Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > rm_debluvz2fck > Another Whisper In The Dark |
New York flags 278 gun owners as mentally unstable (Only 278?)
|
New York flags 278 gun owners as mentally unstable (Only 278?) SAFE Act gun control law may result in the gun owners losing their weapons as they have been deemed mentally unstable. Law enforcement “collected 38,718 names in a data base of individuals who have been found at-risk for owning guns by psychiatrists and other health professionals.” After the murders committed by a mentally unstable man at Sandy Hook's elementary school, New York state sought to keep guns out of the hands of such people in the future. The result is a database of almost forty thousand names, individuals who were deemed to a threat by a psychiatrist or other healthcare professional in possessing a weapon. My issue with this came on a number of fronts. Forget the Second Amendment rights for a second. (Pun intended.) The state of New York has collected a database that is contrary to the privacy laws guaranteed to patients under HIPPA. Where the agencies are keeping the names of these individuals confidential, that they were turned over to law enforcement at all is a huge violation of the individual's Fourth Amendment rights. People who are mentally ill are no more likely to commit crimes of any nature than those without DSM-IV designations. Any openness a psychiatrist has shared with a gun owner or potential gun owner has been lost in the state of New York as a result of this measure. The fact that any healthcare professional can deem an individual to be a threat due to mental health is also questionable. Unless the person is a psychiatrist or psychologist, they are not the subject matter expert with regards to diagnosing mental health issues. Allowing the open interpretation could not only allow a therapist or social worker to declare the individual as a threat due to mental health issues but also doctors and nurses who have no experiences or credentials for diagnosing the issues to provide the avenue to the violation of an individual's Constitutional rights (Second and Fourth, for starters). But a physical or occupational therapist could also provide that medical opinion without credentials. As could a surgeon or x-ray technician. The mind boggles at the possibilities for people finding their way onto a list that restricts their basic freedoms. A judge is required to sign off on the<b> suspension </font></b>of a weapons permit and the seizure of any weapons that the individual owns. Here, you question whether the individual should have the right to give or sell the weapon to another person rather than surrender it without compensation. Weapons, even the cheapest ones, are worth hundreds to thousands of dollars. Should an individual be deprived of his or her possessions and their value simultaneously because they could possibly one day be a threat to another? Which leads me back to Sandy Hook. What happened there was tragic. But who was responsible? Was it the system that didn't keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable? No. The man responsible for the massacre did not own a single weapon, let alone one that he used to carry out the killings. The man lived with his mother who did not secure the weapons used or the ammunition from the access of her mentally ill thought she was fully aware of his diagnosis and his potential to harm someone. Is the seizure of weapons to be extended to members of the households of people with mental illnesses who could potentially be a threat to others as identified by anyone in the healthcare field? Though it still isn't a condition that makes an individual more likely, statistically speaking, to commit the crime, at least it would address what happened in Sandy Hook. I'm not bitter. I'm tart. |
||||
|
You are speaking of "Legal" gun owners, correct?? There probably isn't a number of the on'es who have guns that aren't legal. Those are the on'es to worry about, not the legal one's.
|
Become a member to create a blog
