Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: NohSpinZone

We have to watch carefully what the Feds do here with psych meds.

First,the DEA could classify psych meds as class 5 controlled substances. Thus would put anti depressants, anti psychotics on State controlled substance databases.

Then, FEDs could require that background checks include a controlled substance database check. Patients on certain meds could be prohibited from getting a firearm or they could require a doctor’s clearance which might not happen or take some time.

We have to prempt this sort of attack on the second and 4th amendments at the State level. We need to make sure that no law enforcement agencies (State or Fed) can troll these medical records w/o a court order (and not some BS administrative warrant).

At this point, avoid psych providers like the plague.


6 posted on 03/07/2018 3:38:18 PM PST by grumpygresh (When will Soros be brought to justice? Crush the vermin, crush the Left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: grumpygresh

grumpygresh wrote:

‘Patients on certain meds could be prohibited from getting a firearm...’ I understand your point, but as you well know, gun control legislation, assault weapons bans etc. will NEVER stop a psycho from getting illegal firearms...

Not because of their diagnoses, but rather the fact they are taking such toxins will lead eventually to a law prohibiting patients from legally acquire weapons (IMO).


9 posted on 03/07/2018 3:55:20 PM PST by heterosupremacist (Domine Iesu Christe, Filius Dei, miserere me peccatorem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: grumpygresh
We have to watch carefully what the Feds do here with psych meds.

You are correct!

The current standard, threat to self and others is correct

No new laws are needed, current law keeps firearms out of the hands of those who are a threat to others, my concern, and themselves.

Does it work, no, because the medical and educational communities largely refuse to step up and identify those individuals. No law will correct that.

IMO, I'd prefer to see an alcoholic get treatment, rather than refuse inpatient treatment to maintain his 2nd amendment rights.

The correlation between "mental illness" in the broad sense, and violence is low. Every suburbanite seeing a shrink is not a threat. Any more than every vet seeking VA treatment is. It's political "we have to do something" nonsense. The problem lies with those responsible for enforcing legislation on the books.

Two things that could be done, though I suspect they're largely state issues.

Immunity from lawsuits for professionals making the danger diagnosis.

A timely appeals process to restore 2nd amendment rights. Currently it's a lifetime ban. I'm not sure someone who attempts suicide and is treated deserves a lifetime ban, there should be a reassessment process.

I'll add a third, perhaps for those who are a danger the distinction between involuntary and voluntary admission should be addressed. Currently voluntary falls between the cracks.

11 posted on 03/07/2018 4:22:08 PM PST by SJackson (The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson