# Weapons and the mentally ill.



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

There have been a couple of constitutional issues that have come up at work. The laws are pretty vague but sort of point you in a particular direction. I can take a person into custody for a mental evaluation if I can articulate that it is by reason of being mentally or emotionally disturbed. I have to be prepared to explain how they posed a threat to themselves or others. This is usually reserved for those who attempt or threaten suicide but can be used in other instances. I have to be damned clear in these instances as seizing (arresting) a person can be an egregious 4th amendment violation as we all know.

The second issue I have been facing with more frequency is when to seize a person's firearms. The law is not so clear on this one. My rule of thumb has been if a person threatens suicide or homicide using a firearm, I log them in and provide the owner with a property receipt. I tell them that they can come pick them up when they are in a better frame of mind. This leaves firearms in the hands of some people who are bat-shit crazy though. Too many people are slipping through the proverbial crack and not being declared "mentally adjudicated and prohibited from possessing a firearm". This is a HUGE problem these days. I never realized how many people out here in not in possession of their faculties until I became a cop. I know we are generally vilified when it comes to arresting people and seizing property, especially guns. I think the court and mental health systems have completely dropped the ball and now it's just a law enforcement problem. IMO it can't be a law enforcement problem, mentally ill people are not criminals and since when is it a crime to be sick?


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The thing that worries me about the mental illness thing is when talking about mental illness, what constitutes a danger to the person and others? What set off alarms in my mind is when I heard some Dem Congressmen on TV saying that Vets with PTSD should be amongst those who should not have a firearm because the may be dangerous to others, and then later another one said that ALL Vets who were in a combat zone suffer from PTSD just by being there, whether they show symptoms or not. In other words, all Vets who have ever been in a Combat Zone should never be able to own a firearm. Then we have to ask ourselves questions such as "just what constitutes a mental illness that precludes someone from owning a firearm"? If you smoke are you addicted to nicotine and should not be permitted to own a firearm? If you are overweight, are you addicted to food and should not be able to own a firearm? If you are afraid of height, do you suffer from a mental illness? Just what types of mental illness should preclude someone from owning a firearm, and for how long? Who decides, politicians? 

Yes, most of this seems like it is a no brainer, but do you think that some politician might make such leaps? Perhaps a better question would be, do you trust them NOT to try something like that?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

You pose a topic ripe for discussion, especially in lieu of recent events.

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for performing this duty, and for keeping your sincerity about preserving citizen's rights. There aren't enough like you.

As for the topic of mental health, you are indeed correct. This should not be a law enforcement problem. However, due to the politics involved with a third party deciding to lock away a mentally ill individual, and the shouts of "cruel and unusual" treatment of mentally ill patients, it has become increasingly difficult for other entities to handle these individuals. Not to mention, the cost involved. So, the default answer is to leave them to mingle within society until they do something dangerous. Then the law will pick them up, along with cleaning up their possibly violent mess, and put them away under new pretenses of "dangerous to society".
Personally, I'm a proponent for proactive admission to therapy institutions when an individual has let their demons be known.
The truth is, we all have those little voices in our head telling us to act out irrationally, to do something dangerous, to harm someone else, and all the while whispering words of supportive justification for doing so. For the large majority of society, our civilized brain steps in and puts an end to it right then and there. For the rest, the filter is gone. The demons are in control. It might be subtle, or it might be aggressive, but the person no longer has control of their mental faculties.
We see evidence of these types of people all the time. The mumbling homeless man on the corner with urine soaked trousers, the screaming bus lady who changes clothes down to bare skin in broad daylight, and we see it in the psychotic and violent rantings of online personalities. When your mind lets loose, and you begin to act *FAR* outside of the norm, or openly call for violence against innocents for crimes you've created in your head and justified in a way that only your brain can make sense of, you need to be quickly and safely removed from society.
The question then becomes, who will do the removing? Will they support the cost to house these people? Feed them? Clean them? Rehabilitate them, if possible?

These people used to be handled by the state. That proved too costly. Their solution to reduce cost was to release their populations back into society. That's when it started falling on you, the law enforcement officer, to handle them when they get unruly.
How this gets resolved, I'm not really sure.
In my own little world, we would return to the days when men in white coats came to take you away, with officers in tow to ensure safety.
The cost would necessarily have to be suffered by the citizens, since charity organizations can't hope to remain afloat in times of economic turmoil like we see now.

