Mental Health

[C-dub]

I suspect one of the reasons bipolar was targeted is because those with bipolar have a relatively high rate of suicide.

I AM a licensed mental health professional, by the way.

That's an interesting possibility. I've always wondered if such a person is also prohibited from purchasing a firearm. It would seem that the higher suicide rate would be a pretty lame excuse for denying someone a CHL, but still allowing them to buy a gun. I could accept this more if being bipolar makes it more difficult to discern right from wrong or makes one more violent towards others.

[phamiltonmd]

Contrary to some of the opinions I have read here, having a psychiatric diagnosis does not categorically disqualify an individual from obtaining a CHL.

[parabelum]

I thought this post was about Hillary

[bblhd672]

I thought this post was about Hillary

She definitely shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun, much less command a military force.

[ScottDLS]

I suspect one of the reasons bipolar was targeted is because those with bipolar have a relatively high rate of suicide.

I AM a licensed mental health professional, by the way.

That's an interesting possibility. I've always wondered if such a person is also prohibited from purchasing a firearm. It would seem that the higher suicide rate would be a pretty lame excuse for denying someone a CHL, but still allowing them to buy a gun. I could accept this more if being bipolar makes it more difficult to discern right from wrong or makes one more violent towards others.

The Federal bar for buying a gun due to mental illness is that you have been "adjudicated" mentally incompetent. This is a high bar as it should be. If someone is determined so mentally ill that they can be deprived of a fundamental right, then I would argue that they should be involuntarily institutionalized. In Texas this would require a finding by a judge (and in some cases a jury).

This is going to be the Hillary administration's next method to deprive people of their fundamental rights. Those questions popping up on your Doctor's visits...about firearms and your mood... Watch, those will be included in a Federal database and pretty soon you'll be on the "do not buy" list based on a 5 minute questionnaire from your GP.

Put's tinfoil around head to keep NSA rays out <----------ScottDLS

[TexasTornado]

I suspect one of the reasons bipolar was targeted is because those with bipolar have a relatively high rate of suicide.

I AM a licensed mental health professional, by the way.

That's an interesting possibility. I've always wondered if such a person is also prohibited from purchasing a firearm. It would seem that the higher suicide rate would be a pretty lame excuse for denying someone a CHL, but still allowing them to buy a gun. I could accept this more if being bipolar makes it more difficult to discern right from wrong or makes one more violent towards others.

Really I would think it would depend on the diagnosis...Bipolar is not actually the name of a disorder, there are many diagnosis under the umbrella of Bipolar disorders. Some of these are caused by other medical conditions, or substance use. There are also specifiers such as mild, moderate, and severe.

Even with what I have learned thus far in my schooling, if I knew this person personally I would not presume to tell her if she is or is not of sound judgement to carry a weapon. This is something she needs to address with her husband and a mental health professional.

[bblhd672]

Put's tinfoil around head to keep NSA rays out <----------ScottDLS

Hey, don't use that cheap Wally World tinfoil, everyone knows that WM has an agreement with the NSA to allow their rays to penetrate Great Value aluminum foil!

[bblhd672]

Notes from ATF Form 4473:

Question 11.f. Adjudicated Mentally Defective:
A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract
or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a
court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or
found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution:
A formal commitment of a person to a
mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The
term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term
includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes
commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a
person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental
institution. Please also refer to Question 11.c. for the definition of a prohibited
person.

EXCEPTION to 11. f. NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
:
A person
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental
institution is not prohibited if: (1) the person was adjudicated or committed
by a
department or agency of the Federal Government
, such as the United States
Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”) (as opposed to a State court, State board,
or other lawful State authority);
and (2) either: (a) the person’s adjudication or
commitment for mental incompetency was set-aside or expunged by the
adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or
discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the
agency; or (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the
mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication.
Persons who fit this exception should answer “no” to Item 11.f.
This
exception does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by
reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompe-
tent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice

[ScottDLS]

Watch how the government starts to stretch the above...particularly:

A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract
or manage his own affairs.

Social security administration, VA, state/local licensing boards, etc.

I also am not convinced that the GCA of 1968 (as amended) authorizes all the above described to "adjudicate" mental competency.

[bblhd672]

Watch how the government starts to stretch the above...particularly:

A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract
or manage his own affairs.

Social security administration, VA, state/local licensing boards, etc.

I also am not convinced that the GCA of 1968 (as amended) authorizes all the above described to "adjudicate" mental competency.

The NFA of 1934 should have been struck down as un-Constitutional, as it clearly infringed upon the people's rights to keep and bear arms.

[Soccerdad1995]

IMHO this is a very tricky area. I believe that we should not be depriving people of their fundamental rights unless there is a severe risk to others. I am not a fan of "protecting people from themselves" in general, and especially when it comes to taking away a fundamental right. So risk of suicide, alone should not be considered at all, IMHO. Of course, I am also against seat belt laws (and the like) at least for adults.

I also think that we need an extremely high bar even when there may be an increased risk to others. There is no distinction between the right to keep (own) guns and the right to bear (carry) guns in the 2A, and I am not a fan of making a distinction here, either. I tend to agree that if we really feel that it is absolutely necessary to deprive someone of this right, for the safety of the general public at large, then that dangerous person should also not have access to an automobile, knife, chainsaw, or anything else that can cause physical harm to others. They also definitely should not have the right to vote, which can cause extreme indirect harm to others. In other words, if someone really is that extremely dangerous, they should probably be involuntarily committed to an institution.

