Question about the mental Health portion of the bill.

[Shiznown]

I read the part of the bill that talks about mental health and the part that sort of confused me is when it talked about someone being sent to an "IN PATIENT FACILITY for more then 30 consecutive days" I remember when I was 5 years old I was sent to a unit of Franklin Square to be diagnosed and I was there for two months. Is this anything I should worry about? I believe it was called the "Chips unit".

 

[ddeanjohnson]

I read the part of the bill that talks about mental health and the part that sort of confused me is when it talked about someone being sent to an "IN PATIENT FACILITY for more then 30 consecutive days" I remember when I was 5 years old I was sent to a unit of Franklin Square to be diagnosed and I was there for two months. Is this anything I should worry about? I believe it was called the "Chips unit".

The mental health provisions of the bill are summarized in paragraph no. 18 of my updated summary of the bill, here.

I do not know the answer to your specific question. Two of the new disqualifications apply to involuntary commitment for any length of time, or voluntary admission for more than 30 days, to "a facility as defined in §10-101 of the Health-General Article." I have pasted in that definition below:

HEALTH - GENERAL ARTICLE
TITLE 10. MENTAL HYGIENE LAW
SUBTITLE 1. DEFINITIONS; GENERAL PROVISIONS

Md. HEALTH-GENERAL Code Ann. § 10-101 (2012)

§ 10-101. Definitions

(a) In general. -- In this title the following words have the meanings indicated.

(b) Administration. -- "Administration" means the Mental Hygiene Administration.

(c) Admission. --

(1) "Admission" means the process by which an individual is accepted as a resident in:

(i) An inpatient facility; or

(ii) A Veterans' Administration hospital in this State that provides care or treatment for individuals who have mental disorders.

(2) "Admission" includes the physical act of the individual entering the facility or Veterans' Administration hospital.

(d) Director. -- "Director" means the Director of Mental Hygiene.

(e) Facility. --

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this title, "facility" means any public or private clinic, hospital, or other institution that provides or purports to provide treatment or other services for individuals who have mental disorders.

(2) "Facility" does not include a Veterans' Administration hospital.

(f) Mental disorder. --

(1) "Mental disorder" means a behavioral or emotional illness that results from a psychiatric or neurological disorder.

(2) "Mental disorder" includes a mental illness that so substantially impairs the mental or emotional functioning of an individual as to make care or treatment necessary or advisable for the welfare of the individual or for the safety of the person or property of another.

(3) "Mental disorder" does not include an intellectual disability.

(g) State Advisory Council. -- "State Advisory Council" means the State Advisory Council on Mental Hygiene.

(h) State facility. -- "State facility" means a facility that is owned or operated by the Department.

(i) Treatment. -- "Treatment" means any professional care or attention that is given in a facility, private therapeutic group home for children and adolescents, or Veterans' Administration hospital to improve or to prevent the worsening of a mental disorder.

HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 59, § 3; 1982, ch. 21, § 2; ch. 371; 1983, ch. 405, § 2; 1984, chs. 377, 477; 1988, ch. 714, § 2; 1996, ch. 476; 2002, ch. 371; 2009, ch. 119.

 

[teratos]

I read the part of the bill that talks about mental health and the part that sort of confused me is when it talked about someone being sent to an "IN PATIENT FACILITY for more then 30 consecutive days" I remember when I was 5 years old I was sent to a unit of Franklin Square to be diagnosed and I was there for two months. Is this anything I should worry about? I believe it was called the "Chips unit".

Interestingly, I worked on CHIPS for a couple of years.
In your case, yes this does (in theory) affect you. The State should have no record of this, as it was very unlikely to have been reported to them. If you check "no" when buying a regulated firearm, they would be none the wiser. I know you are an honest citizen, so you would check that you had, in fact, been admitted for 2 months. What they would require is a note from a psychiatrist that says you can own a gun. I doubt you are going to be able to get one from the original treating psychiatrist. If you have been seeing one for a long time now, you might be able to get one. If you don't have a psychiatrist, you may have a very hard time getting that note.

In my testimony to the legislators, I repeatedly said this is a HUGE problem. I spoke with the Presidents of the Maryland Psychiatric/Psychological Associations. They also said it would not be easy to get the note, and did not want to be put in the middle of this. This is a problem begging for a lawsuit. If you are interested in being a test case please let me know. It would be a pain. You would have to go purchase a regulated firearm, check the box that you were admitted for more than 30 days. Get denied. Have any regulated firearms you own confiscated. When the lawsuit began your life would be examined with a fine-toothed comb by both sides, then you would have to wait a while for justice.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

What they would require is a note from a psychiatrist that says you can own a gun. I doubt you are going to be able to get one from the original treating psychiatrist. If you have been seeing one for a long time now, you might be able to get one. If you don't have a psychiatrist, you may have a very hard time getting that note.

