VCDL - VT - Guns - Mental ill [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : VCDL - VT - Guns - Mental ill


iiibbb
04-30-2007, 11:48
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=123742&ran=181840


To me, the distinction should be drawn between voluntary treatment, and court-mandated treatment.

I think if you are aware enough to seek treatment on your own, then your name shouldn't be placed on an FBI list. That's the incentive to get treatment before a court demands that you do.

If a court has to intervene, then I'm not sure you should be passing an instant check at least.


Obviously there should also be a legal mechanism for having yourself removed from the list as well.

Jerseycitysteve
04-30-2007, 13:33
The key word is involuntary. The law the Governor signed only addresses involuntary commitment. I support keeping guns out of the hands of felons and people adjudicated a danger to self or others.


I support practically unlimited rights for law abiding citizens but not for the insane or felons.

Hunterjbb
04-30-2007, 19:30
Question i have and i don't disagree with keeping things out of the hands of mentally ill folks.. although there have been a few people i've seen with guns that i'd have to wonder if they meet the definition of "normal".. ;)

Are there not privacy laws regarding medical information? or is that already been worked out?

And as iiibbb said, Can you get removed?.


And they were Right, does not prevent personal sales no matter where they happen, gun show, house etc.. i'm sure they will come up with something exciting about that..

Jeff.

iiibbb
04-30-2007, 19:44
Originally posted by Hunterjbb
Question i have and i don't disagree with keeping things out of the hands of mentally ill folks.. although there have been a few people i've seen with guns that i'd have to wonder if they meet the definition of "normal".. ;)

Are there not privacy laws regarding medical information? or is that already been worked out?

And as iiibbb said, Can you get removed?.


And they were Right, does not prevent personal sales no matter where they happen, gun show, house etc.. i'm sure they will come up with something exciting about that..

Jeff.

There are privacy laws regarding medical information... but I think that should be moot once a court has stepped in. If you're voluntarily seeking treatment, I can see keeping those cases private.

Jerseycitysteve
04-30-2007, 20:05
Voluntary treatment is not covered by the law.

If the men with white coats and butterfly nets haven't come for you then you've got no fear.

PVanCleave
05-01-2007, 00:18
Riddle me this:

Why would a judge EVER want to send someone who he thinks is dangerous to himself or others to an OUTPATIENT clinic? :upeyes:

As I said in the alert that just went out, that's like letting serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer go home and check in once a week for therapy!

What's happening is judges are using the 'danger' code word to give them the power to require that someone get outpatient treatment. Without that magic word, they can't force them to do so.

This is going to do next to nothing for someone like Cho, who the court didn't commit at all anyway, but will possibly catch all kinds of people who are not now, nor were before, a danger to anyone.

Kaine didn't even wait for his own damned commission to meet, much less report back with recommendations.

And I believe what he did was unconstitutional. Why didn't he just convene a special session of the General Assembly to deal with this one issue if he was in such a big hurry?

iiibbb
05-01-2007, 06:57
Originally posted by PVanCleave
Riddle me this:

Why would a judge EVER want to send someone who he thinks is dangerous to himself or others to an OUTPATIENT clinic? :upeyes:

As I said in the alert that just went out, that's like letting serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer go home and check in once a week for therapy!

What's happening is judges are using the 'danger' code word to give them the power to require that someone get outpatient treatment. Without that magic word, they can't force them to do so.

This is going to do next to nothing for someone like Cho, who the court didn't commit at all anyway, but will possibly catch all kinds of people who are not now, nor were before, a danger to anyone.

Kaine didn't even wait for his own damned commission to meet, much less report back with recommendations.

And I believe what he did was unconstitutional. Why didn't he just convene a special session of the General Assembly to deal with this one issue if he was in such a big hurry?

I respect what the VCDL does, but on this one I'm not so sure.

The courts send them to outpatient because the mental health facilities don't want to do freebies for the state. Their motivation is to avoid taking court cases in-patient or getting them through the system as fast as possible and back out in public. On 60 minutes they said it costs them/us $500/day for that.

The example you gave in your mailing regarding the vet with PTSD doesn't seem like it would apply here because that person would hopefully be seeking treatment on their own before having a run-in with the police. That kind of thing isn't/shouldn't going to wind up in the FBI system.

I'd rather see VCDL pressing them to devise the legal mechanism for people to get off the list if they've been wrongly placed on it, and who deserve a gun. That's the problem with these blacklists. Like the no-fly list, there's no way to get your name removed once it's there.

Fighting the foundation of the instant check database just ruins the credibility of the whole "instant background check" concept.

