Armed And Dangerous

Law Bans Sale Of Firearms To People With A History Of Severe Mental Illness

(CBS)  But even the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, says it’s behind efforts to enforce existing gun laws.

While Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive, stopped short of endorsing the McCarthy bill this week, he said he favors the idea behind it. "There is simply no reason that someone adjudicated by a court of law to be mentally defective, suicidal, danger to himself, danger to others, his record is not in the federal instant check system," he tells Kroft.

Asked if his members are alright with this, LaPierre says, "We are completely alright with that. I mean, we're law abiding people. The last thing we want is some mentally defective person to get a firearm."

Although the National Mental Health Association has a completely different agenda than the Gun Owners of America, its former president, Michael Faenza, used some of same arguments when 60 Minutes interviewed him several years ago.

"We feel that people with mental illness should not have special restrictions regarding firearms," Faenza told Kroft.

"Even someone who's been involuntarily committed?" Kroft asked.

"That's correct," he replied.

A number of states have laws protecting the privacy of the mentally ill and prohibit sharing records with law enforcement. Mental health advocates say the information is subject to misuse, violates doctor-patient confidentiality, and discourages people from seeking treatment.

"If we want to be serious about handguns, targeting people with mental illness is not the place to start," Faenza said.

"It seems like the perfect place to start if you know that somebody is psychotic and delusional and may not know the difference between right and wrong," Kroft remarks.

"But when we're talking about intruding on the medical privacy of a class of people in this country that are already discriminated against, that is really a step in the wrong direction," Faenza replied.

"As a matter of common sense, it seems like a good idea to try and keep firearms out of the hands of people who don't know the difference between right and wrong. Call me crazy, call me irresponsible," Kroft said.

"But when you're talking about national policy, you need more than face value or what seems like common sense," Faenza said. "You need to look at the science."

Although the organization has changed its name to Mental Health America, it hasn't changed its position and believes that a past history of serious mental illness is not a predictor of future violence, and that other groups of people are potentially much more dangerous.

---

(Editor's Note: After our broadcast of "Armed and Dangerous," we heard from David L. Shern, whose organization Mental Health America was included in our story. In our reporting before the broadcast, Dr. Shern told us our interview with former President Michael Faenza accurately reflected Mental Health America's current position and Dr. Shern's current views on the legislation before Congress on mental illness and gun control.

However, after the broadcast Dr. Shern had more to say. Mental Health America is opposed to the current legislation and contends that it will further marginalize the mentally ill, while will not decreasing the rate of gun homicides, as this violence is mainly not perpetrated by the mentally ill.

The following is an excerpt from the letter we received from Dr. Shern: "The stigma of mental illnesses and barriers to treatment can lead to tragic results for individuals and families. In fact, there are 30,000 suicides each year in the U.S. (nearly twice the number as homicides), with most related to untreated mental illnesses. ... Finally, the current legislative proposal is obscenely expensive - $375 million. Imagine spending almost as much for a database as the $430 million the Federal Government currently spends on state grants to fund community mental health services!")

---

"I mean, advocates for the mentally ill say that the system stigmatizes people with mentally illness," Kroft tells Jim Kessler. "Sets them apart."

"Right, I would say that Mr. Cho's actions stigmatizes the mentally ill far more than anything that the federal government would do to deny a mentally ill person a gun," Kessler argues.

Once again, tragedy has focused attention on a national problem that has refused to go away. Congresswoman McCarthy hopes that something positive will come out of it. And that Congress will close a loophole she says has already claimed too many innocent lives.

"The pain that I feel when these shootings come, brings me back to the day of December 7th, when my husband was killed. Many victims go back to those days. This is not an easy subject, but it's something that I feel I have a moral obligation to do the best I can. And that's why I'm here," she says.

"Do you think the momentum exists to pass this bill in both the House and the Senate?" Kroft asks.

"I would say that I have a lot of momentum," McCarthy says.

