Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Mental health record prevents cop from possessing firearm off duty.

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Mental health record prevents cop from possessing firearm off duty.

    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...ve_gun_wh.html

    I.... I.... I don't even know what to say....

    "The dangers inherent in the possession of firearms by the mentally ill are manifest," the judge wrote. And while Keyes argued that he is no longer mentally ill, "a present clean bill of health is no guarantee that a relapse is not possible," Ford Eliiott noted.

    ARE YOU ******* KIDDING ME?!?!?! Oh, excuse me DOCTOR, er, I mean, idiot-at-law.

    "It is "rational" for Keyes to still be allowed to have a gun on-duty because then he is under the supervision and observation of superior officers and his fellow troopers, Ford Elliott concluded."

    ................................... Holy ****, I believe this is the stupidest thing I have read this entire year.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    rules for us do extend to guberment officials ... beware, that cop pulling you over may be crazy ... is that what the judge is telling us?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Brace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    209
    Corollary: Doctors are infallible. Clearly a completely rational premise with no possibility for abuse or unintended consequences.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Brace View Post
    Corollary: Doctors are infallible. Clearly a completely rational premise with no possibility for abuse or unintended consequences.
    the flip side is that a judge does not believe that anyone with a mental illness can ever be cured ...

    I really think the judge has a mental deficiency myself...

    What the guy had suicidal tendencies? And yet he is still alive? Hmmm

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...ve_gun_wh.html

    I.... I.... I don't even know what to say...

    ARE YOU ******* KIDDING ME?!?!?! Oh, excuse me DOCTOR, er, I mean, idiot-at-law.
    The shrinks are now getting $3,000 for every vet they take away gun rights from, so don't be so surprised.

    http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/0...ake-vets-guns/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMMe9AxbPis

    I discussed the attack on firearm ownership in detail in my thread called, "Montana Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association's website."

    Even though our mis-moderator "Gripeshot" has locked the thread, it offers some insightful background on the subject of the black art of psychiatry.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...tion-s-website

  6. #6
    Regular Member Brace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    209
    You'd think by definition that if a person had suicidal tendencies, they wouldn't have them for very long Behaviors of self-harm are generally not suicide attempts but cries for help, even if they have the capacity to end a person's life. There's a problem with western thinking that's developed in the last 200 years or so where people have been grouped into clear and permanent taxonomies for which there's little evidence. The 19th century invented the idea of the born criminal, the born homosexual, the born lunatic, and so forth, where before these things were just viewed as afflictions or behaviors that were possible to anyone. It's a form of psuedoscience (or, to be fair, protoscience in its most carefully vetted examples) that's been readily adopted and put to use for the justification of cultural biases. We have a very punitive society even past the point this achieves any socially beneficial results, and this requires the idea of permanent character to be rationally or morally coherent. This has actually been used as an argument in favor of the death penalty. If you execute a 24 year old murderer, you execute the man who's actually guilty, whereas if you leave them to languish in prison until they're 80, by then you have a person fundamentally different in character being punished for the actions of someone they no longer even resemble. The court (and more abstractly, the law it's tasked to interpret and uphold) isn't concerned about protecting rights or even ensuring an effective police force, but about drawing absolute and permanent lines in response to everything it's asked to evaluate; IE "you did x, you are y".

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    I discussed the attack on firearm ownership in detail...
    The reason why this cop has been stripped of his rights is because of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

    In years past, according to 18 U.S.C. 922 (d) & (g), the only way you could loose your gun rights was through an adjudication by a Judge or Magistrate in a court trial where there is due process, including the right to face one's accuser.

    But NOW adjudication includes a finding by “a court, commission, committee or other authorized person” such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, physician, physician’s assistant, or even a nurse practitioner.

    So if an “authorized person” determines you have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Alzheimer’s, Schizophrenia, Bipolar, Major Depression, or a myriad of other mental health disorders, then, under the new interpretation, you may be subject to a lifetime gun ban because the term “adjudication” now includes nothing more than a psychiatric diagnosis, as opposed to a court order.

    Also, the new law has redefined the term “mental defective” to include anyone who has been determined to be “a danger to himself or to others; or who lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” In a letter dated May 9th, 2007, the BATFE wrote that “danger” means “any” danger, not “imminent” or “substantial danger.”

    And Section 101 (c) (1) (C) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 makes this even clearer, and goes even further. It provides that a person can be made a prohibited possessor, based "solely on a medical finding of disability" even if that finding is based on a microscopic amount of danger or inability to manage one’s affairs.