Once the new law takes effiect, if he is disqualified, then he will need a lot more than a note from a psychiatrist. The bill provides that anyone who is disqualified under the mental health provisions may apply to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for "relief," meaning partial or complete restoration of firearms rights. Such an application must be accompanied by extensive documentation, including a statement by a psychiatrist or psychologist stating an opinion as to whether the applicant would be a danger to himself or others (these licensed professionals are granted immunity from liability for these opinions), authorization to view all medical records, "three statements . . . attesting to the applicant's reputation and character relevant to firearms ownership and possession including . . . at least two statements provided by an individual who is not related to the applicant," and so forth. The department is supposed to grant or deny the application within 60 days. If denied, the applicant has a right to request a hearing, or appeal to the circuit court.

While I am not certain, I believe that it would be difficult for any individual to mount a legal challenge to this type of disqualification until he has exhausted the administrative route.

 

[teratos]

Once the new law takes effiect, if he is disqualified, then he will need a lot more than a note from a psychiatrist. The bill provides that anyone who is disqualified under the mental health provisions may apply to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for "relief," meaning partial or complete restoration of firearms rights. Such an application must be accompanied by extensive documentation, including a statement by a psychiatrist or psychologist stating an opinion as to whether the applicant would be a danger to himself or others (these licensed professionals are granted immunity from liability for these opinions), authorization to view all medical records, "three statements . . . attesting to the applicant's reputation and character relevant to firearms ownership and possession including . . . at least two statements provided by an individual who is not related to the applicant," and so forth. The department is supposed to grant or deny the application within 60 days. If denied, the applicant has a right to request a hearing, or appeal to the circuit court.

While I am not certain, I believe that it would be difficult for any individual to mount a legal challenge to this type of disqualification until he has exhausted the administrative route.

The note from the shrink is going to be the limiting factor. The rest of the stuff, while time consuming, is very doable. Also note that nowhere did I say that a note was ALL he would need. It was just the focus of my post.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

The note from the shrink is going to be the limiting factor. The rest of the stuff, while time consuming, is very doable.

I hope that you're right about that. The bill confers civil immunity on the licensed professionals who write the opinions. It confers no such immunity on the people who write the other letters. Would you sign such a letter?

 

[teratos]

I hope that you're right about that. The bill confers civil immunity on the licensed professionals who write the opinions. It confers no such immunity on the people who write the other letters. Would you sign such a letter?

Docs are VERY skeptical of doing anything that will get them mixed up with legal issues. I personally do not see how the State can grant immunity from civil suits. Even if there is no legal risk, there is still a great professional risk in doing this. Imagine, you sign such a letter for the patient, then that person goes out and (God forbid) murders a bunch of kids at an elementary school. The media loves this stuff. Who wrote the note? They'll find out. If you don't think your name will be dragged through the mud in the court of public opinion, you probably ought to see a psychiatrist.

It's probably hard to find a more pro-2A doctor than me. I would not write that note.

 

[Shiznown]

I'm not really worried about new firearms purchases as I do not plan to buy any new firearms in the state of Maryland. What I am worried about is if they can come and take away the guns I already own. I was already able to purchase a handgun back in January with no issues, well except the huge wait time. I've been in the CHIPS unit three times, all as a minor. The last time I was there I was 12. I was never admitted by a court though. I just don't want cops coming to my house taking my guns. I can do without buying anymore until I move to Virginia in a year or so.

 

[Mooseman]

Docs are VERY skeptical of doing anything that will get them mixed up with legal issues. I personally do not see how the State can grant immunity from civil suits. Even if there is no legal risk, there is still a great professional risk in doing this. Imagine, you sign such a letter for the patient, then that person goes out and (God forbid) murders a bunch of kids at an elementary school. The media loves this stuff. Who wrote the note? They'll find out. If you don't think your name will be dragged through the mud in the court of public opinion, you probably ought to see a psychiatrist.

It's probably hard to find a more pro-2A doctor than me. I would not write that note.

Hence the expression, "your name is Mudd." Dr. Samuel Mudd. His name was ruined for generations for doing nothing more than acting as a doctor.

 

[teratos]

From my understanding of ex-post facto law and SB281 (not a lawyer, only have read through the bill once), you will not have to give up your guns that were legally purchased prior to SB281 taking effect -

UNLESS you attempt to purchase another regulated firearm as defined by SB281, or

UNLESS you are institutionalized (voluntary/involuntary) at a point in the future.

If either of these things happen, they can take your guns away (you do have the right to appeal the decision to the Dept of Health, and then appeal that decision to the courts).

I don't believe this will fall under the ex post facto thing. If they put in new regulations defining who is a prohibited person, all persons thus prohibited are.....prohibited.

They won't know that you were admitted, so unless you tell them, you should be GTG.

