WA complies with NICS mental health requirement

Washington is one of 11 states that have energetically complied with a three-year-old federal statute requiring states to provide the National Instant Check System (NICS) with the names of people who are mentally ill and thus disqualified from purchasing firearms.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...complying-with-mental-health-nics-requirement

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/4j765b4

A friend of mine that committed suicide a few months back had attempted to purchase a handgun, and was denied by NICS. She then asked me to purchase a handgun for here, and I told her that it would be illegal for me to, for a number of reasons. Firstly, straw-purchases are illegal. Second, I know that she was denied purchasing a firearm for some reason, by NICS. Third, I was fully aware of her mental instability, cared for her very much, and felt that she would end her life with the handgun I helped her get.

She ended up committing suicide with prescription medications (OD on insulin). My point is, I think these things should be reported. NO, it does not stop mentally ill people from carrying out suicide or crimes, but it helps IMO. I think what helps the most are people around the person who is mentally ill, and supporting the person, and not enabling them. At the end of the day they are going to do what they do, I just do not want myself nor the government enabling people who are emotionally ill.

States have no responsibility whatsoever to "comply" with any demands by the Federal Government, except for those enumerated in the Constitution.

The citizens of this state would be better off if the state legislature used its constitutional authority to act as a buffer to protect its citizens from the Federal Government.

:cuss::cuss::cuss:
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

"People with a mental illness" are NOT prohibited from purchasing, owning, carrying, or using a firearm of any kind, at least not by Federal law, & not simply by virtue of being ill!!!!

Some states infringe on the rights of citizens by asking about private health issues when doing a background check or for the issuance of a priviledge permit, but there's no way for them to check to see if someone is telling the truth, since health records are private and confidential.

What can be checked,
and should show up on a background check,
and does make someone a prohibited person,
is if that person has been adjudicated mentally incompetent,
(or adjudicated a danger to self or others),
or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Those things are very high standards, rather difficult to do, and are public record (unlike medical records) because they involve Court action. Sadly, the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords was never that far in the system. Maybe lives could have been saved. (Though he still could have bought from a citizen instead of a dealer.)

MKEgal said:

:cuss::cuss::cuss:
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

"People with a mental illness" are NOT prohibited from purchasing, owning, carrying, or using a firearm of any kind, at least not by Federal law, & not simply by virtue of being ill!!!!

Some states infringe on the rights of citizens by asking about private health issues when doing a background check or for the issuance of a priviledge permit, but there's no way for them to check to see if someone is telling the truth, since health records are private and confidential.

What can be checked,
and should show up on a background check,
and does make someone a prohibited person,
is if that person has been adjudicated mentally incompetent,
(or adjudicated a danger to self or others),
or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Those things are very high standards, rather difficult to do, and are public record (unlike medical records) because they involve Court action. Sadly, the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords was never that far in the system. Maybe lives could have been saved. (Though he still could have bought from a citizen instead of a dealer.)

Click to expand...

Simmer down now.

I will use my friend as an example. She had attempted suicide four times and was brought back from the brink of death. She stayed in hospitals on numerous occasions, but they feel just under the mark that would make her ineligible. She was also doped up on a number of psychiatric medications. If a person is known to be suicidal, has attempted suicide, and is heavily medicated, they should be denied. Where do you draw the line, you might be asking...If a person has attempted suicide, and is on medication that is not treating a manageable depressive disorder, they should be denied. You refer to adjudication...do you realize how difficult it is to get someone who is obviously mentally unsound adjudicated? After the age of 26 particularly, it is very difficult. There have been people considered to still be mentally competent because they are able to go down to the local bank and cash a check...the mere fact that they are able to do that, but nothing else, the judge ruled them to be fine.

I am not even talking about someone who posed a threat to others, she posed a threat to herself, an imminent threat.

What I have posted is not unreasonable.

