Allow me to play Devil's Advocate.

Besides the RTKABA, are there any other constitutionally-enshrined rights which you believe people with mental health issues are not entitled to? Because that's what this really boils down to - denial of fundamental rights without the person having committed a crime first. We don't punish people for pre-crime...at least we didn't use to, and we ought not.

Also, consider that the state of someone's mental health is somewhat subjective in that the diagnosis is determined through a less empirically scientific means than, say, diagnosing Hepatitis C or prostate cancer. You could send a single patient to 5 different mental health professionals, and you might end up with more than one diagnosis, and even then it may not be with 100% certainty. I know this first-hand from a recent "situation" with an extended family member. And, consider that there is no finite limit on the number or type of mental health diagnoses; it is conceivable that, one day, mistrust of government and the belief in original constitutional intent could be construed as a mental health issue - what then?

In summary, I see two very dangerous aspects to using "mental health" as a legal barrier to exercising basic human rights such as 2A - the first being the reversal of the presumption of innocence (effectively, denial of due process) and the second being the potential for abuse/weaponization against political opponents in this increasingly hyper-partisan world we live in.

You might conclude, then, that I don't support mental health background screenings. You would be correct. If someone does something bad, then we use the full force of the justice system to prosecute them. But we sure as hell don't pre-punish them for crimes they haven't committed yet. That's some scary Minority Report shit we need to stay far, FAR away from.

Let there be no illusions that any of this will work to prevent nut jobs from getting firearms. For example, see the following hold harmless text for i-1639:
"Sec. 9. RCW 9.41.0975 and 2009 c 216 s 7 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability: (a) For failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful; (b) For preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm; (c) For issuing a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person ineligible for such a license; (d) For failing to issue a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person eligible for such a license; (e) For revoking or failing to revoke an issued concealed pistol license or alien firearm license; f) For errors in preparing or transmitting information as part of determining a person's eligibility to receive or possess a firearm, or eligibility for a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license; (g) For issuing a dealer's license to a person ineligible for such a license; or (h) For failing to issue a dealer's license to a person eligible for such a license. "
Snake oil.
There is a reason doctor's ethics start with "First, do no harm."

I'm kinda on the fence about this one not knowing which side to jump to....

Should people that are taking anti depressants, anti anxiety, or any of the other nasty 'prescribed' drugs really be in possession of a firearm? I believe there is a line there that needs to be drawn --- where I'm not quite sure. I know quite a few people whose only means of functioning is a laundry list of 'psycho' meds --- I've seen what happens when they go off the meds, and I can say I would be very worried if they had access to a firearm. Hell, you'd be denied a purchase if you checked the box for using weed on a 4473.... but taking drugs to suppress depression, suicidal thoughts and rage is OK?

But.... on the other hand, its a slippery slope too.... pre-punishment for an uncommitted crime....
What I don't like is if your GP doc that you see maybe once or twice a year for 15-20 minutes has the power to 'deem' you a threat and put you in a data base for eternity --- thats bullshit. Just because you are a 'doctor' doesn't mean you can see into peoples minds with such limited interaction.

Now if you are being treated by a psychiatrist (or whatever mental health provider) - whether by your own decision or because of the concerns of your family or friends - I think there is a responsibility to the general public to make that information available and actionable.

This is the issue I was pretty much referring to in my earlier post. The criteria for disqualification due to mental health issues should consider whether the person is deemed by a reputable professional to be a hazard to self or others. Among the shooters I referenced, they were seen by professionals who claimed they couldn't divulge the patient's condition.

Switch now to other issues like Domestic Violence. If a professional (Med. Dr or "Shrink") learns of any domestic violence or child abuse they are required by law to report it. No more "Patient Confidentially" in those instances.

Waiting for someone to be "adjudicated" a hazard to society due to mental health issues leaves a real large window for them to act out their fantasies and kill a bunch of innocents (think Cafe Racer).

Of course the alternative is status quo. Do nothing and then watch the news media demonize "Assault Weapons" and "Weak Gun Laws" after each and every one of these "nut jobs" pulls off another mass shooting.

If only there was a cure for the mental defect that motivates people to want to kill as many people as possible. That in itself is a growing epidemic in this country.

It also doesn't matter half the time now anyway. People freak out about giving their SSN for a background check. But don't realize that 3/4 of the adult population had their information stolen when Experian was hacked. Plus whatever other credit company, health insurance, government agency, and so on and so on... It's already out there, so at this point why should people really care anymore.

THIS!

You can see a professional, and not be a threat to yourself or others. Maybe you have a phobia of germs. Does that mean you are a threat to people?

The problem is that the people that are going to make the decision on mental capacity more likely than not will not be qualified medical personnel. Most likely the decision making authority will be some government bureaucrat with minimal experience in diagnosing or understanding medical or psychological conditions.





Deadshot, actually health care providers are supposed to divulge information that they reasonably believe could lead to harm to others, or to their patients. Using HIPPA as shield is flat out wrong. There are protections in place already.

My issue is what is defined as 'mental illness' Clinical Depression shouldn't be an automatic rejection of owning a firearm. Many people fit the definition of clinically depressed but are either treated for it or it was a transient condition. My wife was diagnosed with such a condition at the age of 16 because she was upset over being dumped by a boyfriend. She was never suicidal and is not depressed anymore but once that diagnosis is put on your chart it sticks with you for the rest of your life. But someone looking at her chart could easily see clinical depression on there and ban her from firearm ownership, and myself by proxy since we live in the same house.

No due process, no real idea if there is any kind of way to appeal the decision. If someone is declared mentally unfit then I can see someone being barred from firearm ownership but those processes are already in place. And generally not enforced.

I just hope I’m around when they realize what they are giving away. Because when the 2nd goes, the 1st and others won’t be far behind.

If a citizen can not be trusted will all natural rights then that citizen cannot be trusted with freedom.

'If I can't guns, I'll make bombs...or use a truck...'


Inconvenience won't deter nutjobs.