Another Cox anti-gun "take"...

[SteveM]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/03/31/0401kalra_edit.html

In this on-line opinion, authors Monica G. Kalra and Timothy M. Rivinus re-hash much of the guns=danger=prohibition argument, but I was struck by the willingness to keep Americans with mental health problems from purchasing firearms. They were upset, so it seems, that the "twenty per cent" of Americans assayed to have mental disease have not been rejected on the NICS test. Solution: ban all persons with mental disease from purchasing firearms, AND ban the parents of those with mental disease from purchasing firearms. And the horse you rode in on.

Smells like safety to some, but an abandonment of a liberal value (that those with mental problems must be treated with due process); I see further a violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution: "No state shall... pass any bill of atainder,... " etc.

[L1A1Rocker]

1. This and ammo bans/restrictions is the new face of gun control.

[chunkstyle5]

2. The way it is now

The way it is now, one must be "adjudicated" mentally defective, to be barred from firearms purchases. That means you go in front of a judge, and have all your legal rights available to you. They used to call this "commitment", but one needn't be confined to an asylum anymore, and instead receive outpatient treatment.

Are the antis asking for more than this?

And what about when the patient is treated successfully? What mechanism is proposed for the restoration of his civil rights, including RKBA?

[benEzra]

3. I sent the following email to the authors...

Good morning,

The vast majority of patients with diagnoses of benign mental disorders are nonviolent, and pose no greater risk of violence than the population at large. In fact, some populations (e.g., those at the mild end of autism spectrum disorders, and those who are depressed without accompanying violence-associated disorders) are arguably less prone to violence than the population at large. Therefore, I have to take issue with the characterization of those with diagnosed mental disorders as inherently more dangerous than the undiagnosed.

Speaking as the parent of a high-functioning special-needs child (22q11.2 deletion syndrome, with serious cardiac, GI, and developmental sequelae)---who thankfully has no significant mental disorders, but who could have been one of the unlucky ones---I can tell you that parents need support and encouragement from the medical community, rather than parochialism or threats of reassigment to second-class-citizen status.

Lumping benign mental disorders in with violent psychoses would do immense harm to patients with those diagnoses and to their families. It would also harm the undiagnosed and their families, who might avoid seeking treatment to avoid being socially and legislatively stigmatized.

Were your proposal to pass, do you think it would stop with gun ownership? If you successfully stigmatize depression, mild autism spectrum disorders, and other comparatively benign conditions to the degree that they preclude an individual from something as mundane as owning a firearm (which are present in nearly 40% of U.S. households, after all), then why do you think individuals so stigmatized would continue to be trusted to use firearms in a professional capacity (e.g., police, military, security)? Or to drive a school bus? Work with preschoolers? Operate or maintain passenger aircraft, passenger trains, or buses? Perform surgery? Work with anesthetics or pharmaceuticals? Or to do anything in which the lives and wellbeing of others are in their hands? And what precedent is there for revoking civil rights from the *families* of those affected?

We have fought very hard in this country to obtain due process for the mentally ill. As a result, in order to revoke civil rights from someone with a mental disorder, either an involuntary committment to treatment or an adjudication of mental incompentence is necessary. Please don't throw that progress out the window based on rare, highly publicized tragedies or personal distaste for private gun ownership; to do so would be not only bad policy, it would be unethical and unspeakably unjust to patients and their families.

Thank you for your time.

[SteveM]

4. Good letter. I hope your son is doing well and he will "grow out" of these ailments.

I also sent a letter to the columnists, expressing my concerns about due process and bill of attainder concerns.

[iverglas]

5. so where were you?

I was the one making these points a while back, e.g.:

the undiagnosed and their families, who might avoid seeking treatment to avoid being socially and legislatively stigmatized.

My main point, of course, was that NICS constitutes a databank containing personal information -- about the most sensitive there is, people's psychiatric histories -- that has been entered in that databank without their consent, and for no purpose related to their healthcare, when a large majority of them will likely never try to purchase a firearm. But there their personal info sits, collected and stored and vulnerable to unauthorized access and leaks for the rest of their lives.

Since they can easily go buy a firearm out of the classified ads with no check done anyhow, seems like kind of a massive infringement of privacy for no compelling reason, and hardly the least interference in order to achieve the intended result.

[gorfle]

7. Some points on NICS

My main point, of course, was that NICS constitutes a databank containing personal information -- about the most sensitive there is, people's psychiatric histories -- that has been entered in that databank without their consent, and for no purpose related to their healthcare, when a large majority of them will likely never try to purchase a firearm. But there their personal info sits, collected and stored and vulnerable to unauthorized access and leaks for the rest of their lives.

Gosh, it's just terrible, terrible, I tell you, that we require the government to keep a list of all people who have been adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial. Horrific.

If you listen closely, you can hear the world's smallest violin playing for them.

Since they can easily go buy a firearm out of the classified ads with no check done anyhow, seems like kind of a massive infringement of privacy for no compelling reason, and hardly the least interference in order to achieve the intended result.

Yup. Might as well not have NICS at all.

[iverglas]

8. I'm sure BenEzra will appreciate your concern

for his child's rights.


Might as well not have NICS at all.

Pretty much, eh?

[gorfle]

15. If

I'm sure BenEzra will appreciate your concern for his child's rights.

If BenEzra's child is deemed too dangerous to own a firearm as proscribed by law then it sucks to be BenEzra's child. If I'm required to go to measures beyond storing my firearms in a locked building in the interest of public safety a little thing like keeping a list of mentally dangerous people in the interest of public safety doesn't bother me one bit.

