darthtang aw
Active Member
http://marketdailynews.com/2013/04/10/new-york-police-confiscating-firearms-from-people-taking-anti-anxiety-medication/
Well now....is it starting?
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Interesting, but misleading. Mental health professionals in New York are required, under the NYSafe Act, to report any individual (whether they have a gun or not) who, in the professional judgement of the practitioner, presents imminent risk to themselves or others. There is nothing about taking antidepressants in the law or the state's guidance.
This is taken from the guidance on the NY Govt. web site:
"The standard “likelihood to result in serious harm” means threats of, or attempts at, suicide/serious bodily harm to self, or homicidal/violent behavior towards others.1 This standard justifies the need for immediate action, as a public safety measure, to prevent harm. Mental health professionals must use reasonable professional judgment when making this determination.
In general, a MHL 9.46 report would originate if the clinician determines the person is likely to engage in conduct that could seriously harm the patient and/or others (which could thus also trigger a MHL 9.45 emergency assessment). It is not, however, necessary to establish that the patient has a gun before making the report."
This is taken from the guidance on the NY Govt. web site:
"The standard “likelihood to result in serious harm” means threats of, or attempts at, suicide/serious bodily harm to self, or homicidal/violent behavior towards others.1 This standard justifies the need for immediate action, as a public safety measure, to prevent harm. Mental health professionals must use reasonable professional judgment when making this determination.
In general, a MHL 9.46 report would originate if the clinician determines the person is likely to engage in conduct that could seriously harm the patient and/or others (which could thus also trigger a MHL 9.45 emergency assessment). It is not, however, necessary to establish that the patient has a gun before making the report."
mr. limpid
Active Member
So I can still carry my gun, good to know. As long as my shrink doesn't report me.
Actually, the article says anti-anxiety meds, not antidepressants. Which is odd. I'm not sure people with panic attacks are a greater risk then people suffering with chronic depression. Hmm..
Also, believe it or not, like many meds, some antidepressants are prescribed off-label for other medical issues that have nothing to do with depression. So, I don't see such a restriction will hold up legally.
Also, believe it or not, like many meds, some antidepressants are prescribed off-label for other medical issues that have nothing to do with depression. So, I don't see such a restriction will hold up legally.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
My guess (and that is all it is) is that this person expressed suicidal or murderous ideation to his mental health professional, and also is taking anti-anxiety meds as well. He was probably reported because of his ideations, not his taking a particular type of medication. Again, just a guess, and an another assumption might be that his lawyer (who apparently specializes in gun legislation cases) has put a spin on it to play to the anti-gun control populace.
reefraff
Active Member
Whether or not this is a single incident remains to be seen. If they are hitting people solely on the basis of a subscription I am sure we will be hearing about a great many more before too long.
However there is a troubling part of that law "Section 9.46 of the NY SAFE Act of 2013 authorizes therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others" Nurses and social workers? Gimme a break. I wouldn't be warm and fuzzy about Therapists and Docs without at least a hearing. I've met some nurses and a whole lot of social workers who I wouldn't trust to watch my dog, let alone diagnose someones medical condition.
However there is a troubling part of that law "Section 9.46 of the NY SAFE Act of 2013 authorizes therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others" Nurses and social workers? Gimme a break. I wouldn't be warm and fuzzy about Therapists and Docs without at least a hearing. I've met some nurses and a whole lot of social workers who I wouldn't trust to watch my dog, let alone diagnose someones medical condition.
S
saxman
Guest
I dunno Reef...I know lots of docs whom I wouldn't leave my pets with. IMHO, nurses are the most likely to have a good handle on almost any patient, as they're the ones in the trenches doing the healing and spending the majority of the time with the patients. Unfortunately, job title doesn't necessarily equate to competency, regardless of what said title is. (I'm not a nurse, BTW).
However, I think the whole issue is pretty sketchy...yet another knee jerk reaction to grab our guns.
However, I think the whole issue is pretty sketchy...yet another knee jerk reaction to grab our guns.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Whether or not this is a single incident remains to be seen. If they are hitting people solely on the basis of a subscription I am sure we will be hearing about a great many more before too long.
However there is a troubling part of that law "Section 9.46 of the NY SAFE Act of 2013 authorizes therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others" Nurses and social workers? Gimme a break. I wouldn't be warm and fuzzy about Therapists and Docs without at least a hearing. I've met some nurses and a whole lot of social workers who I wouldn't trust to watch my dog, let alone diagnose someones medical condition.