Aside from this solution, which probably wouldn't sit well with too many, I've not a clue how it would be handled.
The prison system can't handle them in the manner they should be handled. And as you rightly pointed out, it shouldn't be a "crime". Only when we've let the disturbed person act out violently do they get classified as "criminal", and that just means we didn't act soon enough.

To act soon enough, we first have to be *willing* to act.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Once the law is written the door is open to interpretation, modification and all sorts of political chicanery. To me it's a case of which is the lesser of two evils. Crazy people seem less of a threat to my freedoms than politicians with agendas. YMMV.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I think the key is "*may* be a danger to themselves or others". I think they have to pose a clear, eminent and articulable threat to their safety or the safety of others. That language, I'm afraid is nowhere to be found. By it's very definition I should have PTSD but I am sure I do not. I talk about the things that happen around me and to me with my family and co workers then I put the incident in a mental folder and place it in the archive. I retrieve it for training and personal reflection as needed, then move past it. I did the same thing in the military. I think the problem comes in when incidents get stuck in a loop and people relive these things over and over in their head. I can only imagine how difficult that must be.

Who decides? Good question. I think it rests in the purview of the psychiatrists and counselors who, to this point, are muted by HIPPA.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Well said Kauboy.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Is the so-called Baker Act nationwide, or just in Florida? This is where a person reasonably deemed to be a danger to himself or others can be held for 48 hours for evaluation.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

I thought the mental health act of 1976 said 72 hours. Not sure of the exact law.
Now I see it must be state to state.
Here they call it a 302 for involuntary stays in a hospital. There are voluntary stays too. 
I was reading the 4473 form about this the form to purchase a firearm and a nics check paperwork. It was saying about being involuntary committed for a year to a mental institution to be put on the list to be rejected. It was also saying about health professionals can put you on the list temporarily? If you are talking about guns.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I believe the 4473 question about mental health uses the word Adjudicated. Meaning a judge is involved. No doctor can "adjudicate" anyone.
I last looked at this several years ago when the GOA tried to whip up hysteria about vets with PTSD supposedly being barred from owning firearms.
Not that I would be concerned because I know nothing about PTSD. Of course.:-D


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Seems to me that people who should be under serious evaluation are given happy pills and put back on the street. I know people who fit in that category. They are pretty normal when taking their meds, but are squirrelly as can be when they decide not to take them.

Csi-Tech is very hesitant to violate someone's rights. My hat is off to him. Suggestions? I have none. I can only offer prayers for such a man, who prefers to act as a peace officer while holding the position of law enforcement officer.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Seneca said:


> Once the law is written the door is open to interpretation, modification and all sorts of political chicanery. To me it's a case of which is the lesser of two evils. Crazy people seem less of a threat to my freedoms than politicians with agendas. YMMV.


Precisely!

The greatest threat to my safety and security is (and always will be) my own government. Democide (government sanctioned mass murder) was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century, and will be again in the 21st century...not random mentally ill guys with guns.

Any law seeking to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of one's "mental state", is incredibly misguided. Such a law would ultimately be used by despots and bureaucrats to disarm entire segments of the population.


----------



## Silverback (Jan 20, 2014)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/295534798716407808
What he said...+


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Dianne Frankenstein wants anyone that owns a gun, particularly veterans, to be declared mentally ill. Why? Easy we present a threat to the government and the veterans are the best trained of us. Once any of this type of legislation is passed, it's a short step to mandatory confiscation under the guise of mental health issues.


----------



## BagLady (Feb 3, 2014)

Note to self; Do not tell therapist I am a gun owner.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

BagLady said:


> Note to self; Do not tell therapist I am a gun owner.


For all the rumors about Obamacare out there, no doctor, not even the VA doctors, have ever asked me if I own guns.
Of course, I learned a long time ago to never ever volunteer information to anybody.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

I am firmly against gun control regulation. 

Personally any non retarded person can make their own firearms, or bombs, and have access to a plethora of much more lethal items.

While I understand trying to prevent people who will misuse weapons from having access to them, there is no way to know.

Firearms use is cultural. So is the concept of mental illness.

Is someone who hates life more likely to do something bad with a gun, yeah probably, but there are a lot of people who hate life who don't do bad things with guns. There are lots of perfectly "sane" criminals who are in jail for using both legal and illegal guns. Has gun control stopped those crimes no.

