Database of New Yorkers deemed too 'mentally unstable' to carry guns grows to 40,000+

[Boom Boom]

If someone is mentally ill to the point they are considered dangerous and shouldn't possess a firearm, then they are considered dangerous. As in period. As in, they shouldn't be free to harm someone with a gun, or a bat, or a hatchet, or an icicle, etc ad infinitum.

If they are a danger, then they are a danger.

Yes and no. Profound mental illness is a very strange beast. For quite a few years, I dealt with several people with schizoaffective disorder. On proper meds, they were very quirky but otherwise boringly ordinary. Off the meds, they ran the range of symptoms from bipolar/manic to delusions to hallucinations to full-on psychosis. Should they be allowed around guns? Hell no. Should they lose their freedom because of their illness? In most cases, hell no.

 

[jc1240]

Yes and no. Profound mental illness is a very strange beast. For quite a few years, I dealt with several people with schizoaffective disorder. On proper meds, they were very quirky but otherwise boringly ordinary. Off the meds, they ran the range of symptoms from bipolar/manic to delusions to hallucinations to full-on psychosis. Should they be allowed around guns? Hell no. Should they lose their freedom because of their illness? In most cases, hell no.

Little if anything black and white. But I probably wouldn't want to be around them if they wield hatchets, knives, pitch forks, etc if guns are deemed too dangerous for the individual in question.

 

[Boom Boom]

Little if anything black and white. But I probably wouldn't want to be around them if they wield hatchets, knives, pitch forks, etc if guns are deemed too dangerous for the individual in question.

99% of mentally-ill people pose no more risk of bodily injury to you than anyone else. They can be very difficult to deal with if/when a psychotic episode happens. They can get in your face and act menacing. It's almost always a bluff and exponentially less risk to you than liquored-up Joe Sixpack at any local bar. Gun issue aside for obvious reasons, mental illness alone doesn't mean you lock such a person away and/or strip them of all human rights because the person might occasionally cramp your style. Karma.

 

[jc1240]

I understand what you are saying. Maybe I'm not being clear.

If they are ill-enough to not be trusted to possess a gun they have owned already, then I think they are ill-enough to not be trusted with ANYTHING that can be a weapon.

I guess what I really mean is either this DB is BS and is used inappropriately to deny/revoke permits or NY has a problem on a march larger scale and they need to license most garden and kitchen implements.

 

[fleaman64]

Would rather live as a "felon" and a free man than under the boot an increasingly tyrannical government.

 

[gamer_jim]

Database of New Yorkers deemed too 'mentally unstable' to carry guns

Are my in-laws on that list?

 

[lsw]

You know, it sounds like a lot of people, and I am worried about abuse of such a registry, but OTOH with the population of NYC now at almost 8.5 million, 40,000 is less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the population...

 

[Docster]

Good! Mentally unstable people should not have guns. Now I will wait for all of our tinfoil hat wearing friends to come in and explain how it's a plan to take away all gun rights. I disagree. All of the mass shootings that bring all the heat on the rest of the gun owners are done by mentally unstable people. I say get aggressive on the mentally ill and set a standard and enforce it aggressively. Argument to the contrary add to the anti' s narrative that we are all nuts and to the non gun owners I'm sure we seem that way.

It's not the concept of restricting firearm access to mentally unstable individuals, it's who is determining whom to be mentally unstable and by what criteria. In NYS, the process is not transparent, is politically driven leaving it open to abuse and overuse. This from the same article;

Because the names in New York’s database and the circumstances of their cases are private, it is impossible to independently determine whether the people in it are truly dangerous.

So, just like child custody, rape and other issues, piss someone off and someone yells 'mentally unstable'. Go on an antidepressant for 6 months because your wife died and be considered mentally unstable. We all know the potential for abuse when the government or politicians make or influences these decisions

 

[AssMan]

Excuse me. But while I do believe that mentally compromised individuals should be denied their 2A rights, the lack of transparency is disturbing to the point that I think taking up arms against NY isn't out of the question.

 

[Brooklyn]

Substantive due process. Not even a liberal will risk a precedent that compromises substantive due process. Funny thing a conservative might, but less so on gubs..

A possible coalition on the court? Wait and see..

 

[MDFF2008]

The problems are:

1.) Many doctors are rabidly anti-gun. Can we trust a doctor to make an unbiased decision?

2.) Even pro-gun doctors have said the liability of clearing someone is so great, they won't do it. How can we protect doctors so they can make fair decisions.

3.) How does one challenge their status on the list?

 

[paxfish]

In many cases, the family can pre-empt much of this by simply having the discussion with the person having the issue and then taking care of their firearms. Sort of a "protective custody."

Combined with known diagnoses, indicating statements like "I just wish it were over" or something like that are signals that must not be ignored.

Obviously this doesn't cover all cases. But family can be a first line of defense. Then help them find professional help.

 

[NY Marksman]

I am going to add this. If the person is to unstable to own a gun then they shouldn't have a drivers license they might use their car as a weapon. If they can't be trusted to own a gun, a car, then they can't be trusted with a knife, baseball bat or anything else that can be used to harm themselves or anyone else. Since that is impossible to do then maybe they should be committed.

What about people that have a kid or mentally ill adult living with them, are they going to be able to own a gun? No tinfoil just questions.

according to the law yes relatives of a mentally unstable person can own a gun however it must always be locked away, unloaded and ammo locked separately, when the mentally unstable person is present in the building, however the gun ad the mentally unstable relative can never be in the same vehicle. technically speaking even police are barred from confronting people with mental illness by this law while armed.

Using alleged mental illness to deny someone a right is a slippery slope ripe for abuse. Recall how the Soviet Union used mental illness as an excuse to imprison so many people for political reasons. While I would hope that we would not see that extent of abuse in the USA, there are people right now who are being denied rights based upon allegations, or for non-threatening behaviour. Their are already some politicians stating that anyone who owns firearms must be mentally unbalanced.

and these days what does not qualify as a mental illness, you catch on quick

No tinfoil.

I question what constitutes as mentally unfit there in NY.

never been defined, and NY refuses to define it. back right after it was passed a man lost his permit to own for having once had a Xanax perscription, the State police tried to walk it back some with public statements, but he still has an open lawsuit to get his permit back... more than a year later...
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns