Submitted by Charlton Stanley, guest blogger
(Otteray Scribe)
What is mental illness? It’s a hot topic in the news recently, because of proposed gun control legislation. I saw a photo yesterday of people holding up a huge sign saying, “Keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill.”
There is far more to the demonization of the mentally ill than just the firearms issue. It spills over into the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation. It is not just guns; it is airplanes and trucks as well. This brings us to the core question of, “What is mental illness?” The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) is the current handbook for classifying mental disorders. DSM-V is in the final stages of development and will be published in May 2013. That is only next month.
Which brings us back to the original question of what exactly is mental illness? In New York, a man’s home was raided, his Concealed Carry Permit revoked and guns confiscated because someone told the police he was taking an anti-anxiety medication. I have received emails in the past week from several friends about this issue. One of them is a vet, M→F transgendered. She is concerned about being able to renew her own Concealed Carry Permit (CCP). As a veteran and avid target-shooting hobbyist, she is well trained in gun safety and use. As a transgender woman, she is a target and prey according to FBI statistics. Hate crimes against LGBT people are at a 14-year high.
According to the DSM-IV-TR, “Gender Identity Disorder” is one of the mental illnesses. In the DSM-V, it is renamed “Gender Dysphoria.” While claiming it is not a mental illness, the fact that Gender Dysphoria is in the DSM-V in the first place makes it suspect in the eyes of many. Two days ago, she sent this excerpt from a local outlet:
The enforcement action started on March 29th when New York State Police asked the Erie County Clerk’s Office to pursue revoking the man’s pistol permit because he owned guns in violation of the mental health provision of New York’s newly enacted guns law called the SAFE ACT.
The allegation turned out to be untrue and his guns returned to him. As it turned out, the police, sua sponte, initiated the action. The only lawyer involved in the matter was the man’s own attorney.
Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs said, “When the State Police called to tell us they made a mistake and had the wrong person…it became clear that the State did not do their job here, and now we all look foolish.”
Flaws in the mental health reporting provisions of the NY SAFE Act were blamed for the misunderstanding. The county clerk added, “Until the mental health provisions are fixed, these mistakes will continue to happen” (source: WKBW-TV)
The bigger issue is how come taking an anxiolytic prescribed by one’s family doctor disqualifying? It would be interesting to know just how many of those raiding officers, and their supervisors, are taking medication for anxiety, depression or sleep.
Is mild anxiety a reason to stigmatize someone, and possibly violate his or her civil rights? It gets better. The FAA Medical Examiner will not allow psychiatric medications for any class of Medical Certificate. If a psychiatric medication, it is an automatic disqualification. Several non-psychiatric medications are disqualifying as well. When Tagamet (cimetidine) was first released to treat ulcers and hyperacidity, it disqualified one from holding an FAA Medical Certificate in order to fly. I first heard about that from a friend who was an Aviation Medical Examiner at the time. He told me the FAA put Tagamet on the list because, “It acts on the central nervous system.”
What is mental illness? Some say it is anything that is in the DSM. However, as I have pointed out in court many times, the DSM is a handbook put together by a committee. Everyone has heard the old joke about what a committee produces: “An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee.”
The new DSM-V will be expanding the definition of ADHD. The definition of PTSD is supposed to be clarified in the final definition. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV. If it was a mental illness, the why was it removed? The answer to that is simple. It is not a mental illness.
Let’s look at posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a single example of a single disorder. PTSD is classified as an anxiety spectrum disorder. Symptoms include feeling anxious, vivid dreams or memories of a traumatic event, and avoidance of situations that might remind one of the traumatic event. Those are called “triggers.” Some claim that only combat veterans can suffer PTSD. That is nonsense. The original trauma can be anything causing one to fear for their own life or safety, or that of others. No one knows how many Americans suffer from PTSD, but the NIMH estimates 7.7 million adults have diagnosable PTSD. That is about 3.5% of the population. 22% of Vietnam veterans returned with PTSD. My personal impression is that number is too low by a significant margin. Many people with PTSD have never been diagnosed. Why? Because they are afraid to talk to a doctor or clinical social worker.
How many rights should be taken from all those citizens and veterans, simply because they have PTSD?
