Obama admin proposes Exec Actions to target mental health

[allingeneral]

The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.

Vice President Biden's office announced the proposals Friday afternoon. Both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.

"The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the statement said. "Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules."

The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- both inpatient and outpatient -- count under the law as "committed to a mental institution." According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns.

The statement from Biden's office claimed these changes would help ensure that "better and more reliable information" makes its way into the system.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/mgqy3lr

[dorminWS]

Joe Biden better watch out. He'll be one of the first people they take away the shotgun from for being simple-minded. He's already threatened to go out on the porch and fire it into the air.

[OakRidgeStars]

I don't see anything that could possibly go wrong here. Before you know it, people will be scared to death (pun intended) to even go into a Doctor's office for fear that anxiety from their favorite football team losing will result in losing their guns. And we thought Obamacare would destroy health care.

I wonder what will happen to kids that are on Ritalin today? Will that be in their medical records for life? I suspect it will. I see a disarmed generation on the horizon.

[gaudard]

If you have some free time, take a look at this video: http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=vide ... iant-ollam

Would you support a system as described there?

How would you improve the current system, if you think it needs improvement?

[MarcSpaz]

"The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the statement said.

I gotta call BS on this. I'm willing to bet withing 3 years, anyone who ever took and anti-depressant, had any prescribed mood altering drugs (even if not treating mental health related issues) or went to counseling (including marriage counseling) ends up loosing there right to own a gun.

I don't see anything that could possibly go wrong here. Before you know it, people will be scared to death (pun intended) to even go into a Doctor's office for fear that anxiety from their favorite football team losing will result in losing their guns. And we thought Obamacare would destroy health care.

I wonder what will happen to kids that are on Ritalin today? Will that be in their medical records for life? I suspect it will. I see a disarmed generation on the horizon.

Something I am really concerned about is people who need help may be less prone to go get it. But my biggest concern is the the House and Senate rejected this bill when it was proposed, so Obama waits until Congress is on break, then does it as Executive Order. Very underhanded. I hope someone files a legal complaint. If Congress says no, that doesn't mean the dictator says yes anyway.

[Remek]

You guys are dead on. After reading even NPRs report, it's clear the language is vague and more broad than it would at first appear. The will all report you, because if they don't, and you commit a crime, an alphabet agency may come to ask why.

In addition how does HIPPA LAW get changed by administrative RULE? Can anyone say ILLEGAL?

Don't talk to any mental health professional if/when this BS goes through.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Some on this forum criticized me when I said we should be wary about letting "the mentally ill" be disarmed in the name of "safety".

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ction.html

The fifth edition of the association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is expected in 2012. The APA isn't just deciding the fate of shopaholics; it's also debating whether overuse of the Internet, "excessive" sexual activity, apathy, and even prolonged bitterness should be viewed, quite seriously, as brain "disorders." If you spend hours online, have sex more frequently than aging psychiatrists, and moan incessantly that the federal government can't account for all its TARP funds, take heed: You may soon be classed among the 48 million Americans the APA already considers mentally ill.
Quite how the association will decide when normal kvetching becomes a sickness—or reasonable amounts of sex become excessive—is still anyone's guess. Behind the APA's doors in Arlington, Va., the fine points of the debate are creating quite a few headaches. And they're also causing a rather public dust-up.

It is easier than ever to be "mentally ill", keep that in mind next time you hear some craphead saying we must keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill"; they're talking about you whether you know it or not.

[allingeneral]

If implemented honestly, I think I would be ok with adding to the definition of "involuntary admission" to a mental health facility and a required report from the state to the NICS database to ensure that those who are involuntarily admitted are not able to purchase or own firearms.

HOWEVER -
1) There *must* be a (relatively simple) way to appeal or overturn or regain the rights lost.
2) The right to vote must also be affected negatively
3) This should be implemented by CONGRESS through an honest debate with a real law that the people support instead of through executive action.

Perhaps a 2-year (5-year?) trial run would be a good thing to do. When it expires (if allowed to expire), then all records in NICS marked "mental" would be released (no other disqualifiers such as "felon", etc). This would allow some metrics to be collected...how many were reported, how many were denied access, etc...

The legislation would have to be very clearly written and would not have to be overly complicated,

[OakRidgeStars]

This action is so honest and straightforward that it had to be signed into law by Executive Order while Congress is on vacation. This administration does nothing without an ulterior motive to support a hidden agenda.

No doubt this will result in more vets being diagnosed with PTSD in order to disarm them in civilian life.

[mamabearCali]

I am tired of this petty dictator. Will no one stop him?

Congress needs to take him to the woodshed ans describe to him precisely what is contained Article 2 of the constitution.

[MarcSpaz]

... I think I would be ok with adding to the definition of "involuntary admission" to a mental health facility...

