CBS 60 Mins: Track mentally ill via federal dbase? - Page 3

CBS 60 Mins: Track mentally ill via federal dbase?

This is a discussion on CBS 60 Mins: Track mentally ill via federal dbase? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by kikr Medical records are conficential and need to remain that way. This is not always the case. As a Public Health Officer, ...

View Poll Results: NICS database requirement that states track the mentally ill?

Voters
153. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good idea

    68 44.44%
  • Bad idea

    85 55.56%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 75

Thread: CBS 60 Mins: Track mentally ill via federal dbase?

  1. #31
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,575
    Quote Originally Posted by kikr View Post

    Medical records are conficential and need to remain that way.
    This is not always the case. As a Public Health Officer, your Doctor our health care provider must report to me certain conditions were you could pose a danger to Public health.

    TB, Bubonic Plague and about 70 others including some sexually transmitted dieases. Most are like the Plague were there is only 1 case every 5 years or so, but with TB and those like it you are mandated treatment. Failure to follow your treatment can lead to your arrest and imprisonment until such time you are no longer judged a danger to public health. This is very rare but it does happen.

    A similar system could be used for mental health.
    Last edited by pgrass101; April 30th, 2007 at 03:09 PM.
    A real man loves his wife, and places his family as the most important thing in life. Nothing has brought me more peace and content in life than simply being a good husband and father.


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    So, for you folks voting Good Idea. Do you really believe this legislation would work? That it's not another "feel-good" piece of junk that wouldn't be worth the paper it's legislated on?

    I'd like to see a rational argument for the other side. Usually gun rights people are on the same side of the camp, so if it splits us fairly evenly, then there has to be a strong argument for it.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array incredipete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    643
    Good idea, but I'm leary of how we define "mentally ill." Does this mean someone who goes for treatment of mild depression would be unable to buy a gun? Bad idea.
    Gun Control means never having to say "I missed you."

    - Glock 27 (.40)
    - Kel-Tec p3at (.380)
    - Beretta 96FS (.40)
    - Smith & Wesson 5906 (9mm)

  4. #34
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    No one has come up with a way to look into the future and determine if a person is going to do bad things or not. There was a really bad movie about that a few years back "Minority report" where they tried to do exactly that but even in the movies they could not do it.
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

  5. #35
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,575
    I think it is a good idea, but I see the problem

    President Hillary (clam down, didn't mean to cause a stroke or heartattack) uses the mental Health check and issues an excutive order that states "Any one wanting to carry or own a gun is a danger to themselves or others and therefore is not mentally fit to own one".

    That being said I still think that if some one has been ajudgicated mentally ill it should be in the NCIS
    A real man loves his wife, and places his family as the most important thing in life. Nothing has brought me more peace and content in life than simply being a good husband and father.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array preachertim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    742
    These folks are treating symptoms and not the problem! Lets fix the stinking problem.

  7. #37
    Member Array Sam Douthit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bowdon, GA
    Posts
    181
    What about kids with adhd? They put them on psychotropic drugs for years. One could make the case that they are prohibited from enlistment in the military and that they not be allowed to purchase guns.
    Sambo74
    SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array PapaScout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    569
    And a woman who experiences PPD after a childbirth and uses Zoloft? Does she never get to defend herself even years later?

    Waaay too subjective.
    "If you so much as bunny hop I'll cut your heart out!" Billy Bob Thornton in The Last Real Cowboys

    "I carry a gun for the same reason that I carry health insurance and a cell phone - be prepared."

  9. #39
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    I'm going to play devils advocate and try to explain why I think there are so many people voting yes, but there are so few posts in support of their vote. I'm not going to try and say WHY so many members have voted for reporting certain mental illness/personality dissorders, just their reason for remaining silent about it.

    To put it bluntly, my guess... it's because they don't want to be attacked (their opinion or personally) by those who oppose the measure. Past history has shown - all too often - that when any sort of gun-control is suggested, the hard core pro gun/anti gun-control supporters circle their wagons, dig in their heels and go on the offensive. Rather than each side of the issue stating their opinions, how they reached them and then (assuming the two sides can't find common ground) "agreeing to disagree", it quickly turns into "you're either with us or against us" rants that devolve into name calling and personal attacks.

    It hasn't happened to me here, but I have been on the receiving end of this sort of attack on other forums when I didn't go along with the forum regulars or questioned their reasons. While I've never been shy about stating my opinion, when it reaches the point where you become the subject of the debate - and the attacks - rather than the original topic, nothing is to be gained by continuing the discussion other than bad feelings. My opinion is most of the people that voted "yes" have seen this or experienced it themselves, and simply don't want to start something they know will become a no-win situation for them.

    I think some of us forget that most of the people here at CC forum, if not all of us, share a common repect for the 2nd Amendment and our American RIGHT to keep and bear arms. We also need to remember that when a question is asked, we should expect a variety of answers and respect the opinions of other to express them, even if we don't agree with all of them.

    This is just my opinion. I could be wrong... it wouldn't be the first time. However, if some of the folks who voted "YES" in the poll would like to explain their position and/or why so few of them are posting and represented here, please feel free to add your 2 cents worth.
    Last edited by rachilders; April 30th, 2007 at 06:08 PM.
    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  10. #40
    Member Array Raider39a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    335
    this is a tough issue . my kneejerk response is that it is a bad idea. "mental illness" carries such a broad interpretation that it can virtually apply to any ICD9 codes for psych illness. How is a government entity going to discern w/c "mental illness" warrant the exclusion of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights? furthermore, as was said before, politically motivated individuals against the 2nd Amendment can always use the "mental illness criteria" to exclude law abiding citizens from owing firearms by merely displaying "traits" that help define certain psych illness.

