So I think most believe the mentally ill and firearms are a bad mix. So I am curious about your opinions, and at what step (if any) in the process, should law enforcement be allowed to take a firearm?

STEP 1 The hardest step. When friends, family or neighbors call authorities, and report, this MIP (Mentally Ill Person) is sick and may be a danger. From the time LEO's are in the academy, most are trained to ask those same two old questions. If s MIP answers "no" to each, and is not displaying any anger or aggression, even though the officers may see the person is not right, they will not go any further.

STEP 2 The police have witnessed anger and or aggression, maybe suicidal behavior and believe the MIP is a danger. They will take the MIP for a mental illness evaluation. Most likely this will be against there will, and possibly no crime has been committed. The MIP will be taken to a mental health facility or a local hospital who will then transfer them to a mental health facility if the ER doctor deems it necessary. Sometimes the ER doctor might kick them loose, determining that the MIP is not a danger to themselves or anyone else, even if they determine the person is indeed mentally ill. Keep in mind the MIP may not have committed any crime at this point, is it Constitutional to take them against their will to be evaluated?

STEP 3 If the physician in the mental illness facility deems the person is a danger to themselves or others, even though the MIP claims they are not, the MIP may be placed on a 5150, a three day hold. Keep in mind, no crime has been committed. On this 72 hour hold, the MIP pay not have medications forced upon them, if they do not desire medication.

STEP 4 Now at the end of the 72 hours, the person in charge of the MIP's care, must determine whether or not to release the MIP, or take it to the next level, to petition a judge for a 5250, which allows the mental facility to keep the MIP an additional two weeks against their will. At this point remember, no crime has been committed, medical illness professionals are using only opinion to hold the MIP. After a judge issues a 5250, the MIP is still not mandated to take any type of drugs they don't wish to, it can only be advised during their two week hold.

STEP 5, usually after the 5250 is completed, the MIP is released unless they have demonstrated acts of severe anger or violence. All through the five steps, the MIP can reject all advised medications. They may go out the front door in the exact same shape as they came in the door.



So during any of the described steps, would it be OK in your eyes to confiscate guns? Should it be determined by the judge petitioned for the 5250, the mental illness professional upon release, or would you say at no point should authorities be enabled to confiscate firearms?

Throughout the whole debate, it is always said, what do these shootings have in common? Well, most shooters are mentally ill, and have been seen as such by friends, neighbors or family, and yet nothing was done about it. So society and the courts have deemed nobody can be forced to take medications, we all see the sick people who are around our personal circle, so is there ever any appropriate time to disarm them?

Operative word "due" as in 'due process" that we already have in place and keeping with the spirit and law of our Bill Of Rights and the Constitution... PERIOD

Due process for what Jorge? So then your opinion will always be, no crime, then no taking of firearms?
Then you pretty much give up the right to say “authorities knew, and did nothing”.

Liberals ideals wanting to take guns again,,, here we go

It is unconstitutional.

Horseshit. We HAVE a process in place, everyone just ignores it because of political bullshit like what happened here in Florida. EVERYONE knew this guy was a nut, reported it to the cops AND the school. Our current laws have provisions to take this guy into custody (it's called the Baker Act here), have him evaluated by a psychiatrist, not some quack psychologist, then present to evidence to a judge to have him committed.

So is placing somebody on hold for three days, then two weeks without being charged with a crime, right?

So then if he commits no crime, you are willing to lock him away on the opinion of a psychiatrist? What evidence will you present to a judge if he has not tried to commit suicide, nor committed a crime?

You have described the point I’m making, “everyone knew he was a nut, they reported it, nothing was done”.
So you are advocating locking him away though he commuted no crime, but you can’t take his firearm? Do I understand you correctly?

It is perfectly legal (operative word) to confine someone if he is deemed clinically ill (nuts) and a danger to himself and society. We do it ALL the time. Look up Baker Act. F U C K Red Flag laws.

