• 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.

Here's a question on "Mental Disability"

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Was reading this news article about an incident in Tacoma where police shot a man that first shot at them.

http://heraldnet.com/article/20110131/NEWS03/701319919

Tacoma police said two officers on patrol saw a man acting suspiciously at a gas station Friday night and stopped to contact him. Police said he pulled out a gun and fired three shots at the two officers.

Some questions came to mind from this.

O’Connell had bipolar disorder but had not been taking his medication

The individual had a mental condition that was apparently under control but ONLY if he regularly took his medication. My question is, if one has a mental condition that requires full time medication, are they still eligible to purchase and possess a firearm? This seems to be a frequent occurrence among those who have controlled mental issues. They're fine as long as they take the med's but when they stop--------.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
Form 4473

On the 4473 the question reads: "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

If the answer is no - for example, a judge has not said that the individual was mentally defective, or the individual had not ever been committed to a mental institution, that I'd have to say that the purchase was legal.

There are, right now, a great bunch of people who are taking "anti-depressants" or some other medication for "mental health" issues. While I am sure that some of them need them, I really think the mental health industry tends to over medicate and over diagnose. Hey, it's in their own best interest...but that's just me...
 

3fgburner

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
150
Location
Northern, Virginia, USA
My question is, if one has a mental condition that requires full time medication, are they still eligible to purchase and possess a firearm? This seems to be a frequent occurrence among those who have controlled mental issues. They're fine as long as they take the med's but when they stop--------.

The criterion for disqualification, under Federal law, is "Adjudicated mentally incompetent". In other words, court-ordered into treatment, aka involuntarily committed.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
The criterion for disqualification, under Federal law, is "Adjudicated mentally incompetent". In other words, court-ordered into treatment, aka involuntarily committed.

Wouldn't a voluntary commitment for more than 14 days bar you from firearm ownership as well? The form also states OR have you ever been committed to a mental facility?
 

G20-IWB24/7

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
886
Location
Tacoma, WA, ,
SNIP
The individual had a mental condition that was apparently under control but ONLY if he regularly took his medication.

You're placing too much confidence in this sentence. Offenders who also happen to have psychological disorders rarely get to the point where they are completely "under control" with just medication. Psychotherapy in conjunction with medication is the correct approach for bipolar affective disorder. Plus, did the article mention what type of the disorder the shooter suffered from?

As far as the original question posed, I agree with what has already been covered. Involuntary adjudication is required before one's firearms rights are removed.
 

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Wouldn't a voluntary commitment for more than 14 days bar you from firearm ownership as well? The form also states OR have you ever been committed to a mental facility?

It hinges on the word phrase 'voluntary commitment'. The two words comprising the phrase are diametrically opposed conditions. If you are voluntary, then you are voluntarily admitted and are free to leave at any time, even AMA (against medical advice). The other option is that you are committed, this is done by a county MHP (mental health professional) who will evaluate your danger to yourself or others. They can commit you for 72 hours at which time you appear before an administrative judge or commissioner who make the determination if you will be committed for up to two weeks, in which case you are not free to leave and are essentially civilly incarcerated. If this is the case, you are given a form explaining that your right to possess a firearm under Washington state law has been terminated under RCW 9.41.040. See the bottom of page 5 and several more pages on this document (pdf) which is much too long to quote here. It also includes the subsequent possible civil commitments of longer duration.

I have personal experience with this issue as my son's guardian. I vaguely remember them mentioning that it did not affect his federal right to possess a firearm, only his state right, but I don't remember enough to speak to it with any accuracy. [edit] Actually, there is a very good table on page 11 of the file.

If you did AMA out on a Voluntary, there's nothing to say that the facility might not involve the MHP's if they felt that you were a danger to yourself or others.
 
Last edited:

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
There coming to take me away ha ha ,there coming to take me away ha ha he he to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time ...Their coming to take me away!:uhoh::eek:



You old guys here may remember that!
 
Last edited:

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
There coming to take me away ha ha ,there coming to take me away ha ha he he to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time ...Their coming to take me away!:uhoh::eek:



You old guys here may remember that!

Those nice young men in their pretty white coats.............
 

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
807
... With trees and flowers and chirping birds, and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes ....
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
I am not old....uh..well...anyway, I do remember the song....I think....sorta...could you hum a few bars?
 
Last edited:

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
I am not old....uh..well...anyway, I do remember the song....I think....sorta...could you hum a few bars?

I just hummed it. Did it help your memory?

And yes, I do remember the song.

Remember when you ran away and I got on my knees and begged you not to leave because I'd go berserk? Well, you left me anyhow...
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Now that "Name that Tune" or "Music Trivia" has been played, how about another question back on the original topic.

Taking into consideration events like Virginia Tech and the Tucson shooting, where mental illness was a major contributor, what action can we expect from the Government in further regulating firearms? Does it continue to make sense that people who's minds don't operate on all cylinders have unlimited access to firearms? Does society, at some point have the right to limit their rights in order to protect the rest of society from their actions?
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
amlevin, that is the heart of the issue. At what point can we be restricted because of what we "might" do?

For example, when it comes to publishing, the courts have been very reluctant to use prior restraint. In most instances that I can think about, in fact, the courts believe that the justice system has to prove that the potential for harm is so great that the person can not be allowed to publish, get out of jail, use a car, etc., etc., etc....

In the case of 2nd Amendment rights, I would hope that the courts continue this tradition, and be very hesitant to restrict a "fundamental human right" just because of what some one "might" do "some time" in the future. I personally turned in my crystal ball, tarot cards and other fortune telling devices long, long ago....
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
amlevin, that is the heart of the issue. At what point can we be restricted because of what we "might" do?

For example, when it comes to publishing, the courts have been very reluctant to use prior restraint. In most instances that I can think about, in fact, the courts believe that the justice system has to prove that the potential for harm is so great that the person can not be allowed to publish, get out of jail, use a car, etc., etc., etc....

In the case of 2nd Amendment rights, I would hope that the courts continue this tradition, and be very hesitant to restrict a "fundamental human right" just because of what some one "might" do "some time" in the future. I personally turned in my crystal ball, tarot cards and other fortune telling devices long, long ago....

And yet we restrict drunks from driving on the basis that they are more likely to have an accident. Many are stopped while just "lane wandering" and haven't had that accident yet so isn't this a form of prior restraint?

How many here have driven while legally impaired (over .08 BAC) yet have made it to your destination without incident.

Letting those with known severe mental issues have full access to firearms is sort of like letting that drunk continue on his way, hoping he doesn't kill someone.
 
Top