The only reason that she was unable to purchase a firearms from a gunshop is because I went in to her counselor, told the counselor in confidence, that my friends was going to purchase a handgun, and that I felt she was a danger to herself. Did it stop the suicide, no...she just used other means. But I am positive that she would have used her newly acquired handgun to do the job, if she was able to get one.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Simmer down now.

I will use my friend as an example. She had attempted suicide four times and was brought back from the brink of death. She stayed in hospitals on numerous occasions, but they feel just under the mark that would make her ineligible. She was also doped up on a number of psychiatric medications. If a person is known to be suicidal, has attempted suicide, and is heavily medicated, they should be denied. Where do you draw the line, you might be asking...If a person has attempted suicide, and is on medication that is not treating a manageable depressive disorder, they should be denied. You refer to adjudication...do you realize how difficult it is to get someone who is obviously mentally unsound adjudicated? After the age of 26 particularly, it is very difficult. There have been people considered to still be mentally competent because they are able to go down to the local bank and cash a check...the mere fact that they are able to do that, but nothing else, the judge ruled them to be fine.

I am not even talking about someone who posed a threat to others, she posed a threat to herself, an imminent threat.

What I have posted is not unreasonable.

The only reason that she was unable to purchase a firearms from a gunshop is because I went in to her counselor, told the counselor in confidence, that my friends was going to purchase a handgun, and that I felt she was a danger to herself. Did it stop the suicide, no...she just used other means. But I am positive that she would have used her newly acquired handgun to do the job, if she was able to get one.

Click to expand...

I agree, it's a good thing that your friend wasn't able to purchase a handgun (in some ways). On the other hand, this is a very slipper slope. Where do you draw the line of being mentally unfit to own a weapon? How many anti-depressants do you have to take? 3? 2? 1? How many times do you have to have gone for psychiatric care? Years? Months? Once?

No matter where it starts out, with only the most heavily-medicated, psychiatrically-supported, unstable individuals being prohibited, guess where it's going to END? With *anyone* who's indicated feeling depressed, *anyone* who takes *any* anti-depressant or anti-psychotic or anti-anxiety meds, etc.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Simmer down now.

I will use my friend as an example. She had attempted suicide four times and was brought back from the brink of death. She stayed in hospitals on numerous occasions, but they feel just under the mark that would make her ineligible. She was also doped up on a number of psychiatric medications. If a person is known to be suicidal, has attempted suicide, and is heavily medicated, they should be denied. Where do you draw the line, you might be asking...If a person has attempted suicide, and is on medication that is not treating a manageable depressive disorder, they should be denied. You refer to adjudication...do you realize how difficult it is to get someone who is obviously mentally unsound adjudicated? After the age of 26 particularly, it is very difficult. There have been people considered to still be mentally competent because they are able to go down to the local bank and cash a check...the mere fact that they are able to do that, but nothing else, the judge ruled them to be fine.

I am not even talking about someone who posed a threat to others, she posed a threat to herself, an imminent threat.

What I have posted is not unreasonable.

The only reason that she was unable to purchase a firearms from a gunshop is because I went in to her counselor, told the counselor in confidence, that my friends was going to purchase a handgun, and that I felt she was a danger to herself. Did it stop the suicide, no...she just used other means. But I am positive that she would have used her newly acquired handgun to do the job, if she was able to get one.

Click to expand...

I don't mean this to sound cruel but when one is a threat to themselves it is different than when someone is a threat to those around them. It's very possible that those who are supposed to be deciding who is what feel it's better to only focus on those that pose a very real threat to the general public. In other words, will they obtain a firearm to do themselves in or will they "go postal" and wipe out a Supermarket full of people.

Neither situation is desirable. What is the solution though. Do we create a mental health evaluation system that locks up those who are a threat and let those that just like to eat crayola's and chew on their shoe laces go free? Who decides? What are the standards? What we have to day certainly needs some work. One thing for certain, there way too many people that have mental issues and ARE a threat to themselves and others free on the street and nobody wants to address the issue.