When some of the most prominent mental health experts in the world cannot agree what mental illness diagnoses are, how are lawmakers, judges and law enforcement officers supposed to know? Is being transgendered a mental illness? How about homosexuality—oops, never mind, they took that out of the DSM-IV. There are many people with bipolar disorder walking around and you will never know it, especially if they are taking their medication. Should a person with well-controlled bipolar disorder be allowed to drive an 18 wheel truck, fly a light airplane, or own firearms?
It is interesting that the FAA has created a new class of aircraft, call Light Sport Aircraft” or LSA, which do not require an FAA medical certificate to fly. A light sport pilot may fly with a valid and current driver’s license. Glider pilots can exercise the privilege without a medical certificate.
This brings us to driver’s licenses. If a person, who is taking Xanax or some mild anti-depressant is not allowed to own firearms or fly a Cessna 172, why can they drive? An average automobile or pickup truck weighs almost two tons. They drive on two-lane roads at 55 or 60 mph. That means on a two-lane road, they are passing within two to four feet of each other with a closing speed of about 120 mph.
Just what is mental illness, and where is that bright line drawn for different activities and privileges of ownership? Think about it. Your physician has to give you a formal diagnosis in order to write a prescription for any medication. Almost any Primary Care Physician, especially family doctors, will tell you that a large percentage of their patients are receiving medications for diagnosed psychiatric conditions. The most common are depression and anxiety, either situational or endogenous.
Alcohol, in my opinion, is much more dangerous than any antidepressant or anxiolytic on the market. Yet, alcohol is legal in most areas. The individual is responsible for keeping their alcohol level under the legal limit, without any government official monitoring them. The rule for pilots is, “eight hours from bottle to throttle.” In other words, if you intend to fly, there should be at least eight hours between the last drink and flying. My rule was always 24 hours just to be on the safe side. Alcohol is involved in far more assaults, shootings, auto crashes, and suicides than any psychiatric medication I know of. That is because alcohol is a disinhibitor.
It is unfortunate that Congress saw fit to suppress data collection on firearms violence back in 1996. I see many pronouncements on violence related to firearms, but without real science, those pronouncements are meaningless. Last January, President Obama lifted the 17-year drought on data gathering. Some members of Congress and the NRA are demanding that the data not be used to promote or advocate any position on violence. Fine. That is the way data should be gathered—content neutral. That honors the null hypothesis approach to research. However the results of the data fall, it should be accessible to other researchers. It must not be buried.
Legislation and administrative rules that limit rights are already having negative effects on people with mental health issues. They do not get treatment, or ask their doctor for advice. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes a patient will show up, insist on paying cash, register under a John Doe alias, give a vacant lot as an address and use 888-88-8888 for a Social Security number. Most people who need mental health medications or treatment refuse to seek help. If anyone thinks that is a good thing, they are not paying attention.
As my father used to say, “Anybody with one eye and half-sense could have seen that one coming.”
HIPAA is supposed to keep your records private, but they are accessible with a court order. Alternately, any agency issuing a license or certificate can insist on the applicant signing a HIPAA complaint medical release form. Sign the form or you do not get your license. One must always beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Here are a few tidbits to chew upon. Please discuss. Where is that bright line?
Blouise,
“But that is what you and others want, a total repeal of the 2nd amendment. Dont be shy, just admit it and move on. ” (Bron to Blouise)
That is a correct statement for this reason:
In order to treat the right to keep and bear arms as a mere privilege you’ll need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
He’s absolutely right.
RWL,
Good lord no! I’ve been posting to this blog for 5-6 years and the thread that stays on topic is the exception. Drives control freaks crazy.
I still miss the guys who pretended to be posting from prison … they could take a thread over the moon
RWL.
We have gone off topic many times. In fact, I plan to go off the current “off topic” discussion.
*****
CISPA Vote: House Passes Cybersecurity Bill To Let Companies Break Privacy Contracts
By Zach Carter & Sabrina Siddiqui
Posted: 04/18/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/cispa-vote-house-approves_n_3109504.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives passed a broad cybersecurity bill Thursday that allows corporations to share customers’ personal data with other firms and the U.S. government, even in cases in which a company has a signed contract explicitly vowing not to do so.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, known as CISPA, passed by a margin of 288 to 127, despite receiving a late veto threat from the Obama administration, which warned that the bill does not sufficiently protect civil liberties. The veto threat was particularly noteworthy, given President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has been urging Congress to expand its data-gathering and cybercrime powers for years. Congress shelved a similar bill last year after the White House expressed its formal opposition.
