D.C. post Heller says voluntary commitment to a mental hospital prohibits RKBA.

[jody]

“5. Must not have been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to any mental hospital or institution within the past five years.”

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/registering_firearm_dc.pdf

[smoogatz]

1. OMG!!!1!! Gun grabberz!1!!

[davepc]

3. So its OK to discriminate against people for seeking mental health treatment

Talk about the end justifying the means.

[smoogatz]

6. You're kidding, right?

You want people who've been committed to mental hospitals to have guns? Great idea.

[davepc]

8. what other civil rights are taken away for seeking mental health treatment voluntarily?

It's sad that the anti-firearms movement seeks to use the stigma that exists against mental health issues in their quest to further their agenda.

[smoogatz]

12. We don't let blind people drive, either.

And that, too, is a form of discrimination. It's also common sense, no?

[davepc]

15. Driving isn't an enumerated Civil Right.

[smoogatz]

16. We don't let convicted felons buy guns.

Your turn.

[tburnsten]

23. Commiting a felony and seeking voluntary mental health care

are two entirely different things, I don't understand how you can conflate an intentional criminal act with something as minor as seeking temporary mental health care. What about a woman suffering from post-partum depression? How about a person suffering from some severe anxiety or stress who needs some quick help to make it through safely? That is very different from a violent criminal or career criminal, and I don't see how you could equate them, unless you are just that ignorant.

[davepc]

24. No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

That silly Constitution....

[smoogatz]

26. Okay, so now you're arguing that unless you're committed by a court,

no matter how crazy you are, you should be able to buy a gun, right? So that kid that shot up Virginia Tech should have legally been allowed to buy the guns he bought, and the solution to crazy people shooting up college campuses is to arm students and professors, etc. Got it. Yeesh.

[davepc]

30. Yes, exercise of Civil Rights should only be restricted upon due process of law

[smoogatz]

33. Guns for Crazy People!

Great slogan. Probably sell a lot of bumper stickers. You know, there's all kinds of precedent for acceptable, common-sense limitations on civil rights: yelling fire in a crowded theater, laws against child porn, etc. Don't you think, just maybe, taking guns out of the hands of psychotics would rise to that level? Or do your individual rights always get to trump the common good, no matter what?

[Thortin]

39. Not Thinking it Through

I wasn't committed or anything but I did end up on Paxil.

Situation: I had been working since I was 13 mainly high-stress blue-collar jobs.
Firefighter, NASCAR (talk about a fish out of water) and a union grocery clerk (actually the highest stress job of them all).
When my children were born of course I was happy. Then I got laid off and had a hard time finding a job again. My wife was working at the time and we decided I would stay home and watch the kids. This became my job.

Watching a willful, stubborn, pig-headed 2 year old started (the newborn was easy to watch)wear real fast. The wife was going to school and working at the same time. I watched the kids pretty much 7 days a week. After2 years I developed anxiety disorder. I wasn't nuts, just having physical symptoms that were affecting my health. If it had been handled a different way I would have been prohibited from purchasing firearms. I wasn't going off the bend, I just needed to get back into the real world.

Why would it have been ok to not allow me to purchase firearms?
I was not depressed, a danger to anyone or anything else.

You are making the assumption that all who end up seeking help are automatically short on some cognitive skills.

[jody]

40. That's what DoJ says also, see #34. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Cho was ordered by a court to receive treatment.

In my state, he would not have been allowed to purchase a firearm. No idea what the heck is wrong with Virginia, but I hear that hole is plugged, or will be plugged soon.

Anyway, kinda robs your argument of merit when your example doesn't match your argument.

[SteveM]

42. Punish, restrict, ban from employment all folks testing positive for AIDS...

So why do you think these demagogic measures were not enacted in the early days of the AIDS epidemic? Because folks who might suspect they had AIDS WOULD NOT go in for testing.

When someone goes to a mental health counselor because he/she is feeling depressed, they expect to receive treatment which will improve their health. You, on the other hand, want to start restricting someone's civil liberties. Consider: if someone who is in need of mental health, and is willing to seek it out, may not wish to if they know they will NOT be able to purchase a gun for self-defense.

Prima facie, your philosophy is weak on civil rights.

[jody]

46. You are to gentle re "weak on civil rights". Some people have no qualms about trashing civil rights.

[SteveM]

47. Yes, and they are the first to say "love me, I'm a liberal." Heifer dust (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Yes we do

If their blindness is cured. Some mental health issues are treatable you know. Fixable. Some even go away on their own.

[jody]

13. Read the law carefully. The issue is "voluntary"commitment versus "involuntary" commitment.

That is my reply to your statement "committed to mental hospitals" that fails to distinguish between the two.

[smoogatz]

14. That's because the distinction's irrelevant.

Involuntary commitment is almost exclusively associated with criminal behavior these days. But the fact that someone has been voluntarily committed is a pretty good indicator that they're in serious crisis. I think once an individual has crossed that line, it's probably a good idea to stop them from buying guns, yes.

[jody]

18. It may be irrelevant to you but not to others or the law. n/t

[smoogatz]

20. The law in D.C. disagrees with you, apparently.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Why do you want to deny mental health treatment to those who seek it voluntarily?