Jerseycitysteve
05-01-2007, 06:57
I've been involved in a few civil commitments. The bar is high for commitment. When I was a chaplain at St. Elizabeths hospital in DC, you'd be amazed at the folk we let out.

Always remember there is no law against being crazy! You have to be a danger to self and others. The judge and the district attorney just can't say you are. Our CCFCP at St. Es had a public defender to oppose commitment. Unless, my fellow Virginians, you are too nutty to call your attorney, you have no fear of an overzealous judge clapping you in the loony bin.

One case might be relevant for the discussion. A man was drinking so heavily that he ended up in the hospital with liver failure.

Working with his wife, the commonwealth's attorney, we had the judge come to the hospital room and the man went on to the hospital in Stanton.

Under this law, he will not be able to purchase another firearm or receive a CCW.

PVanCleave
05-01-2007, 10:14
Originally posted by iiibbb
I respect what the VCDL does, but on this one I'm not so sure.

The courts send them to outpatient because the mental health facilities don't want to do freebies for the state. Their motivation is to avoid taking court cases in-patient or getting them through the system as fast as possible and back out in public. On 60 minutes they said it costs them/us $500/day for that.

The example you gave in your mailing regarding the vet with PTSD doesn't seem like it would apply here because that person would hopefully be seeking treatment on their own before having a run-in with the police. That kind of thing isn't/shouldn't going to wind up in the FBI system.

I'd rather see VCDL pressing them to devise the legal mechanism for people to get off the list if they've been wrongly placed on it, and who deserve a gun. That's the problem with these blacklists. Like the no-fly list, there's no way to get your name removed once it's there.

Fighting the foundation of the instant check database just ruins the credibility of the whole "instant background check" concept.

If the Feds won't fund it [expunging records that are no longer necessary], I don't see what VCDL can do. It would be great of some of the Larger gorillas would step to fight to get that funding.

iiibbb
05-01-2007, 12:49
Originally posted by PVanCleave
If the Feds won't fund it [expunging records that are no longer necessary], I don't see what VCDL can do. It would be great of some of the Larger gorillas would step to fight to get that funding.

They won't fund treating people as inpatients (like Cho) who ought to be. They basically set us up for a fall by letting them be outpatient even though they shouldn't be.

It's a catch 22


You have the presses ear. Either the gov't won't fund treatment, they won't fund expunging peoples' records who don't belong there, or they should just abandon trying to regulate it alltogether.

But to take the stand that people who are potential dangers to the community shouldn't be put on the list at all makes the organization look like fools.

I would publically support the concept at least... but then note all the problems with administering it.

I dunno... this is beyond me. I can't think like the gov't...

iiibbb
05-01-2007, 12:53
I would demand that the government properly administer the background check system. I would demand that if gun violence is a priority to them, then making sure the proper people are put on the list are put on the list, but it doesn't end there... there must be a mechanism for appeal.

That's the stand I would take.

PVanCleave
05-01-2007, 13:03
Originally posted by iiibbb
I would demand that the government properly administer the background check system. I would demand that if gun violence is a priority to them, then making sure the proper people are put on the list are put on the list, but it doesn't end there... there must be a mechanism for appeal.

That's the stand I would take.

I would demand that people who are legitimately dangerous NOT BE PUT ON THE STREET WITHOUT TREATMENT. Current law would then work just fine.

Hunterjbb
05-01-2007, 19:35
But i think Kaine was trying to appease both Public and private Critisizm, he didn't want to get into the "well you didn't do anything about this" or the rest of his stay in office would probably be difficult.. I'm sure some staffer said "Hey boss" if you do this, you'll look good. Personally i think more thought went into his political carreer then the executive order..

Should we keep guns out of mentally ill folks hands? yep..

I'd agree with Mr.Vancleave, if these folks are "dangerous" what the heck are we sending them to outpaitent clinics for.. Are they escorted by Sheriff's ? by chance ?. I think that whole process needs to be re-evaluated some ;)

I'm sure we are going to see more "not so well thought" out things happening in the wake of VT here in good old VA..

Jeff.

PS: Please excuse the spelling i stink at it :)

iiibbb
05-01-2007, 20:13
Originally posted by PVanCleave
I would demand that people who are legitimately dangerous NOT BE PUT ON THE STREET WITHOUT TREATMENT. Current law would then work just fine.

Either - Or


but GOA and VCDL are only saying, from what I have read, that people that are recommended to outpatient not be put on the list.

That's the problem... that or the press isn't printing your whole statements.