    Look to see many more otherwise lawful gun owners to get caught up in the gears of the "Psychiatric Insanity" machinery (or should I say machinations?).
    Last edited by Augustin; 12-27-2013 at 08:02 PM. Reason: fix typo

  8. #8
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Psychiatry and the state are great friends. It is a tool of control. Even in relatively "free" countries, people must undergo psychiatric evaluation before legally owning firearms. Even here, before pilots are able to carry guns in the cockpit, they have to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Does it occur to the psychopaths who run the criminal government that pilots could kill everyone on board with a push of a button or flick of the wrist? Yes. It's all about the process and the precedent of complete control of the host population. I'll add cops can carry on planes, no questions asked. Pilots, you see, aren't part of that special caste.

    To the original link in the original post: I thought cops could be trusted to carry. I thought that they had 50 state carry privileges when the mundanes do not because they're better trained (hilarious) and more trustworthy? LOL.
    Last edited by 77zach; 12-27-2013 at 08:10 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  9. #9
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Brace View Post
    You'd think by definition that if a person had suicidal tendencies, they wouldn't have them for very long Behaviors of self-harm are generally not suicide attempts but cries for help, even if they have the capacity to end a person's life. There's a problem with western thinking that's developed in the last 200 years or so where people have been grouped into clear and permanent taxonomies for which there's little evidence. The 19th century invented the idea of the born criminal, the born homosexual, the born lunatic, and so forth, where before these things were just viewed as afflictions or behaviors that were possible to anyone. It's a form of psuedoscience (or, to be fair, protoscience in its most carefully vetted examples) that's been readily adopted and put to use for the justification of cultural biases. We have a very punitive society even past the point this achieves any socially beneficial results, and this requires the idea of permanent character to be rationally or morally coherent. This has actually been used as an argument in favor of the death penalty. If you execute a 24 year old murderer, you execute the man who's actually guilty, whereas if you leave them to languish in prison until they're 80, by then you have a person fundamentally different in character being punished for the actions of someone they no longer even resemble. The court (and more abstractly, the law it's tasked to interpret and uphold) isn't concerned about protecting rights or even ensuring an effective police force, but about drawing absolute and permanent lines in response to everything it's asked to evaluate; IE "you did x, you are y".
    excuse me? how on earth did you morph suicide to the conclusion of drawing absolute and permanent lines?

    and sorry the 19th century did not invent anything about someone born a criminal, etc.

    what rubbish

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pottsboro,texas
    Posts
    200
    well the easiest and most simple way to sum it up is...when the tin badge goes on the chest ,the lead poisoning in the brain goes away.....or is it the other way for the brain?
    Our ancesters, veterens, and people of the service gave and are giving their time and sacrifice to preserve and defend our rights . it''s up to us the people to show appreciation by not sacrificing but investing time to exercise and preserve those rights.......the bushwacker...

  11. #11
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    It is "rational" for Keyes to still be allowed to have a gun on-duty because then he is under the supervision and observation of superior officers and his fellow troopers, Ford Elliott concluded.

    "Were [Keyes] to again fall into a depressive state with suicidal ideation, it would be much more likely to be discovered while he is on-duty and his superiors could then restrict his access to state police firearms," she wrote.
    Superiors and fellow troopers have done such a knock up job of policing for bad apples, the occurrence of which is "isolated".

    What could possibly go wrong? They got all that superior training!
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  12. #12
    Regular Member Brace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    excuse me? how on earth did you morph suicide to the conclusion of drawing absolute and permanent lines?
    Those are two separate thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    and sorry the 19th century did not invent anything about someone born a criminal, etc.
    Not out of thin air. Psychology as an institution first came to prominence at this time though, with all of its accessories such as asylums, and its faux-scientific classification of human beings. There wasn't really a unified, ostensibly objective, secular body of thought to justify these notions until this point. Maybe religious predestination was a theological correlate, and that would certainly far predate psychology. The fact is that our institutions are structured in respect to ideas and ways of thinking that were formally codified through the late 18th and early 20th century, not just in terms of the enlightenment philosophers, who talked about natural rights and the proper role of the state, but in terms of all the ideas about human nature that grew from that period, whether from Rousseau, Kant, Freud, Adler, or any of their contemporaries. These ideas filtered their way into things much less overtly; they built the hidden premises and assumptions of our institutions, whereas people like John Locke, Voltaire et al built the visible ones.
    Last edited by Brace; 12-27-2013 at 10:24 PM.