Supporters of the bill argue that it’s needed to help the government protect key infrastructure and institutions from online attacks. They also have said the bill doesn’t require companies or the government to monitor customer content, although it does authorize them to share personal account data, including emails and other information. Firms that voluntarily turn over such data would be immune from civil lawsuits.
The broad language of the bill, which imposes its standards above “any other provision of law,” would effectively void privacy contracts between companies and their customers. Specifically it states that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes … share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.” Companies could not be held accountable for violating terms of service agreements or other arrangements in which they promise not to share customer information with other parties.
Bron,
BEARING ARMS
SECOND AMENDMENT
Legal Information Institute
Cornell University Law School
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2
Excerpt:
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed–off-shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well– regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
Is this the first time a blog article that went so off topic? I am not complaining, but it is interesting….LOL…
Bob,
“his isnt about Newton or Boston or any school shooting or gun death. It is about the desire of certain elements of the left to outlaw the use of firearms in the US.
I dont know why they dont just come out and say it instead of trying to do it incrementally, well actually I do know, because the people would tell them to go pound sand. Personally, I am of the opinion that if you cant state your intention straight out and be up front about it, it probably isnt a good thing.” (Bron to Darren)
————————————————————————-
“But that is what you and others want, a total repeal of the 2nd amendment. Dont be shy, just admit it and move on. ” (Bron to Blouise)
Poor Bron … so undeserving of hostility. Militia crap.
Bob,
If I had said that all guns should be banned, you would be right. However, we are only talking about reasonable gun controls and at max, the removal of the so-called assault weapons. Even Scalia in the Heller case agreed with reasonable restrictions.
their hostility
Mike S.: “However, as much as a skeptic as I am, i see no reason why there shouldn’t be registration of firearms and licensing with tests and training (which could be done by the NRA among others). with all due deference to Chuck and Darren for instance (exploring the wilds of Tennessee, if we require drivers licenses/tests and pilot’s licenses/tests, why not gun licenses/registration/tests?”
It’s quite simple Mike; you’re ignoring the distinction between right and privilege.
I do not have a right to drive a car. . I do not have a right to fly a plane. I must ask for the privilege to do the foregoing by virtue of obtaining a license.
I do, however, have a right to keep and bear arms.
Accordingly, Blouise and Rafflaw, et. al. are incorrect in showing her hostility towards Bron for the simple reason that Bron is merely pointing out the legally obvious here;
i.e. that you’ll need to repeal the 2nd Amendment before you make the keeping and bearing of arms a privilege.
Wouldn’t you agree OS?
Bob esq.,
I’m aware of the right vs. privilege distinction, but when it comes to this discussion it seems like sophistry to me. Firearms were already ubiquitous at thr time the Constitution was written, cars and planes were not. Given the paucity of public transportation options in most of this country I would think that there should be a right to drive that is probably more imperative to a citizen’s existence than a firearm. The fact is that at the founding of this country a firearm was a necessity of life. Are you really suggesting that is the case today? Keep firearms legal. License them and ensure people who have criminal records can’t buy them. Set a legsl age for ownership and use and provide training and testing for gun ownership.
Will it save lives most definitely. Will it stop tragedies like school shootings probably not. Does it make sense most definitely.
Bron, I was making a point, I never said owning a gun violated my rights but when you point it at me and shoot and it comes to my chin it has done so.
Not wanting any regulation because of the false belief that all guns will be confiscated at some point is silliness, at best.
eLAINE:
of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights how many are collective rights vs. individual rights?
I bet that guy also thinks the Bill of Rights and Constitution are quaint and outdated.
yeesh, what a load.
The NRA’s Fraud: Fabrication of Second Amendment Rights
By Burton Newman
Attorney; Adjunct professor, Washington University School of Law
Posted: 04/17/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/burton-newman/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358.html
Excerpt:
“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” ~ Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Following the Sandy Hook massacre, gun rights, gun laws and the Second Amendment have been the subject of a national dialogue. Any discussion of these topics is severely tainted by calculated messaging by the NRA to deceive and mislead our citizens to believe that the Second Amendment grants far reaching gun rights which have not and do not exist.