(Shrugs) That's life in a "free society", we are going to have to deal with things we don't like, make us uncomfortable or not feel safe.

I'd rather have less government intrusion, arm myself and take my chances enjoying liberty.

sudden valley gunner said:

(Shrugs) That's life in a "free society", we are going to have to deal with things we don't like, make us uncomfortable or not feel safe.

I'd rather have less government intrusion, arm myself and take my chances enjoying liberty.

Click to expand...

+1

Adjudication is a tough standard...as it should be! Anytime a fundamental right is restricted only the highest standards of scrutiny must exist.

Beretta92FSLady said:

SNIP:
... Did it stop the suicide, no...she just used other means. But I am positive that she would have used her newly acquired handgun to do the job, if she was able to get one.

Click to expand...

Is suicide by other means somehow more desirable?

It almost seems like people who intend violence (even to themselves) always find a way. The tool used is only important to those who keep score on such issues after the fact for whatever political point they're trying to push.

Freedom is dangerous. Wear a helmet.

amlevin said:

I don't mean this to sound cruel but when one is a threat to themselves it is different than when someone is a threat to those around them. It's very possible that those who are supposed to be deciding who is what feel it's better to only focus on those that pose a very real threat to the general public. In other words, will they obtain a firearm to do themselves in or will they "go postal" and wipe out a Supermarket full of people.

Neither situation is desirable. What is the solution though. Do we create a mental health evaluation system that locks up those who are a threat and let those that just like to eat crayola's and chew on their shoe laces go free? Who decides? What are the standards? What we have to day certainly needs some work. One thing for certain, there way too many people that have mental issues and ARE a threat to themselves and others free on the street and nobody wants to address the issue.

Click to expand...

I am merely using my friend as an example. What I am talking about here is a person that suffers from chronic mental illness that has lasted for years, and that had attempted suicide a number of times. What I am not talking about are Joe-shmoe down the street that has a bout of depression, heck that has been diagnosed with even bi-polar disorder.

What I am talking about are people who have engaged in behaviors that are a threat to themselves and/or others around them. I believed that she was not a threat to people around her, but that she was a threat to herself. Whether she is a threat to herself or a threat to others is irrelevant IMO...when someone may not meet the excessively high standard of being mentally ill (yes, there should be a high bar, but let's get real here), they should be barred from owning firearms. Now the question would be where to draw the line, and we all know that the line tends to be drawn to far one way or the other.

I have had bouts of depression over the years, and at times I had to take something for that depression. There is a difference, IMO, from someone who is depressed, even year around but it is manageable, and a person that is so depressed that they are doped up on medications, and have attempted suicide a number of times...she didn't die the first few times not because she was crying out, she was just unlucky, well, not the last time.

We need to stop drawing lines, and live free.

sudden valley gunner said:

We need to stop drawing lines, and live free.

Click to expand...

As free as that might sound, most people couldn't handle that type of freedom, and most people need to be constrained, unfortunately. With unfettered freedom comes a much more dangerous world. We can pontificate all day about how laws only obstruct law abiding citizens from exercising "rights."

If the majority of people are down with unfettered freedom, I am willing to accept it...just make sure you are prepared. Humans are not inherently good-willed; most need to be forced to keep their butt on the straight and narrow.

If you don't believe me just look around the world at States that are basically lawless. You will find your unfettered freedom that you are so eager to embrace.

Beretta92FSLady said:

As free as that might sound, most people couldn't handle that type of freedom, and most people need to be constrained, unfortunately. With unfettered freedom comes a much more dangerous world. We can pontificate all day about how laws only obstruct law abiding citizens from exercising "rights."

If the majority of people are down with unfettered freedom, I am willing to accept it...just make sure you are prepared. Humans are not inherently good-willed; most need to be forced to keep their butt on the straight and narrow.

If you don't believe me just look around the world at States that are basically lawless. You will find your unfettered freedom that you are so eager to embrace.