  13. #13
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Brace View Post
    Those are two separate thoughts.



    Not out of thin air. Psychology as an institution first came to prominence at this time though, with all of its accessories such as asylums, and its faux-scientific classification of human beings. There wasn't really a unified, ostensibly objective, secular body of thought to justify these notions until this point. Maybe religious predestination was a theological correlate, and that would certainly far predate psychology. The fact is that our institutions are structured in respect to ideas and ways of thinking that were formally codified through the late 18th and early 20th century, not just in terms of the enlightenment philosophers, who talked about natural rights and the proper role of the state, but in terms of all the ideas about human nature that grew from that period, whether from Rousseau, Kant, Freud, Adler, or any of their contemporaries. These ideas filtered their way into things much less overtly; they built the hidden premises and assumptions of our institutions, whereas people like John Locke, Voltaire et al built the visible ones.
    Thinking one is Born a criminal, lunatic, trash---- is MUCH older than the last 200 years! My evidence--- "ORIGINAL SIN" I an NOT responsible for that acts of any free person other than myself!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I just don't see how someone can be deemed unfit to possess a firearm and simultaneously be issued a firearm and told to go out into the public and enforce law. The judge is trying to draw such a fine line... And IMO they are way off base. If they are unfit to possess a firearm without supervision, they should not be issued a firearm and told to go out into the public and enforce law, no matter how much supervision they have...

    Not that I'd agree he's unfit to possess a firearm, I'm just saying that even if that were true I don't believe the judge's line of reasoning is very good.
    Advocate freedom please

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Crazy folks are not cured, they are managed.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Remember when you said you were going to take my guns and I got on my knees and begged you not to take my guns because I'd go berzerk?
    Well, you took my guns anyhow and the days got worse and worse and now you see I've gone completely out of my mind.

    Now they're coming to take me away Ha Ha
    They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha - to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away ha ha.

  17. #17
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I just don't see how someone can be deemed unfit to possess a firearm and simultaneously be issued a firearm and told to go out into the public and enforce law. The judge is trying to draw such a fine line... And IMO they are way off base. If they are unfit to possess a firearm without supervision, they should not be issued a firearm and told to go out into the public and enforce law, no matter how much supervision they have...

    Not that I'd agree he's unfit to possess a firearm, I'm just saying that even if that were true I don't believe the judge's line of reasoning is very good.
    BUT, but, but---- He is 'special'! /sarcasm

    He is either safe to be out in public UNSUPERVISED as a free man or take him to court and have the court determine that he is MENTALLY unfit or guilty of a crime and incarcerate him either in the Mental unit or in jail!
    The court is trying to SPLIT HAIRS ON THIS to please both sides and end up pleasing NONE!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    BUT, but, but---- He is 'special'! /sarcasm

    He is either safe to be out in public UNSUPERVISED as a free man or take him to court and have the court determine that he is MENTALLY unfit or guilty of a crime and incarcerate him either in the Mental unit or in jail!
    The court is trying to SPLIT HAIRS ON THIS to please both sides and end up pleasing NONE!
    The court has a mental issue -- retardation

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The court has a mental issue -- retardation
    Not retardation---- NO CONVICTION TO PRINCIPLE!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Part of the state sanctioned priesthood, I am sure he'd be a useful tool for the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Personally I think every judge who was part of this ruling should be recalled. That said, I think the cop should be able to possess firearms while off duty. I think it is unconstitutional to permanently strip someone of their second amendment rights because they at one time had a serious mental health issue. If he has been deemed "cured" by his doctors then I see it as no different than someone who had a disabling restraining who can once again own guns after the restraining order is lifted, or the felon whose rights have been restored.

    Even if you commit a state felony you can get your rights restored if the state so-decides. But the law appears to say if you've ever had a serious mental health issue you're barred from owning firearms forever - with no possibility of restoration of that right. That's crap. What this does is tell gun owners "if your wife dies and you just don't think life is living anymore, DO NOT seek professional help, just deal with it on your own, because otherwise you may lose your firearm rights forever, even once time (or professional help) has cured the wound".

    This is a huge gaping trap for all of us. I agree that this case is even more egregious because these idiotic courts have said he's not safe to possess guns at home, but just fine to have them when at work. I don't believe in "special rights" for cops. He should have all his gun rights or none of them. In this case it sounds like he should have all of them as I feel any operation of law to the contrary is unconstitutional.

    I hope he has the money to take this to SCOTUS.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

Posting Permissions

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