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?
In the last sentence, no should read “not”!
Bron,
One more comment. Many of the founders that you mention in your last posting may have believed in individual rights, but only if you were white and owned property. If you were black or female, no so much.
Out of this mess Elaine I can see that the Feds will require states to register hand guns in an appropriations bill….. Just like they did with “No Child Left Behind”…..
Bron,
“But since our founding documents are based on the protection of individual rights and our founders did not believe we are subservient chattel, it makes sense they would have thought owning weapons was a natural right and therefore protected.”
The founders didn’t believe “we” are subservient chattel. Who is the “we” that you speak of? Africans who were brought here to be sold as slaves? Native Americans? Women? Or, perhaps, white men who were landowners?
Do you think the founders thought slaves owning guns/weapons was one of THEIR “natural” rights?
Bron,
We all give up rights when we join in a society. It only depends on which ones. Yes, you gain security and economies of scale in some areas, but you also give up the right to do anything at any time, anywhere. The law proscribes when you can do things and when you cannot. If there was no government, you would have total freedom, but you would also have chaos and no roads, schools national defense, police department, etc.
How many times do we have to repeat that no one, I repeat no one here is suggesting that you have to give up all of your guns? The only individuals who would be denied guns would be those that cannot be trusted with them. There might be some guns you are not allowed to buy, just as you cannot buy a shoulder fired rocket launcher or a Squad Automatic Weapon, etc.
Gun-show loophole wins, common sense goes AWOL
Editorial
The Boston Globe
April 19, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/editorials/2013/04/18/gun-show-loophole-wins-and-common-sense-goes-awol/m70Pldg75GM28jhLlhJvTN/story.html
In the past, the National Rifle Association endorsed criminal background checks for gun buyers: This stance seemed to reinforce the old NRA mantra that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Further, background checks are consistent with government police powers, and don’t trample on Second Amendment rights. After the 1999 Columbine massacre, the NRA supported extending background checks to gun-show purchases, in lieu of tougher restrictions such as an assault-weapons ban or limit on magazine capacity.
But that, apparently, was a different political moment. Confident of its ability to control senators who feared offending its rural constituency, or perhaps just beholden to its financial supporters in the gun industry, the NRA changed course. On Wednesday, a cowardly minority of senators blocked expanded background checks for gun purchases, ignoring the desires of the American people. It was, as President Obama said, “a pretty shameful day for Washington.”
The proposal before the Senate would have closed loopholes that allow people to buy deadly firearms at gun shows and on the Internet without having their names checked against mental health and criminal records. It’s a reform that 9 out of 10 Americans support, with good reason. Only 60 percent of gun sales take place through licensed gun dealers required to undertake background checks, leaving too much room for weapons to fall into the wrong hands.
The compromise worked out by senators Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, didn’t require a background check on every gun purchase, still allowing many person-to-person sales to go on without scrutiny. It even outlawed a national gun registry. It was, in every sense, the least lawmakers could do.
Yet most Republicans and a handful of Democrats — Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — proved too spineless to support even the bare minimum. New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, was the only senator from New England to oppose the measure. She argued that it put too high a burden on law-abiding gun buyers, emphasizing instead her support for addressing gaps in mental health treatment as well as curtail gun trafficking.
It was, in every sense, the least lawmakers could do.
Ayotte is right that any reform to gun laws should be part of a comprehensive package to thwart gun violence. Nonetheless, this shouldn’t have been a tough yes vote for her. She should have been part of the small contingent of Republicans — John McCain of Arizona, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine — and red-state Democrats like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina who put aside fears of reproach by the NRA.
Meaningful gun control reforms continue to proliferate on the state and local level, giving hope that the lessons learned from tragedies such as Newtown, Aurora, and Oak Creek, do not pass in vain.
Elaine:
a couple of things about your Univ. of Chicago article.
First, people enter into society to protect their rights, not to give them up. What they give up is the punishment of those who have wronged them. This is done with an objective rule of law and dispationately. We dont necessarily give up our right to protect our person since society isnt going to be around at all hours of the day and night.