"If you can't pass it now, when could you ever pass it?" Kroft asks.

Says McCarthy, "If I can't pass this bill now, I don't know what I'm doing here, then."

[wowvirus]

For any of you wanting to see why they should be kept from buying guns read my blog about the last time i got to see my ex-girlfriend and the stalker just released from an institution

[wowvirus]

if any of you want to know why this database is needed read what i went through.

http://blog.myspace.com/brandoncjones

[wowvirus]

if any of you want to know why this database is needed read what i went through.

http://blog.myspace.com/brandoncjones

[woodsie8]

First our hearts and our prayers go out to the families, students and facility at Virginia Tech. I was really upset over your program Armed and Dangerous, as I am a person diagnosed in the 90%u2019s as SPMI (Seriously Persistently Mentally Ill). I am working and am very involved in my community to change the stigma that I have had to endure. Mental illness should not be equated with violence. People with mental illness are more likely to become a victim of a crime than to commit one.

The reality is that people can and do recover from mental illness Stop the myths about mental health issues and know the facts. Your report stated %u201C in the U.S., 1,000 homicides are committed by people with mental illness.%u201D According to Fox news report in New York City, they reported 579 homicides in 2006. The number of 1,000 seems high when it stands alone but not when you start comparing it to the national average. Please help stop this stigma and help encourage people to seek help not punishment. Recovery is possible and why should we be punished for a few years of medical treatment?

After a tragedy like Virginia Tech, people want to %u201Cfix%u201D it. Why don%u2019t you look into the Virginia Mental Health system and see what failed to help Seung-Hui Cho. The system that was to help him failed him, how can they prevent this from happening again? Change that system not target all of the mental ill like we are all criminals waiting to go on a rampage!!!
Shelly Woods

[nielklot]

I don't know where we need to turn on this issue. The majority of shootings are committed by people not diagnosed as needing mental health help. Stigmatizing these issues surely discourages people from seeking help and hurts those who have benefitted from treatment. And a balance has to be struck between involuntary committment and getting help for those who really need it and yet may be too irrational to accept it. I spent two years as a volunteer in a crisis management group (I know I am no expert) and dealt with several cases involving mental health issues and am thoroughly convinced that anyone, including myself could find themselves in need of help at any moment. What connects us to reality might be nothing more than a fine balance of chemicals, and once my balance is off I may not recognize I have a problem. I believe but for the grace of God or the luck of fate go I...(at least for the moment). Still, there are plenty of things in life I am not allowed to do by law for the sake of public safety. I cannot simply get in a commercial airliner and fly it. I can't drive a car unless periodically I prove some capability (however small). However there isn't a constitutional issue involving those questions either. I own two guns and have no obligation to prove capability. If there ever were a question of other's safety I would hope my wife would have the courage and foresight to keep them from me. Something at least to discuss with her.

[frankwarmath]

Regarding the gun ownership priviledges of people with mental illness, apparently those in favor have never firsthand experienced someone with psychosis. Allowing those who have little touch with reality have no business with firearms of any type. As in most things, common sense should prevail and a simple flag in the database should result rather than the full medical records of an individual.

John Warmath

[frankwarmath]

Regarding the gun ownership priviledges of people with mental illness, apparently those in favor have never firsthand experienced someone with psychosis. Allowing those who have little touch with reality have no business with firearms of any type. As in most things, common sense should prevail and a simple flag in the database should result rather than the full medical records of an individual.

John Warmath

[davidbadgley]

P.S. And should anyone think that myself, or the majority of those labeled with that scarlet letter of "mentally ill", are insensitive to the depth of this horrible tragedy and/or that we are not eager to find real solutions, you are so wrong. And, again, let me say, that as far as I am concerned, repealing the 2nd amendment would suit me just fine. But until then stop your unfair and irrational pedjudice toward those you consider "mentally ill". And if you prefer horror look at this adminisrations plans to test every american for mental illness. That is the "Brave New World" we should fear!