Click to expand...

The states and cities with the most problems are the ones with the most laws, Illiniois/Chicago, New York, California, Washington D.C., etc.

I don't buy the tired argument about these "lawless" countries, in most cases you will see that the thugs and government are one and the same and the people are not free.
Plus you state it like I am for anarchy, we have a system that if used as originally intended is up to the free people to use, not the government.

You cause me harm I protect myself or I take you to court.

sudden valley gunner said:

The states and cities with the most problems are the ones with the most laws, Illiniois/Chicago, New York, California, Washington D.C., etc.

I don't buy the tired argument about these "lawless" countries, in most cases you will see that the thugs and government are one and the same and the people are not free.
Plus you state it like I am for anarchy, we have a system that if used as originally intended is up to the free people to use, not the government.

You cause me harm I protect myself or I take you to court.

Click to expand...

I agree that it appears as though the states with the most firearm restrictions have the most problems. Is there a direct correlation? I think that there are certain types, and classes of people that require more control than others. I believe that there is a socio-economic factor that is in-part to blame for this unfortunate reality, but it is not the only reason.

So, if you do not have a government in control of the people you have thugs in control of the people? Ok, then either way we are screwed.

Funny you bring up Anarchism. There are different types of Anarchism. I would say that Reagan was an Individualist Anarchist. He believed that the government was a bad thing, and that it only hurt people. He also believed in individual expression, well, and a so-called "spirit of America."

When politicians state that government is bad in every way (tends to be right-wingers), what they are saying is that government is not good for anything. BS! It is comical that people claim the government is this bad entity, and yet they seek office to work for it. I know, the argument is that you must change the structure from within...the only problem is when they get in they become part of the structure and don't really change anything.

What is my point? I stated this above, and have stated it before: Most people have to be told how to think and what to do. Which explains the religious tendency of humans, and the fact that most States have some form of government that controls its people by either indirect or direct force...the barrel of a gun. Unfettered freedom would only lead to a consolidation of the power so many people wish was not present within societies. This nostalgic concept of freedom, as if generations before us were any more or less free than we are now, is a political exercise, nothing more. We are still subject to the same social structure as our forefathers. Freedom is merely a concept.

Too many notions that are not based on fact to argue all the points.

If people are taught to rely and they need to be told they will believe so, if taught otherwise they will believe otherwise.

Freedom is not just a concept and it worked well for generations in North American society, before European arrival.

The continual "lines" and laws and infringement by the government is the problem it doesn't work.

P.S. Reagan was far from anarchist. He was a progressive just a little less so than most socialist/communist in government.

sudden valley gunner said:

You cause me harm I protect myself or I take you to court.

Click to expand...

You overlook the fact that like it or not, laws do keep you from having to do either as much as you would have to in a "totally free" society.

Even the "hippies" that promoted that kind of lifestyle in the 60's and 70's realized it wasn't practical or effective. As a matter of fact many of the leaders of that movement went on to join the political system and serve in government.

There will always be those who don't follow the law. But that is a far smaller problem than if there were no laws at all to govern peoples behavior towards others.

As for your comment:

I don't buy the tired argument about these "lawless" countries, in most cases you will see that the thugs and government are one and the same and the people are not free

Click to expand...

Take a look at Somalia. They couldn't be more "Free" in the sense that they have no government. This is a clear view of what happens when the country is free of Government, Police, etc. Without government there is nothing but rule by the biggest and baddest without any input from the general public. Without some system of order, including policing authority, chaos will reign as it has been shown over and over to be the case.

What you describe as your "ideal" society is exactly what Anarchists have promoted for years.

No thanks here. Been to some of those countries and don't need to see it here. We aren't perfect but we are still a country that everywhere else in the world there are people wishing they lived here. Lots of them.

I'm not overlooking anything.

I'd rather have the original intended freedoms than arbitrary government that decideds what is right or wrong.


