When Can We Deny Gun Rights to Mentally Ill?

[OldVet]

I had a buddy back in AF Tech school who at one time had indulged in a bit of the drug scene and had been placed in a mental facililty "for observation." He said the near impossible thing to do is convince them you're not nuts. He said, "What do you do? Raise hell like a madman demanding to be released? ["He's obviously insane and a risk to society."] Sit there nice and quiet and wait? ["Withdrawn and depressed social misfit."]

He admitted that experience put him on the straight and narrow.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

My husband experienced a terrible break-up at age 21. He was already somewhat abusing EtOH and had been under treatment for severe anxiety for 5 years (counselling & medication). His break-up caused him to do something stupid/suicidal in his mother's home. He was taken to the ER & "in-voluntarily" committed to the mental health hospital for 72 hours. He was released without comment & never heard from any legal representative. That was 10 years ago or so. He was never notified about being banned from gun ownership or concealed carry. He does still suffer from anxiety and bouts of depression, but is in a stable relationship (with me ;-) and has learned coping mechanisms for when his anxiety builds beyond the norm.

He has since bought several guns going through the background check common here in KY. He has also applied for and received a Federal Firearms license approved by the ATF for his "hobby" of guns (his license is for the purchase & resale of "hobby guns" - those made prior to 1950 I think). We took our CCW course and he never thought of his "commitment" until he was given a denial notice. He has since turned in the requested paperwork, but their 20 days to give him a decision is long past. When he spoke to the office responsible he was given a bit of a runaround & told the legislators are trying to figure out how to change the laws and how that will affect his application.

My comment/question is that the above scenario should never have happened. Either he's banned from gun ownership or not for his mental break over 10 years ago. If he was cleared by ATF to buy and sell guns (that still work, not just dummy guns) and if he's cleared the background check several times, why wouldn't he also be able to carry a weapon? Would anyone consider that he "lied" on his applications for his weapons and licenses when he never received notification that he should be banned?

I agree with what others have said that "mental health" is too ambiguious to do anyone any good. Although he is my husband & I am definitely biased, I do not think someone with a history like his is any more of a risk that someone like me who has suicidal ideations caused by certain medications. However, since I've never sought treatment for those ideations (except curtailing the use of those medication) my CCW was granted to me.

Thank you for an important post. Sadly, we are sure to see lots of legislation intended to keep the crazies from getting
licenses, but not actually prescribing protections for folks such as your husband. I realize lawyers cost big bucks, and
lawyers who specialize in this sort of thing cost bigger bucks, but there probably is a path to a court house door to contest
the facts from the past and the decision.

We have a weird legal environment in which the words, "I'm thinking I should kill you," might get you charged with
anything from nothing at all to disorderly conduct, to making a terroristic threat, but importantly, a decent enough chance
that not much of anything would happen; whereas, the words "I'm thinking I should kill myself" can cause you to lose
all gun owner rights even though you have harmed no one, threatened no one, and done nothing at all.

We (society, judges, cops, docs) constantly confuse ideas and thoughts with intentions and acts. Bottom line, be careful what you say, to whom, and how you say it.

[pittypat21]

I think it's plain to see the problems associated with prohibiting the "mentally ill" from purchasing/carrying firearms. Who decides what is "mentally ill" and what isn't? I've heard a lot of talking from people lately (on and off the forum) calling for stricter measures to prevent mentally ill people from gaining access to firearms.

Let's say I've had a hard couple weeks, been real stressed out, and my tempers gotten a little short. Times are tough, and it can be a lot for a man to take when he's got a family to feed and unfortunate events get in the way. So I decide to go see a psychiatrist to talk it all out, learn some stress management techniques, etc. Now suppose this doc seems to think that I could maybe possibly just fly off the handle and kill myself, or others, because I've been stressed out. He'd be wrong, but suppose he thinks this anyway, and contacts authorities to make sure that it's known that I should not be allowed to purchase or carry firearms. All because I was a little more stressed than usual and sought help from a mental health professional.

Maybe it sounds far-fetched, but I think this kind of thing would be a possibility if some people had their way.

[OldVet]

The problem is the fine line between mentally ill, mentally disturbed, mental issues, and mentally unfit. Who gets to decide at what level gun possession is forbidden?

[Hopyard]

The problem is the fine line between mentally ill, mentally disturbed, mental issues, and mentally unfit. Who gets to decide at what level gun possession is forbidden?

Uh, we know who gets to decide; the docs and the judges. What we don't know, but can almost certainly guess, is the standard
of proof, the access to appeals, and process.

My grandpa used to have a saying-- something along the lines of: "If one person tells you you are nuts ignore them. If fifty
people say 'nuts' consider that you might be nuts."