[davidbadgley]

Steve, I'd be interested to know if you read the responses to your piece of work, pun intended. One more suggestion. Make a law requiring the "severely mentally ill" to wear a patch, maybe with the letters 'M L' identifying them to all. The true question is whether someone is rational or irrational, and this is a question not answered by whether a person is "mentally ill' or even "severely mentally ill". And Steve, please read my previous posts and tell me if you consider them rational. Your piece did not strike me as such. One more thing Steve, I have been involuntarily committed under ca w&i code 5150 about 3 months ago ( wrongly so, as I made no threat against myself or anyone else) and was told by a psychiatrist that he was going to attempt to keep me longer, telling me he did not consider me dangerous to anyone but that the hospital had not been able to contact someone to find out if I had a home to return to. And my life has been in turmoil ever since. I quess that makes me "severely mentally ill". And let me repeat what I said in one of my posts. Steve, you are a bigot!

[davidbadgley]

This is a response to the comment by "equalrights". What you said is true and gives me some comfort knowing there are people out there who can reason and not just react. I'm sure you may realize that the people who committed those other murders, if found, charged, and convicted, will be on the federal lists. I think a better way to word it would be to suggest all the people not labeled "mentally ill" be put on the list as well. That should be about 300,000,000 people. If you, or anyone, looks up the Bush administrations proposal to test all americans for "mental illness" you'll see where this could be leading to. Please refer to my previous posts. I would look forward to reading such clear thinking in future posts by you or anyone else for that matter.

[equalrights]

This article states that 1000 people are killed annually by the mentally ill. Well an estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005 (from FBI statistics) - must mean that 15,692 crimes were committed by non-mentally ill people - should we put all THEIR names in an FBI data base???

[samthetvcat]

PS Just in case this point wasn't clear below, I think the definition of 'mental defective' was clarified to only include those who pose a danger to themselves or others IFF they have been committed. (For some background discussion of a proposed law which I believe was passed: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/disability.regs.txt).

And here is a great link to a summary of state by state gun control with regards to the mentally ill : http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/17/6

[samthetvcat]

nielklot

Okay, now I'm not feeling like quite the smart alec any more . . that's a tough call because we want to honor all you guys and that includes not just your coworker, but you. Also tough because the situations you guys face are just so stressful, it's hard to maintain that balance of respect and safety and everything. Wow . . .

Actually I was just about to post some additional info about how some vets have had some ongoing concern that some of those returning from combat might ironically be deprived of the right to bear arms if they are found to be suffering from PTSD (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_larry_sc_051218_tsa_looks_to_va_and_.htm). I mean like that kind of adds a new dimension to the issue . . .

Tough situation . . . glad to hear everybody's safe in your work environment though . . .

[nielklot]

"Ummm . . . . The correct course of action in this circumstance would have been to call the police and get him arrested, don't you think??
Posted by SamTheTVCat"

Sure, if that is all that occurred. We were active duty military and I won't go over each and every detail of the situation. This solitary event was not the only indication of a deeper problem and when he was removed, he was analyzed, treated and dismissed. He returned to our work place to chat with us afterwards and did not seem threatening in the least while on medication. My point is that soon afterward he was issued a Federal Firearms License to buy and sell virtually any firearm. He himself stated that any time he did not take the medication his actions could have again returned to abnormal Only now (not his words) he had access to more weapons. Either he did not reveal his history on the application or it did not ask for it and when I called somewhat concerned, they tried initally to just blow it off like it was not an issue. I do not know how I feel yet with mental illness being a blanket denial for gun ownership but owning guns (and in this case the owning the license to sell and own virtually any weapon) should carry with it a level of responsibility that the ability to fulfill does not depend on whether or not I felt like taking my medication.