I am sure we will indeed see many more cases in which a patient taking a medication is reported - after all, in today's neuropsychiatry world most patients in such therapy are taking mood altering drugs. So, if they threaten to take out a school they will be reported, and those with an axe to grind will say they were reported because they are taking an anti-depressant
However there is a troubling part of that law "Section 9.46 of the NY SAFE Act of 2013 authorizes therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others" Nurses and social workers? Gimme a break. I wouldn't be warm and fuzzy about Therapists and Docs without at least a hearing. I've met some nurses and a whole lot of social workers who I wouldn't trust to watch my dog, let alone diagnose someones medical condition.
I am sure we will indeed see many more cases in which a patient taking a medication is reported - after all, in today's neuropsychiatry world most patients in such therapy are taking mood altering drugs. So, if they threaten to take out a school they will be reported, and those with an axe to grind will say they were reported because they are taking an anti-depressant
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518508
I am sure we will indeed see many more cases in which a patient taking a medication is reported - after all, in today's neuropsychiatry world most patients in such therapy are taking mood altering drugs. So, if they threaten to take out a school they will be reported, and those with an axe to grind will say they were reported because they are taking an anti-depressant
The thing that remains to be known is was this person's constitutional right taken away based only on the fact he was on the medication or was he reported. That's what I mean by we will see many more cases if it's based just on the subscription. People who's doc reported them don't have much of a leg to stand on.
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518508
I am sure we will indeed see many more cases in which a patient taking a medication is reported - after all, in today's neuropsychiatry world most patients in such therapy are taking mood altering drugs. So, if they threaten to take out a school they will be reported, and those with an axe to grind will say they were reported because they are taking an anti-depressant
The thing that remains to be known is was this person's constitutional right taken away based only on the fact he was on the medication or was he reported. That's what I mean by we will see many more cases if it's based just on the subscription. People who's doc reported them don't have much of a leg to stand on.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
The thing that remains to be known is was this person's constitutional right taken away based only on the fact he was on the medication or was he reported. That's what I mean by we will see many more cases if it's based just on the subscription. People who's doc reported them don't have much of a leg to stand on.
No constitutional right is taken away, but an investigation is undertaken based on a mental health practitioner's "reasonable professional judgement." A report based solely on a person's taking a particular drug would not be classified as meeting this standard. We will have to wait and see how these cases play out, but certainly it seems to me that the massacre in Colorado would have been prevented by this law since the killer's psychiatrist did report him to his school, but there was no civil authority reporting requirement or mechanism.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518583
No constitutional right is taken away, but an investigation is undertaken based on a mental health practitioner's "reasonable professional judgement." A report based solely on a person's taking a particular drug would not be classified as meeting this standard. We will have to wait and see how these cases play out, but certainly it seems to me that the massacre in Colorado would have been prevented by this law since the killer's psychiatrist did report him to his school, but there was no civil authority reporting requirement or mechanism.
He had his permit pulled and ordered to turn in his guns. What the hell is your standard for having a constitutional right taken away? Look, I wasn't sure I bought this whole thing considering the sources of the stories but I did finally find the story on fox. The lawyer has 2 clients in this situation. One was mistaken identity and was given his permit and guns back, thus restoring his constitutional right. The second is still active so I don't know if this guy is the one who got his stuff back or not.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/11/flaws-revealed-in-ny-safe-act-after-state-resident-has-gun-license-wrongly/
This still doesn't explain the basis for the letter being sent out, even if it was in error. Was it simply based on a prescription or was there a reporting? If I lived in New York I'd want to know. n
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518583
No constitutional right is taken away, but an investigation is undertaken based on a mental health practitioner's "reasonable professional judgement." A report based solely on a person's taking a particular drug would not be classified as meeting this standard. We will have to wait and see how these cases play out, but certainly it seems to me that the massacre in Colorado would have been prevented by this law since the killer's psychiatrist did report him to his school, but there was no civil authority reporting requirement or mechanism.
He had his permit pulled and ordered to turn in his guns. What the hell is your standard for having a constitutional right taken away? Look, I wasn't sure I bought this whole thing considering the sources of the stories but I did finally find the story on fox. The lawyer has 2 clients in this situation. One was mistaken identity and was given his permit and guns back, thus restoring his constitutional right. The second is still active so I don't know if this guy is the one who got his stuff back or not.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/11/flaws-revealed-in-ny-safe-act-after-state-resident-has-gun-license-wrongly/
This still doesn't explain the basis for the letter being sent out, even if it was in error. Was it simply based on a prescription or was there a reporting? If I lived in New York I'd want to know. n
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518583
it seems to me that the massacre in Colorado would have been prevented by this law since the killer's psychiatrist did report him to his school, but there was no civil authority reporting requirement or mechanism.