“It is perfectly legal (operative word) to confine someone if he is deemed clinically ill (nuts) and a danger to himself and society. We do it ALL the time. Look up Baker Act. F U C K Red Flag laws.“


You are not listening Jorge, what about the guy we know is nuts, but has not demonstrated he is a danger? Clinically ill is not a reason a mentally ill person will be confined on a permanent basis. He has to show extreme anger or violence, and that he is otherwise he is turned loose. If James Holmes would have shown acts of aggression and anger, he would have been in a institution, but I don’t believe he did.
Most of the time people around the mentally ill are worried what they MIGHT do, MIGHT DO is not a reason they will be confined.

You see, most here are perfectly willing to blame others, those who were told a person wasn’t right, but unless they have demonstrated they are a danger, then hands are tied, and you want them tied. You can’t preach the constitution on guns, then advocate locking people away who have not broken any laws.

Then that's the price we pay for freedom over security. I am perfectly fine with leaving things as they are. No, I take that back, we need to get rid of about 90% of the current oppressive and unconstitutional laws we have now.

OK, fair enough.

Correct, my BIL has worked in this evaluation field for the last 30 years in southern Rhode Island. He has been called out to do evaluations at peoples home's by the police and at the hospital. His take on the whole issue of new Red Flag laws is this is an already established capability and process of the state and they have a really good track record of getting it right and these people not hurting themselves or others if he is called to do an eval. The people who call are the police, or often, the people experiencing the issue themselves (he has "regulars".)

Most often it's an overnight in the hospital and for those with known mental conditions and taking meds, that their meds are right and they are taking them. For the others it's most often a referral to a health professional, often just a counselor and not a full-blown psychiatrist.

The additional ability to remove someone's rights to own/handle he says is an issue because the state is not really well equipped to assess when that right should be returned. The folks taking meds are likely already prohibited from owing a firearm.

I thought this thread would be a bout a blue pill

“The folks taking meds are likely already prohibited from owing a firearm.”

Why? Are the effects of the drugs somehow different than the effects of bipolar on the brain?

For those in need of Big Blue, it’s always the right time! 😁

Here, he said it a lot better than I could:

Prohibited ownership includes: Who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

If they're on drugs to modify their behavior after there has been an intervention then there is a very high likelihood that they fall into the first category to some degree. But I'm no mental health professional.

If the drugs work, and they take them, then I imagine they don't but how they establish a clean bill of health I don't know and that concerns me.

Not even close. When you say "Mentally Ill" you cast a very broad net. The APA defines mental illness as:

" Mental illnesses are health conditions involving changes in emotion, thinking or behavior (or a combination of these). Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities."

That is a much broader net than what we are talking about here. Someone who suffers from depression or anxiety and takes meds, that person would technically be called mentally ill. Someone with ADHD is in fact mentally ill. Someone who does not like to socialize much could be called mentally ill.

The people who are mentally ill and commit hostile acts against others are a tiny fraction of the total, yet we speak about taking firearms away from the total. That is no different than taking guns away from everyone because a tiny fraction will use them inappropriately. If you can do that to a subgroup then you will gain the argument to do it to the whole.

Have you ever read the questions on the 4473 form when you buy a firearm?

There it is. The proviso is already there. Just insert that into the instant check database and presto, at least for the ones on file...

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4...ord-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

One of my Uncles had a mental problem and had been hospitalized 2 times for it.

He thought that folks were out to get him,Paranoid to the max.

As long as he took his meds he was ok to live by himself.

That said we regularly went through the house looking for weapons.
Back then anyone could buy guns from a pawn shop.

He should have been kept in hospital after the second time he went coo coo.

The family has a part to play but safeguards should be in place.

And yet another example as to why NO LAW will work... (we don't enforce)

commieforniashooting

Regarding Red Flag "Laws," I believe we first must look at the main reasons these mass shootings occur in the first place, which is largely due to out of control Marxist/Leftist political correctness/policy – specifically the shuttering of mental health institutions and psychiatric hospitals nationwide. This has resulted in a deluge of mentally unstable people in every city and almost on every street corner. I see these mentally deranged people walking the streets all the time and I am sure everyone else has as well, especially in large cities like Los Angeles, San Fran, Seattle, Baltimore, NY, Chicago, Detroit, etc. In fact, every city that is Democrat or Leftist controlled has a disproportionate share of mentally unstable people, many of whom are homeless... Which begs the question: Which came first: the mentally unstable populace or the Democrat/Leftist control?