[samthetvcat]

part 1
Look, here's what seems to be at stake with regards to this issue:

public safety
right to bear arms
right to privacy
equal protection
state sovereignty
personal liberty

The Brady bill was found to be Unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court to the extent that it required States to collect data and report it to the Federal Justice Dept as violative of 10A (State sovereignty) - even if Congress ever offers funding, it's not clear states can be compelled to comply with the reporting aspect.

A waiting period is not required because of the Federal database.

Now the Brady bill is still law and States must refuse licenses to certain types of people - felons, fugitives, current drug addicts, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged troops, US traitors, and those "adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution" (18 U.S.C. 922 (g)).

A 'mental defective' is defined as "a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease is a danger to himself or to others or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. Also included are people if there has been "a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case and those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility"

[samthetvcat]

part 2
'Committed to a mental institution" "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."

The governor of Virginia just passed a law which would include those not committed, but this is NOT law in the other 49 states.

States determine who gets involuntarily committed, but they're limited by 5A liberty concerns. Typically this only includes people who are "gravely disabled" (inability to take care of self puts him in danger of serious harm, will suffer serious distress/impairment if not treated), or "present a likelihood of SERIOUS harm to self or others" (as shown by his BEHAVIOR AND is likely in the NEAR FUTURE, or shows a current intent to carry out PLANS)

[samthetvcat]

Part 3
My point is that this isn't Nazi Germany - people have Constitutional rights. If the definition of 'mentally ill' starts expanding to anybody who is temporarily ill that shows not threat of violence (like women with post-partum depression), it's going to face a Constitutional challenge that is likely to go in favor of individual rights to liberty, equal protection and 2A. I think the way to increase public safety with regards to at-risk mentally ill people is to develop greater social consciousness for the different types of mental illness and their manifestations and treatments and actually get rid of the stigma, not foster it.

[davidwoaks]

After 31 years working for human rights of people in the mental health system, I am dismayed about the media bias about mental health issues and the Virginia Tech tragedy.

In the 60 Minutes show "Armed and Dangerous":

1. Why not talk to any mental health consumer or psychiatric survivor organization about their point of view?

2. Why not discuss what happens in an "involuntary commitment."
Typically a poor and powerless individual sees a court-appointed attorney for just a few minutes, not long before the hearing

3. What is it like in the USA when "lists" are made of citizens and rights taken away? Let's hear from Japanese Americans about the hysteria that swept the USA only a generation ago.

4. How about going deeper? America itself is "sick" with violence. Humanity is "sick" with violence toward one another and our planet. Let's apply far better gun laws to *all* Americans, equally.

5. Why do so many journalists lose skepticism when it comes to the mental health system? Why not question the ability of psychiatrists to predict dangerousness? Why not cover what it is like for people to be forcibly drugged for decades with high-dosage psychiatric drugs that are now known to structural brain damage.

Four years ago we watched CBS and other huge media march toward Iraq and non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Corporate media domination is part of the sickness in the soul of America

Sincerely, David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International
www.mindfreedom.org

[samthetvcat]

"The initial problem manifest itself first as general anitsocial behavior at work and then finally he pointed an M203 Grenade Launcher at his supervisor, referred to him as Satan and stated that he would(n't) get him."
Posted by nielklot

Ummm . . . if that describes exactly how things went down, then that's a death threat and it's a felony. The correct course of action in this circumstance would have been to call the police and get him arrested, don't you think??

[nielklot]

Steve, the point is that he was able to get a "Federal Firearms License" while on medication to maintain his grasp of reality. This would have allowed him to buy and sell all types of weapons virtually without control (including some automatic weapons at the time). The initial problem manifest itself first as general anitsocial behavior at work and then finally he pointed an M203 Grenade Launcher at his supervisor, referred to him as Satan and stated that he wouldn't get him. I didn't give out all the details in my letter. All I did (other than talk tough to get their attention) was provide the state office with references so they could check out the situation themselves. He himself told me he would be on medication his whole life and while on it he could function fine. However, when he wasn't on it he had no idea that he was functioning differently. Off medication, the problem wasn't him, it was the rest of the world.