Actually the shrink did report the guy to the campus cops who decided he was enough of a threat to pull his campus privileges but went no further. Not sure if this was the doc or the campus cops fault for not taking the extra step. In either case he had already purchased his guns before this reporting occurred which was about a month before the shooting. But even if she had reported him to the correct authorities, as indeed is required by law he already had the guns. Assuming he lived in a totalitarian state like New York that permits constitutional rights it is a long shot that the law would have prevented this anyway. Not sure how fast they turn out the letter or how long they wait for the "deranged person" to comply with the letter before tracking him down and taking the guns but in this case it would have had to happen within a month.
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518583
it seems to me that the massacre in Colorado would have been prevented by this law since the killer's psychiatrist did report him to his school, but there was no civil authority reporting requirement or mechanism.
Actually the shrink did report the guy to the campus cops who decided he was enough of a threat to pull his campus privileges but went no further. Not sure if this was the doc or the campus cops fault for not taking the extra step. In either case he had already purchased his guns before this reporting occurred which was about a month before the shooting. But even if she had reported him to the correct authorities, as indeed is required by law he already had the guns. Assuming he lived in a totalitarian state like New York that permits constitutional rights it is a long shot that the law would have prevented this anyway. Not sure how fast they turn out the letter or how long they wait for the "deranged person" to comply with the letter before tracking him down and taking the guns but in this case it would have had to happen within a month.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518588
Actually the shrink did report the guy to the campus cops who decided he was enough of a threat to pull his campus privileges but went no further. Not sure if this was the doc or the campus cops fault for not taking the extra step. In either case he had already purchased his guns before this reporting occurred which was about a month before the shooting. But even if she had reported him to the correct authorities, as indeed is required by law he already had the guns. Assuming he lived in a totalitarian state like New York that permits constitutional rights it is a long shot that the law would have prevented this anyway. Not sure how fast they turn out the letter or how long they wait for the "deranged person" to comply with the letter before tracking him down and taking the guns but in this case it would have had to happen within a month.
The state law and the guidance on their web site speak about "imminent" danger, so a month is far too long. It hasn't been a law for a month, and already they guy with the anti-anxiety meds has a lawyer and is fighting back, so the response must have been pretty fast. And, btw, the NYSafe law, in this respect, isn't about guns, only imminent danger to self or others and the police are required to respond to a report, so they guy in CO just might have been stopped, salvaging the constitutional rights of the people he deprived of rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518588
Actually the shrink did report the guy to the campus cops who decided he was enough of a threat to pull his campus privileges but went no further. Not sure if this was the doc or the campus cops fault for not taking the extra step. In either case he had already purchased his guns before this reporting occurred which was about a month before the shooting. But even if she had reported him to the correct authorities, as indeed is required by law he already had the guns. Assuming he lived in a totalitarian state like New York that permits constitutional rights it is a long shot that the law would have prevented this anyway. Not sure how fast they turn out the letter or how long they wait for the "deranged person" to comply with the letter before tracking him down and taking the guns but in this case it would have had to happen within a month.
The state law and the guidance on their web site speak about "imminent" danger, so a month is far too long. It hasn't been a law for a month, and already they guy with the anti-anxiety meds has a lawyer and is fighting back, so the response must have been pretty fast. And, btw, the NYSafe law, in this respect, isn't about guns, only imminent danger to self or others and the police are required to respond to a report, so they guy in CO just might have been stopped, salvaging the constitutional rights of the people he deprived of rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
darthtang aw
Active Member
The state law and the guidance on their web site speak about "imminent" danger, so a month is far too long. It hasn't been a law for a month, and already they guy with the anti-anxiety meds has a lawyer and is fighting back, so the response must have been pretty fast. And, btw, the NYSafe law, in this respect, isn't about guns, only imminent danger to self or others and the police are required to respond to a report, so they guy in CO just might have been stopped, salvaging the constitutional rights of the people he deprived of rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
That isn't listed as a constitutional right actually. Roe v wade established that years ago.
That isn't listed as a constitutional right actually. Roe v wade established that years ago.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518604
The state law and the guidance on their web site speak about "imminent" danger, so a month is far too long. It hasn't been a law for a month, and already they guy with the anti-anxiety meds has a lawyer and is fighting back, so the response must have been pretty fast. And, btw, the NYSafe law, in this respect, isn't about guns, only imminent danger to self or others and the police are required to respond to a report, so they guy in CO just might have been stopped, salvaging the constitutional rights of the people he deprived of rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
That's the point. This story doesn't say if the two people were reported as a danger. If they were why in the world would they be sent a letter asking them to turn in the permit and any guns? The letter in itself could be enough to push someone over the edge or if they had something planned cause them to go ahead and act before the cops can apprehend them. And if they weren't reported as a threat then NY is indeed sending the letters based on prescriptions.
