Mental illness and the right to bear arms

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us...it_th_20131222


The problem with restricting gun ownership is that leaving it all up to the restrictors invites abuse of power. Mental illness runs a whole gamut and can include temporary physical illness. I can remember from many years back when I was working as a nurse in an acute psychiatric facility an incoming older man who was incoherent and violent. It was only some hours later after lab results were back that it was found that he was a diabetic with critically low glucose.

I did work for some years in acute care psychiatry and there are some patients that are both violent at times, and out of touch with reality.
Because they are out of touch they will sometimes forget or refuse to take medications that can help when living on their own.

If one takes a step back and looks at the whole picture, the danger from an armed mentally ill person is on the whole much less than the danger of an overbearing government trying to disarm its populace. And of course if one is armed oneself, one has a means of responding and protecting oneself.

But I certainly can understand and sympathize both with those who worry about sudden irrational violence, and those who have a mentally ill person in their family and who are worried that the person may be shot by another defending himself.

Well, the problem I see is that many of the anti-gunners would list "the desire to own a gun" as a psychiatric issue. So it would become a classic catch-22 if an anti-gunner, either overtly or covertly, was in the position to make the determination of qualifying mental "illnesses".

Heck, many would even list it as "paranoia" if you claimed you wanted a gun for self defense.

It also goes beyond that, in the interpretation of the term.
About 20 yrs ago, I applied for a pistol permit; and was rejected because - at the age of 8 - I was brought to a counselor (once) during the time my mother and her husband were gettng divorced. That, as I was informed, showed a history of mental illness; and meant I was not an acceptable candidate for a permit. Pretty sad; especially when people that have been forced (by court order) to undergo psychiatric treatment, have records, or are on meds, have been able to acquire permits after the fact.
I may revisit it; now that I'm older, better informed, and more inclined to fight that BS rationale...but, given the current administration, probably not.

This really really makes me mad. As a healthcare provider, you try and try and try to keep health info confidential. Even if you're subpoenaed, there are things you have a responsibility toward your patient to protect from outsiders knowledge. If you have the experience and credibility, you can offer your professional opinion on something like "suicide risk" or "flight risk" but you never ever should use a diagnosis against a patients constitutional rights. If you have a direct conflict with a patient and their rights, you always have the ability to distance yourself from the case file.

Mental health patients that pose a significant risk to themselves? Yes. There is a duty to protect them as a patient, especially if they are only a danger whilst under duress (like the hypoglycemic episode Lucille posted above).

But I have patients that hunt (firearm and archery) as a method of coping. I have patients that use getting outdoors and tagging prairie dogs as a release. And not just one or two, but several. They, by medical standpoint, have mental illnesses. Ranging from eating disorders to complicated grief disorder, to teenage depression. Does that mean they cannot be trusted to take a 30.06 into the mountains and pack out an Elk??

At what point does a government get to tell a citizen it cannot exercise a constitutional right?

And at what point does a provider get to determine if someone is capable of responsibly handling a firearm?

Originally Posted by Magic

At what point does a government get to tell a citizen it cannot exercise a constitutional right?

If we wish to retain our freedom we had better figure this one out pretty quickly. Then let the government have an emphatic NO when they try to trample on our rights. The Second Amendment was intended to allow us the RIGHT to say NO and make it stick. In a nutshell, if the US Constitution does not specifically allow the government to do something, they have no legal right to do it.

Originally Posted by Magic

And at what point does a provider get to determine if someone is capable of responsibly handling a firearm?

They shouldn't. It's that "road to Hell paved with good intentions" thing in spades.