Skip to main content

View Diary: I support background checks! But, (132 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Great, is it just any mental illness or being (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimbeaux, PavePusher

    adjudicated as such where you are declared a danger to self or others?

    While I would not anyone whom may be a danger to themselves or other getting their hands on a gun, I have a problem with this "mental illness" criteria thingy.

    It needs to be clarified.

    Why?

    Because under current NYS Law, ie the SAFE ACT. I am not eligible to own a firearm because I have a mental illness.  That mental illness is being a transgendered woman whom is also a recovered alcoholic (24+ yrs).

    I have not been adjudicated as such, nor have I been declared a threat to myself or others.  I have been denied a right without judge or jury.  I've been denied said right by decree.

    I have a problem with this.

    What's your solution or suggestion?  Should anyone whom may actually need help not get it for fear of being branded and then denied a right by decree, as I have been?

    Or should we have due process restored to this equation?  When and if I'm declared by a court of law as having a "mental illness", should I then be denied said right?

    Let's open this pandora's box together, shall we?

    http://www.nami.org/...

    Mental illnesses are serious medical illnesses. They cannot be overcome through "will power" and are not related to a person's "character" or intelligence. Mental illness falls along a continuum of severity. Even though mental illness is widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion-about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 Americans-who live with a serious mental illness. The National Institute of Mental Health reports that One in four adults-approximately 57.7 million Americans-experience a mental health disorder in a given year

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the American Psychiatric Association's standard reference for psychiatry which includes over 400 different definitions of mental disorders

    There is disagreement in various fields of mental health care, including the field of psychiatry, over the definitions and criteria used to delineate various disorders. Of particular concern to some professionals is whether some of these conditions should be classified as 'mental illnesses' at all, or whether they would be better described as neurological disorders, or in other ways. Some items listed are ultimately removed: homosexuality was originally listed in the DSM, but was removed when the American Psychiatric Association officially stated that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities"

    Now, if anyone dares tell me that we haven't come for the guns, then they haven't been paying attention or are blatantly lying.

    In NYS, they have started taking the firearms from anyone with a "mental illness", period. Does it matter what that arbitrary illness is?  NOPE.

    Judge Orders Guns Returned to Man After Finding "Error" by State Police.

    BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKBW) Gun rights advocates were outraged this week when it was revealed that a Western New York man had his pistol permit suspended and guns confiscated because police believed he posed a threat due to a mental health condition.

    Attorney James Tresmond threatened to file a lawsuit in Federal Court claiming his client's health privacy and civil rights had been violated.

    It was reported that the unidentified man was taking a prescription for anxiety.

    The enforcement action started on March 29th when New York State Police asked the Erie County Clerk's Office to pursue revoking the man's pistol permit because he owned guns in violation of the mental health provision of New York's newly enacted guns law called the SAFE ACT.

    NOW, what's to stop them say next week claiming that anyone whom wishes to own a firearm is "mentally ill"? Do they not have the power to take their rights away without due process?

    YOU BET YOUR ASS.

    And let's be frank here, many Kossacks have accused the members of the RKBA's Group as being gun "nuts", including me.  Does it matter that I've never owned a firearm or have no intentions of ever doing so? NOPE.

    While you have an interesting diary here, maybe you could enlighten me on your position on these specific points I've made.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:17:06 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent point. This should be subject to at (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, PavePusher

      least the same standard as a 302:  the person whose rights are being limited must be determined to be a danger to himself or others.  Moreover, there should be a requirement to review this determination (yearly, perhaps?) in the case of someone who is an on-going risk.  

      Failure to recognize the nuances of this issue not only wrongly abridges the rights of our citizens, it acts as a deterrent to seeking help for mental illness, thereby increasing the likelihood of someone's becoming a danger to self or others.

      Socialist? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      by Kimbeaux on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 05:32:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site