    The agonizing part though how to prevent people like the VT shooter access to dangerous items be it a pistol or even say HAZMAT chemicals found in a ordinary chem lab in college. Can we at least enact laws that will at least require a deeper inquiry to a CCW or pistol permit applicant if he is flagged for psych illness that post a danger to himself or to the community? Folks like the VT shooter does paint an ugly picture to every law abiding gun owner in this country.
    "embrace the suck" - our warriors in the sandbox... it implies that do the best you can in impossible conditions.
    "no plan survives intact upon contact with the enemy" - wisdom of the Grunts.

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array PaulG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    1,126
    First, I hope people are not refraining from posting because they might get flamed. On this forum, disrespectful behavior is not tolerated. That is one of the beauties of this forum. If anyone does feel intimidated, please let us hear your thoughts on this post. We're actually warm and fuzzy.

    Secondly, I don't agree that the shooter paints a bad picture of gun owners. The shooter paints a bad picture of himself.

    I don't believe in making gun ownership more difficult.

    The problem is not that Cho was allowed to get a gun, the problem is that he was allowed on the street.

    If a person is deemed a threat by competent doctors and competent judge's (there are some out there, aren't there?), he should be removed from the street. If it is deemed that he is not a threat, fine, why limit his rights to self defense?

    So, we pass laws so that Cho is flagged and denied a gun. He then uses a machette and only kills two people. We can say, "wooooo, hooooo! It worked."

    Only I think the two dead people would take issue with that assessment.

    Making laws that Cho isn't allowed to get a gun isn't going to stop him or anyone else from doing evil things.

    All such a law will do, is harm innocent people in the crossfire.
    fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).

  12. #42
    Member Array mmwb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Wyoming
    Posts
    86
    Sounds like one of the key concerns is what the definition of "mental illness" is. I can live with the legal term where a person is involuntarily committed to treatment because a mental health condition has lead to them being a danger to self or others. The court would only need to release the name to the list if the criteria was met. No info pertaining to details, diagnosis would need to be released. I'm not talking anyone with "a problem of life" episode and treatment. In 14+ years of practice, I've had two clients involuntarily committed. For those with competant representation (Wyoming assures they are assigned an attorney to represent their rights), there is a check and balance set to signficantly decrease wrongful commitment. The days of thinking someone could be dangerous and locking them up are long past. There has to be compelling evidence that an individual presents signficant probability and/or imment danger. An appeal and reevaluation to resume the exersise of 2nd Ammendment rights needs assured too.

  13. #43
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,330

    Maybe I'm Too Old...60...But...

    Quote Originally Posted by glock21guy View Post
    Not that it is the same thing. In CO if you are caught mooning some one you are now considered, I don't remember the correct term, a sex offender. And you can't possess a fire arm, legally.

    So you are having a bad day, and are depressed. Some one takes it way to far, and now you are classified mentally ill.

    Their has to be a better way, but I am not smart enough to figure it out.

    Bad Idea.
    If you're not smart enough to keep from sticking your bare A$$ out of a car window, perhaps you shouldn't be carring a firearm...then again, it might just be my age talking here!

    I voted yes...but in a guarded fashion...sure, things can be abused, but if someone is found to be 'over the edge' on twisted brain cells, I'd like to know that he can't legally buy a gun! There can be some give and take here...but I speak of the real real nuts floating around the planet!

    I realize that this can be both good and bad, depending upon definitions, and who is deciding 'required brain cell alotments'...

    This determination can certainly be a two-edged sword...
    Tough call!

    Stay armed...stay safe!

    ret
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  14. #44
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    Excuse me but I have a question!

    If you have been determined to be a danger to yourself or to someone else why are you not in a hospital until your problem has been dealt with or you die? Why are there people on the street that have been legally determined to be a danger to the public?

    This is real simple if you are sane enough to be on the street then you are sane enough to own a weapon. If you are not sane enough to own a weapon you have no business being on the street because you can get a weapon whether it is legal or not.
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

  15. #45
    Member Array mmwb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Wyoming
    Posts
    86
    The problem you refer to is imminant danger. As soon at the imminant danger is removed, than there is no legal power to hold an individual to treatment. It is a check on individual rights that disallows indefinately forcing hospitalization against ones will and to avoid involuntary commitment of those who have mental health concerns, but are not dangerous.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. When Can We Deny Gun Rights to Mentally Ill?
    By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 11th, 2014, 08:08 PM
  2. 11 people shot in 90 mins.
    By glock27mark in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 10th, 2008, 09:35 PM
  3. MORE BAD RAP FOR GUNS IN SEATTLE (well 30 mins away)
    By fitznig in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 11:39 PM
  4. Should Mentally Ill Adults have carry permits?
    By mrshonts in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: March 13th, 2005, 01:23 PM

Search tags for this page

antidepressants concealed carry
,

are medical records checked when applying for a texas concealed carry license

,
dates of mental health records in ncis database
,
lifetime tracking dangerously mentally ill
,
opposition to reporting mentally ill to the ncis
,
placement mental ill after involuntary evaluation arizona
,
texas chl medical records
,
texas chl medical records actually look
Click on a term to search for related topics.