We all have to make our little sacrifices in the name of public safety, eh?

Might as well not have NICS at all.

Pretty much, eh?

Suits me.

[benEzra]

16. If he is ever adjudicated mentally incompetent...

then I will be heartbroken, but putting his name on the NICS prohibited persons list would be reasonable in that circumstance. And AFAIK NICS does not tell a dealer why the individual is denied; it just comes back "denied," without divulging any medical information, AFAIK. I would be OK with that, and to me, it is far less intrusive and prone to abuse than a licensing system would be (the UK is a pretty good example of how such a system can be abused).

I most assuredly do NOT believe that my son (or anyone else) should be barred from gun ownership for a diagnosis of depression when he is of age, absent psychoses that would make him a danger to others, much less barred for a diagnosis of mild Asperger's or OCD.

And for someone to suggest in all seriousness that my wife and I should be added to NICS and barred from gun ownership if he ever receives a diagnosis of depression, Asperger's, or OCD is outrageous. My wife and I didn't exactly volunteer to go through what we go through on a daily basis; we got drafted by fate/God/circumstances/however you wish to categorize it, and while it is an honor and a privilege to take care of our son (and we have high hopes of him living a normal life in spite of all this), there is no way in hell that I will gladly be stripped of my civil rights and my right to due process as a result. If the people who wrote the article in the OP succeed in getting their pet project passed, and my son were ever diagnosed with anything in the DSM-IV and I became a prohibited person, then I (and a lot of others) would have standing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court--and I'm pretty damn sure we'd win.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. The NICS doesn't say why you can't buy a gun it just says you can't.

At least as I understand it. I would question though if adjudication of mental illness or involuntary commitment are only medical issues. IF they were, it would seem the HIPAA would apply. Don't you support gun registration? I've got to go Canada's on strike.

David

[iverglas]

11. and now

feel free to read what I actually wrote ... and maybe the whole huge discussion of this issue that took place in this very forum only about a week ago.


Don't you support gun registration?

I give up. Are firearms human beings with constitutional and human rights, that their personal information should not be placed in databases?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Are you just registering the firearms?

If you just want to register the firearms then go ahead. I've got absolutely no problem with you only registering firearms.


David

[iverglas]

13. I guess that meant something

Maybe what comes next is that you point out that in Canada, we don't just register firearms, we require that people who want firearms have a licence.

And then is when I patiently explain to you that every licence application is examined individually, and that the firearms officer doing the examination does not have access to anyone's medical information unless the person making the application specifically authorizes disclosure.

A person who is asked to disclose medical information can decline to do so, and may not get a firearms licence if that happens.

But the determination that there are medical/psychological reasons to refuse a licence is made ONLY in the case of people who APPLY FOR a licence, and based only on information that they authorize disclosure of, or possibly their refusal to disclose it, if there were good grounds for requesting it. (Remember that there is a process for reviewing firarms officers' decisions.)

It is NOT based on information in a databank that they never authorized disclosure, collection and storage of.

My uncle, as an example, has a psychiatric condition that should preclude him from possessing a firearm. I don't know whether he's ever been specifically diagnosed, but just talking to him would make it plain that he's no candidate. But that information is securely held in his medical records; it is *not* in a big database just waiting for him to try to buy a gun, which he is not going to do.

He might be sufficiently suicidal at some point that he could want to kill himself, and decide to get a firearm for the purpose. In the US, he would be able to go buy one, because he has never been adjudicated/committed. In Canada, his application for a licence would certainly raise red flags for a number of reasons, and I can't imagine that he'd succeed.

Medical privacy protected, public protected. There we are. And there you aren't.

[bossy22]

medical privacy is already protected under NICS

but we've already had this arguement

My problem with the licensing system is it turns a right into a privilige and will be used as a backdoor method to discourage gun ownership....look at the NYS pistol permit system- in some places it costs up to $500 dollars to get one for 3 years- i believe a restricted firearms license in canada isnt even that high. Maybe your politicians are more truthful than ours- maybe they have more common sense- but all i know is our politicians will abuse this licensing system like they have done or tried to do to every firearm licensing system in the country.

hopefully though some of the provisions of the pistol permit system will be gutted after heller, the system is so bad that it basically gives total discretion to the investigating officer- for example my friend got his permit in 1 month without even fully completing the paperwork- i had to fill out everything go for an interview- and after 4 months im still waiting...

ill bet getting a handgun is easier in canada than it is in the state of New York...i have to say one thing though about your system- ATLEAST IT IS FAIR

arrrg sorry just some angry outburts- dealing with the pistol license section is so annoying

[bossy22]

14. medical privacy is already protected under NICS

but we've already had this arguement

My problem with the licensing system is it turns a right into a privilige and will be used as a backdoor method to discourage gun ownership....look at the NYS pistol permit system- in some places it costs up to $500 dollars to get one for 3 years- i believe a restricted firearms license in canada isnt even that high. Maybe your politicians are more truthful than ours- maybe they have more common sense- but all i know is our politicians will abuse this licensing system like they have done or tried to do to every firearm licensing system in the country.

hopefully though some of the provisions of the pistol permit system will be gutted after heller, the system is so bad that it basically gives total discretion to the investigating officer- for example my friend got his permit in 1 month without even fully completing the paperwork- i had to fill out everything go for an interview- and after 4 months im still waiting...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. My point was go ahead and register all the firearms you want,

as long as you aren't registering the owners.

David

[jody]

6. Excellent letter. May God bless you and yours.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Thoughts and Prayers to your family and your son.

Your letter is fantastic.

David