Prior to the rise of PC politics, and prior to the time the PC Brigade/Progressive Machine determined that mental health institutions were inhumane and pushed to have them closed, such mass shootings as we recently experienced in El Paso and Dayton were extremely rare and there certainly wasn't an epidemic of homelessness and mentally ill people roaming the streets and wreaking havoc. I am not stating that these problems didn't exist, they did, but to a much lesser extent. Based on these facts, it's clear that closing these mental hospitals/institutions was a huge mistake.

Pure and simple, these Red Flag Laws are blatantly unconstitutional. They deny Americans their Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process as well as their 4th Amendment rights. We must see these laws as what they are: nothing more than an excuse to disarm Americans, while circumventing our Constitutional rights. Red Flag Laws are a “solution” to a problem which was caused by the very people (idiot Leftists) who created the problem(s) in the first place. These laws are yet another stepping stone in an all-out effort to reach the Marxists’ real goal – totally disarming the AMERICAN PUBLIC. Americans must understand just how insidious and vile the Left really is. The Left will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. When an idea of theirs fails, they try a different method and when that fails they try another - ad nauseam. There are literally thousands and thousands of examples of their treacherous methods. Red Flag Laws are yet another underhanded and disingenuous method of the Left to usher in a whole new set of gun control laws aimed at total disarmament of the American Public - the proverbial "slippery slope," is quite apt here. Just who, exactly, is tasked with setting the standard for these laws - certainly not Conservatives. Who, exactly, ensures that law-abiding citizens aren’t targeted by some lunatic leftist neighbor with a grudge against Conservatives, and who will guarantee that these red flag laws aren’t abused? I’ll tell you who – NO ONE! That is the point of these laws: to incrementally disarm those that are deemed a danger – a danger against the Progressive Machine and the globalist agenda. These laws have nothing whatever to do with protecting our children or the American Public. They have everything to do with disarming the American Public and exerting their power over every aspect of our lives. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

nice

Funny you should mention Marxism. Carl Marx believed that the people should be armed. Lenin did too, until the time came that they might be turned on him.

More often than not it's impossible to predict who might be the next to snap and go on a killing rampage. Individual circumstances built up over a period of time or even on a given day or moment may well be the final trigger for some as any diagnosed with clinical mental illness:

A fictional movie of course, but...

Yes, it transforms the right to keep and bear arms into the privilege of doing so "during good behavior." The "during good behavior" part is the arbitrary component, depending on the definition of "good behavior" according to whoever is pulling the trigger on it. Once the trigger is pulled, due process is out the window, because the way it's set up, judges merely become rubber stamps under the "better safe than sorry" rationale.

Kinda like the FISA Court.

It's hard enough telling a loved one in person they shouldn't drive anymore. It's pretty easy dropping the dime on someone you don't like and claim they're dangerous.

This is for a background check for new purchases, or includes existing firearms? I’m think new purchases. But then how do you deny a new purchase to somebody with the same conditions as a existing gun owner?

I’m not advocating a right or wrong side, I’m genuinely interested in everyone’s input and opinions.
I see points on both sides and have no doubts liberals would abuse any new laws inacted, I’m just wondering how people feel about mental health and firearms, because I have heard it many, many times, “the signs were there, people spoke out, it was ingnored.”

Well it really want ignored, the system prevents any type of pre-emtive action.

As part of the CCW process at least in the county I live in , they go thru your medical records(supposedly) and you fill out a consent form for mental health records .

But you have to look back at why the mental institutions were shuttered. When the courts decided it was unconstitutional to hold or medicate anyone against their will, who had broken no law, society left it to the mentally ill to decide if they wanted or needed to be institutionalized. So I think there you have it backwards, the mentally ill aren’t all over the streets because the institutions were shuttered, they were shuttered because the mentally ill started choosing to not attend.