LOL....Somalia proves my point it is run by Warlords in league with their government the people are not "free". They live in fear under a heavy Al-Shabaab military presence, led by terrorist Ahmad Abdi Godane, also known as terrorist Moktar Ali Zubeyr Godane. My guess if you go to far out of the way villages, they live fairly peaceable without much law.

What you guys are missing is that what I promote is personal responsibility for law I am not for "lawlessness" or anarchy, we have a basic structure put into place that would work fine if people use it for themselves. If not too bad! I am tired of the government placing burdens upon the law abiding, because of the mostly unpreventable actions of the unlawful.

sudden valley gunner said:

LOL....Somalia proves my point it is run by Warlords in league with their government the people are not "free". They live in fear under a heavy Al-Shabaab military presence, led by terrorist Ahmad Abdi Godane, also known as terrorist Moktar Ali Zubeyr Godane. My guess if you go to far out of the way villages, they live fairly peaceable without much law.

Click to expand...

And again this proves my point. Without the rule of law administered by a government selected by the people, only the biggest and baddest will be in charge.

If you think living in a "way out village in Somalia is "peaceful and free", go there and see how great a life that is.

A lot of commentary in this thread that cannot be proven until we obtain one or the other.

The fact is, we now have a government that is far larger than it ever should have been, and we cannot deny that the great moments of freedom in this country, have come, and passed.

All men should be completely free, with a government as small as possible to act on behalf of the free people.

I see a ton of commentary about how "people must be controlled", stated mostly as fact, and in a way to substantiate ones belief that we should be "regulated" as a means of order.

Not only does this comment speak leaps and bounds to the mentality of the individual stating it (Yes Beretta and Amlevin, I am indeed addressing you two.), but it is massively prohibitive to true freedom.

We cannot have a discussion about how the government has regulated away our rights, and then turn around and in the same breath say that it is necessary to maintain order.


The correct approach, in my experience, is to migrate from control, but towards personal responsibility.

Our current freedoms have been regulated away by government under the guise of "providing" (Whether it be safety, healthcare, etc.) things for us.

In the end, we all do our for ourselves. Well, most of us do.

Yet those who possess an "entitled" mentality will advocate for more control, and plea their helplessness. They will then succumb to whatever requirements are bestowed upon them. Then the entitled take note of this, and merely accept it as a "fact of life" that there are those who won't do for themselves, so we must do for them. We then create a system of laws, and punishment, for which said people habitually cross into anyways.

Thus you reach with the conflicting ideology that government must be here to create and maintain order, but you advocate against said control when it does not suit you (Firearms restrictions).

To reach liberty and true freedom, our founding fathers understood these concepts so very well. Hence they wanted us to operate with the most minimalistic government approach possible.

The simple presence of firearms as a normalized, habitual social activity, would undoubtedly quell the majority of these "maintained order" issues some seem to think comes from big government. The minimalistic presence of government, and the order maintained by the people, is undoubtedly the best cure for our modern world.

C'est la vie.

In regards to the NICS mental health checks, it is untrue that anyone who suffers from a mental disorder should be denied a firearm.

I am a PTSD diagnosed vet, combat operations confirmed and accounted for by the VA, yet I have no desire to shoot up a mall, and I doubt any of my "symptoms" may turn into anything lethal. At least anything regarding a firearm for sure.

Yet opening a door for limitations of said liberty all truly come down to how much we feel we want to do for ourselves, as individuals.

Were I standing in the crowd in Arizona for example. I may or may not have engaged the individual in question with my firearm depending on where or how I was positioned.

Yet again, we must remind ourselves that if there were hundreds of armed individuals at said incident, openly carrying firearms, it may have tipped this particular individuals tactical sense to something else entirely.

Even the insane must yield to the laws of physics and probability.

Even more glorious a thought, would have been if the representative, or her family, had drawn and killed the perpetrator.

Just some food for thought.