What gun control actually does is reduce peoples access to guns, both people who may use them for bad things, and people who want to buy a gun.

Fact is gun control reduces the rate of firearms ownership, and it reduces the rate of firearms related deaths - because less people have them. However if you look at the per capita murder rates, what you find is that murders can be committed with other things, like knives. Of course there are countless other ways to kill people. 

End of story nothing should be regulated, the public should be educated, and insane people who will hurt people shouldn't be in public anyway... they should be in a safe place that isn't the public, the same is true of rapists and murderers, the point here is though, how do you know. You don't. 

Personally let the people get killed then you put the person on trial. I find it sickening we are depriving people of their liberties on cultural and political considerations as a prejudice and prejudgement.

Gun control deprives peoples right to free exchange, it uses a totalitarian system which restricts peoples rights.

Anyone who wants to attack people can attack them, they don't need guns. 

Any intelligent person who wants guns can buy them illegally, build them, or steal them.
The same is true for explosives and chemical agents.

End of the day, it is politics, and we have a government telling what people are haves and have nots, and that is not liberty, that is not a free society. That is not my type of society to support. 

People who are insane and a public threat by default should not be in public - if they are in public and you are only restricting them access to guns you are being an idiot.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Feinbitch should be smacked in the ****ing head with a hammer!! How is that for mentally ill bitch!!


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Csi-tech, sir, I just wanna thank you, and the other offiers here, I know you guys are holding it down, I do NOT see you guys as someone who would come on here and bullshit us, So, I honor yall. Thank You. 
Just yesterday, I heard on the radio how it was Alb NM busiest Crime spree weekend, and was thinking, "thank GOD, the cops that are doing their best, what would we do without them"?
Now, on to your question, I was a firefighter, I never saw any "burnt bodies", Thank GOD, but many of my brothers did, is that ptsd, are they now subject to evaluation?
As for doctors and hospitals, I know for a fact that if you answer yes to the question "have you ever considered hurting yourself, or others?", that they can haul you "upstairs" for 72 hours in NM.
Is taht a reason to loose guns? I dont know, becouse who decides? 
In my humble eyes, the govt wants everybody to be gun free, so they can lie to ur faces, luagh all the way to the bank, and keep their friends and relatives fat and happy with contracts and consultation fees, OH WAIT, they already do.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Beach Kowboy said:


> Feinbitch should be smacked in the ****ing head with a hammer!! How is that for mentally ill bitch!!


I'll bet Fienbitch won't be turning in little revolver any time soon though. You bring the wood chipper, I have plenty of hammers.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Just used the sawmill some today. I could have some fun with her and it..


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Deebo, PTSD has a set of distinct symptoms. Someone suffering from PTSD will not necessarily have them all , some do some don't.
PTSD is not only among combat veterans, but some symptoms such as exaggerated startle response are a byproduct of combat.
PTSD has probably been around since the beginning of time. In the Civil War it was called Soldiers Heart, or Nostalgia. WWI it was Shell Shock. WWII and Korea was Combat Fatigue. Vietnam was Post Vietnam Syndrome.
It was explained to me that PTSD is a normal reaction to abnormal circumstances.
Even today, after 44 years, a sudden unexpected bright flash of light sends a big jolt of adrenaline straight into my heart. In an instant. And it hurts.
The perception that someone with PTSD will someday "snap" and start killing people is way off base. A PTSD sufferer is much more apt to kill themselves than someone else.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

In Tennessee we call it a "6404" and it is an involuntary committal for an evaluation. I think it can be for up to 72 hours. 

What I don't understand about Feinstein is that she was (or so we are told) among the first person to see Harvey Milk's body after he was shot to death. She said this left an indelible scar on her her soul and a hatred of firearms.........................But she owns and carries one?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> But she owns and carries one?


She is the typical liberal, espousing the "do as I say, not as I do" form of governing.
Us peons are not important enough to be protected, but she is... :roll:


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

warwulf said:


> Ok, here's a quick quiz. What do the following people have in common?
> 1) Adam Lanza
> 2) Dylan Kleibold
> 3) Jarred Loughner
> ...


Boys, I believe we've got us a little nazi sympathizer here.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

warwulf said:


> Ok, here's a quick quiz. What do the following people have in common?
> 1) Adam Lanza
> 2) Dylan Kleibold
> 3) Jarred Loughner
> ...