Interesting, what state is this?

If my CA county does this, it’s in the fine print.

Either enforce the current laws or STFU is all I have to say.
ADDING more laws is rarely the answer[and damn sure isn't here].
Punishments that fit crimes would go a long ways.

Getting paid for ptsd should be a check in the box for "adjudicated mentally defective"

Re: 'red flag laws' - due process does not apply...... Which - IMHO - it total bullshit...

Well unfortunately OUR Gov't gives two f u c k s NOT.

Exactly. "In order for a full-blown tyranny to take hold, the people must first be disarmed," Sir William Blackwell


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," Benjamin Franklin


Respectfully, I disagree. I don't have to look back at why mental institutions were shuttered, I know why. Mental institutions were shuttered as a direct result of the Progressive Machine/PC Brigade's involvement. Certainly, most mentally deficient individuals opt not to be medicated - they are mentally deficient - and as such, are not fit to make these decisions for themselves. Many of these mentally impaired people do not have families or relatives at all, no one who can be relied upon to make such decisions on their behalf. Previously, in such cases, these people became wards of the State. Furthermore, society did not leave the mentally ill to decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to be medicated or institutionalized; rather, it was and is a direct result of the Federal Gov't., the State's and law enforcement's inability to provide proper care for these people - it is the de facto state as determined by the current limitations. The Federal and State role in mental health is quite clear in providing care and services for these individuals, but they are hamstrung as a result of mental hospital closures nationwide.

good point...….bob

Wait until they start looking at vicodin given to counter claustrophobia when getting an MRI. My brother went off deep and when mom and dad died. Sat waiting with his SKS for the Taliban to March by. Since I was executor he was mad at me, too. Met with the local police, they kept a record on him but didnt want to intervene as that always comes out bad. Estate settled, he died too, SKS went to pawn and I couldn't get it back. Did get a TC and cowboy 45 back for family
The driver was alcohol, not drugs, along with schizophrenia, diagnosed by hunch

Well we will have to disagree, new laws new rights, do inable the mentally ill much more say in their care.

https://www.cchr.org/about-us/mental-health-declaration-of-human-rights.html

If the person is "a danger", lock up the person, not the guns.

Prior to 1975, crazy people were locked up. It was good for them, good for their families and good for society.

Displaying anger or aggression are not signs of mental illness.

We'll, they are "signs" of mental illness, but not definitive proof. Stupidity or immaturity can cause that also.

Still glad your no longer a LEO Lt. Those last few years on the job your post here started showing signs of anger and aggressiveness.

Better one dangerous person have a gun than a million people be deprived of them.

Liberals feel the opposite way.

Lol....it don't get much more "don't GAF". Besides, I never said that being stupid or immature was a crime.

This~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, but they usually won't, and that's where the safeguards need to come into play.

Case in point......one of my neighbors. With the exception of one son, their kids are druggies. One of their sons is a convicted felon, and got caught with a house full of guns and drugs.......which, according to the laws, meant he should have been locked up again for quite a few years. But, did it happen.......nope, because he happened to work for a guy who had some political pull, and he got the charges reduced. However, while the perp was out on bail, he was living with his parents, and deer hunting on their land......during gun season, when he was not only supposed to be not allowed a gun in his possession, but not allowed to live in a place where there was one. Of course, his family ignored the law

Same family, one of the daughters married a vet, supposedly suffering from PTSD, but who couldn't hold a job because he couldn't pass a drug test. Dude would walk around armed, shooting towards the neighbors homes, threatening them, while the family did nothing......nothing that is except get mad if the neighbors called the cops.

In most instances, the families of a lot of these mass shooters knew something wasn't right with the person, but they didn't want to see the person get in trouble. It didn't matter that the person was a threat to society, all that mattered to them was to protect the person from being put in a nut house, where they probably belonged. I would have no problem seeing the family members that protect these people being charged with a crime also. Of course, proving that they knew something was wrong, might be hard to do.