“If the Supreme Court were to read an individual right to arms into the Second Amendment, the result would be precisely the opposite of what the founders intendedto entrust the use and regulation of force to the community as a whole.”
That in no way follows. Force in the sense of a proper community should be defensive in nature, you go to war when attacked, the court system defends your rights, etc. And it should be so on a individual level as well, you cannot shoot your neighbor while he is sipping lemonade on his front porch minding his own business. But you can protect yourself from an intruder and have a natural right to do so. Since the government/society cannot be everywhere and since people have a responsibility for their own lives, it seems quite obvious that firearm ownership is a natural right.
Now if you believe an individual is not responsible for himself and/or is part of a collective, then it makes perfect sense to deny gun ownership to individuals. But since our founding documents are based on the protection of individual rights and our founders did not believe we are subservient chattel, it makes sense they would have thought owning weapons was a natural right and therefore protected.
Thanks AY. I agree that the officers have leeway in searching when in pursuit. Also, I understand that Big Brother is everywhere.
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force “may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in “hot pursuit.” See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden (1967),[2] 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782.
AY,
Uh-uh … I know some people who be most uncomfortable in that situation were it happening here … Just sayin’
AY is that wholesale pursuit so even if it is house to house totally unrelated to your house it is still fair game.
I doubt those were carried out with assault rifles however or the weapons used were able to take out hundreds of people at one shot (sry, not a pun)
Blouse,
Anything observed while in pursuit of a felon…. Is fair game…. They need no search warrant…..
leejcaroll:
Based on the French Indian Wars, I am sure they had an idea about massacres.
Raff,
You have cable with a digital signal….. I wont give you thr suggestion that they already have the capability to monitor….. That’d be wrong…l
Raf,
This is OT but in watching the Boston coverage concerning the house to house searches … I wonder what happens if they see illegal weapons during a search.
AY,
First of all, we are all being monitored now. I don’t like it, but it is a fact. As I have suggested on other threads here, if the government can film us, we have the right to film the police and governmental officials on the job. My car is registered and licensed and I have mandatory insurance minimums, and the IRS has a record of my earnings and deductions. Can I live with guns being registered and background checks being required for all sales? Yes.
Secondly, if the government links into my TV (I have a dumb one!) then they need to get a warrant. If they are spying on me in any way, I believe that they need a warrant. Of course, not all of the courts agree with my opinion on the warrant necessity.
Finally, Check my previous post that had a link to a story from the Brady center about the guns used at Columbine. BTW, who were they registered to? And who used them?
LeeJ,
If you are on a public street…. I have no problem….. Inside of my dwelling place….. Absolutely….. I have an issue….
AY, I think the Boston massacre will bring a lot more people into the camp of all those cameras on the streets are good for everyone.
(with CISPA and tracking cookies they are in our homes)
OS,
That comment was in response to your comment that taking guns will not stop crime. The FBI figures relate to background checks that kept over 700,000 guns out of the wrong hands. How is that a bad thing? There is a loophole at the gun shows. Not all vendors are afraid of the BATF as you suggest. If background checks are working, why not use them with all gun sales? ABC News thinks the loophole does exist.http://abcnews.go.com/WN/gun-show-loophole-closed/story?id=10404727#.UXGZJOUo5es So does the The Brady Center: “The Brady Law requires criminal background checks of gun buyers at federally licensed gun dealers, but since unlicensed sellers are not required to do background checks, this loophole causes particular problems at gun shows which give these unlicensed sellers a guaranteed venue. In most states convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into any gun show and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers, who operate week-to-week with no established place of business, without being stopped, no questions asked.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used two shotguns, an assault rifle and a TEC-9 assault pistol to shoot 26 students at Columbine, killing 13. All four guns came from gun show sales. Their friend, Robyn Anderson, bought three of the guns for them from unlicensed sellers at a gun show. After the massacre, Ms. Anderson stated that had she been required to undergo a background check, she would not have purchased the guns. ” http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloophole
Bron,
See the second paragraph from the Brady Center. If you can’t register a gun, how can you possibly do a background check and know who is getting which gun?