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518604
The state law and the guidance on their web site speak about "imminent" danger, so a month is far too long. It hasn't been a law for a month, and already they guy with the anti-anxiety meds has a lawyer and is fighting back, so the response must have been pretty fast. And, btw, the NYSafe law, in this respect, isn't about guns, only imminent danger to self or others and the police are required to respond to a report, so they guy in CO just might have been stopped, salvaging the constitutional rights of the people he deprived of rights to life and pursuit of happiness.
That's the point. This story doesn't say if the two people were reported as a danger. If they were why in the world would they be sent a letter asking them to turn in the permit and any guns? The letter in itself could be enough to push someone over the edge or if they had something planned cause them to go ahead and act before the cops can apprehend them. And if they weren't reported as a threat then NY is indeed sending the letters based on prescriptions.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518646
That's the point. This story doesn't say if the two people were reported as a danger. If they were why in the world would they be sent a letter asking them to turn in the permit and any guns? The letter in itself could be enough to push someone over the edge or if they had something planned cause them to go ahead and act before the cops can apprehend them. And if they weren't reported as a threat then NY is indeed sending the letters based on prescriptions.
Are we reading the same report, from the link at the top of this thread? It doesn't say anything about sending a letter, only about suspending their gun license. it is pretty clear we are only getting part of one side of the story, not even half of the story. Let's see what happens, but I'll bet there is much more to this than has been reported. But I agree with you that if the only precipitating event was their taking anti-anxiety meds, then there is something very wrong here.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518646
That's the point. This story doesn't say if the two people were reported as a danger. If they were why in the world would they be sent a letter asking them to turn in the permit and any guns? The letter in itself could be enough to push someone over the edge or if they had something planned cause them to go ahead and act before the cops can apprehend them. And if they weren't reported as a threat then NY is indeed sending the letters based on prescriptions.
Are we reading the same report, from the link at the top of this thread? It doesn't say anything about sending a letter, only about suspending their gun license. it is pretty clear we are only getting part of one side of the story, not even half of the story. Let's see what happens, but I'll bet there is much more to this than has been reported. But I agree with you that if the only precipitating event was their taking anti-anxiety meds, then there is something very wrong here.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518662
Are we reading the same report, from the link at the top of this thread? It doesn't say anything about sending a letter, only about suspending their gun license. it is pretty clear we are only getting part of one side of the story, not even half of the story. Let's see what happens, but I'll bet there is much more to this than has been reported. But I agree with you that if the only precipitating event was their taking anti-anxiety meds, then there is something very wrong here.
I am getting the info from the Fox News story that mentions the same attorney as this story. According to the FNN report this lawyer is representing two different clients
"Lewis initially received a notice on April 1 from the Erie County clerk saying that his license was being immediately suspended. He was ordered to surrender it along with his seven registered handguns."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/11/flaws-revealed-in-ny-safe-act-after-state-resident-has-gun-license-wrongly/
I've seen this story from a number of questionable sources which was why I was skeptical. The Fox story has more info, like one of them already got his guns back but is still lacking details as to why these people were flagged. Like I said upthread if this was really only based on a prescription I am sure we'll hear more stories about it.
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395228/well-now-is-it-starting#post_3518662
Are we reading the same report, from the link at the top of this thread? It doesn't say anything about sending a letter, only about suspending their gun license. it is pretty clear we are only getting part of one side of the story, not even half of the story. Let's see what happens, but I'll bet there is much more to this than has been reported. But I agree with you that if the only precipitating event was their taking anti-anxiety meds, then there is something very wrong here.
I am getting the info from the Fox News story that mentions the same attorney as this story. According to the FNN report this lawyer is representing two different clients
"Lewis initially received a notice on April 1 from the Erie County clerk saying that his license was being immediately suspended. He was ordered to surrender it along with his seven registered handguns."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/11/flaws-revealed-in-ny-safe-act-after-state-resident-has-gun-license-wrongly/
I've seen this story from a number of questionable sources which was why I was skeptical. The Fox story has more info, like one of them already got his guns back but is still lacking details as to why these people were flagged. Like I said upthread if this was really only based on a prescription I am sure we'll hear more stories about it.
reefraff
Active Member
I don't speak in absolutes but they are going to have a hard time finding my guns. I am road tripping to AZ to pick up at least one gun I traded my AR 15 for and hopefully some more to make the trip worth it. Last time down I bought 4. If I had the gun(s) shipped I have to background check them and I am not going to give anyone a paper trail to follow. I haven't yellow sheeted a gun in about 9 years and that was in a different state.