VA says it won't follow New York's gun law, AP reports

[HectorBuckBuster]

I think we maybe starting to see the NY SAFE Act crumble.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/va_says_it_wont_follow_new_yor.html#incart_m-rpt-2

[Doc]

From the article: "Several veterans and their advocates say it would deter many from seeking counseling and medications to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychological issues. Veterans fear their rights would be taken away."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was the first thought that popped into my mind. We may have a whole bunch of mentally disturbed people not being treated because of this "tattle-tale" portion of the law. This may actually make matters even worse by increasing the number untreated people on the streets. I understand the intent of that provision, but like so many things that are so well intentioned, not enough thought is given to the resulting unintended consequences.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

But what if their conditions are serious, should they have a firearm? That is the tight rope. Who is quailified to determine with enough certainty to remove someones' rights.

[Early]

You correct...we are dealing with a double-edged sword here: desiring safety for all on one hand...while wanting to protect the rights of all on the other. I do laud the VA's stance...for the simple reason that it will serve to tweek King Andy's nose a bit. Perhaps if the Chief Clown and his Bozos had taken more time to study all this...and had involved mental health professionals in the planning, a fair and workable approach could have been developed. Now we are playing catch up and clean up.

[growalot]

Do you have any idea what a can of worms that would open up....your not stable enough in..... perhaps 1 Dr.s opinion and your gun permit is taken away...well ppl have been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon using cars...hey there goes the drivers license...Ohhh.... we for got about the insurance companies...well those anti depressants show your a risk..either no insurance or ridiculous rates...you tell me where it ends...Oppps there go your kids.....

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Do you have any idea what a can of worms that would open up....

That is part of the (UN)- SAFE act right now.

[Doc]

Even if you ignore a person's right to privacy (which you shouldn't), what do you do about a legal requirement that in effect would keep those that are dangerously mentally ill from ever seeking medication and treatment for their condition. Don't you eventually wind up with more seriously unmedicated looneys on the street. It is one heck of a balancing act that needs a whole lot more thought than those Albany freaks gave it. The idea of taking their time and getting medical professionals involved for assistance in making the right choices is a step in logic that they apparently are not capable of. They were in such a hurry to strike and make the most of the dead children and firemen that they had no interest in figuring out whether what they were doing was the right thing or not. They didn't even care. They were just so giddy over having a properly worked public over some tragedies that they couldn't help themselves. That's Cuomo's new montra ...... "Never waste a good tragedy".

[growalot]

I understand that and apparently so doesn't the VA...I was addressing your who's qualified? Indeed whom, when so many other rights can be as easily stripped....

[Doc]

That Cuomo is one scarey dude. Not just scarey looking (check out those crazy eyes ....lol), but he has the attitudes and mentality and talent and desire to trash anything in his path to get his way. He has become a master of making the government do his bidding. Just remember, as dangerous as he is as Governor, just imagine what great tricks he can pull as President. I look at how callously he regards such things as the Constitution, and wonder what kinds of damage he can create as President. He's not a guy to be underestimated, trusted or voted for. We've got a bonafide megalo-maniac sitting in the Governor's mansion, and I don't think a lot of people realize it.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I understand that and apparently so doesn't the VA...I was addressing your who's qualified? Indeed whom, when so many other rights can be as easily stripped....

Beyod the control that it gives to a profession that historically leans left, but what would be considered a mental illness that is disqualifying in nature. Is a person with a eating disorder? how about ADHD? Seems like that is the new wave in diagnosis. I cna't even tellyou the number of people i know that take a medication for "anxiety" or stress. Zoloff? "Vitamin Z" Just becasue it helps them deal with the day to day stress. Are they going to be disqualified? Scary scary times.

[Doc]

Beyod the control that it gives to a profession that historically leans left, but what would be considered a mental illness that is disqualifying in nature. Is a person with a eating disorder? how about ADHD? Seems like that is the new wave in diagnosis. I cna't even tellyou the number of people i know that take a medication for "anxiety" or stress. Zoloff? "Vitamin Z" Just becasue it helps them deal with the day to day stress. Are they going to be disqualified? Scary scary times.

And just who is it that passes judgement on the questions you have just raised? I'll bet it's not all spelled out in detail in the law. Although I do believe they put the qualifier on it that the attending psychiatrist or whatever had to judge that the mental impairment had to pose some danger to himself or others. That's still a huge grey area.

[virgil]

Oh, here we go. Another conspiracy theory brewing. Let me guess, we can't trust the liberal-leaning medical community?? Why, because they have higher education???

Doctors are trained to give their professional opinion, not their personal opinion. They arrive at diagnoses based on specific findings from their clinical evaluations. Certain diagnoses may involve classifying someone as 'a danger to themselves and others', while other diagnoses would not. Your examples of ADHD and eating disorders are ridiculous.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

They are ridiculous? Does a person with an eating disorder have the likelihood of doing themselves harm? By the definition of the disease they do. The law is not clear in term of a threshold that needs to be reached. It's lack of clarity is my main issue with the law. But you cna't expect it to be clear in the hap-hazard manner it was passed.

