• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Mental health record prevents cop from possessing firearm off duty.

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/state_trooper_cant_have_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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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?
 

Brace

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
183
Location
Colorado
Corollary: Doctors are infallible. Clearly a completely rational premise with no possibility for abuse or unintended consequences.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/state_trooper_cant_have_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/2013/04/12024-gov-shrinks-getting-paid-3k-take-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/s...iffs-amp-Peace-Officers-Association-s-website
 

Brace

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
183
Location
Colorado
You'd think by definition that if a person had suicidal tendencies, they wouldn't have them for very long :lol: 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".
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
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:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
You'd think by definition that if a person had suicidal tendencies, they wouldn't have them for very long :lol: 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
 

bushwacker

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
203
Location
pottsboro,texas
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?
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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!
 

Brace

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
183
Location
Colorado
excuse me? how on earth did you morph suicide to the conclusion of drawing absolute and permanent lines?

Those are two separate thoughts.

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:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 
Top