents to report any credible threat of suicide or serious violence against an identifiable victim to local law enforcement, and for local law enforcement to promptly investigate these reports.

3. The Task Force stated that if such a reported threat is substantiated, LEAs should be empowered to temporarily confiscate any firearms owned by the maker of the threat. A judge should review the case within 14 days and determine whether it is reasonably justifiable. If so, he can uphold the confiscation for up to six months, or until a full hearing can be held to review the evidence.

4. The Task Force noted a need for additional training for LEOs and mental health professionals in dealing with the mentally ill, enforcing firearms law, and understanding reporting requirements. The Mental Health First Aid program was praised as an effective example of such training, and it was recommended that licensed firearms dealers be invited to participate in this training.

5. The Task Force encouraged the creation and expansion of existing "Crisis Intervention Teams," which are teams of law enforcement officers who are specially-trained to deal with police emergencies involving mental illness, and who have additional resources available for this purpose.

6. The Task Force suggested that a portion of the fees currently received from applicants for a Maryland Firearms Dealers' License should be used to fund the other recommendations in the report, such as the mental health training and CITs.

7. The Task Force recommended that the state create a process for those who are disqualified from purchasing or possessing firearms to petition to have this disqualification permanently removed, in accordance with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

[jody]

1. Sounds like the Task Force was thorough and objective on a divisive, polarizing issue. It seems

people who commit traditional-murder as reported by the FBI in its Uniform Crime Reports are different from people who commit mass-murder.

[Glaug-Eldare]

2. I'm pretty happy with it, too.

When the bill organizing the Task Force was being put together last year, we managed to get a good mix of people on the panel. We got the NRA rep kicked off and replaced by two representatives for two local pro-gun groups, including a doctor. It looks like the totals are five medical professionals (including the MSI representative), four law enforcement representatives, five law representatives, and one representative for shooting sports.

The only thing that concerns me is the proposed restoration process. Those are a lot of hoops for an applicant to jump through just so they can get in front of a judge who can say yes or no.

[jody]

3. I posted an article related to OP but no one replied. Seems like people are more interested in

insulting each other and vilifying the opposition than trying to prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022070832

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117296269

Seriously hope you have hundreds of thoughtful replies. jody

[Mojorabbit]

4. Are they saying if someone tells their doc they have been having suicidal thoughts

then that doc is supposed to call the police? Normally the doc would get a shrink involved not the police. If an imminent possibility of self harm was likely then the person would be admitted, at least back in the day that is how it was. I will have to think about that one.
When I did my psych rotation decades ago, this was an area for medicine. To get law enforcement involved would breech the trust between a person
and their provider. On the other hand moving the weapons might save lives. Would this prevent people contemplating ending their lives to get help?
I don't know.

[gejohnston]

5. Yes,

and maybe the FBI too, depending how they want to enter it in NICS. Medical privacy laws are a big deal. I remember reading after a mall shooting in the Netherlands, that Dutch police do not get mental health information while processing firearms permits. The reasons being partly that most European gun laws were about political violence, although I wouldn't doubt medical privacy laws had something to do with it.

Hopefully they would have the foresight to move ropes, razers, etc. A high school chum of my brother's chose drinking battery acid. Why he chose it over one of his parent's guns, I can't answer that. Could be they were locked up, or he just didn't want to leave a mess for his mom to clean.

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. I don't read it quite that way.

"All verbal or physical actions threatening suicide or serious violence toward a reasonably identificable victim or victims should be reported to local law enforcement."

The way I interpret this, it would be reported if the person gave the impression that they have the actual intent to carry out the threat. If a patient expressed suicidal or violent thoughts with a desire to overcome (rather than execute) them, I don't believe this would fall under the proposed reporting requirements.

[Mojorabbit]

7. It is worded in a weird way

The Task Force recommended that laws be created requiring doctors, counselors, educators, and probation agents to report any credible threat of suicide or serious violence against an identifiable victim to local law enforcement, and for local law enforcement to promptly investigate these reports.

I am rereading it and looking at, "Local law enforcement to investigate these reports".
It seems this means that if a patient tells their doc they have been depressed and having suicidal thoughts then the police investigates. That does not make sense as that is a specialty(the mental health part of it) of medicine. That would not really be law enforcements realm even with special training unless they hold a degree in those disciplines of mental health.