 

[teratos]

Teratos is right (hence I have edited my above comment) regarding Ex Post Facto - the constitutionality of which, in relation to gun ownership, is not protected for people with mental health issues.

The current regulations of SB281 basically force mental health professionals to report to the Department of Health. I do not believe (from my reading) that they are required to report Pre-SB281 events; therefore if you can legally purchase Pre-SB281, you should be fine with not-mentioning it on your forms.

---
Teratos - I didn't see in SB281 the distinction between Referral-to-ER-to-inpatient and Voluntary-to-ER-to-inpatient, which was supposedly a difference between the House and the Senate versions of the bill. Any input?

There is no duty to report prior admissons, and nobody is going to do that on their own. The only real distinction which needs to be made between the two types of admissions are voluntary and involuntary as far as I can tell. I'll look over it more closely when I get my hands on a copy of the final bill.

 

[stu929]

How does this effect you as an owner if someone within your household has be admitted involuntarily?

 

[teratos]

How does this effect you as an owner if someone within your household has be admitted involuntarily?

They just can't have access to them. A safe is fine.

 

[kehvN]

So... in the broader sense...

What does this do to a veteran who has a documented case of PTSD or MTBI? Or to a veteran receiving VA disability for these conditions?

 

[teratos]

So... in the broader sense...

What does this do to a veteran who has a documented case of PTSD or MTBI? Or to a veteran receiving VA disability for these conditions?

Nothing.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

From my understanding of ex-post facto law and SB281 (not a lawyer, only have read through the bill once), you will not have to give up your guns that were legally purchased prior to SB281 taking effect -UNLESS you attempt to purchase another regulated firearm as defined by SB281, or UNLESS you are institutionalized voluntary/involuntary) at a point in the future.. . .

In fact, all of the new firearms disqualifications in the bill (see paragraph no. 18 in the Original Post summary) are retroactive.

Teratos is right (hence I have edited my above comment) regarding Ex Post Facto - the constitutionality of which, in relation to gun ownership, is not protected for people with mental health issues. The current regulations of SB281 basically force mental health professionals to report to the Department of Health. I do not believe (from my reading) that they are required to report Pre-SB281 events; therefore if you can legally purchase Pre-SB281, you should be fine with not-mentioning it on your forms.

You are speaking about the period between now and October 1, 2013, I take it. With respect to the period beginning October 1, however, the Maryland State Police form 77R, application for transfer of a handgun, will surely be revised to conform to the new law. It will contain new questions. This form is signed under penalty of perjury.

 

[joppaj]

I personally do not see how the State can grant immunity from civil suits.

A few years back, MD passed a civil immunity bill on defending your home. Frosh had killed it for years and repeatedly told people testifying for it that "anyone can sue anyone anytime for anything". The Chairman shares your sentiment.

 

[plinkerton]

"Mental Health of the bill?"

SB281 is fvcking crazy.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

"(b) [A] SUBJECT TO § 5–133.3 OF THIS SUBTITLE, A person may not 27 possess a regulated firearm if the person:

[(7)] (8) has been [confined for more than 30 consecutive days to] A 13 PATIENT IN a facility as defined in § 10–101 of the Health – General Article[, unless 14 the person has a physician’s certificate that the person is capable of possessing a 15 regulated firearm without undue danger to the person or to another] AND:

(I) HAS BEEN A VOLUNTARY OR AN INVOLUNTARY PATIENT 17 FOR 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR MORE;"

I do not know what version of the bill you are quoting here, but it is NOT the final (enrolled) bill that the governor is going to sign. The actual mental health provisions of SB 281 are summarized in paragraph no. 18 of my summary. Look on pages 37 and 38 of the enrolled bill. The PDF of the bill is linked in the summary.

So possession of a legally-purchased firearm post 10/1 will constitute an illegal action under SB281?

If the gun owner/possessor falls under a new disqualification created by SB 281, yes. That's the way firearms disqualifications work. "May not possess."

 

[ddeanjohnson]

If you purchase the gun legally pursuant to Pre-SB281 laws, you can then transfer the firearm before the 10/1 date to a family member (who is legal under all provisions under SB281; this would therefore not constitute a straw purchase, but rather a Transfer - or "gift" if it's within 5 days of initial purchase). While you would not have legal access to the firearm, it would prevent them from grabbing it until you've had a chance to sort out your status with the Dept of Health; then you could transfer it back..

It depends on what kind of firearms you are talking about. You can transfer regulated firearms to a family member by the process specified in state law. And the family member could transfer a regulated firearm back by the same process, assuming that the recipient was not disqualified, possessed the handgun qualification license, and so forth.

But that would not be possible with a grandfathered banned "assault" or "copycat" firearm. There is no provision for transfer to such a firearm to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013, except by inheritance.