I also think that laws, and even discussions of potential laws, that restrict the rights of others based on a medical diagnosis act as a deterrent to people who might otherwise seek help for their conditions.

[RiverCity.45]

Really I would think it would depend on the diagnosis...Bipolar is not actually the name of a disorder, there are many diagnosis under the umbrella of Bipolar disorders. Some of these are caused by other medical conditions, or substance use. There are also specifiers such as mild, moderate, and severe.

Even with what I have learned thus far in my schooling, if I knew this person personally I would not presume to tell her if she is or is not of sound judgement to carry a weapon. This is something she needs to address with her husband and a mental health professional.

I am reluctant to disagree with you about this assertion, but it is simply partially wrong. The Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM), 5th Edition is the "bible" for the recognized mental health diagnoses and their symptoms. Included are:
Under the Section "Bipolar and Related Disorders," we find:
Bipolar I
Bipolar II
Cyclothymic Disorder
Substance/Medication-Induced Bipolar and Related Disorder
Bipolar and Related Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition
Other Specified Bipolar and Related Disorder
Unspecified Bipolar and Related Disorder

So, clearly there is a real disorder named Bipolar (two variants). There are also cases where bipolar symptoms are the result of medical condition/substances, but those have separate diagnostic criteria and must be induced by those things.

[TexasTornado]

Really I would think it would depend on the diagnosis...Bipolar is not actually the name of a disorder, there are many diagnosis under the umbrella of Bipolar disorders. Some of these are caused by other medical conditions, or substance use. There are also specifiers such as mild, moderate, and severe.

Even with what I have learned thus far in my schooling, if I knew this person personally I would not presume to tell her if she is or is not of sound judgement to carry a weapon. This is something she needs to address with her husband and a mental health professional.

I am reluctant to disagree with you about this assertion, but it is simply partially wrong. The Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM), 5th Edition is the "bible" for the recognized mental health diagnoses and their symptoms. Included are:
Under the Section "Bipolar and Related Disorders," we find:
Bipolar I
Bipolar II
Cyclothymic Disorder
Substance/Medication-Induced Bipolar and Related Disorder
Bipolar and Related Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition
Other Specified Bipolar and Related Disorder
Unspecified Bipolar and Related Disorder

So, clearly there is a real disorder named Bipolar (two variants). There are also cases where bipolar symptoms are the result of medical condition/substances, but those have separate diagnostic criteria and must be induced by those things.

Correct. What I was trying to convey is that "Bipolar I" and "Bipolar II" are the actual terms. There is no such thing as a diagnosis of "Bipolar." Bipolar is a description of a cluster of symptoms not a specific diagnosis.

[WTR]

Really I would think it would depend on the diagnosis...Bipolar is not actually the name of a disorder, there are many diagnosis under the umbrella of Bipolar disorders. Some of these are caused by other medical conditions, or substance use. There are also specifiers such as mild, moderate, and severe.

Even with what I have learned thus far in my schooling, if I knew this person personally I would not presume to tell her if she is or is not of sound judgement to carry a weapon. This is something she needs to address with her husband and a mental health professional.

I am reluctant to disagree with you about this assertion, but it is simply partially wrong. The Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM), 5th Edition is the "bible" for the recognized mental health diagnoses and their symptoms. Included are:
Under the Section "Bipolar and Related Disorders," we find:
Bipolar I
Bipolar II
Cyclothymic Disorder
Substance/Medication-Induced Bipolar and Related Disorder
Bipolar and Related Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition
Other Specified Bipolar and Related Disorder
Unspecified Bipolar and Related Disorder

So, clearly there is a real disorder named Bipolar (two variants). There are also cases where bipolar symptoms are the result of medical condition/substances, but those have separate diagnostic criteria and must be induced by those things.

Correct. What I was trying to convey is that "Bipolar I" and "Bipolar II" are the actual terms. There is no such thing as a diagnosis of "Bipolar." Bipolar is a description of a cluster of symptoms not a specific diagnosis.

I would say the professional disagree with you. .psychiatrist.com/jcp/article/Pages/2008/v69n06/v69n0608.aspx

[TexasTornado]

Really I would think it would depend on the diagnosis...Bipolar is not actually the name of a disorder, there are many diagnosis under the umbrella of Bipolar disorders. Some of these are caused by other medical conditions, or substance use. There are also specifiers such as mild, moderate, and severe.

Even with what I have learned thus far in my schooling, if I knew this person personally I would not presume to tell her if she is or is not of sound judgement to carry a weapon. This is something she needs to address with her husband and a mental health professional.

I am reluctant to disagree with you about this assertion, but it is simply partially wrong. The Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM), 5th Edition is the "bible" for the recognized mental health diagnoses and their symptoms. Included are:
Under the Section "Bipolar and Related Disorders," we find:
Bipolar I
Bipolar II
Cyclothymic Disorder
Substance/Medication-Induced Bipolar and Related Disorder
Bipolar and Related Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition
Other Specified Bipolar and Related Disorder
Unspecified Bipolar and Related Disorder

So, clearly there is a real disorder named Bipolar (two variants). There are also cases where bipolar symptoms are the result of medical condition/substances, but those have separate diagnostic criteria and must be induced by those things.

Correct. What I was trying to convey is that "Bipolar I" and "Bipolar II" are the actual terms. There is no such thing as a diagnosis of "Bipolar." Bipolar is a description of a cluster of symptoms not a specific diagnosis.

I would say the professional disagree with you. .psychiatrist.com/jcp/article/Pages/2008/v69n06/v69n0608.aspx

My professors are PRACTICING psychologists who made a point to emphasize this difference in class....and your link is broken.