And you can take all the clinical BS you want to throw but in a psychological diagnosis it is not as clear cut as in other medical evaluations. There is OPINION that is utilized in the development of non-physical diagnosis. Opinions that can be influenced by personal beliefs.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Culvercreek hunt club

[virgil]

Culver, sometimes it seems like you make ridiculous arguments just for the sake of arguing.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

My apologies that I don't share the blind faith in the Govt that you do.

Have you read the entire Safe Act?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Culvercreek hunt club

[virgil]

My apologies that I don't share the blind faith in the Govt that you do.

Have you read the entire Safe Act?

I never made any statement in defense of either. Just pointed out that your statements implying that a diagnosis of ADHD or eating disorders will lead to a loss of rights was ridiculous, as was your statement dismissing the qualifications of psychiatrists.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I never made any statement in defense of either. Just pointed out that your statements implying that a diagnosis of ADHD or eating disorders will lead to a loss of rights was ridiculous, as was your statement dismissing the qualifications of psychiatrists.

Did I say a diagnosis WOULD lead to the loss of rights? Show me that one. I was trying to convey that they COULD becasue no one KNOWS how this will be implemented.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

as was your statement dismissing the qualifications of psychiatrists.

I also did not dismiss their qualifications. They must have them to practice. I was questioning that their aggressiviness in reporting a "condition" could be influenced by their personal beliefs. Are you telling me that you believe with 100% certainty that non of them will be swayed by their beliefs? We aren't talking about a quantitative blood pressure readings here. It IS subjective in many of their diagnosi. Take a person into different psychiatrists and see if you get the exact same result every time? If your assertion is right the diagnosis should be spot on and 100% the same every time? right?

[Doc]

Actually the criteria as far as I could find was a very loosely worded phrase relating to doing harm one's self and/or others. So needless to say, some bureacracy will have to be created or added on to to conjure up the details of what exactly that means, and how the reporting structure is to take place (forms, etc.). Administrative bloat. And similar to all other boondoggles that the government conjures up, there's going to be screw-ups. And then since gun control is a politically sensitive issue, you can rest assured that the fine print finally worked out (and subject to no real legislative over-sight) will be arranged to include as many people as they can possibly sneak in. Do i trust them? ..... hell no. Why would I? Why would anyone but the most naive?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/safe_act/

slide forward to about 5:30 in the video

[Doc]

http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/safe_act/

slide forward to about 5:30 in the video

Wow, there is some amazing stuff on that video. I had pictured this action would be coming from a bonifide psychologist only that had the subject as an official patient. Apparently that is not true. A report can be initiated by a psychiatrist, physician, registered nurse or licensed clinical social worker. What the hell, why not let you grocer fill one of these out too .... lol. Turning in one of these reports could result in involuntary transport by police or ambulance to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Man, picture that scenario. I didn't read any requirement of any second opinions when it comes to hauling you away.

I didn't take the time to go through all of that video, but apparently we have a government "Office of Mental Health" that would be administering the mental health part of the law ....... bureaucrats. Pretty much as I suspected, the details are out of the hands and definitions of actual law and placed in the hands of bureaucrats for actual interpretation and administration.

[Doewhacker]

Is a person with a eating disorder? how about ADHD? Seems like that is the new wave in diagnosis.

ADHD is not a mental illness. Neither is Autism for the record. An eating disorder is a mental illness however.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I understand that Doe, I just have no way of knowing how these individuals administering this process will view things. From their instruction video there needs only be a report made and a review fo the report and the process to pick you up for evaluation takes place and the firearms are gone. And this one report is on file and used to evaluate your worthiness of owning a fiream for 5 years. Now how about if you have a child in treatment and they make a claim or threat, do they have the authority under this program to take the parents weapons?

[Doewhacker]

I understand that Doe, I just have no way of knowing how these individuals administering this process will view things. From their instruction video there needs only be a report made and a review fo the report and the process to pick you up for evaluation takes place and the firearms are gone. And this one report is on file and used to evaluate your worthiness of owning a fiream for 5 years. Now how about if you have a child in treatment and they make a claim or threat, do they have the authority under this program to take the parents weapons?

I can only offer my opnion, there is a possibility that if a system was inplace requiring mental health care providers,and schools/colledges to report those that make threats to at least some one perhaps gun control wouldn't be a topic right now. Jared Laughner, James Holmes, and maybe even Adam Lanza would not have had access to guns has some one opened their mouth and said "maybe we should sit this guy down and have a chat till we feel he is safe". As far as taking parents guns whom's children are making threats or what ever the trigger is, yes some one should take their guns or at least make a home visit to ensure the guns are stored safely because obviously parents (and most others) are blind to the dangers of mental illness.

Being a parent and caring for a child is far more important than owning a gun, unfortunately as recent events have shown, some parents are clueless wether they own a gun or not.

I don't know where we will end up with any of this but seeing how our Government is obsessed with treating the results rather than the symptoms and cause's I am sure nothing effective will come of it. We don't need gun control, we need a society awareness of what's going on around us and people to speak up instead of finger pointing and doing nothing.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I don't know where we will end up with any of this but seeing how our Government is obsessed with treating the results rather than the symptoms and cause's I am sure nothing effective will come of it. We don't need gun control, we need a society awareness of what's going on around us and people to speak up instead of finger pointing and doing nothing.

Couldn't agree more