If not then Do they go to the house and confiscate any firearms or let the family move them out of the house? Are they going in and interviewing the family? Are they required to remove weapons no matter if the family wants to send to another family member and what kind of liability do they incur if they do not confiscate the weapon and the person at a later time does commit suicide? Do they also remove other objects that the person could use to commit the suicide? There are not enough details to really tell what exactly they are proposing.

I knew two people who took their lives, one hung himself in a garage and the other took pills. It is horrible for the families. On the other hand I had an episode while on Chantix years ago where I had those thoughts but I knew that they had to be from the med and stopped it after consulting with my doc and within 24 hours I was fine. I would hate to have had my house full of law enforcement individuals because I reported the abnormal reaction to my doctor and he was worried about his liability if he did not report.

I am glad they are discussing the suicide by firearms problem as it needs addressing. I hope for followup with details as they come available. Looks like a lot to iron out.

[Glaug-Eldare]

8. It's a lot to iron out, true.

I think that "threat of suicide" is distinct from "thoughts of suicide," but I can ask one of the task force members.

[Mojorabbit]

9. Thanks! I am really interested. nt

[Glaug-Eldare]

10. From one of the task force members:

"These pertain to people who make a specific and credible threat."

and in defense of preliminary seizure before the hearing:

"If someone makes a credible and substantiated threat, and has the means to do it, then taking their firearms is not unreasonable. You cannot get people before a judge in 10 minutes. Like you already mentioned, they will probably be committed, but who knows. Let's say Mrs. <Whatever> has a nutty guy she works with. He got fired for sexually harassing her, but still is convinced they are secretly married. She gets a restraining order. He tells his psychiatrist that he is furious that she is shacked up with you and plans to kill her with the AR he just paid $3000 for in the classifieds. He is going to lie on the hill outside of her job and shoot her in the back of the head. The voices in his head told him this is OK. Let's be clear, it is preferable to you to wait for the trial?"

[Mojorabbit]

12. That mostly addresses the violent person

and I don't have a problem with that.
I was more concerned with the suicidal person. My husband is a family physician and I know he has problems determining if a person is really on the verge of harming themselves or no. He assumes they all mean it because he cannot be in their head. He refers all to a mental health specialist and even they don't always get it right. To avoid liability it seems that everyone who voiced these "thoughts" would have to be investigated? What do you think?

[Glaug-Eldare]

14. Two things.

One, another recommendation of the task force was specific training for LEOs as well as physicians in how to apply the reporting law. Hopefully, this would place a family physician in a better position to decide whether to treat a statement as an imminent threat or as a symptom of psychological distress.

Two, there's no convenient excerpt to paste for you, but the panel member I've been speaking to is using "threat" to refer to threats against others as well as against self. The context of the statement will be key if this is put into law.

[loknar]

11. Doctors should be able to report heroin junkies to the police too

so they can watch them and see who their suppliers are and then they can watch them to see who their suppliers are, etc, etc. I have no problem with doctors reporting violent/suicidal people to the police btw. I love the idea of doctors and police working more closely together.

[Mojorabbit]

13. I don't know a single doctor who

would do this willingly. They would work on the addiction on the medical end. They are told the most intimate details of people's lives and are not keen to breech confidences unless necessary, ie child abuse, etc.

[loknar]

15. I do. Lots of them actually. And I know others who wouldn't.

It's a very big issue in emergency medicine.

[Mojorabbit]

17. I worked the ER in the 80's as a nurse

and that was not a prevalent attitude in those days but times change. It is different in family practice when you have an ongoing relationship with
your clients and they are telling you in confidence those things they would not even tell their best friends. It is helpful that this relationship exists
esp in a public health sense. You might see this play out with undocumented people. They will confide in their doctor and they will go see a doctor when ill or their children are ill which can nip a contagious
disease in the bud instead of not being seen because of fears the doctor will turn them in(to find an example of what I am saying). Sorry for the run on sentences. I am ill this week and my mind is not perfectly functioning. Peace, mojo

[Glaug-Eldare]

16. How much confidentiality do you think there should be?

As in, how much confidentiality should be enforced by penalties against the care provider.