I am kind of iffy on this one. So many people get involuntarily committed because non-mental heath professionals are making the determinations. In some cases, its not even a medical professional, but a civilian who either works for law enforcement or the county/state as a counselor and has zero training, license or experience in diagnosing and treating people with mental health issues

This isn't an "I think", I heard" or "I read" either. I lived through this myself.

She's probably gonna kick my ass for putting this out there... but my wife suffers from chronic debilitating migraine headaches. She tried so many medications to control them that we lost count. At one point, even though she had no history or symptoms of mental health issues, the doctor put her on an antidepressant med and an anti-seizure med. Per the FDA, both drugs were approved for treating migraines as a "secondary purpose".

Well, we found out the hard way that taking antidepressants when you don't need them causes depression. My wife and I had an argument about 3 months into her treatment. She completely lost it, grabbed a knife and started stabbing herself.

I took her to the ER. The doc's called the county police after hearing the story and within minutes she was involuntarily committed to a state run mental health care facility by a "counselor" who reviewed her case and spoke to her.

It took me 3 days, an expensive lawyer, a real mental health doctor meeting with her a couple of times, and an emergency court hearing to get her out of there. She was eventually discharge after 3 days due to the doctor stating that there is no way she should have been committed, as she was having a reaction to medication. The psychiatrist even told the Judge that not only should my wife have not been committed, as far as physical and mental health treatment was concerned, her committal and stay was detrimental to her well-being.

I sat in court and watch over a dozen cases that went the same way. Person after person getting discharge from the hospital because county representatives unjustly had people committed. Now, like my wife, this will haunt those people for life.

My wife was guilty until proven innocent, and then still considered guilty today. She should have never been in the system but that doesn't matter. That was 7 years ago and she hasn't been able to even get a job since then... never mind a weapon. Honestly, the whole mental health system is completely flawed and needs to be fixed before we start stacking laws on top of it. Actually, if it got fixed, we might not have to stack laws on top of it.

[Remek]

There should NEVER be ANYONE deciding to take your rights away, excepting the case of adjudication in front of a jury, PERIOD.

The rest is subject to real abuse. Juries may be bad sometimes, but that's better than any single other entity, which will ALWAYS end up abusing its power.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[allingeneral]

Marc - thank you for sharing your personal experience as it relates to this thread. I definitely see where you're coming from.

1) There *must* be a (relatively simple) way to appeal or overturn or regain the rights lost.

I'm curious - does your wife have any remedy under law to clear this blemish from her record? There has to be a way? Maybe the definition of "Committed" needs to be changed/clarified.

[MarcSpaz]

Marc - thank you for sharing your personal experience as it relates to this thread. I definitely see where you're coming from.

1) There *must* be a (relatively simple) way to appeal or overturn or regain the rights lost.

I'm curious - does your wife have any remedy under law to clear this blemish from her record? There has to be a way? Maybe the definition of "Committed" needs to be changed/clarified.

My lawyer said we have little to no ground for rebuttal. He has dealt with situations like ours before, which is why I retained him. The won't expunge the record because she was in fact involuntarily committed, regardless of if it was justified or not. He told me in every case he tried to have the record cleared and compensation for losses, the judges always found on behalf of the government, sighting that it is the burden and responsibility of the citizen to bare the burden of participating in the legal system.

So basically I took that as, the courts are going to screw everyone to protect the interest of the state, regardless of how false the states accusations are and regardless of the repercussions of those allegations.

If I could find a way to clear her record without spending 10's or hundreds of thousands, i would do it for her.

[allingeneral]

Maybe you could contact your state representatives and/or the Attorney General for some guidance or assistance?

Seems like the mental health side of things should have an intermediate step - kind of like being brought in for questioning, but not yet arrested or charged. This intermediate step could have allowed doctors to identify the medication as the source of the problem instead of the mind itself.

In your case, it sounds like a charge was made based on circumstantial evidence, but after further questioning, the charge was dropped. I believe your wife should have had more time for assessment of the facts before being "formally charged" (committed).

I'm certainly no legal scholar, and maybe I'm oversimplifying things - just putting it out there like I see it based on my limited understanding.

[skeeterss0]

i agree there needs to be an appeal system put in place. There are already groups out there that try to get felons rights restored after they serve their time. How about a group to help people improperly commited get their rights restored?

[SHMIV]

@ Rick: That doesn't really sound over simplified to me. Where does the notion that complexity is good come from, anyway?

At any rate, if one is deemed too unstable, mentally, to possess guns, how can they POSSIBLY be stable enough to possess a car, a length of rope, a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a cigarette lighter, or any other commonplace object that is potentially dangerous?

Further, it is looking to me that virtually any human emotion is becoming a "warning sign" indicative of a mental health problem.

This is a bad road to start down, and I oppose it, with great vigor.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Rick, I know the AG wont talk to me. I've tried that before. I never thought to contact a Rep. That is a good idea. I mean, that is what they are they for; to represent the people. I'll look into that.

Even if I can't get her record fixed anytime soon, maybe they can come up with something to protect this crap from happening to others.