Kindly remove yourself from the forum if *this* is the tripe you offer.
We don't need this.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

warwulf said:


> Ok, here's a quick quiz. What do the following people have in common?
> 1) Adam Lanza
> 2) Dylan Kleibold
> 3) Jarred Loughner
> ...


Did you type this while you were wearing your nazi uniform on a computer with a picture of hitler above it?


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Swing and a miss Eichmann, What they all had in common was that they were mentally ill.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

warwulf said:


> Since when does posting a FACT make me a Nazi sympathizer? It's to show a common factor and EACH time some jew goes tilt with a gun, WE, the LEGAL gun owners have to take it up the ass because the jew (Pelosi, Reubens, Goldberg, Bloomberg, ad ****ing nauseum List of Jewish American politicians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) politicians and Shabbat ***** are taking away OUR Rights!
> Tell you what, you & Kauboy prove me wrong and we can discuss my political perspectives over a beer sometime. Agreed? Unless you can bring some evidence to the contrary, well, then I win the debate.


You're a retard. Maybe you should follow your own Nazi prescription and remove yourself from the gene pool.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

warwulf said:


> Since when does posting a FACT make me a Nazi sympathizer? It's to show a common factor and EACH time some jew goes tilt with a gun, WE, the LEGAL gun owners have to take it up the ass because the jew (Pelosi, Reubens, Goldberg, Bloomberg, ad ****ing nauseum List of Jewish American politicians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) politicians and Shabbat ***** are taking away OUR Rights!
> Tell you what, you & Kauboy prove me wrong and we can discuss my political perspectives over a beer sometime. Agreed? Unless you can bring some evidence to the contrary, well, then I win the debate.


Did all those skin head tattoos ya got affect your critical thinking skills? 
Man, you are a special kind of stupid.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

warwulf said:


> Since when does posting a FACT make me a Nazi sympathizer? It's to show a common factor and EACH time some jew goes tilt with a gun, WE, the LEGAL gun owners have to take it up the ass because the jew (Pelosi, Reubens, Goldberg, Bloomberg, ad ****ing nauseum List of Jewish American politicians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) politicians and Shabbat ***** are taking away OUR Rights!
> Tell you what, you & Kauboy prove me wrong and we can discuss my political perspectives over a beer sometime. Agreed? Unless you can bring some evidence to the contrary, well, then I win the debate.


It isn't your "fact" I take issue with. It is the realization that *THIS* was the thing you thought was the determining factor.
You completely neglect the fact that the majority of gun violence in this country occurs in poor minority neighborhoods with no Jewish population.
You completely neglect the fact that these individuals have all been treated for mental illness.
You completely neglect the fact that these people have thrown out warning signs for years about their instability.

No... screw all that... it's the JEWS!!!

Keep these thoughts to yourself if you wish to continue contributing here.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

In the United States the impetus for SWAT teams and special tactics was the Texas Tower mass shooting. Charles Whitman, a Marine Corps trained marksman climbed to the top of the tower and started shooting random victims. After he was shot and killed by some very brave men, he was discovered to have a brain tumor. Their actions were utterly deplorable but the root cause, often times is something they cannot control. Radicals who read the Turner Diaries, Mien Kampf and Anarchists Cookbook and act on their misguided hate espousing views are just fodder for the electric chair in my book. No better than Bin Laden, McVeigh, Nichols, the Taliban, Tsarneiev or Abu Nidal, terrorists all. Heroes and freedom fighters.......NEVER!


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

The majority of the "mass shootings" are by people that are not right inthe head and are on meds. Usually some kind of SSRI or something. The other large portion of shootings are from gangs and crime ridden ghettos.. Sure, there are others that are disagreements between people and domestic shit. But the majority are by criminals, usually ones that have already been caught for committing some other felony. So they should not even be on the street anyway. Mass shootings make up a very small fraction of shootings but they get so much media attention is why more and more people do it. And like I said before, the ones doing it are usually a ****in dingbat retard on meds of some kind anyway. I have posted this link several times but there are some new guys that might not have seen it. It was the last Facebook post by the gun manufacturer John Noveske less than a week before he was mysteriously killed in a single car accident. Check out.......
Gun News - Rifle Manufacturer John Noveske Mysteriously Killed Shortly After Posting Controversial Article | Texas GOP Vote
.


----------