Exactly... Which is why these must be overturned at the SCOTUS asap...

Sadly, SCOTUS said it was okay for the police to rob you of your cash on the highway, then make you prove to them in court that it was actually yours before you can get it back. In other words, they've already agreed to turn presumption of innocence on its head. We can hope that the Trump SCOTUS will overturn both, but I'm not holding my breath. We will likely need the political process to restore presumption of innocence.

Maybe a Presumption of Innocence Restoration Act of 2020.

If you don't think things have gone to hell since we quit locking nuts up (1975), just watch a Democratic Debate.

You miss the point. You can see mental illness in people, who are not showing signs of aggression or anger, right?

That dude standing on the corner, looking up into the sun, jabbering away, obviously has issues, but is not threatening anyone.

That clear it up for you?

I agree with much of what you say, but question how you can conclude “most families”?

Ok, so many have said “due process” is required.

Describe to me “due process” in regards to mental illness.
Is a mental health Dr. standing before a judge, making his/her case to confine their patient for two more weeks, against their will, though no crime has been committed, considered “due process?”

…..you mean democrats?????

It's been explained to you many times. Will one more time make a difference?

Don't know what the formal process is nowadays or is in other areas, but in this area it used to be when the police were called over someone with probable mental illness issues causing a disturbance, they were first taken into custody and usually locked up until two MDs (general practitioner met the legal requirement) visited and conducted a brief interview with that person. If deemed mentally ill by MDs, transported to a mental institution and medicated for a specific amount of time, then released.

Red Flag = BS

A person can do more harm with a gallon of gas and a lighter, both available at any convenience store. Without a background check. People get angry for a bazillion reasons, it does not mean they are a threat. A person determined to be deranged should be put in protective custody after professional diagnosis, not the lay opinion.

Agreed, but that is the problem. Nuts cannot be "imprisoned" , meaning held without their consent, anymore. At least not until it too late.

Living in liberty can be a dangerous thing but, to keep things in perspective, you're many times more likely to be bludgeoned to death than shot down by a mass shooter.

No I didn't miss the point, I merely pointed out two that were misstated.

No, actually it has not.


Is a mental health Dr. standing before a judge, making his/her case to confine their patient for two more weeks, against their will, though no crime has been committed, considered “due process?”

How do you define due process with the mentally ill, when it is decided to confine them with no crime being committed? When doctors stand before judges, usually the mentally ill are not represented by or issued legal representation.
So yes, you need to explain due process one more time, because I’m seeing confinement with no crime and no legal representation.

Disorderly conduct is an arrestable offense. Psychotic behavior (which is typically disorderly) is usually why psychotic folks are arrested, then (if they show signs of psychotic behavior) transferred to a facility for evaluation. Were it not for such facilities, they'd be charged with conventional disorderly conduct and housed in a jail cell awaiting arraignment with legal representation (should they request it). Assuming they meet certain criteria, instead of awaiting arraignment in a jail cell, they're doing so in a facility qualified to evaluate psychosis. They can request an attorney any time they like. Their legal status while being evaluated is that of being under arrest and being held for arraignment, pending evaluation.

Same as being arrested for public drunkenness, except they add the factor of being evaluated for mental illness. You don't send an attorney in to talk to a falling down drunk person, and you don't do that for someone who's floridly psychotic, for reasons that shouldn't require explanation. Same same.

As to the legal process, they are treated alike, i.e., when apparently capable (lucid), they are brought before a judge with their legal representative (should they request it), to determine their future situation, confinement or release. They may demand a jury trial at that point, regardless, if they protest their further confinement. Some states don't offer a jury trial for commitment, and this, in my view, is a violation of due process, and ought to change.

Actually, most people are committed to mental health observation because they're doing crazy things, like running around Walmart nekid with a rat trap on their dick. 24 hours and a couple of pills and they're back to the overpass.

Call me old fashioned but I don't like a penalty for crime to be imposed until an actual crime is committed