This rule will kill people, you'll probably blame the guns though.

David

[jody]

37. See my post #34. n/t

[SteveM]

43. Wait a while. D.C. is just making a typical Jim Crow retreat into subterfuge (nt)

[tburnsten]

22. People who have had a VOLUNTARY stay included?

Wow, while we're at it why don't we go ahead and put an income floor on the right to own firearms, can't have any of "those people" getting guns can we?




You won't get it, but maybe someone will.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. It is nice to see you back after the mourning period.

[sandnsea]

2. Which is absolutely fine

Why can't any of you deal with the reality of being zealots. The vast majority in this country want some way to manage who gets guns. It doesn't matter how careful or reasonable the regulation, the reactionaries go into a twirl and fuck it up for the 90% majority.

[petersjo02]

4. I agree with you, Sandnsea

It's like God forbid we shouldn't just start attaching guns to infants immediately as they exit the womb. Enough already. My heart doesn't bleed because reasonable people deem it appropriate to have some measure of control over who is allowed to have guns in this country.

[atreides1]

10. That's the catch

Your statement:

<<My heart doesn't bleed because reasonable people deem it appropriate to have some measure of control over who is allowed to have guns in this country.>>

Who gets to decide who is reasonable, those who hate guns and would make sure that it would be easier to deal crack then to own one?

Or perhaps the hunting enthusiast, who sees no problem with using an AK-47 to hunt rabbits?

For me it would be someone who respects the Constitution and does not got out of there way to make it too easy or too difficult to own a gun.


That's a reasonable person in my definition.

As for those with mental problems, a person who has to be committed involuntarily should not have access to a gun, while someone who seeks professional help should face some restrictions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. A compromise, then?

The state 5 years if involuntarily committed, and the treating facility's OK for the voluntarily committed.

So the guy who goes into inpatient treatment for 6 months, then outpatient treatment for another 6 months, then the doctor signs a release stating that, in his professional judgment, the guy is not a threat to the community or himself.

[tburnsten]

25. Aside from caliber issues what's wrong with Avtomat clones for rabbits?

They are excellent for coyote and deer sized game, and five round magazines for hunting are available for them. I think maybe you are just furthering the stigma of the evil black rifles a little too much. AR-15 rifles in .223 are even more superb for taking small game with, and uppers can be had for even more effective small game cartridges, such as the .204 Ruger.

[SteveM]

44. To get at folks favoring 2A, are you willing to soil 5A?...

"start attaching guns to infants immediately as they exit the womb."

Very silly stuff, but quite common from gun-controllers.

Do you really think if someone voluntarily goes in for mental health counseling, he/she should have his civil rights restricted without due process? Do you?

Your reasonableness trashes 2A and 5A. Read my post on the history of AIDS, above.

[jody]

5. Any of the tens of thousands of vets with PTSD could be disqualified even though their

mental state in no way poses a threat to themselves or others.

The law continues the stigma associated with mental illness.

Even though SCOTUS ruled in Heller that the Constitution protects an individual RKBA, the battle shifts to gun-grabbers against We the People trying to impose draconian laws on RKBA hoping to destroy another natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right.

[smoogatz]

7. Actually PTSD has been associated w/ very dangerous behaviors

including domestic violence, homicide and suicide. I think it's fine to keep guns out of the hands of people who've been committed for treatment of PTSD.

[jody]

9. The issue is "voluntary" commitment not "involuntary" commitment.

I know of several dozen vets diagnosed with PTSD who are not a threat to themselves or others. I see no reason why they should not be allowed to exercise their RKBA.

I also know a few vets who are being treated for PTSD and they are a threat to themselves and others.

[smoogatz]

11. Diagnosis and commitment are hardly the same thing.

Voluntary or involuntary isn't the point. If you're in sufficient crisis that in-patient treatment is your best option, you probably ought not to be allowed to buy a gun. Seems like common sense to me.

[jody]

17. Voluntary or involuntary is precisely the point. 18 USC 922. Unlawful acts says,

QUOTE
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
. . . . .
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
UNQUOTE

D.C.’s laws should not be more restrictive than federal laws.

[smoogatz]

19. "has been committed?"

Does that imply involuntary commitment only? It seems to cover the whole realm of commitment options, to me.

[jody]

34. DoJ says only involuntary . See their letter below.

OPEN LETTER TO THE STATES' ATTORNEYS GENERAL

QUOTE
COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION

This term means a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term also includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, and commitments for other reasons such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a mental institution.
UNQUOTE

[SteveM]

45. Note "adjudicated" in 17 above (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. They would have no way of finding out if you had been voluntarily commited without violating HIPAA?

They can only find out by violating a federal law so people will just tell them no.

David

[jody]

29. Did congress consider a bill requiring the VA to disclose its records for such purposes? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. I'm not sure.

Even if you were caught wouldn't it be kind of hard to prosecute someone you were already saying was mentally deficient.

David

[jody]

36. Good point, it would be a perfect defense, government professionals testifying for the defense. n/t

[jody]

41. The bill was the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, see link below.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NICS_Improvement_Act_of_2007#Criticism