The Second Amendment became part of our constitution in 1791. For well over two centuries the Supreme Court never decided that the Amendment granted a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. The widely held notion that such a right existed was a myth fabricated by the NRA for its own self interest and for the corporate profits of gun manufacturers. This fabrication altered the mindset of most Americans to accept fictional Second Amendment rights that permitted the proliferation of all manner and kind of dangerous weapons. We became a gun culture run rampant. The gun manufacturers reaped enormous profits as gun sales soared. In 2011 industry wide gun sales were $4.3 billion. Misconceptions generated by the NRA created a warped interpretation of Second Amendment that generated these sales.
The fraud perpetrated by the NRA is patent. We do not heed the warnings of prominent citizens such as former attorneys general Nicholas Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, Elliot L. Richardson, Edward Levi, Griffin B. Bell and Benjamin R. Civiletti. The joint statement in the Washington Post of these former attorneys general in 1992 reads as follows:
“For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state Militia: it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobbies’ distortion of the constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy towards guns and crime.”
In a PBS News Hour interview in 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the NRA Second Amendment myth as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by any special interest group that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
The opinions of these distinguished legal scholars had no bearing on NRA propaganda that continued unabated. During the weeks before the 2000 general election, a self-anointed constitution “scholar,” Charleton Heston, ceremonial president of the NRA, flooded the airways to urge voters to support candidates who would protect and preserve Second Amendment rights. Little did most Americans realize that such rights did not exist. The NRA’s reading of the Second Amendment was purely fictional and unsupported by the law of the land.
Candidates for public office both state and federal reaped in political contributions from the NRA. These elected officials feared the wrath of the NRA should they stray from the NRA’s Second Amendment myth.
A norm evolved offering sanctity to gun owners and manufacturers. Gun manufacturers and the NRA prospered and profited. As one gun manufacturing executive states the equation, the NRA “protects our Second Amendment rights and those rights protect the ability to buy our products.” Elected officials stand idly by while gun deaths and massacres escalate without lasting public outcry or meaningful legislative efforts.
The statistics are staggering. The depth of lost life is evident by comparing deaths in foreign wars and firearm deaths of citizens within our borders. In all foreign wars during our history about 650,000 soldiers died. In the 45 years since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated in 1968, there have been over 1.3 million deaths in our country caused by firearms. The fraud perpetrated by the NRA as recognized by former Chief Justice Burger is linked to these deaths. The blood of thousands upon thousands of Americans permanently stain the hands of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.
How did the NRA gain such power and influence on our citizenry? For the first century of its existence beginning in 1871, the NRA primarily devoted its efforts to gun safety. Following enactment of new restrictive gun laws requiring gun licensing and taxes, a 1977 coup within the NRA membership led by militants resulted in a new harder edged and more aggressive NRA. The truth mattered not. The edifice of the NRA headquarters would now bear an abbreviated version of the Second Amendment: “The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms Shall not be infringed.” The NRA amended the Constitution unilaterally to avoid even a hint that the language pertaining to a Militia had any meaning. The law of the land spoke otherwise.
In 1939 the Supreme Court issued the Miller decision. The justices ruled that “the Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia.” That was the state of Second Amendment law until the 2008 Heller decision. Prior to Heller, the Supreme Court never recognized that individuals had an individual right to keep and bear arms. It was the NRA propaganda, not the law of the land, that led the cry for unlimited gun ownership and protection of gun owner rights. The NRA myths allowed the cycle of expanded gun sales and NRA power to purchase political influence. Democrats and Republican alike announced their allegiance to the Second Amendment and the public grew to believe that the NRA view of the Second Amendment was consistent with constitutional law. The NRA controlled too many elected officials to allow for protection of our citizens from gun violence, gun deaths and unspeakable gun horrors in schools and public places.
Bron,
The only guns that were mentioned in the proposed legislation were the so-called assault weapons.
Elaine,
That is some scary video, but some great points by the gun control advocate!
leejcarrol:
how is my owning a gun violating your rights? your rights would only be violated if you were shot by a gun owner.
Blousie
interesting.
Debate: Larry Pratt Invokes Hitler Arguing MORE Guns in School
Blouise, The son is probably going to run in 2016. He won’t be the underdog like his father was. The fact that he carries the water for the GOA should be known.
SwM,
Shame on you …. mentioning the blog’s favorite underdog.
😉
http://www.dailypaul.com/269373/senator-rand-paul-teaming-up-with-goa-to-preserve-the-filibuster
Blouse, GOA gave Ron Paul an A+ rating. He and his son, Rand, advocate on their behalf.